There is a lot of anxiety because of what happened with neo and bee.
This is relevant to the cfig thread because my understanding is that cfig owns, or at least has an owning interest in, havelock. If CFIG is banking their future that they are the "good guys" for the next wave of exchange (proof of reserves, no frac, etc) the reputational question is that much amplified.
I think if havelock/cfig could issue a statement concerning how neo and bee is being handled it could potentially calm a lot of nerves.
Havelock has a fiduciary duty to perform due diligence on its investable companies, and so far I would say they have done a decent job at least compared to the competition (though that's not a very high bar). But I think it's fair to say that Havelock dropped the ball in the case of Neo and Bee. At least a lot of investors are going to see it that way.
A shareholder class action law suit from Neo investors seems almost a given to me at this point. Even if it's not justified, it will happen. The question is, will it happen and quickly get quashed at an early stage, or is this going to fester for years?
I don't expect CFIG to speak at length to the question of a potential neo lawsuit. Too messy and too many variables.
Some terse words might however might help clear the air.
Points to touch on.
-- What is the relationship between cfig and havelock, and what are the respective ownership stories?
-- Does CFIG and/or havelock have an ownership position in Neo Bee, and how much is this?
-- If Neo and Bee goes bankrupt, is this going to be reflected as a material capital loss for either entity in the next reporting period?
-- Does Havelock hold any bitcoin from the Neo investors, or was all the bitcoin released to Neo already?
-- Is there any light at the end of the tunnel for salvaging Neo as an ongoing concern, possibly with Havelock / Panama fund owning a significant chunk?
-- Is the Neo debacle going to prompt any changes to how Havelock handles due diligence for investors?
I was also skeptical of Neo from the start, including on my blog, where I dialoged inconclusively with Danny Brewster about a business plan that seemed to require the price of bitcoin to continue its rise forever, despite a lot of hand waving about how a price decline could be hedged:
http://blog.standardcrypto.com/2013/09/18/neobee-cyprus-bitcoin-bank-is-stealth-bitcoin-etf/I'm long CFIG and I'm not selling -- though I think this message might wake some bears.
I think CFIG could be the "anti MtGox" in 2015. We need a federated model for bitcoin -- many exchanges, cooperating, not one exchange with a target on its head. We need audited proof of reserves, not just for crypto but for fiat. CFIG could be all this and more, and I blogged about this as well:
http://blog.standardcrypto.com/2013/08/23/could-panamanian-cfig-grow-bigger-than-mtgox-thats-the-asicminer-sized-question-thoughts-on-cfig-ipo/Bears will be bears, we could see a price drop for a while. I invested what I could lose, and if Havelock and CFIG goes poof, I will lick my wounds and go on with my life.
But if CFIG / Havelock / Panama Fund need to communicate honestly about what happened with Neo and Bee, the core investors will feel a lot more patient about giving CFIG the time they need to get the exchange model done right.
So, I hope CFIG can spend a little time now to save a lot of time in the future, and keep its treasury stock valued at a comfortable level while the exchange is in limbo.
Be honest, and say something about how Neo and Bee affect the picture at CFIG.
Then get back to building the exchange platform the bitcoin world needs, and take the time to do it right.
