[BitFunder] IceDrill.ASIC IPO (235 Thash Mining Operation powered by HashFast)

[_mr_e]

Hi All

We're currently reviewing the CryptoMex.io account signup form as well as the KYC process with legal. Will post an update on the results when I have it.

Will

Regardless of what legal comes back with please also have an answer for what will happen to those who do not wish to comply.

[Minor Miner]

Further, why was the adminstrators identifying information removed from the original posts?  Thankfully TAT quoted it for reference.

DT suggested the change after a kidnapping attempt on my daughter in mid-April.

What?   Where?

[NotLambchop]

...
DT suggested the change after a kidnapping attempt on my daughter in mid-April.

First Danny, now you.  Bitcoin securities -- too creepy for kids.

[drawingthesun]

Further, why was the adminstrators identifying information removed from the original posts?  Thankfully TAT quoted it for reference.

DT suggested the change after a kidnapping attempt on my daughter in mid-April.

Haha what a Joke!

Like politicians use "kids safety" to censor the internet, Bitcoin scammers entrepreneurs use the same type of spin on kids safety to either flee or withhold information.

Guess what? When you decided to run a public company/investment, your details are on the line and you're meant to be an adult and do the right thing. To many people like you go running when things are tough.

Please read:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=124441.0

Take notice on points 0 and 1.

Mircea might be a total dolt, but this post of his is spot on 100%

Once you decide to start a business, you're creating for yourself a liability and if your too much of a wimp to deal with it you should never have started the business in the first place.

In case you're too lazy to open the link, i'll quote the relevant passages:

Okay, it's not a crime. It's just the first step down the road which brings pretty much 9x% to crime within six months to a year. So, here are some simple easy steps for your convenience.

0. Starting a bitcoin business is a liability. The first thing you need to understand, and you need to understand it well. At sixteen hundred hours while you were sitting around your living room scratching your ear you were worth X. Your life, your ideas, your business, the shit around your house that you own, all that which makes up your life, added together, worth X. At sixteen fifteen, eight minutes after you had started your Bitcoin business you were worth X-k, where k is always positive and SIGNIFICANT. Starting a Bitcoin business is a liability, it makes you worth less. In fact, all the rest of your life in Bitcoinland will be attempts, more or less successful, to limit and reduce that liability. This is the outlook you must have not in order to be successful, but in order to have a shot at it. This is the outlook you must have in order to not guarantee failure.

1. Identify yourself to the community. This means, at the very least, creating a WOT account. If you do not have a WOT account you are not part of Bitcoin business. This is the criteria, no matter what you might think. That's where everyone looks, no matter what social media might be telling you. If you aren't in the WOT you aren't in Bitcoin.

[will]

Once you decide to start a business, you're creating for yourself a liability and if your too much of a wimp to deal with it you should never have started the business in the first place.

A question was asked and answered. The decision to initiate an emotional response to it was yours, not mine.

[drawingthesun]

Once you decide to start a business, you're creating for yourself a liability and if your too much of a wimp to deal with it you should never have started the business in the first place.

A question was asked and answered. The decision to initiate an emotional response to it was yours, not mine.

Many of us are emotional, this is true.

But please, why do you feel it's within your right to attempt restriction of information in regards to the people running this venture?

[raskul]

Once you decide to start a business, you're creating for yourself a liability and if your too much of a wimp to deal with it you should never have started the business in the first place.

A question was asked and answered. The decision to initiate an emotional response to it was yours, not mine.

oops a clanger for this needs a longer conversation.

[Minor Miner]

But please, why do you feel it's within your right to attempt restriction of information in regards to the people running this venture?

Because somebody tried to harm his family!!!
You do not feel that is a good reason?

[drawingthesun]

But please, why do you feel it's within your right to attempt restriction of information in regards to the people running this venture?

Because somebody tried to harm his family!!!
You do not feel that is a good reason?

Not sure if you figured this out, but I'm making the assumption he might be lying to you.

It's convenient for people in a difficult position running a dying company to use excuses that cover themselves and their identities.

I could be wrong, but isn't it funny as they now expect all shareholders to hand over their identity (address, passport, etc...) the guy running the show slips off into the shadows.

One rule for them and another for us.

My question to you, Minor Miner, why are you ok with being forced to hand over your identity even though this was never a requirement when buying shares in the first place? But you're quick to protect those that are in fact working against your best interests.

[_mr_e]

But please, why do you feel it's within your right to attempt restriction of information in regards to the people running this venture?

Because somebody tried to harm his family!!!
You do not feel that is a good reason?

Ya, I heard that happened to Danny Brewster too!

[Minor Miner]

But please, why do you feel it's within your right to attempt restriction of information in regards to the people running this venture?

Because somebody tried to harm his family!!!
You do not feel that is a good reason?

Not sure if you figured this out, but I'm making the assumption he might be lying to you.
It's convenient for people in a difficult position running a dying company to use excuses that cover themselves and their identities.
I could be wrong, but isn't it funny as they now expect all shareholders to hand over their identity (address, passport, etc...) the guy running the show slips off into the shadows.
One rule for them and another for us.
My question to you, Minor Miner, why are you ok with being forced to hand over your identity even though this was never a requirement when buying shares in the first place? But you're quick to protect those that are in fact working against your best interests.

I do not own shares.  My interest in Icedrill is purely intellectual.   I cannot invest in anything that may not hold up to scrutiny nor can I avoid not paying income taxes on everything I make profit from, so most of your points (which I understand) do not and never will apply to me.
Most people do not lie about serious issues especially with regard to their children.   

[drawingthesun]

Most people do not lie about serious issues especially with regard to their children.   

I see your point, although I feel that many scammers in this space have so many excuses with "children" being an easy one. Will might be telling the truth.

In the case that Will is in fact telling the truth, another matter comes to light. Is the onus on Will to secure his family and children (perhaps hire a bodyguard) or is the onus on the shareholders to accept that Will is now ok becoming more anonymous just as he now asks all of his investors to come out and produce full documentation.

I feel the onus is on Will, he should protect his family via a guard. Using security theatre isn't very effective, his details are already out anyway. I have a huge knee jerk reaction against people running public securities who want themselves to become hidden and anonymous to a far greater extent than their investors.

[pmorici]

Further, why was the adminstrators identifying information removed from the original posts?  Thankfully TAT quoted it for reference.

DT suggested the change after a kidnapping attempt on my daughter in mid-April.

So you must have reported that to the authorities right?  So there should be a official record of such a serious attempted crime with some police department?

[drawingthesun]

Further, why was the adminstrators identifying information removed from the original posts?  Thankfully TAT quoted it for reference.

DT suggested the change after a kidnapping attempt on my daughter in mid-April.

So you must have reported that to the authorities right?  So there should be a official record of such a serious attempted crime with some police department?

I'm sure there should be a record.

[sporket]

...
Most people do not lie about serious issues especially with regard to their children.   

This is bitcoin.  We're not most people

[Dexter770221]

Lets focus on subject. What's with that dividends? You answered that is not an issue to pay them.

[will]

Once you decide to start a business, you're creating for yourself a liability and if your too much of a wimp to deal with it you should never have started the business in the first place.

A question was asked and answered. The decision to initiate an emotional response to it was yours, not mine.

Many of us are emotional, this is true.

But please, why do you feel it's within your right to attempt restriction of information in regards to the people running this venture?

I don't. I didn't make the change.

Having worked in web development for more than a decade, I know that once something is posted on the 'net is remains there in perpetuity. The investigation showed that the incident was unrelated to this project. The undue arousal of suspicion is my responsibility, in retrospect I should have checked and asked DT to change it back. Don't blame Ludvig for this, he reacted rationally to a friend in potential danger.

[raskul]

.

^ that's fightin talk.
just an observation.sorry.

[Hoofprint]

Once you decide to start a business, you're creating for yourself a liability and if your too much of a wimp to deal with it you should never have started the business in the first place.

A question was asked and answered. The decision to initiate an emotional response to it was yours, not mine.

Many of us are emotional, this is true.

But please, why do you feel it's within your right to attempt restriction of information in regards to the people running this venture?

I don't. I didn't make the change.

Having worked in web development for more than a decade, I know that once something is posted on the 'net is remains there in perpetuity. The investigation showed that the incident was unrelated to this project. The undue arousal of suspicion is my responsibility, in retrospect I should have checked and asked DT to change it back. Don't blame Ludvig for this, he reacted rationally to a friend in potential danger.

Dont take this the wrong way but personally i dont care if your kid was kidnapped or not.
Alls i read in that previous post was maybe someone was getting revenge for another scheme you have stiffed people on.

I can see by the way you and terra have been spending our money on expensive hotels, flights and legal fees
you have no appreciation of the blood, sweat and tears people put into earning money to fund your IPO

You and terra knew full well people would hate this KYC bullcrap and you pushed it anyway to buy time.
Get off your asses and pay dividends to the registered addresses you have on icedrill.io or
come clean an tell us how boned we are so we can plan ahead

[hksfc]

Some of the CryptoMex members are in direct communication with the SFC (Hong Kong regulator) regarding CryptoMex.io and have been for a while now.

It is an offence under section 103 of the Securities and Futures Ordinance ("SFO") to issue an advertisement, invitation or document which is or contains an invitation to the Hong Kong public to invest in collective investment schemes ("CIS") unless the issue is authorised by the SFC or an exemption applies.