|
cowandtea
|
 |
October 11, 2013, 03:44:10 AM |
|
Guys, just hold your shares, you can still withdraw your dividend just that you cant sell your shares...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
pmorici
|
|
October 11, 2013, 03:47:59 AM |
|
Guys, just hold your shares, you can still withdraw your dividend just that you cant sell your shares...
What makes you think that is the case? |
|
|
|
|
|
will
|
|
October 11, 2013, 10:18:57 AM |
|
Q&A: Share destruction for hardware ownership option.Hosted hardware sounds good... but what if you don't have 120 000 shares? What if you have, say, 5000 shares?
We don't have an elegant solution to this at the moment, but we’re working on a proposal. We welcome any suggestions/guidance on the matter and will post the proposal when it’s ready. The basic premise for the proposal would be to preserve the terms of the original investment in a (shared) hosting solution. Where is it shipping from? I want to know which customs it will go through.
The machines will undergo final assembly in Canada. For the duration of our IPO the valuation of BTC spot price was stable around $100. All 0.0014 and 0.0015 BTC shares sold within that week. The $7080 cost you're showing is for a batch 2 Sierra, which will ship about a month later (see: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=262052.msg3242499#msg3242499) than the batch 1 Sierras we'll be deploying. Sorry if I missed it, but what if we still wanted to keep our shares as US Citizens? How would we be collecting dividends and potentially sell our shares later?
This means I don't have to get rid of my shares but it wasn't clear if Dividends can still be paid for them (If not then I agree with you, someone verified would have to hold them)
If Dividends can still be paid, I can still withdraw bitcoins from bitfunder and would rather just leave the shares in there.
Seems risky, but it's a very valid question. We're awaiting a response from Ukyo on this. i am not from US and i dont want to clear my position?!
You scale down the mine and crash the stock. dont do this.
Clearing your position is optional, we cannot and will not force you to do it. Please note that the total amount of shares will also be scaled down proportionally (by destroying them). This means that in terms of hashing power per share and in terms of reinvestment per share, the amount will stay the same. When I paid for .0014 BTC a share, not only did I expect 10 MH/share but also hosting, maintenance, management, potential dividends, etc. IceDrill now wants to swap shares for hardware without taking into account the other factors.
The hosting proposal is forthcoming and will take into account all factors. It is designed to be an all-in, full-service hosting offer which will aim to preserve the terms of the original investment in a hosting solution. maybe havelockinvestments could help?
Would this not just be delaying the same issue? Even though we have been in contact with Havelock, we don't think the US regulatory landscape will change before the mine is operational. And if there are regulatory issues for you guys too, then U.S. asset holders can show you some stinking photo ID so you can comply with the KYC regulations.
As I understand it the problem isn't with non-verified US persons. The problem is with US persons, photo ID submission does not address the issue. If someone has a suggestion to preserve the original intent of the investment, while complying with the regulatory requirements, I am sure IceDrill will consider it.
Completely agree. We'll seriously consider any viable suggestions for solutions on this matter. To date we've only seen "move to another trading platform" as a suggestion, which we feel is untenable long-term. A managed hardware solution (i.e. hosting) is a start, but it needs to include all the privileges the original contract had in mind.
The shares for hardware proposal does not include any actual information (especially on the parameters for the hosting option). Preserving the original investment via a hosting contract (as jimbobway mentioned) is the intent so we're modelling the hosting offer around that. We’re just waiting on confirmation of some parameters and will post a summary of it when ready.
|
|
|
|
|
|
SimonBelmond
|
|
October 11, 2013, 03:24:29 PM |
|
Can you please confirm: As a non-US investor I can get verified and hold the shares. You will be paying dividends via BitFunder.
|
|
|
|
|
|
fattypig
|
|
October 11, 2013, 04:07:08 PM |
|
Hi All
We've been reading all of the feedback and will answer all questions and address all concerns shortly.
Why not just give US investors their money back for what they paid on shares? I would be happy with that. If I was going to buy hardware I would just buy directly from hashfast instead of through you. If you're unable to live up to the terms of the arrangement for whatever reason, it's not the investors fault. Just issue a refund to all US investors and move on. If you have to take a loss to do so, so be it. Stop pushing your problems off onto investors. Investors should also stop pushing the problems to icedrill. it's not icedrill fault either. why not blame Bitfunder or Government? Refund sounds even weird, since when bad investment decision get refunded? People were warned. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=269216.msg3283388#msg3283388 |
|
|
|
pichadpi
Newbie
 Offline
Activity: 16
Merit: 0
|
|
October 11, 2013, 06:26:27 PM |
|
Also, is it possible to get a baby jet for 40,000 shares?
Unless Hashfast would be able guarantee a batch 1 delivery, 40,000 shares for a batch 2 baby jet is far too much. Further still, if you remove all the individuals with fewer than 120,000 shares, the average shareholder has only ~6,500 shares. That still leaves a very large majority of people without much of a reasonable option at this point. However, I might be interested in seeing if a group buy, organized, price negotiated and paid by IceDrill to Hashfast for Nov. batch 2 Baby Jets. The current going price for a BJet out of b2 is $2,760 -or- about 22BTC -or- nearly 16,000 shares. I think that may still be too high for a lot of shareholders, but with a large b2 order, IceDrill should be able to negotiate a better price. I think it would be ideal to try to get units to holders for as little as 10,000 shares. This equates to approximately $1,750 at current BTC price for a BJet -or- ~$4.38 per GH (HF's current b2 price is $6.90/Gh). This gives shareholders with at least 10,000 shares a good option and the benefit of the appreciated value on the coin they spent at the beginning of the IPO offering. Obviously, whether or not Hashfast would be willing to go that low is uncertain. Those with less than the 10,000 shares may then be better served with a buyback option at .0014-.0015 per share, or a shared hardware hosting contract - don't really see an easy way to handle the smaller hands in this IPO beyond that. There is unlikely to be a wonderful solution for everyone given the mess it has become. -and I place no blame upon IceDrill for it. |
|
|
|
|
|
crumbs
|
|
October 12, 2013, 12:27:39 AM |
|
Hi All
We've been reading all of the feedback and will answer all questions and address all concerns shortly.
Why not just give US investors their money back for what they paid on shares? I would be happy with that. If I was going to buy hardware I would just buy directly from hashfast instead of through you. If you're unable to live up to the terms of the arrangement for whatever reason, it's not the investors fault. Just issue a refund to all US investors and move on. If you have to take a loss to do so, so be it. Stop pushing your problems off onto investors. Investors should also stop pushing the problems to icedrill. it's not icedrill fault either. why not blame Bitfunder or Government? Refund sounds even weird, since when bad investment decision get refunded? It's just buying back shares. If they're not allowed to issue shares to US nationals. There is precedent for this. In the philippines there is a constitutional provision limiting foreign ownership of any company in specific sectors or not meeting specific guidelines to 60/40 ownership (40% foreign limitation). In one case the largest telecom PLDT had 60% ownership by foreign corporations due to some legal wrangling and changes in various laws (non-voting vs voting stock). They had the option to issue more shares, or buy back some shares from these foreign corporations. They did both (issuing additional new shares to filipino investors, and buying back some from foreign investors). Buying back at current market rate up to 0.0014 - 0.0015 would allow them to have / keep considerable gains (from all shares at current levels up to 0.0014-0.0015). Philippine telecom case is "presidence" for unregistered securities sold to Americans? |
|
|
|
|
|
crumbs
|
|
October 12, 2013, 12:04:07 PM |
|
Hi All
We've been reading all of the feedback and will answer all questions and address all concerns shortly.
Why not just give US investors their money back for what they paid on shares? I would be happy with that. If I was going to buy hardware I would just buy directly from hashfast instead of through you. If you're unable to live up to the terms of the arrangement for whatever reason, it's not the investors fault. Just issue a refund to all US investors and move on. If you have to take a loss to do so, so be it. Stop pushing your problems off onto investors. Investors should also stop pushing the problems to icedrill. it's not icedrill fault either. why not blame Bitfunder or Government? Refund sounds even weird, since when bad investment decision get refunded? It's just buying back shares. If they're not allowed to issue shares to US nationals. There is precedent for this. In the philippines there is a constitutional provision limiting foreign ownership of any company in specific sectors or not meeting specific guidelines to 60/40 ownership (40% foreign limitation). In one case the largest telecom PLDT had 60% ownership by foreign corporations due to some legal wrangling and changes in various laws (non-voting vs voting stock). They had the option to issue more shares, or buy back some shares from these foreign corporations. They did both (issuing additional new shares to filipino investors, and buying back some from foreign investors). Buying back at current market rate up to 0.0014 - 0.0015 would allow them to have / keep considerable gains (from all shares at current levels up to 0.0014-0.0015). Philippine telecom case is "presidence" for unregistered securities sold to Americans? I wouldn't want a buy back if I wasn't forced into it. Nothing I can do about it, nothing they can do about it. As said before, most people do not have anywhere near the 120,000 shares to get a unit. They have not confirmed yet if it would be possible to get baby jet batch 1s for 40,000 shares. There are many people with less than those 2 figures anyway where a buy back is the only real option. I'm saying there is precedent where a buy back is forced due to government actions. That is all. Thank you for the informative wikip lesson, "precedent" is a fascinating word which i won't soon forget. Allow me to return the favor with a lesson of my own: There is no "government-forced buyback" here. No government, including that of Philippines, has forced a buyback. What we do have here is a case of financial crime, for which the precedents are many & easy to find. (Did i use that word right?) |
|
|
|
|
|
pmorici
|
|
October 13, 2013, 04:50:34 AM |
|
FYI, looks like bitFunder posted the following addition to their original Oct. 8th notice clarifying what will happen to US share holders who don't sell by the stated Nov. 1st deadline... Supplemental Notice (October 11, 2013)
As of October 8, 2013, BitFunder is not assessing any new fees against any user BitFunder knows to be a U.S. person and whose account will be restricted in accordance with BitFunder's October 8, 2013 notice.
Users who are U.S. persons or users who fail for any reason to provide the information necessary to obtain "Verified" status are encouraged to transfer their shares from the BitFunder site to the respective issuer(s) no later than December 1, 2013.
As of December 2, 2013, BitFunder will initiate a transfer from the BitFunder site to the respective issuer(s) of any remaining shares held by any users that BitFunder knows to be U.S. persons or who did not obtain "Verified" status by December 1, 2013, and will provide the issuer(s) with the public bitcoin address associated with the user account. After transfer, each user will need to work with the issuer(s) with respect to the future treatment of the shares.
On December 2, 2013, all bitcoin balances in the accounts of users that BitFunder knows to be U.S. persons and users that did not obtain "Verified" status by December 1 will be transferred to their linked WeExchange accounts. Sounds like they will transfer the share holder's info to the original issuer on Dec. 1st and leave the responsibility of servicing those shares/ shareholders up to the issuer. When can we expect more info from IceDrill on a reasonable plan? |
|
|
|
|
CanOpener
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 34
Merit: 0
|
|
October 13, 2013, 01:18:14 PM |
|
The shares were issued when BTC spot was 100. Spot is now close to 130. So, if they buy back at 0.0016 BTC per share, wouldn't they lose 30% for no reason? Come on, people. Besides, they would have given up all their BitCoins to HashFast for the hardware. Where would they have the money to buy any shares back? I love freebies too but some people are simply asking for too much.
In terms of change in regulation, I am pretty sure it will only get worse from here. Just like CFTC rules, they don't need to make sense but they dare you to not obey them. (just my two cents)
and did someone mention financial crime? can someone tell me who is the legal authority in BitCoin community? where can I find the laws related to BitCoin?
|
|
|
|
|
|
VolanicEruptor
|
|
October 13, 2013, 02:43:57 PM |
|
Share price reflecting a change in BTC value would only make sense if shareholders were getting paid fiat for dividends, or something awkward like that. If dividends are paid in BTC, and shares were bought with BTC, and shares are sold in BTC, then the price of a BTC should be able to go up and down without any change in share price.
|
|
|
|
|
cowandtea
|
|
October 13, 2013, 03:07:47 PM |
|
Share price reflecting a change in BTC value would only make sense if shareholders were getting paid fiat for dividends, or something awkward like that. If dividends are paid in BTC, and shares were bought with BTC, and shares are sold in BTC, then the price of a BTC should be able to go up and down without any change in share price.
Wrong, because HashFast is priced at USD. If the price of Bitcoin went up to $1000, you would expect people to sell the share and buy the ASIC instead. Thus share price drop 10x. |
|
|
|
|
crumbs
|
|
October 13, 2013, 03:16:26 PM |
|
The shares were issued when BTC spot was 100. Spot is now close to 130. So, if they buy back at 0.0016 BTC per share, wouldn't they lose 30% for no reason? Come on, people. Besides, they would have given up all their BitCoins to HashFast for the hardware. Where would they have the money to buy any shares back? I love freebies too but some people are simply asking for too much.
In terms of change in regulation, I am pretty sure it will only get worse from here. Just like CFTC rules, they don't need to make sense but they dare you to not obey them. (just my two cents)
and did someone mention financial crime? can someone tell me who is the legal authority in BitCoin community? where can I find the laws related to BitCoin?
You seem to have a rather tenuous grasp of finance. IceDrill shares were purchased with BTC, the exchange rate of BTC/$ is irrelevant. If you bought a plushy at a One & Dime for $1, and tried to return it for $2.00 by claiming that "the dollar now buys only half as much bitcoin as when I bought this plushy," the nice checkout lady would tell you to GTFO. Justly so. As far as "what financial crime": The crime of selling unregistered securities to US persons by a US-based unlicensed exchange. US SEC has jurisdiction. That should get you started. If you'd like to haz moar learnings, don't hesitate to ask  |
|
|
|
|
Eisenhower34
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 906
Merit: 1002
|
|
October 14, 2013, 08:12:18 AM |
|
First, why do people attack IceDrill? Its not their fault whats happening and they are trying to find a solution for this.
Second, why is "buyback" still on the table? IceDrill spent the money to buy hardware, so they cannot issue any buyback.
Third, whats the problem now that we know that IceDrill will have all data (amount of shares, btc address) to manage all shares themself?
Really I understand most of you people less and less...
|
|
|
|
|
molecular
Donator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2772
Merit: 1019
|
|
October 14, 2013, 08:42:22 AM |
|
First, why do people attack IceDrill? Its not their fault whats happening and they are trying to find a solution for this.
Second, why is "buyback" still on the table? IceDrill spent the money to buy hardware, so they cannot issue any buyback.
Third, whats the problem now that we know that IceDrill will have all data (amount of shares, btc address) to manage all shares themself?
Really I understand most of you people less and less...
Isn't this clear? They see a way to maybe somehow wiggle out of their so-far-bad investment and blame the fault on someone else. |
PGP key molecular F9B70769 fingerprint 9CDD C0D3 20F8 279F 6BE0 3F39 FC49 2362 F9B7 0769
|
|
|
|
dunchy
|
|
October 14, 2013, 09:40:37 AM |
|
Why is nobody getting an idea to organize people for Sierra group buys using shares ?? For example:
Say you're an US citizen who right now has an offer from IceDrill to bail out and get a Sierra for 120k shares. At the same time you have sufficient credibility here so that people can trust you and enough knowledge and infrastructure to handle the unit at home or you can make a deal on hosting. At the same time you don't have 120k shares for a whole unit or don't even have any IceDrill shares for that matter. You can exploit this offer just by being a US citizen.
Why don't you offer a group buy to gather 120k shares for all the people who'd like to get out now, they just pass them to you on your BitFunder account and you call IceDrill on your right to take one unit?
I would be the first one interested.
|
|
|
|
|
CanOpener
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 34
Merit: 0
|
|
October 14, 2013, 12:30:50 PM |
|
wahaha, did you realize that you pointed out the flaw in your own argument? So, you expect that someone would guarantee you our investment even though the exchange rate fluctuates all the time? Please study something called quanto before you even talk about finance with me. I just have to chuckle when people like you expect everyone else to take a loss just because your investment deserves principal protection. oh, your grasp on regulation is even more of a joke. The shut down of BTC-TC and BitFunder change happened just recently before IceDrill went IPO'ed. So, you are telling me that you can regulate ahead of SEC? If you need a lesson about anything, feel free to ask because I am sure that most people in this forum can teach you a lot about everything. No joke. The shares were issued when BTC spot was 100. Spot is now close to 130. So, if they buy back at 0.0016 BTC per share, wouldn't they lose 30% for no reason? Come on, people. Besides, they would have given up all their BitCoins to HashFast for the hardware. Where would they have the money to buy any shares back? I love freebies too but some people are simply asking for too much.
In terms of change in regulation, I am pretty sure it will only get worse from here. Just like CFTC rules, they don't need to make sense but they dare you to not obey them. (just my two cents)
and did someone mention financial crime? can someone tell me who is the legal authority in BitCoin community? where can I find the laws related to BitCoin?
You seem to have a rather tenuous grasp of finance. IceDrill shares were purchased with BTC, the exchange rate of BTC/$ is irrelevant. If you bought a plushy at a One & Dime for $1, and tried to return it for $2.00 by claiming that "the dollar now buys only half as much bitcoin as when I bought this plushy," the nice checkout lady would tell you to GTFO. Justly so. As far as "what financial crime": The crime of selling unregistered securities to US persons by a US-based unlicensed exchange. US SEC has jurisdiction. That should get you started. If you'd like to haz moar learnings, don't hesitate to ask |
|
|
|
|
|
crumbs
|
|
October 14, 2013, 02:35:07 PM |
|
wahaha, did you realize that you pointed out the flaw in your own argument? So, you expect that someone would guarantee you our investment even though the exchange rate fluctuates all the time? Please study something called quanto before you even talk about finance with me. I just have to chuckle when people like you expect everyone else to take a loss just because your investment deserves principal protection. oh, your grasp on regulation is even more of a joke. The shut down of BTC-TC and BitFunder change happened just recently before IceDrill went IPO'ed. So, you are telling me that you can regulate ahead of SEC? If you need a lesson about anything, feel free to ask because I am sure that most people in this forum can teach you a lot about everything. No joke. The shares were issued when BTC spot was 100. Spot is now close to 130. So, if they buy back at 0.0016 BTC per share, wouldn't they lose 30% for no reason? Come on, people. Besides, they would have given up all their BitCoins to HashFast for the hardware. Where would they have the money to buy any shares back? I love freebies too but some people are simply asking for too much.
In terms of change in regulation, I am pretty sure it will only get worse from here. Just like CFTC rules, they don't need to make sense but they dare you to not obey them. (just my two cents)
and did someone mention financial crime? can someone tell me who is the legal authority in BitCoin community? where can I find the laws related to BitCoin?
You seem to have a rather tenuous grasp of finance. IceDrill shares were purchased with BTC, the exchange rate of BTC/$ is irrelevant. If you bought a plushy at a One & Dime for $1, and tried to return it for $2.00 by claiming that "the dollar now buys only half as much bitcoin as when I bought this plushy," the nice checkout lady would tell you to GTFO. Justly so. As far as "what financial crime": The crime of selling unregistered securities to US persons by a US-based unlicensed exchange. US SEC has jurisdiction. That should get you started. If you'd like to haz moar learnings, don't hesitate to ask I'll make this short & sweet: IceDril.ASIC has nothing to do with quanto, the underlying is not denominated in USD. If you believe that it is, you're mistaken. Further, BTCT & Bitfunder were not "shut down by the SEC." If you know more than the rest of us about the [pending] closures, feel free to share. The legal status of unlicensed exchanges & unregistered securities hasn't changed here in US for A_COONS_AGE * 50If you are interested in adding moar naughts to UR monyz, i suggest you forego reading this forum & get some skoolin'. Or panhandle. Up 2 U. |
|
|
|
|
|
cowandtea
|
|
October 14, 2013, 04:09:38 PM |
|
So, people want refund when they make loses. That is very smart
|
|
|
|
|
crumbs
|
|
October 14, 2013, 04:42:46 PM |
|
So, people want refund when they make loses. That is very smart
Sure they want a refund -- even in this thread it's generally known that getting a refund is more desirable than nothing. Don't underestimate the collective financial acumen of folks here. Most of them also seem to ignore the plainly-worded user agreements, such as the one found on Bitfunder: " We (BitFunder) do not accept responsibility for anything.
WARNING: Use at your own risk.
You must agree to 1 and 2." |
|
|
|
|
|
