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

[JohnyBigs]

So... I asked about what happens if you don't have enough shares for one unit of hardware and didn't get an answer... I think my question would apply to a lot of people...

With their past responses as a guide expect an answer of this sort. We will use ice lasers to cut the hardware to your corresponding share, so it leaves a smooth cut.

The level of incompetence in Bitcoin is mindboggling

[bittymitty]

Hey guys we want to change the IPO so private investors get more and you get less.  Oh wait we are going to change our minds as this was a dumb idea.

Hey guys we can sell you miners at triple the current price on the website even though we got a massive group buy discount and you only have a few day to claim this prize. Or you can hold on to the bonds and watch your investment slowly melt to zero as we come up with more stupid ideas and kill the price.

Ice drill are you having brain freeze?  Did your ice caps melt?

[pmorici]

It's hard to know how to value this proposal w/o knowing where in the delivery queue IceDrill sits.  Are the IceDrill Sierras from HasFast's 'batch one' which is expected to start shipping at the end of this month (Oct)?  If so this maybe a better option than selling at a 30% loss on BitFunder.  If we are talking about 'batch two' time frame though then this deal probably represents a greater loss than selling. Here is my thinking...

HashFast priced their BabyJet batch one at $5,600 and batch two at $2,760 this represents a price reduction of about 50%.  HashFast never offered a batch one for their Sierra's (presumably because they were sold privately to IceDrill) they did offer a batch two Sierra though for $7,080.  So we can assume that had a batch one Sierra been sold it might have been priced around $14,000.  120,000 shares of IceDrill  @ 0.0014 BTC with an exchange rate of $100/BTC which is about where the market was at the time of the IPO if I recall would be $16,000 per Sierra.  So you'd be looking at a roughly 12% loss over having just bought the hardware had it been available.  On the other hand if these are batch two Sierras then you are looking at 7k vs 16k which is a 55% loss.

For share holders with less than 120k shares or a non-evenly divisible number it's impossible to make a reasoned comparison between the hosting option and selling w/o knowing any additional costs that would be incurred.  I think it's safe to say though it wouldn't be better than the scenarios above.

I don't like either of these options as specified, especially holding less than 120k shares.  We need a proposal that maintains shareholders original expectations of dividends and reinvestment even if that means removing the exchange from the equation.

Investing in IceDrill shares was always a risky proposition but it is looking like this whole BitFunder debacle is going to be a shit sandwich no matter how you cut it.

[JohnyBigs]

and just sold, go fuck yourself icedrill. Will buy you again when you are worthless like labcoin. These guys are a fucking joke. They have tried to change the contract a handful of times already.

Offering completely retarded solutions, that even a 5 year old can see make absolutely no logical sense, ex. small shareholders.

If you have shares get out while you still can this is going to be Labcoin 2.0, even if they deliver, the shadiness of them trying to change the contract hundreds of times, and offering complete scumbag solutions, like we'll sell you over price hardware only for users with massive amounts of shares, shows this isn't going to end well.

[chriswilmer]

Why can't the shares become non-exchangeable "direct" shares? I would be OK with that.

[JohnyBigs]

Why can't the shares become non-exchangeable "direct" shares? I would be OK with that.

I'm sure they will offer that as a last resort, ohh we listened to the community here you go, we are so nice, until then they will try to come up with the best way to fuck the public investor out of the company. Like selling hardware for 10000% mark ups to it's investors.

[pmorici]

Why can't the shares become non-exchangeable "direct" shares? I would be OK with that.

I agree, just because the stock exchange goes out of business doesn't mean the company isn't still obligated to the share holders.  Anyone know a good class action lawyer in Hang Kong?

[cryptojoe]

What is the problem with transferring the holding of the shares from bitfunder to one of the other markets or exchanges?  Or what about turning the shares into stakes in private hosting under digimex WITH THE SAME TERMS that we agreed to already?  These are the more reasonable options one would think.  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.  We're professionals.  Right?

[testerx]

I don't get it, why would anybody want to exchange their shares for hardware when the shares cost twice what buying the hardware yourself would cost?  And how many people own hundreds of thousands of shares?  lol
I don't own any shares but man, this BitFunder meltdown is leading to some really half-assed solutions guys. 

[Jutarul]

Shares for hardware
As stated, each IceDrill.ASIC share represents 10Mh/s at the start of the mine becoming operational.

This solution defeats the purpose of the investment and should only be considered as a bail option. There needs to be a way to keep the original intent of the investment preserved, while accommodating the movement towards compliance with the regulatory structure for securities.

Obviously the whole thing is only a problem for US citizens. And you can thank the US government for that - instead of putting all the blame on the IceDrill management. If you do so, then you're shooting the messenger.

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. A managed hardware solution (i.e. hosting) is a start, but it needs to include all the privileges the original contract had in mind.

[hulk]

Guys please stop blaming IceDrill, no body would have know what would happen to bitfunder back then. I believe icedrill is doing a good job coming out with the option.

In the meantime other companies are moving over to havelock investments.

What makes you think havelock investments would be safe?

[cryptojoe]

Notice also that there appears to be a "transfer" option on bitfunder.  Perhaps a u.s. citizen can transfer their shares to a non-U.S. friend or loved one who has (or opens) a bitfunder (and weExchange) account. 

But otherwise, as jimbobway points out, there are more reasonable options available.  Let's get on those and keep this project going.

[molecular]

3.) Having "shares" is just semantics.  Allow shareholders to buy the mining equipment and allow them to reinvest 25% of their bitcoins mined into more equipment. Essentially, the original invesment is preserved via a hosting contract.  We don't own shares on bitfunder-- we own equipment.  I prefer this method.

Unfortunately the trading ban is for everyone, not just US-people:

All current BitFunder users who are not United States persons or entities must supply the information required to obtain "Verified" status on their linked WeExchange account before November 1, 2013. Any such users who fail to provide the necessary information will not be able to enter into or sell positions on the BitFunder website as of November 1, 2013.

[will]

Hi All

We've been reading all of the feedback and will answer all questions and address all concerns shortly.

[Dexter770221]

Hi All

We've been reading all of the feedback and will answer all questions and address all concerns shortly.

There's nothing to address to. It's simple very bad idea, propose another solution. People already paid for shipment, customs, hosting, maintance when they bought shares. You ask to pay twice.

[VolanicEruptor]

Hi All

We've been reading all of the feedback and will answer all questions and address all concerns shortly.

thanks Sam!

[molecular]

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.

Why just US investors. Internationals unwilling to identify are also doomed, because shares can't be traded without verification after Nov 1st.

Just make an arrangemengt with havelock. They will likely run into similar troubles, though.

[helixone]

Why can't the shares become non-exchangeable "direct" shares? I would be OK with that.

I'm sure they will offer that as a last resort, ohh we listened to the community here you go, we are so nice, until then they will try to come up with the best way to fuck the public investor out of the company. Like selling hardware for 10000% mark ups to it's investors.

People were warned. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=269216.msg2921430#msg2921430

-helixone

[CanOpener]

wow, what is with all the fuss?  I think people are forgetting that operating costs need to be deducted before dividends are paid to us. So, IceDrill is not double charging anyone. They are just letting you see the cost now versus taking it out first before giving you the dividend. Having said that, the shipping cost thing is a bxtch. They could take shipment  to their DC in bulk (which saves a lot of cost), which I can't do with my 1 machine or whatever without paying a lot for shipping. However, for the big investors, I would take the machines in a heartbeat. Why take the risk of any US regulation which will eventually hit any platform that touches U.S individuals?

Please don't convert everything into 'direct' shares. No matter how bad BitFunder is, at least I can sleep better at night knowing that there is a formal system/process in place.

[VolanicEruptor]

Ask icebreaker what we should do.. I thought she was the spokeswoman?