[IPVO] [Multiple Exchanges] Neo & Bee - LMB Holdings

[San1ty]

Oh sweet sweet justice! I told everyone not to move their stuff to Bitfunder...

[1714956691]

1714956691

[1714956691]

1714956691

[Birdy]

Any chance you could offer direct shares like Asicminer?
All this stuff about the exchanges makes me feel uncomfortable holding shares there.

[fr33d0miz3r]

Any chance you could offer direct shares like Asicminer?
All this stuff about the exchanges makes me feel uncomfortable holding shares there.

+1

[memvola]

Any chance you could offer direct shares like Asicminer?
All this stuff about the exchanges makes me feel uncomfortable holding shares there.

+1

There is not, and will not be, a direct-share option.

It is unfortunate though. To me, it should have been the way to proceed from the very beginning. For an operation this size, it should be straightforward to found a partner company in a suitable jurisdiction (which supports this sort of "virtual" shares, but what do I know) and implement a basic automated share transfer system through e-mail. It would be slightly more binding than what we have now, while still protecting the holding and being infinitely more reliable. You could still have pass-throughs, so there doesn't seem to be too many downsides. The cost of investor inconvenience we are experiencing now is probably magnitudes higher than what such an effort would have cost.

[Herp]

Any chance you could offer direct shares like Asicminer?
All this stuff about the exchanges makes me feel uncomfortable holding shares there.

+1

There is not, and will not be, a direct-share option.

It is unfortunate though. To me, it should have been the way to proceed from the very beginning. For an operation this size, it should be straightforward to found a partner company in a suitable jurisdiction (which supports this sort of "virtual" shares, but what do I know) and implement a basic automated share transfer system through e-mail. It would be slightly more binding than what we have now, while still protecting the holding and being infinitely more reliable. You could still have pass-throughs, so there doesn't seem to be too many downsides. The cost of investor inconvenience we are experiencing now is probably magnitudes higher than what such an effort would have cost.

+1

Indeed. These exchanges proved to be pretty shaky so far, one man operations with mediocre PR skills. It's not fun for investors to be concerned with 3rd party risks associated with these exchanges. This novel business model carries enough risk anyways. Hard to stomach the extra risk of some exchange operator being ran over by a car or throwing a temper tantrum and shutting it down.

95% of new business fail in first 2 years. Do you really think taking extra risk of depending on retarded shaky exchange is worth it?

[velacreations]

well, also consider one thing - is there enough BTC to purchase the NeoBee IPVO shares WITHOUT US investors?  I don't think so.

So, if you want to sell the remaining few million shares, you're gonna have to do something different.

[LiteBit]

Addressing the BTCT.CO holders who don't want to transfer to Havelock and now have their shares in limbo would be great in your meeting.
Let us know. Cheers

[mutex]

well, also consider one thing - is there enough BTC to purchase the NeoBee IPVO shares WITHOUT US investors?  I don't think so.

First of all, NeoBee already got the required minimum of ~9500 BTC. Second, accredited US investors still can invest. And as Danny mentioned, there's enough venture capital interested to buy out the whole IPVO.

[velacreations]

well, also consider one thing - is there enough BTC to purchase the NeoBee IPVO shares WITHOUT US investors?  I don't think so.

First of all, NeoBee already got the required minimum of ~9500 BTC. Second, accredited US investors still can invest. And as Danny mentioned, there's enough venture capital interested to buy out the whole IPVO.

there's still several million shares in the IPVO that have not sold. 

US investors can not buy on the Bitfunder, the exchange with the largest volume.

If there was enough capital outside of the US investors in the Bitcoin securities markets, then the price would not be around ~.002 right now.

[fr33d0miz3r]

If there was enough capital outside of the US investors in the Bitcoin securities markets, then the price would not be around ~.002 right now.

The current price doesn't depend on how much money came from US investors.
Look at the volume of last 48hr: ~200 btc.
So, 200 btc of total 9,500 btc were dumped by US investors? Yeah, that's a big piece of money, lol.

The bid side of the order book is so thin only because everyone who wanted to buy shares already bought them at the IPVO price. It doesn't show us how many %% of US investors we have.

[codegnome]

Well its obvious shares will need to be moved off Bitfunder since it's terms have been changed since IPVO. Bitfunder is doomed now anyway.

[velacreations]

Look at the volume of last 48hr: ~200 btc.
So, 200 btc of total 9,500 btc were dumped by US investors? Yeah, that's a big piece of money, lol.

well, so far.  there are still a lot of US investors waiting to have their shares imported to bitfunder, and I'm sure not every US investor sold yesterday.

The bid side of the order book is so thin only because everyone who wanted to buy shares already bought them at the IPVO price. It doesn't show us how many %% of US investors we have.

the bid side shows what happens when you don't allow US investors to invest.  They are blocked from putting up bids, hence the low bid price.

if everyone who is going to invest has already invested, then what does that mean for the IPVO which still has millions of shares outstanding?

[Luckybit]

I hear you on the decentralized exchange, but in this case it won't help the company issuing the shares skirt US laws. They would have to make sure that US custies couldn't get their hands on the shares. That will be near-impossible with decentralized exchange where the investors hold the shares themselves.

We have to look at why the SEC exists and figure out how we can solve the problems the SEC seeks to solve as a community by self regulation rather than external. The SEC will still be needed but the community, DATA, the Bitcoin foundation all have to come together to lobby to give cryptocurrencies a special status as a commodity with special rules. The rules currently set to go into effect allow for crowd funding but place too many limits and aren't really Bitcoin specific. Until that happens it probably will be best to just build it into the blockchain itself or go direct shares. Whether it is illegal or not is too late to worry about at this time, and by the time anything comes of it then it will be legal anyway because crowdfunding law will be taking effect as soon as the SEC publishes its rules.

The solution is both technological and political. Technological solutions can help give lobbyists from DATA a stronger voice. DATA should be the group that lawmakers negotiate with and discuss regulation with. The SEC cannot put the standard one size fits all regulation on Bitcoin and there should be a push to get a law passed to have customized regulatory status.

There are laws which say barter has to be taxed, but it's practically unenforceable. It's the same situation that will exist with Bitcoin. Bitcoin should not be used for terrorist financing, money laundering, or anything like that. The authorities have a legitimate concern there. The SEC does not have a legitimate reason or concern in messing up the Bitcoin stock market. The SEC should stand down and if anything must be done about fraud and scams there should be negotiations with the community itself. The SEC and congress should set rules according to the current norms and case studies. Until then there should be a moratorium on regulation.

But they probably aren't going to listen to that and will abuse their power? The ability to write code is free speech and you have a constitutional right.

US investors will have to go to direct shares and a decentralized exchange until crowdfunding law takes effect.

Considering that these Bitcoin based stock exchanges may soon be legal, I am sure they can continue to operate in the time before this law passes similar to what happened to the Citigroup merger. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citigroup#Citicorp_and_Travelers_merger

Of course a very good lawyer will have to pull it off, letting the system run for the future until its actually legal. Maybe this cannot be done...

No point. We should just build the decentralized exchanges and then let that operate without ever again having to worry about the point of failure or the trust in a central authority called a central exchange. We do not need Havelock and it is very likely that Havelock's lawyers will make them shut down as well. There is no point in putting your money on the line based around someone else's paranoia. No more suggestions of a centralized exchange, either the issuer will do direct shares, or we build a decentralized exchange. I will not put my money at risk at any centralized exchange even to buy a stock as critical as this one. I don't have the money to waste and would rather give that money to a colored coin project.

It's over. Deal with it.

well, also consider one thing - is there enough BTC to purchase the NeoBee IPVO shares WITHOUT US investors?  I don't think so.

First of all, NeoBee already got the required minimum of ~9500 BTC. Second, accredited US investors still can invest. And as Danny mentioned, there's enough venture capital interested to buy out the whole IPVO.

Doesn't this defeat the whole point. That would be completely selling out to big capital.
If there is something that NeoBee can do to secure shares for unaccredited investors they should do it.

If direct shares are not the answer then they should find a temporary answer until either the crowdfunding law takes effect or the decentralized exchanges come online. Whichever happens first.

[fr33d0miz3r]

the bid side shows what happens when you don't allow US investors to invest.  They are blocked from putting up bids, hence the low bid price.

The bid side was thin also before the news about US residents restrictions. So, the price today doesn't show us the real situation.

if everyone who is going to invest has already invested, then what does that mean for the IPVO which still has millions of shares outstanding?

I mean at the moment everyone who wanted to invest already invested. I'm sure there will be more investors after the flagship branch opening. And also there will be much more investors when the BTC price continues going up.

[N_S]

No more suggestions of a centralized exchange, either the issuer will do direct shares, or we build a decentralized exchange. I will not put my money at risk at any centralized exchange even to buy a stock as critical as this one. I don't have the money to waste and would rather give that money to a colored coin project.

...

If direct shares are not the answer then they should find a temporary answer until either the crowdfunding law takes effect or the decentralized exchanges come online. Whichever happens first.

I think there's some good thoughts here. The exchange issue is a big one and simply disallowing US investors may sound good for the time being, but if I were attempting to gather investments, the US is not a place I'd want to quarantine. Unfortunately, dealing with US citizens opens companies up to exactly the kinds of problems we're currently seeing.

[Luckybit]

No more suggestions of a centralized exchange, either the issuer will do direct shares, or we build a decentralized exchange. I will not put my money at risk at any centralized exchange even to buy a stock as critical as this one. I don't have the money to waste and would rather give that money to a colored coin project.

...

If direct shares are not the answer then they should find a temporary answer until either the crowdfunding law takes effect or the decentralized exchanges come online. Whichever happens first.

I think there's some good thoughts here. The exchange issue is a big one and simply disallowing US investors may sound good for the time being, but if I were attempting to gather investments, the US is not a place I'd want to quarantine. Unfortunately, dealing with US citizens opens companies up to exactly the kinds of problems we're currently seeing.

But that is not based on any truth.

Are you saying only the USA has an SEC type institution?
Has there been a single prosecution of a company which you can hold up to show that the SEC is persecuting Bitcoin companies?

Excluding US citizens isn't a solution which benefits the Bitcoin community. It benefits governments who would love to see the Bitcoin community divided along national lines afraid of the SEC or some other institution.

The only result of this is that the centralized exchange idea will be pushed aside because if centralized exchanges divide the community by nationality then it's becoming another kind of nationalist institution which goes against the entire purpose of Bitcoin. Bitcoin is a global currency.

The only real solution if you're going to follow the philosophy of Bitcoin is to decentralize the stock market just as Bitcoin is. This set of events will set into motion that process because I just can't see people trusting an unregistered unregulated market like Bitfunder, Havelock or any of these when they can just wait for crowdfunding law to take effect and go to SecondMarket and buy real shares in a regulated exchange.

Bitfunder is trying to avoid US regulation, under the impression that the market somehow needs their particular solution. It's about supply and demand and they can no longer supply US customers which take up a vast majority of the market. You also have to look at the situation as a fork in the road.

Do we want to be users, or do we want to be customers? If we build a decentralized solution then we are the users and we don't need to trust anybody. The congress would have to negotiate directly with users to set regulations. If we go the centralized route then you have to trust a central authority who will make decisions on your behalf and all the problems associated with that. On top of that you have to pay them a fee for the privilege.

I just don't see any benefit for US citizens to go any route but the decentralized route at this point and this is partially because trust has been permanently breached and the business model of the centralized exchange depends entirely on trust. The SEC has the role to try and protect the interests of customers, but if customers are taken out of the equation then it's just the users and the users have to define themselves because Bitcoin is not USD.

Miners generate coins, but miners are considered users and not money transmitters. If they are considered money transmitters then they have to get together and lobby to change the rules so that it makes sense for the industry and for the technology. The same will have to happen with Bitcoin stocks, otherwise there will be no Bitcoin stocks as people will just go back to trading the real stocks and not bother with it.

[N_S]

Are you saying only the USA has an SEC type institution?
Has there been a single prosecution of a company which you can hold up to show that the SEC is persecuting Bitcoin companies?

Excluding US citizens isn't a solution which benefits the Bitcoin community. It benefits governments who would love to see the Bitcoin community divided along national lines afraid of the SEC or some other institution.

The only result of this is that the centralized exchange idea will be pushed aside because if centralized exchanges divide the community by nationality then it's becoming another kind of nationalist institution which goes against the entire purpose of Bitcoin. Bitcoin is a global currency.

The only real solution if you're going to follow the philosophy of Bitcoin is to decentralize the stock market just as Bitcoin is. This set of events will set into motion that process because I just can't see people trusting an unregistered unregulated market like Bitfunder, Havelock or any of these when they can just wait for crowdfunding law to take effect and go to SecondMarket and buy real shares in a regulated exchange.

Bitfunder is trying to avoid US regulation, under the impression that the market somehow needs their particular solution. It's about supply and demand and they can no longer supply US customers which take up a vast majority of the market. You also have to look at the situation as a fork in the road.

Do we want to be users, or do we want to be customers? If we build a decentralized solution then we are the users and we don't need to trust anybody. The congress would have to negotiate directly with users to set regulations. If we go the centralized route then you have to trust a central authority who will make decisions on your behalf and all the problems associated with that. On top of that you have to pay them a fee for the privilege.

I just don't see any benefit for US citizens to go any route but the decentralized route at this point and this is partially because trust has been permanently breached and the business model of the centralized exchange depends entirely on trust. The SEC has the role to try and protect the interests of customers, but if customers are taken out of the equation then it's just the users and the users have to define themselves because Bitcoin is not USD.

Miners generate coins, but miners are considered users and not money transmitters. If they are considered money transmitters then they have to get together and lobby to change the rules so that it makes snese for the industry and for the technology. The same will have to happen with Bitcoin stocks, otherwise there will be no Bitcoin stocks as people will just go back to trading the real stocks and not bother with it.

I was agreeing with your conclusion.

[Luckybit]

Are you saying only the USA has an SEC type institution?
Has there been a single prosecution of a company which you can hold up to show that the SEC is persecuting Bitcoin companies?

Excluding US citizens isn't a solution which benefits the Bitcoin community. It benefits governments who would love to see the Bitcoin community divided along national lines afraid of the SEC or some other institution.

The only result of this is that the centralized exchange idea will be pushed aside because if centralized exchanges divide the community by nationality then it's becoming another kind of nationalist institution which goes against the entire purpose of Bitcoin. Bitcoin is a global currency.

The only real solution if you're going to follow the philosophy of Bitcoin is to decentralize the stock market just as Bitcoin is. This set of events will set into motion that process because I just can't see people trusting an unregistered unregulated market like Bitfunder, Havelock or any of these when they can just wait for crowdfunding law to take effect and go to SecondMarket and buy real shares in a regulated exchange.

Bitfunder is trying to avoid US regulation, under the impression that the market somehow needs their particular solution. It's about supply and demand and they can no longer supply US customers which take up a vast majority of the market. You also have to look at the situation as a fork in the road.

Do we want to be users, or do we want to be customers? If we build a decentralized solution then we are the users and we don't need to trust anybody. The congress would have to negotiate directly with users to set regulations. If we go the centralized route then you have to trust a central authority who will make decisions on your behalf and all the problems associated with that. On top of that you have to pay them a fee for the privilege.

I just don't see any benefit for US citizens to go any route but the decentralized route at this point and this is partially because trust has been permanently breached and the business model of the centralized exchange depends entirely on trust. The SEC has the role to try and protect the interests of customers, but if customers are taken out of the equation then it's just the users and the users have to define themselves because Bitcoin is not USD.

Miners generate coins, but miners are considered users and not money transmitters. If they are considered money transmitters then they have to get together and lobby to change the rules so that it makes snese for the industry and for the technology. The same will have to happen with Bitcoin stocks, otherwise there will be no Bitcoin stocks as people will just go back to trading the real stocks and not bother with it.

I was agreeing with your conclusion.

The real question is where do we go from here?
No one seems to have figured that out. Will NeoBee go on Second Market when the new law takes effect for unaccredited investors? If they will then that is one way of dealing with it.

The next 6 months will see a lot of changes I predict for the better, but I think at the moment the lock-out ideas only do harm and I don't understand why the timing would be right now when crowdfunding is set to take effect in a matter of months making all of this legal.

I think issuers and companies should just wait it out. I think Bitfunder didn't want to wait it out because they are Americans and the FBi is currently arresting Silk Road and others. I also don't think they intended on complying with regulations when the law does take effect or perhaps it is too expensive for them to do it which could explain.

[N_S]

The real question is where do we go from here?
No one seems to have figured that out. Will NeoBee go on Second Market when the new law takes effect for unaccredited investors? If they will then that is one way of dealing with it.

The next 6 months will see a lot of changes I predict for the better, but I think at the moment the lock-out ideas only do harm and I don't understand why the timing would be right now when crowdfunding is set to take effect in a matter of months making all of this legal.

I think issuers and companies should just wait it out. I think Bitfunder didn't want to wait it out because they are Americans and the FBi is currently arresting Silk Road and others. I also don't think they intended on complying with regulations when the law does take effect or perhaps it is too expensive for them to do it which could explain.

I'm aware that there is a contingency plan in place, just unsure of specifics. That said, I'm not worried for this security as I have substantial trust in the operator.

If we're talking about this as a philosophical issue, I'd personally like to see a decentralized exchange as I'm a proponent of this kind of innovation. To my knowledge, nothing like a decentralized exchange has been done before in any real capacity, so that gets my vote. Whether that's what's best for Neo & Bee at this stage is unknown, but on a broader level, I think it'd be a step in the right direction.

[ThickAsThieves]

The real question is where do we go from here?
No one seems to have figured that out. Will NeoBee go on Second Market when the new law takes effect for unaccredited investors? If they will then that is one way of dealing with it.

The next 6 months will see a lot of changes I predict for the better, but I think at the moment the lock-out ideas only do harm and I don't understand why the timing would be right now when crowdfunding is set to take effect in a matter of months making all of this legal.

I think issuers and companies should just wait it out. I think Bitfunder didn't want to wait it out because they are Americans and the FBi is currently arresting Silk Road and others. I also don't think they intended on complying with regulations when the law does take effect or perhaps it is too expensive for them to do it which could explain.

I'm aware that there is a contingency plan in place, just unsure of specifics. That said, I'm not worried for this security as I have substantial trust in the operator.

If we're talking about this as a philosophical issue, I'd personally like to see a decentralized exchange as I'm a proponent of this kind of innovation. To my knowledge, nothing like a decentralized exchange has been done before in any real capacity, so that gets my vote. Whether that's what's best for Neo & Bee at this stage is unknown, but on a broader level, I think it'd be a step in the right direction.

My views on decentralization as an undesirable concept: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=308012.msg3309753#msg3309753