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

[jgarzik]

Field experience -- the kind an engineer like myself most respects -- indicates that any centralized securities platform might get shut down, hacked, or simply disappear without warning.  These events have all happened in the past.  This is not idle speculation about vague threats.

[N_S]

Field experience -- the kind an engineer like myself most respects -- indicates that any centralized securities platform might get shut down, hacked, or simply disappear without warning.  These events have all happened in the past.  This is not idle speculation about vague threats.

This is the truth.

When we had a handful of exchanges to choose from, this wasn't as big of a concern. We could do precisely what we did - migrate from exchange A to exchange B. Once all our options are either closed down or made unavailable, what are the options then? I believe this needs to be considered because Havelock going the way of BTCT/BF seems absolutely inevitable.

[cryptocyprus]

It has been considered from the outset and things are progressing as fast as the business world outside of Bitcoin operates.

No one wants a smooth long term solution that isn't just a band aid more than me. I would much rather spend my time (I assume all those invested would too) building and running the business without additional time being demanded from my days with having to problem solve on this front too.

[Luckybit]

At this point the market is demanding decentralization because central exchanges cannot be trusted. The only options for US investors are a Canadian exchange which most likely is going to region lock US citizens at some point, an obscure exchange somewhere in China which only has Asicminer shares and which most Americans don't want to have to deal with, or the decentralized exchange. Sure you can build a web front end for a decentralized exchange, but that is the only way it will work for everyone without unacceptable risk. If no one can wipe the order book because it's the blockchain, if no one can region lock and leave it up to each individual issuer, then you have a lot less risk.

I have the opposite response. At this point, the market needs a real, legitimate bitcoin stock exchange that is compliant.

Your focus on what might improve about a decentralized exchange completely ignores all of the things that would be made worse.

Right but the problem is compliance may be impossible for a Bitcoin stock exchange. The SEC does not have Bitcoin specific laws and doesn't even seem to know what Bitcoin is. Congress has not figured out how to regulate Bitcoin.  There simply does not seem to be a way to be compliant with crowdfunding laws as vague as these. Maybe in a year or two but a year in the Bitcoin space is an eternity.  

I agree we need a legitimate and compliant stock exchange but if it's not possible to have one then the decentralized exchange will come online due to the demand. If the SEC makes it impossible to comply, and if Congress does not create regulations which make some sense, then it's an unavoidable consequence.

It has been considered from the outset and things are progressing as fast as the business world outside of Bitcoin operates.

No one wants a smooth long term solution that isn't just a band aid more than me. I would much rather spend my time (I assume all those invested would too) building and running the business without additional time being demanded from my days with having to problem solve on this front too.

I understand your feelings and constraints. The business and political world move a lot slower than science and technology. The only thing I advocate is that the business and political world do not interfere with scientific or technological progress. This is why I say the decentralized exchange technology should be built, not because I think society will instantly know what to do with it but for the same reasons Bitcoin had to be built to push society forward.

Politicians aren't the type of people who can push society forward. They don't like to change anything even when science and technology make the old ways obsolete. Business is restrained by the politicians who wish to suppress technological progress to win political points with corporations and special interest groups that back them.

The best solution for NeoBee investors from the USA at this time might be to sell their shares and buy back at a later time. Havelock represents too much risk and the only way to mitigate or reduce that risk is through technological innovations such as a decentralized exchange. I intend to buy shares in NeoBee when it's possible to do so but there is no compliant exchange and probably wont be for a period of several months.

Just know that I intend to buy shares immediately when the option exists, just as I intend to be a customer when the option exists.

[N_S]

I understand your feelings and constraints. The business and political world move a lot slower than science and technology. The only thing I advocate is that the business and political world do not interfere with scientific or technological progress.

To be totally fair, that's a pipe dream pure and simple. Science and technology don't advance without the business/political side. I'll agree that one is usually better at keeping mustard off its shirt, but as a whole, we're only as fast as the slowest member.

[Luckybit]

I understand your feelings and constraints. The business and political world move a lot slower than science and technology. The only thing I advocate is that the business and political world do not interfere with scientific or technological progress.

To be totally fair, that's a pipe dream pure and simple. Science and technology don't advance without the business/political side. I'll agree that one is usually better at keeping mustard off its shirt, but as a whole, we're only as fast as the slowest member.

TCP/IP,WWW, Bittorrent, Bitcoin, Email, Linux, none of these technologies had any business or political side when they were created.

They were created and then after the fact the businesses were built around them. Tor was not created for any specific business or political reason, it was created for military purposes. The Internet was created for military purposes.

We could make a case that Bitcoin and Bittorrent were created with political use cases in mind, but the idea to create cryptocurrencies existed long before Bitcoin. Ask anyone who studies these topics and they will tell you that Bitcoin was not the first attempt, Bitcoin was just the first attempt to get it right and do it in a way which couldn't be shut down.

If you mean political as in politicians deciding whether or not a technology should exist? That isn't how the world works. A lot of technologies exist that politicians never thought possible. Politicians didn't think P2P would become popular. The MPAA/RIAA who were the most politically connected businesses at the time didn't know what to do about Napster, Gnutella, or Bittorrent. Pirate Bay was a technology before there was a Pirate Party.

Bitcoin is a technology which can make people's lives better. Once people figure out how it can make their lives better businesses form around it and then political stances change. The same would happen with a decentralized exchange protocol, at first people wouldn't know what to think of it but then businesses would form around it and pressure would grow to legitimize it. Sooner or later it would be regulated in some fashion, but the point is not to let regulation get in the way of progress. If 500,000 lives will be at risk because of regulation preventing a technology which could save 500,000 lives then at what point do you figure out that the regulation is putting the lives at risk more than the technology?

If regulation for instance is completely unworkable, how long do you think it will be before the regulation hurts the economy? The case we have here is a situation where politics and regulation are hurting the economy, negatively impacting thousands of lives, and because of the slow rate of politics in DC (not talking about politics on Bitcointalk or elsewhere), the ignorance of DC on how important a particular technology is could cause hundreds or perhaps thousands to go out of business, result in losses of jobs, and then politicians in DC will complain about high unemployment rates, expensive social benefit programs, and big government.

You cannot have it both ways. Either you believe in science and technology or you believe in politics. Business is neutral and will use any tool, but many politicians are luddites who don't even know how to make sense of what is coming. They are too busy fighting over the budget to pass a law to make Bitcoin exchanges fully legal.

[N_S]

TCP/IP, Bittorrent, Bitcoin, Email, Linux, none of these technologies had any business or political side when they were created.
They were created and then after the fact the businesses were built around them. Tor was not created for any specific business or political reason, it was created for military purposes. The Internet was created for military purposes.

We could day Bitcoin and Bittorrent were created with political use cases in mind, but the idea to create cryptocurrencies existed long before Bitcoin. Ask anyone who studies these topics and they will tell you that Bitcoin was not the first attempt, Bitcoin was just the first attempt to get it right and do it in a way which couldn't be shut down.

If you mean political as in politicians deciding whether or not a technology should exist? That isn't how the world works. A lot of technologies exist that politicians never thought possible. Politicians didn't think P2P would become popular. The RIAA who were the most politically connected businesses at the time didn't know what to do about Napster, Gnutella, or Bittorrent. Pirate Bay was a technology before there was a Pirate Party.

Bitcoin is a technology which can make people's lives better. Once people figure out how it can make their lives better businesses form around it and then political stances change. The same would happen with a decentralized exchange protocol, at first people wouldn't know what to think of it but then businesses would form around it and pressure would grow to legitimize it. Sooner or later it would be regulated in some fashion, but the point is not to let regulation get in the way of progress. If 500,000 lives will be at risk because of regulation preventing a technology which could save 500,000 lives then at what point do you figure out that the regulation is putting the lives at risk more than the technology?

If regulation for instance is completely unworkable, how long do you think it will be before the regulation hurts the economy? The case we have here is a situation where politics and regulation are hurting the economy, negatively impacting thousands of lives, and because of the slow rate of politics in DC (not talking about politics on Bitcointalk or elsewhere), the ignorance of DC on how important a particular technology is could cause hundreds or perhaps thousands to go out of business, result in losses of jobs, and then politicians in DC will complain about high unemployment rates, expensive social programs, and big government.

You cannot have it both ways.

Just so we're clear, I agree with the spirit of your argument. I also believe the technologies you've mentioned have both a positive impact on humanity and are, for the most part, beyond the reach of overt political manipulation. My point is that the realm of business and politics (and really I'd like to divorce the two from being lumped together because it's inefficient, ignorant, outdated politics that are the issue here - business is both beneficial and necessary) always come into play. I don't think we really get away from that. At least not in the way society operates today.  

[Luckybit]

Just so we're clear, I agree with the spirit of your argument. I also believe the technologies you've mentioned have both a positive impact on humanity and are, for the most part, beyond the reach of overt political manipulation. My point is that the realm of business and politics (and really I'd like to divorce the two from being lumped together because it's inefficient, ignorant, outdated politics that are the issue here - business is both beneficial and necessary) always come into play. I don't think we really get away from that. At least not in the way society operates today.  

I think each person has to at some point make a decision on whether to choose to be politically loyal, or loyal to the community as a whole. For instance if you're in a position to make a decision which affects thousands of lives, for example thousands of college students are using file sharing programs to share movies and music, and there are businesses trying to have those students arrested, sued, taken to court, or some other similar policy, then at what point do you figure out that the enforcement policy is doing more harm to the economy and to peoples lives than the file sharing?

The politicians who set regulations often have no understanding of how important a technology is or the consequences. Then their own sons and daughters wind up using it and that is when they get a clue that it's a big thing. At this point almost anyone who has been on the Internet has at some point committed copyright infringement, so if the policy were to sue each person who did that even the whole Internet would be sued. Prior to that everyone who taped songs off the radio or on their VCR were breaking with some rule/law.

Some of these regulations are either technologically unenforceable, or socially unenforceable. I think a decentralized exchange is now inevitable for the same reason that a successor to Napster was inevitable. In the case of Napster you could have said that certain corporations had a reason to want to take it down because of copyright infringement. That same case cannot be made with Bitcoin stock markets, while it is a very disruptive technology the economy is in such a state that it would probably do more to stimulate the economy than the regulations would do.

And if it's about the economy, and about people, and not about legalism that only the best lawyers can make sense of, then the decentralized exchange (at least on the backend) is a good technological solution to improve the state of the economy.

Legalism:

In Chinese history, Legalism was a philosophy emphasizing strict obedience to the legal system. It was one of the main philosophic currents during the Warring States period. It was a utilitarian political philosophy that did not address higher questions like the purpose and nature of life.[1] The school's most famous proponent and contributor Han Fei believed that a ruler should use the following three tools to govern his subjects:
Fa (Chinese: 法, p fǎ, lit. "law"): The law code must be clearly written and made public. All people under the ruler were equal before the law. Laws should reward those who obey them and punish accordingly those who dare to break them. Thus it is guaranteed that actions taken are systematically predictable. In addition, the system of law, not the ruler, ran the state, a statement of rule of law. If the law is successfully enforced, even a weak ruler will be strong.
Shu (術, p shù, lit. "method"): Special tactics and "secrets" are to be employed by the ruler to make sure others don't take over control of the state. Especially important is that no one can fathom the ruler's motivations, and thus no one can know which behavior might help them get ahead, other than following the laws.
Shi (勢, p shì, lit."legitimacy"): It is the position of the ruler, not the ruler himself or herself, that holds the power. Therefore, analysis of the trends, the context, and the facts are essential for a real ruler.

Legalism and Individual Autonomy

The Legalist philosophers emphasized the primacy of the state over individual autonomy. The lone individual had no legitimate civil rights and any personal freedom had to strengthen the ruler. Han Fei, in particular, would be very caustic towards the concept of individuals rights. Fundamentally, the Legalists viewed the plebeian (common people of lower class) and their actions as evil and foolish.
However, Legalism allowed the common people to gain in rank if they performed well. For example, soldiers would gain in rank according to the number of heads the soldiers collected. A soldier may even gain noble rank. In contrast, some other states allowed only the well-connected to gain higher ranks. An example of this would be Lü Buwei, who originally a merchant, was able to become Chancellor of China, an occurrence that would never happen in the other six states. He played a major role in King Zhuangxiang of Qin's rise to power.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalism_(Chinese_philosophy)

It's true the IRS wants people to pay taxes, that is the one argument I can understand. I think the tax regulations could come later after the technology is built. If people are receiving dividends and cash out then it's taxed obviously, but I also know that if Bitcoin reaches critical mass then it will be taxed. That shouldn't be something technologists, programmers, or users worry about though. The IRS should figure out how to tax it after it's built, similar to how there are now Internet sales taxes but that didn't happen in 1995 prior to the critical mass.

[N_S]

I think each person has to at some point make a decision on whether to choose to be politically loyal, or loyal to the community as a whole. For instance if you're in a position to make a decision which affects thousands of lives, for example thousands of college students are using file sharing programs to share movies and music, and there are businesses trying to have those students arrested, sued, taken to court, or some other similar policy, then at what point do you figure out that the enforcement policy is doing more harm to the economy and to peoples lives than the file sharing?

The politicians who set regulations often have no understanding of how important a technology is or the consequences. Then their own sons and daughters wind up using it and that is when they get a clue that it's a big thing. At this point almost anyone who has been on the Internet has at some point committed copyright infringement, so if the policy were to sue each person who did that even the whole Internet would be sued. Prior to that everyone who taped songs off the radio or on their VCR were breaking with some rule/law.

....

Some of these regulations are either technologically unenforceable, or socially unenforceable. I think a decentralized exchange is now inevitable for the same reason that a successor to Napster was inevitable. In the case of Napster you could have said that certain corporations had a reason to want to take it down because of copyright infringement. That same case cannot be made with Bitcoin stock markets, while it is a very disruptive technology the economy is in such a state that it would probably do more to stimulate the economy than the regulations would do.

....

It's true the IRS wants people to pay taxes, that is the one argument I can understand. I think the tax regulations could come later after the technology is built. If people are receiving dividends and cash out then it's taxed obviously, but I also know that if Bitcoin reaches critical mass then it will be taxed. That shouldn't be something technologists, programmers, or users worry about though. The IRS should figure out how to tax it after it's built, similar to how there are now Internet sales taxes but that didn't happen in 1995 prior to the critical mass.

Yep. I agree - good questions/thoughts

[cryptocyprus]

The above are all great points, in relation to the regulators always being behind technology, that is true and the reason why we have provided the knowledgebase to the regulators on Bitcoin, to ensure they know what it is and how it works without having to look it up themselves.

Any business that is stepping into a potentially regulated area, must approach the regulators with a clear plan of their operations and detail exactly how they are going to do everything and literally say this is how/why we should/shouldn't be regulated. Then negotiations will occur to ensure that the regulators are happy with everything before granting any licenses that are required.

My point on things taking time in the real world was due to the fact that everything needs careful planning and the foundations need to be solid, before any visible progress can take place.

A failure to plan, is planning to fail.

[velacreations]

A failure to plan, is planning to fail.

I agree.  Do you have a system in place for direct shares?

[N_S]

I agree.  Do you have a system in place for direct shares?

The reasoning behind using a platform and not direct handling of shares for ourselves is down to the man hours required to operate on such a basis, we are operating in the real world, we have multiple aspects of the business that need constant oversight and attention, for myself to assign someone for the task is achievable however it comes at a cost to the business, we as a business do not specialize in the trading of shares or have a platform capable of doing so (at the moment) so the best solution is to operate using the platforms available to us. Do things need to change surrounding these platforms? YES they do, whilst we are investigating the matter in great detail we cannot provide a solution overnight.

[viruscs]

NEOBEE Bitfunder Migration Grace Period

In light of Bitfunder's recent announcements, we are enabling each Bitfunder shareholder ONE free migration to Havelock.

The following limitations apply:
1. You must initiate this migration request before November 1, 2013.
2. Due to a massive amount of requests, your migration might take anywhere from 1-14 days to process.
3. Beginning Nov. 1st, all transfers will go back to having the 1btc service fee.
4. We can make no guarantees that Bitfunder or Havelock will not impose additional limitations on trading in the future.

 How to Transfer Shares:
 1. Make the subject of your email: NEOBEE
 2. Push the amount of shares to the issuer account on Bitfunder: NeoBee
 3. Send an e-mail to tat.investments@gmail.com from your account email address registered with Havelock, and also note the address and quantity of shares within the email conent.
 4. Do NOT send your request more than once, and do NOT include other requests, questions or comments.

Transfers will be transfered in batches, and confirmations will ONLY be sent after each batch. Do NOT send emails requesting updates.

NOTE: TAT Investments is not responsible for any lost value, arbitrage, or trading opportunities due to delays in processing transfer requests. TAT Investments is not responsible for any limitations or discontinuations of services or access to liquidity imposed by the host exchanges.

I haven't received my BTCT.co shares yet. Have you completed migration from BTCT.co or is it still in progress?

No migrations from BTCT.co to Bitfunder have completed. Unfortunately this requires assistance of Ukyo, the Bitfunder operator. He has not been available and makes no claims as to when he will be. Anyone wishing to migrate to Bitfunder must either wait til he faciliates, or resubmit their migration request to Havelock details.

I want to cancel my transfer to btct and migrate to havelock.

[velacreations]

I agree.  Do you have a system in place for direct shares?

The reasoning behind using a platform and not direct handling of shares for ourselves is down to the man hours required to operate on such a basis, we are operating in the real world, we have multiple aspects of the business that need constant oversight and attention, for myself to assign someone for the task is achievable however it comes at a cost to the business, we as a business do not specialize in the trading of shares or have a platform capable of doing so (at the moment) so the best solution is to operate using the platforms available to us. Do things need to change surrounding these platforms? YES they do, whilst we are investigating the matter in great detail we cannot provide a solution overnight.

so, basically, they failed to plan.

[codegnome]

I agree.  Do you have a system in place for direct shares?

The reasoning behind using a platform and not direct handling of shares for ourselves is down to the man hours required to operate on such a basis, we are operating in the real world, we have multiple aspects of the business that need constant oversight and attention, for myself to assign someone for the task is achievable however it comes at a cost to the business, we as a business do not specialize in the trading of shares or have a platform capable of doing so (at the moment) so the best solution is to operate using the platforms available to us. Do things need to change surrounding these platforms? YES they do, whilst we are investigating the matter in great detail we cannot provide a solution overnight.

so, basically, they failed to plan.

Exactly, a buy back looks to be the only option if they do not wish to handle direct shares. For such a 'mature' BTC operation, they seem to have been blindsided by an obvious upcoming issue.

[felente]

I agree.  Do you have a system in place for direct shares?

The reasoning behind using a platform and not direct handling of shares for ourselves is down to the man hours required to operate on such a basis, we are operating in the real world, we have multiple aspects of the business that need constant oversight and attention, for myself to assign someone for the task is achievable however it comes at a cost to the business, we as a business do not specialize in the trading of shares or have a platform capable of doing so (at the moment) so the best solution is to operate using the platforms available to us. Do things need to change surrounding these platforms? YES they do, whilst we are investigating the matter in great detail we cannot provide a solution overnight.

so, basically, they failed to plan.

basically humans are animals too

...they seem to have been blindsided by an obvious upcoming issue.

yep. applies to other issuers and in general - everybody btw.

[minerpart]

...they seem to have been blindsided by an obvious upcoming issue.

yep. applies to other issuers and in general - everybody btw.

Not so. Ken at ACtM saw this coming and has created 2 sites to handle exchange of shares should BF go down. So why didn't these pros see this coming?

[N_S]

For such a 'mature' BTC operation, they seem to have been blindsided by an obvious upcoming issue.

So why didn't these pros see this coming?

I personally find this labeling interesting.

[felente]

Not so. Ken at ACtM saw this coming and has created 2 sites to handle exchange of shares should BF go down. So why didn't these pros see this coming?

um. did not knew about Ken's solution. wise move indeed.

despite this Ken is hit with all that clutter too, just has some solution already, more or less (i haven't checked yet his site).
besides it seems not very convenient to handle different securities on different places, as of "investors view".

and nobody is perfect, right? Ken has his own disadvantages, exactly as everybody else.
some have right now, some later (and some in the past)

[enderbender]

i know this is hard for some of you turds but dont be daft

theres no planning needed for direct shares - they just convert your data into a spreadsheet and\or collect more info. thats it

stop insulting people and acting like children

and now you wanna call Ken a genius? hilarious