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

[bitcoin.newsfeed]

This must have been already asked, but will the remaining IPVO 0.003 shares remain for sale until they are sold out, or will the remaining unsold shares be pulled at some point?

They will be available until they are sold out, you can find that info somewhere in this thread.

[hammurabi]

If you are a shareholder and I solve this "if" there is a positive impact on Neo & Bee because of it, which translates as profits thus dividends. Do we do a special calculation on your dividends excluding these theoretical profits?

maybe just a calculation of the direct profit/dividends potential versus the risk as a result of NeoBee being involved.  If there is to be a profit from this situation, we'd like to know about it.

Maybe I'm not being clear enough, so I'll ask again, what are the possible positive impacts and/or profits from this for NB shareholders?

When truth about BF comes out number of customers willing to entrust their savings with yet another entity will be limited.
BF was trying to be such an entity. And BitFunder already looked good by the design:

- No coin were stored in the exchange thus preventing malicious party from stealing it
- Assets were publicly visible thus preventing from fraud or manipulation from within.

Unfortunately, this good design didn't prevent the failure because master Ukyo failed himself.
He didn't bother to warn his customers (from whom he used to collect massive fees for his awesome job!) about possible problems with his enterprise while being well aware of them. Furthermore the operator lied to us and made it look like a technical glitch. Many technical well known persons backed his lies as possible explanation to the problem with bitcoind daemon. So he was able to collect even more coin from inbound transfers just to send them out as so called "manual withdraws". This action caused more people to be affected by his dark magic.

So the design of BitFunder allowed me in the end to... let's check:
- have access to my coin in case of BF failure.... Naaah, I have no access to any part of my coin and the coin is gone
- have access to my assets..... Naaaaah, I have no access to any part of my assets. Furthermore my dividend is still being sent to Master Ukyo because he is owner of my shares and apparently he needs more coin, I might be guessing..


This drama proves us, once again, that the only coin safe is the coin stored in your personal wallet kept away from any bankers or safekeepers.
This story proves that designs doesn't prevent malicious operators from stealing from you.
This accident proves that trustworthy operator can turn bad and he won't tell you a thing about problems causing more damage to users


So I guess helping BitFunder out will prevent headlines like "money from supposed to be safe major bitcoin exchange lost forever" from hitting the news in time when NeoBee will be promoting itself as safe place to store bitcoins.

Not to mention that if there is any link between Ukyo and NeoBee it will be exploited over and over by journalists.

[cryptocyprus]

I am guessing you are an AsicMiner shareholder, Ukyo isnt receiving those dividends as has been stated in the relevant thread.

Your point about the media etc, is great until you read recent articles in the Cypriot media about inputs.io.....

We will have the Bitcoin held on our servers insured, so yes we are different to everything that has been before us.

[MilkyLep]

We will have the Bitcoin held on our servers insured, so yes we are different to everything that has been before us.

Say what.

Why didn't I panic buy more shares around .0017?

[dexX7]

How many shares are (really) left? When will TAT open the floodgates and enable transfers from direct to HL?

Cypres, the Bitcoin hub, with Neo as infrastructure provider. I like it.


Edit:

I see that there are now some useful stats on lmb-holdings.com:

Currently you have 0 Shares and there are 2769815* of Shares available, out of which 197578 are locked.

*2769815 x 0.003 BTC = 8309.445 BTC

And according to the public ledger there are 32607 direct shares.

[bittymitty]

Does Danny Brewster have what it takes to resolve the weex issues?  Or does Cryptocyprus need to step up to right wrongs, stamp out fraud and defeat the evil fiat banksters?

[GreenBits]

did you draw that? thats great!

[lewicki]

...stamp out fraud...

Nice drawing 

[bittymitty]

I wish I could draw like that. This was commissioned for BTC from a friend of mine.  Cartoon strip to follow.

[MilkyLep]

That is hilarious, artistic and argumentative simultaneously.

I love it.

[Stelios]

http://www.sigmalive.com/news/local/82307 (in Greek)

Conference (under the Uni of Nicosia and the Cyprus Stock Exchange) with title "Entering the digital currency era".

Things seem to be growing really fast in Cyprus .

S.

[spinoff]

Since the thread is now calm, unlike last week, I'll bring this up again: I think that for first transfer Havelock->lmb-holdings there should be no fee.

I bought Neo shares on Havelock the first day of the IPO, and I don't see why I should pay an additional fee to have them on the official platform, which was not avaible back then. If the shares I bought on Havelock are "real", then why do I have to pay a fee for having them validated by lmb-holdings?

It would seem reasonble to me that the lmb->Havelock has a fee, since exporting your shares on a non-official platform with more liquidity is indeed a service TAT is offering, but not the other way around. Instead it's exactly the opposite! I would like to hear your (TAT's and Danny's) reasoning on this

[Stelios]

Since the thread is now calm, unlike last week, I'll bring this up again: I think that for first transfer Havelock->lmb-holdings there should be no fee.

I bought Neo shares on Havelock the first day of the IPO, and I don't see why I should pay an additional fee to have them on the official platform, which was not avaible back then. If the shares I bought on Havelock are "real", then why do I have to pay a fee for having them validated by lmb-holdings?

It would seem reasonble to me that the lmb->Havelock has a fee, since exporting your shares on a non-official platform with more liquidity is indeed a service TAT is offering, but not the other way around. Instead it's exactly the opposite! I would like to hear your (TAT's and Danny's) reasoning on this

I fully agree with that.

[well.attenuated]

Since the thread is now calm, unlike last week, I'll bring this up again: I think that for first transfer Havelock->lmb-holdings there should be no fee.

I bought Neo shares on Havelock the first day of the IPO, and I don't see why I should pay an additional fee to have them on the official platform, which was not avaible back then. If the shares I bought on Havelock are "real", then why do I have to pay a fee for having them validated by lmb-holdings?

It would seem reasonble to me that the lmb->Havelock has a fee, since exporting your shares on a non-official platform with more liquidity is indeed a service TAT is offering, but not the other way around. Instead it's exactly the opposite! I would like to hear your (TAT's and Danny's) reasoning on this

I agree as well

[NEO-PR]

Since the thread is now calm, unlike last week, I'll bring this up again: I think that for first transfer Havelock->lmb-holdings there should be no fee.

I bought Neo shares on Havelock the first day of the IPO, and I don't see why I should pay an additional fee to have them on the official platform, which was not avaible back then. If the shares I bought on Havelock are "real", then why do I have to pay a fee for having them validated by lmb-holdings?

It would seem reasonble to me that the lmb->Havelock has a fee, since exporting your shares on a non-official platform with more liquidity is indeed a service TAT is offering, but not the other way around. Instead it's exactly the opposite! I would like to hear your (TAT's and Danny's) reasoning on this

1. When you bought shares on Havelock, you bought passthrough shares. Every right that you assumed when you bought those shares remains. There was never an implication of converting, migrating, or managing your shares in any way unmentioned in the prospectus.

2. There is cost, time, and liability involved with facilitating the management of your shares. There are monthly fees to even exist on Havelock at all. 

3. Havelock shareholder records are backed up to multiple parties twice daily. No shareholder "needs" to move to direct shares. It is an optional service, and therefore, one with a fee.

4. People who buy new shares directly from Neo at original price are able to move those new shares to Havelock with no fee required. The reasoning here, again, is that we don't want to force anyone to pay a fee. This service still has the same internal costs to manage, but since everyone needs to sell shares eventually, and being that Havelock is currently the only place to do so, we understand charging a fee in that case would be unfair.

5. The fees also serve as "friction" to prevent people from abusing the service and to curb overwhelming customer service needs. People should only really be moving shares when they want to sell them, or if they feel safer storing them with Neo.

6. With security being a priority, manual oversight is currently required for every single transfer. Over time, we may automate aspects and add features and conveniences for shareholders.

[spinoff]

1. When you bought shares on Havelock, you bought passthrough shares. Every right that you assumed when you bought those shares remains. There was never an implication of converting, migrating, or managing your shares in any way unmentioned in the prospectus.

There was a lot of talk like "we will be creating our exchange or move to colored coins". True no one said it would be free, but neither that it would have a cost, and it seemed reasonable to assume the first.

Also, it's the first time I hear talking about passthrough shares; IIRC it was mentioned here in the past that Havelock and Bitfunder shares were not passthroughs, but "as real as you could get"

2. There is cost, time, and liability involved with facilitating the management of your shares. There are monthly fees to even exist on Havelock at all.  

How has that anything to do with transfer fees? That would be an argument to justify having a percentage of dividends cut out, but not for transfering OUT of Havelock, thus if anything reducing those costs you mention for you.

3. Havelock shareholder records are backed up to multiple parties twice daily. No shareholder "needs" to move to direct shares. It is an optional service, and therefore, one with a fee.

I'm in for the long term, I don't care so much about liquidity and I don't want the counter party risk involved with Havelock. Of course I don't "need" direct shares but they would be very appreciated, since I thought that was what I bought.

5. The fees also serve as "friction" to prevent people from abusing the service and to curb overwhelming customer service needs. People should only really be moving shares when they want to sell them, or if they feel safer storing them with Neo.

Then do as I suggested: first time it's free, then there's a fee. So you have the friction AND you show appreciation to your early investors.


EDIT: my bad, I saw now that btct.co and havelock shares were allways mentioned as passthroughs, and bitfunder were the direct ones. What about people who bought IPVO (not traded) shares in the period when there was only Havelock? How were they supposed to buy direct shares?

[isimme]

Since the thread is now calm, unlike last week, I'll bring this up again: I think that for first transfer Havelock->lmb-holdings there should be no fee.

I bought Neo shares on Havelock the first day of the IPO, and I don't see why I should pay an additional fee to have them on the official platform, which was not avaible back then. If the shares I bought on Havelock are "real", then why do I have to pay a fee for having them validated by lmb-holdings?

It would seem reasonble to me that the lmb->Havelock has a fee, since exporting your shares on a non-official platform with more liquidity is indeed a service TAT is offering, but not the other way around. Instead it's exactly the opposite! I would like to hear your (TAT's and Danny's) reasoning on this

1. When you bought shares on Havelock, you bought passthrough shares. Every right that you assumed when you bought those shares remains. There was never an implication of converting, migrating, or managing your shares in any way unmentioned in the prospectus.

2. There is cost, time, and liability involved with facilitating the management of your shares. There are monthly fees to even exist on Havelock at all. 

3. Havelock shareholder records are backed up to multiple parties twice daily. No shareholder "needs" to move to direct shares. It is an optional service, and therefore, one with a fee.

4. People who buy new shares directly from Neo at original price are able to move those new shares to Havelock with no fee required. The reasoning here, again, is that we don't want to force anyone to pay a fee. This service still has the same internal costs to manage, but since everyone needs to sell shares eventually, and being that Havelock is currently the only place to do so, we understand charging a fee in that case would be unfair.

5. The fees also serve as "friction" to prevent people from abusing the service and to curb overwhelming customer service needs. People should only really be moving shares when they want to sell them, or if they feel safer storing them with Neo.

6. With security being a priority, manual oversight is currently required for every single transfer. Over time, we may automate aspects and add features and conveniences for shareholders.

@cryptocyprus Hi Danny can you verify that NEO-PR is legitimately connected to NEO and BEE? As well it has been asked multiple times but why do we have to pay a fee to transfer to direct shares on lmb-holdings? I have been a shareholder since the IPO and would have liked to have bought direct shares but they did not exist at the time. Please reconsider charging a fee to transfer to direct shares?

[NEO-PR]

UPDATE

Bitfunder provided the final shareholder list, along with contact email addresses.

All shareholders that are currently stranded on Bitfunder.com were sent an email containing instructions on how to claim your shares.

Thank you!

[WeexUser]

UPDATE

Bitfunder provided the final shareholder list, along with contact email addresses.

All shareholders that are currently stranded on Bitfunder.com were sent an email containing instructions on how to claim your shares.

Thank you!

We need a confirmation from cryptocyprus that this is indeed an official Neo&Bee account. (which seems unlikely since its 1am in Cyprus)

Edit: NEO-PR is confirmed to belong to ThickAsThieves. It makes sense then. Sorry for the confusion.

[bittymitty]

Did I just get scammed for my neobee shares from tat.investments@gmail.com?