[HAVELOCK] PETAMINE - 1,150 TH/S HASH RATE (1GH/S per Unit)

[crino]

[Stego]

What annoy me the most is that a few people were aware of this strategy before everyone and they had the opportunity to make a move before the public announcement.
This is unfair.

[EdoBcn]

What annoy me the most is that a few people were aware of this strategy before everyone and they had the opportunity to make a move before the public announcement.
This is unfair.

+1

[NotLambchop]

For anyone missing brain cells, which is apparently a large number of people on this thread:
-VIRTUAL SHARES ARE DEREGULATED, EXTRALEGAL SECURITIES, NOT SUBJECT TO RULES GOVERNING TRADITIONAL INVESTMENT.
...

Cap lock = TRUTH.
Virtual shares have little in common with IRL securities.  But we are forever indebted to those fooled by these recreational simulacra--without believers, who'd buy our ersatz sharez?

[_biO_]

We would like to inform you that a vote was cast for every change made by cryptx since they have been listed on Havelock. The votes were cast by unit holders that collectively own more than 60% of the Fund. If you did not get to vote on changes and you personally own over 5% of the Fund please contact us.  Cryptx did not need to bring the vote to a public one when the majority of the unit holders of the Fund voted for those changes.  So even if a public vote has taken place the same result would have been voted on.


So if you currently own more than 5% of the Fund and you were not contacted to cast a vote for a change please PM or email us at Funds@havelockinvestments.com

There was no breach of contract, all decisions were made by majority shareholders that were monitored by us prior to public release of decisions.

To take the vote public and get the same result would have been a waste of time and cause more confusion.

We believe that PETA is on the right track and has made the right choices to keep the company viable over the past year.  If you do not agree with the decisions made by PETA we are always looking for great companies to list their Fund on Havelock apply today!

Havelock Investments

If you're doing a "private" vote, inform everyone at once when it's happening and about what it is. Then see if it results in >50% of *all* votes (for simplicity's sake). If theres a concensus, go ahead with it. If not, include the "small" unit holders in the vote. Also, publish the vote results.

[NotLambchop]

Good news, everyone!  I can justify you not being asked to vote with your voting shares thusly:

Investopedia explains 'Class B Shares'

For example, one Class A share may be accompanied by five voting rights, while one Class B share may be accompanied by only one right to vote, or vice versa. A detailed description of a company's different classes of stock is [err... might be--ED] included in the company's bylaws and charter.

See?  All shares have voting rights, but some have more voting rights than others.

[EdoBcn]

-This investment is making excellent returns. If you don't want it, sell it. Many people such as myself would be happy to buy.

+1

8000 ipo shares available. serve yourself.

[crino]

-This investment is making excellent returns. If you don't want it, sell it. Many people such as myself would be happy to buy.

+1

8000 ipo shares available. serve yourself.

almost 9000... cryptx! buy them all!!!

[altoidmintz]

-This investment is making excellent returns. If you don't want it, sell it. Many people such as myself would be happy to buy.

+1

8000 ipo shares available. serve yourself.

almost 9000... cryptx! buy them all!!!

I think you misunderstand the point of selling. You would sell below the current price, attracting buyers. I've already bought my fill at current prices.

[millenium]

Big Shareholder receive insider info and vote, small receive nothing because they're too small to vote anyway... And during trading activity
Share without voting right, should receive much more dividends and before the share with voting right.

[Elvis Trout]

For anyone missing brain cells, which is apparently a large number of people on this thread:
-VIRTUAL SHARES ARE DEREGULATED, EXTRALEGAL SECURITIES, NOT SUBJECT TO RULES GOVERNING TRADITIONAL INVESTMENT.
...

Cap lock = TRUTH.
Virtual shares have little in common with IRL securities.  But we are forever indebted to those fooled by these recreational simulacra--without believers, who'd buy our ersatz sharez?

Correct, however contracts are still legally binding and the prospectus we read when purchasing the shares was our contract with Cryptx. The prospectus did not say 'shareholders with 5% will get a vote' it said that shareholders would get a vote.

[DarkSpoon2]

Nobody has comed forward to claim they own higher than 5% of the shares
Perhaps there are no-one who owns higher than 5% so nobody can step forward!!!
Since this exchange is not open for audit who can prove otherwise. Too conveniente.
My wife is out of shower but there is still a very Fishy smell going here.

Good news, everyone!  I can justify you not being asked to vote with your voting shares thusly:

Investopedia explains 'Class B Shares'

For example, one Class A share may be accompanied by five voting rights, while one Class B share may be accompanied by only one right to vote, or vice versa. A detailed description of a company's different classes of stock is [err... might be--ED] included in the company's bylaws and charter.

See?  All shares have voting rights, but some have more voting rights than others.

http://s18.postimg.org/urgq03661/Capture.jpg

@Lamb shop We need the strong minds like you involved in independent inquiry into this matter
A hercule poirot of the Bitcoin securities industrie, if you will.

Who will take charge of this matters?.
Perhaps we can make a fundraiser for Roger Ver to make a hostage tape assurance of havelocks solvency from Panamanian base
I will pitch in 0,13 BTC for the trip. Confirmation from @aantonop would be the icing on the cake to let us investors sleep soundly at night.

[oma5]

For anyone missing brain cells, which is apparently a large number of people on this thread:
-VIRTUAL SHARES ARE DEREGULATED, EXTRALEGAL SECURITIES, NOT SUBJECT TO RULES GOVERNING TRADITIONAL INVESTMENT.
...

Cap lock = TRUTH.
Virtual shares have little in common with IRL securities.  But we are forever indebted to those fooled by these recreational simulacra--without believers, who'd buy our ersatz sharez?

Correct, however contracts are still legally binding and the prospectus we read when purchasing the shares was our contract with Cryptx. The prospectus did not say 'shareholders with 5% will get a vote' it said that shareholders would get a vote.

True. So, to mitigate risk, pull your capital out and just leave your gains invested. That way if it all goes to zero, you will not have lost anything... Unless y'all want to take this to the next level... Good luck!

[stompysteve]

Nobody has comed forward to claim they own higher than 5% of the shares
Perhaps there are no-one who owns higher than 5% so nobody can step forward!!!
Since this exchange is not open for audit who can prove otherwise. Too conveniente.
My wife is out of shower but there is still a very Fishy smell going here.

Good news, everyone!  I can justify you not being asked to vote with your voting shares thusly:

Investopedia explains 'Class B Shares'

For example, one Class A share may be accompanied by five voting rights, while one Class B share may be accompanied by only one right to vote, or vice versa. A detailed description of a company's different classes of stock is [err... might be--ED] included in the company's bylaws and charter.

See?  All shares have voting rights, but some have more voting rights than others.

@Lamb shop We need the strong minds like you involved in independent inquiry into this matter
A hercule poirot of the Bitcoin securities industrie, if you will.

Who will take charge of this matters?.
Perhaps we can make a fundraiser for Roger Ver to make a hostage tape assurance of havelocks solvency from Panamamian base
I will pitch in 0,13 BTC for the trip. Confirmation from @aantonop would be the icing on the cake to let us investors sleep soundly at night.

new troll accounts being made I see 

[DarkSpoon2]

Inspired by having just finished a marathon session of Columbo - The Complete First Season
and few glasses of Stolichnaya I came up with a genius solution to benefit all shareholders

credit to a deflated member of frycats fan club for original idea.
We stick together in these tough times because it's what makes us strong

Since a boardmember requires 5000 shares and it is stated nowhere
that a boardmember is required to be a natural person I suggest
that minority shareholders with sufficient stake agree to pool
their shares into a groupentity.

There should be more then enough people that have 100 or more
direct shares to also get one seat together. I suggest that the
person to become boardmember shall be elected representitive
for this group by votes per direct shares per group member.

Your control of your shares shall not leave you, all that will be
required is a signed message to agree to form the group and
give boardmemberstatus to group by proxy.

Anyone interested can contact me.

Editing: Grammer and spelling

Second edit:  Maybe 50 shares is fine, too?
Also 1/5th of required shares are allready interested  

This is a great idea.  Message sent.

So in short - I am starting a Pass-thru on havelock.
together we can own 5% and put and end to this womanly games
Of course we canot retroactively verify these dubious claims
but we can proof in future whether we do or do not receive voting rights which we the people entitle to

simply transfer shares to the following address in havelock system: cryptx@peta-mine.co
the rest is handled automatically.

[NotLambchop]

For anyone missing brain cells, which is apparently a large number of people on this thread:
-VIRTUAL SHARES ARE DEREGULATED, EXTRALEGAL SECURITIES, NOT SUBJECT TO RULES GOVERNING TRADITIONAL INVESTMENT.
...

Cap lock = TRUTH.
Virtual shares have little in common with IRL securities.  But we are forever indebted to those fooled by these recreational simulacra--without believers, who'd buy our ersatz sharez?

Correct, however contracts are still legally binding and the prospectus we read when purchasing the shares was our contract with Cryptx. The prospectus did not say 'shareholders with 5% will get a vote' it said that shareholders would get a vote.

"Legally binding" is a meaningless phrase without a viable enforcement framework. [see: Regulation]

You're dealing with a BVBA (foregnese for LLC) selling unregistered securities to non-accredited investors through an unlicensed Panamanian exchange.  
Which country's laws are we planning to invoke?  Who'll foot the bill for teh multinational legal team?  
Details like that make legal recourse impractical if not outright lulzy.

[MPalokaj]

Food for thought:

Sure it would have been nice to get a vote, but with a unanimous 60% vote, would it matter?
What does attacking havelock gain you?
What does attacking cryptx gain you?

How about these:

Has cryptx exceeded expectation time and time again?
Does cryptx keep pre-financing things from their own money?
Have you received dividends consistently?

How about some introspection:

What can you do to make Peta more awesome?
What would happen if you would divert your energy to promoting this IPO than that criticising it?
Would you as an entrepreneur like to give daily updates to a crowd of paranoid forum users?

TL;DR

It would be nice if shareholders would stop trying to bring down the company they invested in and try to help build it up.

[NotLambchop]

@MPalokaj:  You're the guy who got on the scene and "liquidated" COG, amirite?

[runam0k]

Food for thought:

Sure it would have been nice to get a vote, but with a unanimous 60% vote, would it matter?
What does attacking havelock gain you?
What does attacking cryptx gain you?

How about these:

Has cryptx exceeded expectation time and time again?
Does cryptx keep pre-financing things from their own money?
Have you received dividends consistently?

How about some introspection:

What can you do to make Peta more awesome?
What would happen if you would divert your energy to promoting this IPO than that criticising it?
Would you as an entrepreneur like to give daily updates to a crowd of paranoid forum users?

TL;DR

It would be nice if shareholders would stop trying to bring down the company they invested in and try to help build it up.

People are pissed because an unspecified number of large shareholders got to consider and vote on something kept secret from the other shareholders (and trade shares based on the insider information provided to them).

[MPalokaj]

@MPalokaj:  You're the guy who got on the scene and "liquidated" COG, amirite?

I'm the one who oversaw a controlled demolition. I didn't make the decision and simply tried to make the best of the situation. Naturally some individuals do their best to act out their frustrations on me, I understand that.

The simple fact is that if the project owner would have done communication it would have turned into a mess that would left everyone in a worse situation. There was no saving that project, only making the end as painless as possible.

If you want to discuss details I'm happy to answer any questions over PM. The Peta thread is not the right location to discuss other projects.