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

[MPalokaj]

Sorry for being a bit suspicious, but are there any actual pictures of the farm? Considering the snail speed of adding dozens of terrahashes weekly in previous months yesterdays addition of +600 THs sounds too good to be true...

In the past they needed to wait for new chips to arrive. The manufacturers were delaying the deployment. This time around the chips were in stock, not pre-ordered as before.

You may also monitor the address directly:
https://blockchain.info/address/1PETAmNrgdzx3FwzJPNuhx18JVKdGtwWt6

@Skuser, I rest my case. if you would read the prospectus you would see the pictures of the farm. You would have seen the same if  you opened their website: http://www.peta-mine.co/inside-the-petamine/

That and havelock's post above should put your suspicions to rest. On a general note, please read the prospectus (and havelock updates) so everything said on this forum can be put in perspective of all the information available. Knowledge soothes the nerves more than reading a thread filled with panic and half-information.

What you'll find based on the update history is that the CryptX team has always acted very professionally. They do not engage in debates often, and they shouldn't. Their job is to build an amazing company with a long term vision, not to argue with short-term investors.

Don't get me wrong, I have the same legitimate questions as everything else (like if the hardware was btc of fiat purchased) but I'm sure that they will figure things out as beneficially as possible. Even if the hardware was btc purchased they are probably working something out with the supplier, and if it was fiat paid they will probably wait to see if the btc price stays high until dividend day before posting happy messages.

They have continually favored radio silence until good news, rather than spend time on the forum posting status updates. They spend that time working on fixing any problems and acting to our benefit.

[1714991535]

1714991535

[1714991535]

1714991535

[oma5]

...and if I were them, I'd be a shareholder as well, in which case all of our interests would be in alignment.

Also, any shares not sold remain in the treasury and remain the property of the corporation (us!). So if only 77166 shares are sold, each share represents ownership of 1/77166'th of the company. If all shares are sold, each share would only be 1/100000'th of the company. The only reason for selling more shares is to get money for the operations of the company.

If any of the old hardware is sold, the money received goes into the corporation's bank account and not anyone else's pocket. From there, new equipment is purchased and/or debts are paid, and of course expenses.

Everything that CryptX does is "ours" - the shareholders.

So no worries.... unless they are fraudsters, which I don't believe they are, and that is why I remain a shareholder for the long haul.

Great work guys!

[howardb]

...and if I were them, I'd be a shareholder as well, in which case all of our interests would be in alignment.

Also, any shares not sold remain in the treasury and remain the property of the corporation (us!). So if only 77166 shares are sold, each share represents ownership of 1/77166'th of the company. If all shares are sold, each share would only be 1/100000'th of the company. The only reason for selling more shares is to get money for the operations of the company.

If any of the old hardware is sold, the money received goes into the corporation's bank account and not anyone else's pocket. From there, new equipment is purchased and/or debts are paid, and of course expenses.

Everything that CryptX does is "ours" - the shareholders.

So no worries.... unless they are fraudsters, which I don't believe they are, and that is why I remain a shareholder for the long haul.

Great work guys!

I think you need to re-evaluate your understanding of this project. We are NOT shareholders of Cryptx we are shareholders of a finance deal to a Cryptx project called PETA. We don't get to vote on anything, we have no particular rights other than to dividend from the project, and most certainly the statement that "Everything that CryptX does is 'ours' - the shareholders." is a gross misrepresentation of the true state of affairs.

[dhenson]

I think you need to re-evaluate your understanding of this project. We are NOT shareholders of Cryptx we are shareholders of a finance deal to a Cryptx project called PETA. We don't get to vote on anything, we have no particular rights other than to dividend from the project, and most certainly the statement that "Everything that CryptX does is 'ours' - the shareholders." is a gross misrepresentation of the true state of affairs.

That isn't accurate either.  Under the original prospectus, I purchased voting shares.

https://btct.co/security/PETA-MINE

CryptX will pay weekly dividends to shareholders amounting to a percentage share of ownership in the PETA-MINE. CryptX will not change the direction or goal of the PETA-MINE without shareholder votes as per the statutes of BTC-TC.

also

While the reinvestment percentage is subject to change via shareholder vote, such action will only occur if the state of the Bitcoin mining space demands it.

This is the major sticking point for me.  This was undoubtedly a major change that should have been voted on.  I don't mind buying an asset where voting rights are not provided.  I do however have a problem with those voting rights being unilaterally removed.

edit...

As far as I'm concerned, until we vote to change it, the Dividend/Reinvestment ratio should still be 65%/35%.

[Anonymousg64]

id vote 40/60, over time that 40% dividend in actual BTC would grow to larger then what your 65% would get thanks to the reinvestments

[howardb]

I think you need to re-evaluate your understanding of this project. We are NOT shareholders of Cryptx we are shareholders of a finance deal to a Cryptx project called PETA. We don't get to vote on anything, we have no particular rights other than to dividend from the project, and most certainly the statement that "Everything that CryptX does is 'ours' - the shareholders." is a gross misrepresentation of the true state of affairs.

That isn't accurate either.  Under the original prospectus, I purchased voting shares.

https://btct.co/security/PETA-MINE

CryptX will pay weekly dividends to shareholders amounting to a percentage share of ownership in the PETA-MINE. CryptX will not change the direction or goal of the PETA-MINE without shareholder votes as per the statutes of BTC-TC.

also

While the reinvestment percentage is subject to change via shareholder vote, such action will only occur if the state of the Bitcoin mining space demands it.

This is the major sticking point for me.  This was undoubtedly a major change that should have been voted on.  I don't mind buying an asset where voting rights are not provided.  I do however have a problem with those voting rights being unilaterally removed.

edit...

As far as I'm concerned, until we vote to change it, the Dividend/Reinvestment ratio should still be 65%/35%.

You are of course technically right on the voting, but because these are virtual shares in a project not a corporation, managed in a juristiction well out of normal international law, then in practise we have no enforceable rights at all!! We are to all intents and purposes taking a leap of faith on the honesty of the real Cryptx shareholders.

In fact it would not be unreasonable to point out that the project has already taken several major changes in direction without any consultation of the shareholders, so please lets not kid ourselves we are in control!

Having said all that, i'm still in, because to date i've had no reason to doubt the integrity if Cryptx, but will be much much happier with them as project shareholders also, just to keep our interests aligned sufficiently to avoid conflict.

[oma5]

Even on the Havelock Exchange the original offer said: "All shares are entitled to an equal percentage of dividends and all shares sold in the IPO are considered voting shares."
They also said in their email to subscribers: "Announcing the upcoming public offering for PETA-MINE CryptX  (PETA)" which leads me to believe we invested in "PETA-MINE CryptX". PETA-MINE is the project, but the public offering was for "PETA-MINE CryptX".  It looks like CryptX is the shortened name for the original "PETA-MINE CryptX".
But if this is all wrong, what can we then vote on? May be all we own is the right to receive dividends but cannot control any aspect of the mining operation?
Yes, this is all confusing and perhaps an explanation is due from CryptX.
In the mean time, let them finish what they're doing. So far, neither Havelock nor CryptX have let us down. It all seems to be getting better and better.

[hephaist0s]

Even on the Havelock Exchange the original offer said: "All shares are entitled to an equal percentage of dividends and all shares sold in the IPO are considered voting shares."
They also said in their email to subscribers: "Announcing the upcoming public offering for PETA-MINE CryptX  (PETA)" which leads me to believe we invested in "PETA-MINE CryptX". PETA-MINE is the project, but the public offering was for "PETA-MINE CryptX".  It looks like CryptX is the shortened name for the original "PETA-MINE CryptX".
But if this is all wrong, what can we then vote on? May be all we own is the right to receive dividends but cannot control any aspect of the mining operation?
Yes, this is all confusing and perhaps an explanation is due from CryptX.
In the mean time, let them finish what they're doing. So far, neither Havelock nor CryptX have let us down. It all seems to be getting better and better.

I do think there is a disconnect between the idea of "voting shares" and how the project has actually been managed, and maybe that should be clarified. But frankly, although I love the idea of voting, I think the reality of opening every Peta-Mine decision up to discussion and a vote would be a disaster. There have been so many changes in the past 8 months, if we had stopped to discuss every one of them -- I just can't imagine that could even have been done. We can't even receive a surprise doubling in per-share hashrate without a lengthy, painful and baffling debate over whether that is good or bad.

At this point, I'm content knowing that cryptx does check in on this thread and does listen to posted concerns that, you know, make sense.

[oma5]

Even on the Havelock Exchange the original offer said: "All shares are entitled to an equal percentage of dividends and all shares sold in the IPO are considered voting shares."
They also said in their email to subscribers: "Announcing the upcoming public offering for PETA-MINE CryptX  (PETA)" which leads me to believe we invested in "PETA-MINE CryptX". PETA-MINE is the project, but the public offering was for "PETA-MINE CryptX".  It looks like CryptX is the shortened name for the original "PETA-MINE CryptX".
But if this is all wrong, what can we then vote on? May be all we own is the right to receive dividends but cannot control any aspect of the mining operation?
Yes, this is all confusing and perhaps an explanation is due from CryptX.
In the mean time, let them finish what they're doing. So far, neither Havelock nor CryptX have let us down. It all seems to be getting better and better.

I do think there is a disconnect between the idea of "voting shares" and how the project has actually been managed, and maybe that should be clarified. But frankly, although I love the idea of voting, I think the reality of opening every Peta-Mine decision up to discussion and a vote would be a disaster. There have been so many changes in the past 8 months, if we had stopped to discuss every one of them -- I just can't imagine that could even have been done. We can't even receive a surprise doubling in per-share hashrate without a lengthy, painful and baffling debate over whether that is good or bad.

At this point, I'm content knowing that cryptx does check in on this thread and does listen to posted concerns that, you know, make sense.

I agree. ...and like in the real world, control is in the hands of the directors that are voted in by the shareholders. But day to day decisions are not open to voting on. If shareholders are not happy then they can vote in new directors once a year. This deal may be set up differently. I think we are relying on blind faith here and just have to wait and see.

[_biO_]

Even on the Havelock Exchange the original offer said: "All shares are entitled to an equal percentage of dividends and all shares sold in the IPO are considered voting shares."
They also said in their email to subscribers: "Announcing the upcoming public offering for PETA-MINE CryptX  (PETA)" which leads me to believe we invested in "PETA-MINE CryptX". PETA-MINE is the project, but the public offering was for "PETA-MINE CryptX".  It looks like CryptX is the shortened name for the original "PETA-MINE CryptX".
But if this is all wrong, what can we then vote on? May be all we own is the right to receive dividends but cannot control any aspect of the mining operation?
Yes, this is all confusing and perhaps an explanation is due from CryptX.
In the mean time, let them finish what they're doing. So far, neither Havelock nor CryptX have let us down. It all seems to be getting better and better.

I do think there is a disconnect between the idea of "voting shares" and how the project has actually been managed, and maybe that should be clarified. But frankly, although I love the idea of voting, I think the reality of opening every Peta-Mine decision up to discussion and a vote would be a disaster. There have been so many changes in the past 8 months, if we had stopped to discuss every one of them -- I just can't imagine that could even have been done. We can't even receive a surprise doubling in per-share hashrate without a lengthy, painful and baffling debate over whether that is good or bad.

At this point, I'm content knowing that cryptx does check in on this thread and does listen to posted concerns that, you know, make sense.

I agree. ...and like in the real world, control is in the hands of the directors that are voted in by the shareholders. But day to day decisions are not open to voting on. If shareholders are not happy then they can vote in new directors once a year. This deal may be set up differently. I think we are relying on blind faith here and just have to wait and see.

(As if we could vote-in a new director at any point...)

[EdoBcn]

(as if a new ipo was a day-to-day decision)

[Elvis Trout]

Cryptx by not allowing a vote on the change in div/reinvestment and the new IPO you have breached the terms of our contract, please at least apologise for this and acknowledge fault or our trust in you will be broken. I know you have to react quickly to take advantage of opportunities in a dynamic marketplace but if you say you will give us a vote you should stick to that. I would also like to hear from a havelock representative on what their policies for dealing with share issuers who breach contracts is.

[havelock]

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

[Collider]

Cryptx by not allowing a vote on the change in div/reinvestment and the new IPO you have breached the terms of our contract, please at least apologise for this and acknowledge fault or our trust in you will be broken. I know you have to react quickly to take advantage of opportunities in a dynamic marketplace but if you say you will give us a vote you should stick to that. I would also like to hear from a havelock representative on what their policies for dealing with share issuers who breach contracts is.

Easy there, bury your pitchfork!

Cryptx has the right to sell remaining shares in a new IPO, as previously stated.

You also need to give CryptX some time to sort stuff out, you can´t demand that because 5 people feel like it, there should be a vote on every small decision every 5 minutes after people bring it up in a forum thread.

Just relax a little and wait until the end of the month. I am sure CryptX will then give a good update and address possible issues some of you seem to be having.

Edit: See, majority votes were held on decisive issues. Thank you havelock for responding, even to questions raised by a small number of people.

[michaelGedi]

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

very interesting, and clarifies a lot, thanks


EDIT: I'm not one to trawl for evidence, but didn't mike claim at some point that he held a massive amount of shares? or was it below 5%?

[NotLambchop]

...
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

Thank you Havelock.  Have you revised your position re. Mintspare yet?

We have been working with Mintspare closely during the past few months and they have a bright future ahead of them.

Or NeoBee?

(lol gone)

Or COG

(lol gone)

Or shares in your own exchange?

(trading @ < 1/2 IPO price)

Your vote of confidence ...doesn't inspire much confidence.

[jonsi]

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

Havelock fail again at simple math. You said that the votes were cast by unit holders that collectively own more than 60% of the Fund and even if a public vote has taken place the same result would have been voted on. How come you reach this conclusion? All by yourself or the whole team of "experts"?

If a motion have passed with 65% - 35% the rest of voters (the reminder of 40% witch didn't vote) could easily change the outcome. So yes, it's a breach of contract, but don't expect havelock to do anything, they are happy with the fees they are getting, despite the fact that people (their clients) loose money.

Now are you going to delete this post where I explain simple math, like you did in the scriptX thread?

[havelock]

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

Havelock fail again at simple math. You said that the votes were cast by unit holders that collectively own more than 60% of the Fund and even if a public vote has taken place the same result would have been voted on. How come you reach this conclusion? All by yourself or the whole team of "experts"?

If a motion have passed with 65% - 35% the rest of voters (the reminder of 40% witch didn't vote) could easily change the outcome. So yes, it's a breach of contract, but don't expect havelock to do anything, they are happy with the fees they are getting, despite the fact that people (their clients) loose money.

Now are you going to delete this post where I explain simple math, like you did in the scriptX thread?

It was passed unanimously 60%-0%.  But you knew that already since you voted, or did you? 

Enough with accusations. The market was open for several days prior to this offering. If you wanted to sell your units you had plenty of time as the price was risng. If you still want to sell PM us and we will try to find you a buyer.

[IamNotSure]

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.

...that's why "big shareholders" list should be published...

[karol]

Why 5%? it means that only 30 shareholders own more than 60%?

I means that big shareholders had more information and had inforamtion about changes before announcement!!!! So easly could manipulate!!!!