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

[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?

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.

They are not accusations, they are facts!!! And the fact that you consider theam acusations, well... it speak for itself.
You say it was passed unanimously 60%-0%, but you couldn't know this in advance, and you agreed with this anyway (fact not accusation).
With this logic you can very well let only the biggest 60% shareholders from the first 60% biggest holders vote, and then the next biggest 60% and so on until it remains only 1 voter witch is the biggest share holder and the vote will pass or not pass with 100% - 0% and you can say the motion would passed anyway.
 
Again, I'm not acussing you, I'm just pointing to the facts you did, that is why I quote you. If I say anything that is not true please point to that! You pretend that you could have known in advance the outcome of the vote to claim that I'm making "accusations"?



-edit-
It doesn't matter that the market was open for several days prior to this offering. You can't just breach the terms of a contract and say "If you are not happy with it you can sell"
-edit-

[1713975473]

1713975473

[1713975473]

1713975473

[1713975473]

1713975473

[1713975473]

1713975473

[DarkSpoon2]

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.

Where is the evidences that these those who owne the more than 5% received this informations?. It is only your word so far!!
Supposedlly there are maximumme of 30 shareholder who see this informations!
Perhaps Nobody owns more than 5%? Could this be the convenient excuse to escape the 'ALL shares have the voting rights' clause!!

And all are looking at each other with shifty eyes -_- to see who are the ones who have 5% or more.  it cannot be themselfes so who can it be?. who can prove this?
What man can step forward to explain otherwise!!!

Why do we hear about this only this days cryptx or havelock were silent on this subject till now.

[jonsi]

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.

Where is the evidences that these those who owne the more than 5% received this informations?. It is only your word so far!!
Supposedlly there are maximumme of 30 shareholder who see this informations!
Perhaps Nobody owns more than 5%? Could this be the convenient excuse to escape the 'ALL shares have the voting rights' clause!!

And all are looking at each other with shifty eyes -_- to see who are the ones who have 5% or more.  it cannot be themselfes so who can it be?. who can prove this?
What man can step forward to explain otherwise!!!

Why do we hear about this only this days cryptx or havelock were silent on this subject till now.

And above all where in the contract was stated that only the shareholders that owns more than 5% have the right to vote?
You say that I'm making accusation but I'm just asking questions. If you have an answer please do share it, but don't say to me (and I quote) "enough". Is this your final atitude?

[karol]

Another very important question:
Why You inform about changes before only some shareholders some not?

I someone want to buy some shares of this PM me.

[Draino]

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.

Where is the evidences that these those who owne the more than 5% received this informations?. It is only your word so far!!
Supposedlly there are maximumme of 30 shareholder who see this informations!
Perhaps Nobody owns more than 5%? Could this be the convenient excuse to escape the 'ALL shares have the voting rights' clause!!

And all are looking at each other with shifty eyes -_- to see who are the ones who have 5% or more.  it cannot be themselfes so who can it be?. who can prove this?
What man can step forward to explain otherwise!!!

Why do we hear about this only this days cryptx or havelock were silent on this subject till now.

And above all where in the contract was stated that only the shareholders that owns more than 5% have the right to vote?
You say that I'm making accusation but I'm just asking questions. If you have an answer please do share it, but don't say to me (and I quote) "enough". Is this your final atitude?

ok, go ahead and vote.  you can even write it out on a peice of paper if you want.

[oma5]

I'm looking forward to reaching 5%! That would be one heck of a dividend income! 

[Aireun]

So there is apparently 9009 shares left (at present time to this post) to the second IPO @ 0.09750000 btc per share. With that in mind and being that it is (at present) the 28th of May... It is safe to say (unless big buyers start rolling in) that we are not going to fully sell this IPO and I would bet that we would not get below 8000 share left (2000 sold).

With all this said, what would be added to the pool if we do not sell this IPO? I take it we wont be reaching our 1500th/s? At Present we are hashing at 1.2ph/s (1h interval). However, I do understand that we will still be reaching our 15gh per share, but I'm hoping that we get the pool size up to keep up with the ever rising difficulty. Especially if we don't start receiving our dividends soon. Or would this really be a concern? Anyone have good knowledge about this?

[crino]

Cryptx, are you going to buy the IPO units remaining before the 31st?

[ujka]

With 12'000 shares sold in this (I)PO, PETA will hash at about 1'200TH/s, and we will have to invest about 900 btc more.
That means no dividends on 6.6. (300 btc is in reinvestment fund from last week, and I think 1200TH will mine another 600 in two weeks).
Dividends are then starting from 13.6.
I'm still not sure in what ratio ??

[IamNotSure]

Lol, this is ridiculous.

Big Shareholder receive insider info and vote, small receive nothing because they're too small to vote anyway...

I was going to invest... thanks for letting me know how things works under the hood ! Good luck selling the remaining shares

Havelock, aren't you supposed to be just the platform of exchange ? So you're a shareholder too ? You receive info about IPO beforehand ? Conflict of interest ?

[altoidmintz]

So there is apparently 9009 shares left (at present time to this post) to the second IPO @ 0.09750000 btc per share. With that in mind and being that it is (at present) the 28th of May... It is safe to say (unless big buyers start rolling in) that we are not going to fully sell this IPO and I would bet that we would not get below 8000 share left (2000 sold).

With all this said, what would be added to the pool if we do not sell this IPO? I take it we wont be reaching our 1500th/s? At Present we are hashing at 1.2ph/s (1h interval). However, I do understand that we will still be reaching our 15gh per share, but I'm hoping that we get the pool size up to keep up with the ever rising difficulty. Especially if we don't start receiving our dividends soon. Or would this really be a concern? Anyone have good knowledge about this?

The pool size = (present size) + (15 TH/s for each additional share sold). CryptX already made the purchase. They are privately mining with the unsold shares and simply transfer them over when sold.

Pool size is not a concern. Pool size does nothing to keep up with difficulty. The important part about keeping up with difficulty is the TH/s growth rate, which depends on reinvestment, not pool size.

Hope this helps.

[Aireun]

With 12'000 shares sold in this (I)PO, PETA will hash at about 1'200TH/s, and we will have to invest about 900 btc more.
That means no dividends on 6.6. (300 btc is in reinvestment fund from last week, and I think 1200TH will mine another 600 in two weeks).
Dividends are then starting from 13.6.
I'm still not sure in what ratio ??

Damn, if this ends up being such an extended delay till the 13th of June I wonder how much the difficulty factor will pick apart dividends? Hard to predict I'm sure, but I don't believe it'll be a friendly looking number compared to today's present dividend, but hopefully not to much of a downer.

So there is apparently 9009 shares left (at present time to this post) to the second IPO @ 0.09750000 btc per share. With that in mind and being that it is (at present) the 28th of May... It is safe to say (unless big buyers start rolling in) that we are not going to fully sell this IPO and I would bet that we would not get below 8000 share left (2000 sold).

With all this said, what would be added to the pool if we do not sell this IPO? I take it we wont be reaching our 1500th/s? At Present we are hashing at 1.2ph/s (1h interval). However, I do understand that we will still be reaching our 15gh per share, but I'm hoping that we get the pool size up to keep up with the ever rising difficulty. Especially if we don't start receiving our dividends soon. Or would this really be a concern? Anyone have good knowledge about this?

The pool size = (present size) + (15 TH/s for each additional share sold). CryptX already made the purchase. They are privately mining with the unsold shares and simply transfer them over when sold.

Pool size is not a concern. Pool size does nothing to keep up with difficulty. The important part about keeping up with difficulty is the TH/s growth rate, which depends on reinvestment, not pool size.

Hope this helps.

Much appreciate the knowledge, this helps me very much, as clarity on the mechanics is important on any investment.

[Elvis Trout]

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

Excellent! That's just what we needed to hear, thank you Havelock for clearing that up, perhaps some transparency and greater clarity in the prospectus would have avoided this but I am certainly satisfied now. It just seemed strange to all use lowly <5%ers that voting rights were mentioned but we never heard anything about it. Sorry for getting all antsy, and thanks again for responding.

[howardb]

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

Excellent! That's just what we needed to hear, thank you Havelock for clearing that up, perhaps some transparency and greater clarity in the prospectus would have avoided this but I am certainly satisfied now. It just seemed strange to all use lowly <5%ers that voting rights were mentioned but we never heard anything about it. Sorry for getting all antsy, and thanks again for responding.

Havelock, maybe thats how they role in Panama (and why you are based there), but in any developed economy you would be looking at jail time for conducting insider information and trading like that.

[EdoBcn]

Well, the prospect doesn't state that only shareholders >5% have voting power.
However, even if we live in 2014 and we have methods to cast votes and make them have the appropiate weight by number of shares owned, I must say that if the original message of the whole change was stating: "We asked shareholders >5% to vote and the result is: blablabla"
It could have been a different story.



(by the way, why is Havelock answering to Cryptx messages? Is Havelock a shareholder?)

 

[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

Excellent! That's just what we needed to hear, thank you Havelock for clearing that up, perhaps some transparency and greater clarity in the prospectus would have avoided this but I am certainly satisfied now. It just seemed strange to all use lowly <5%ers that voting rights were mentioned but we never heard anything about it. Sorry for getting all antsy, and thanks again for responding.

Havelock, maybe thats how they role in Panama (and why you are based there), but in any developed economy you would be looking at jail time for conducting insider information and trading like that.

G. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES, CIVIL LIABILITY AND ENFORCEMENT

Civil liability for any person found responsible for the loss or damage caused by the use of fraudulent or deceitful devices in connection with the sale or purchase of securities is established by the Law. Besides, insider trading, as well as the use of any fraudulent or deceitful act or market manipulation (i.e., wash sales) that may affect the purchase or sale of securities is prohibited.

A treble damage sanction is established for insider trading and the CNV is empowered to impose administrative fines for up to US$300,000.00 for violations of the Law-Decree.

As a very particular provision of the Law-Decree, a class action is recognized in favor of the CNV, which has standing to file complaints in its name to enforce the provisions of the new securities law. Any amounts recovered by the Commission through a class action shall be transferred to a trust19 which beneficiaries are the investors conforming the class.

The statute of limitations for civil remedies are up to three years.
(source: http://www.legalinfo-panama.com/english/securities_nutshell_04.htm)


So, maybe it's time to prove that the rest of 40% that didn't get informed about the changes matters.

[EdoBcn]

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

Excellent! That's just what we needed to hear, thank you Havelock for clearing that up, perhaps some transparency and greater clarity in the prospectus would have avoided this but I am certainly satisfied now. It just seemed strange to all use lowly <5%ers that voting rights were mentioned but we never heard anything about it. Sorry for getting all antsy, and thanks again for responding.

Havelock, maybe thats how they role in Panama (and why you are based there), but in any developed economy you would be looking at jail time for conducting insider information and trading like that.

G. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES, CIVIL LIABILITY AND ENFORCEMENT

Civil liability for any person found responsible for the loss or damage caused by the use of fraudulent or deceitful devices in connection with the sale or purchase of securities is established by the Law. Besides, insider trading, as well as the use of any fraudulent or deceitful act or market manipulation (i.e., wash sales) that may affect the purchase or sale of securities is prohibited.

A treble damage sanction is established for insider trading and the CNV is empowered to impose administrative fines for up to US$300,000.00 for violations of the Law-Decree.

As a very particular provision of the Law-Decree, a class action is recognized in favor of the CNV, which has standing to file complaints in its name to enforce the provisions of the new securities law. Any amounts recovered by the Commission through a class action shall be transferred to a trust19 which beneficiaries are the investors conforming the class.

The statute of limitations for civil remedies are up to three years.
(source: http://www.legalinfo-panama.com/english/securities_nutshell_04.htm)


So, maybe it's time to prove that the rest of 40% that didn't get informed about the changes matters.

+1

[altoidmintz]

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.
-In the real world INFORMATION TRADING HAPPENS ALL THE TIME, legal or not.
-There is no legal recourse in this investment. In short, if you invest you are trusting CryptX. SO IF YOU INVEST, TRUST CRYPTX.
-This investment is making excellent returns. If you don't want it, sell it. Many people such as myself would be happy to buy.

[EdoBcn]

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.
-In the real world INFORMATION TRADING HAPPENS ALL THE TIME, legal or not.
-There is no legal recourse in this investment. In short, if you invest you are trusting CryptX. SO IF YOU INVEST, TRUST CRYPTX.
-This investment is making excellent returns. If you don't want it, sell it. Many people such as myself would be happy to buy.

Hey, I'm one of the people missing few brain cells.
Want to buy 277 shares of scryptx? Make an offer and they are all yours (and I'm out and stop bothering this forum people who have ALL brain cells working).

PM me.
thanks

[jonsi]

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.
-In the real world INFORMATION TRADING HAPPENS ALL THE TIME, legal or not.
-There is no legal recourse in this investment. In short, if you invest you are trusting CryptX. SO IF YOU INVEST, TRUST CRYPTX.
-This investment is making excellent returns. If you don't want it, sell it. Many people such as myself would be happy to buy.

Sureeee, trust Danny, trust Mark, trust TradeF, trust Ukyo, trust... trust everyone and be a TRUE INVESTOR! God forbid you ask questions caz then you are "missing brain cells".