Quick question about listing on Havelock...

[DavidBAL]

I'm sure this is already written somewhere but wasn't able to find it... What is the process like and where do you begin if you wanted to get a security listed on Havelock? For example, if I owned a non Bitcoin business that generated several million in revenue, would it be feasible to an IPO through Havelock to help raise some additional capital? Seems like there are tons of mom and pop business out there that could offer stellar dividend... would also create a market for a legit BTC accounting firm.

Thanks!

[ThickAsThieves]

I'm sure this is already written somewhere but wasn't able to find it... What is the process like and where do you begin if you wanted to get a security listed on Havelock? For example, if I owned a non Bitcoin business that generated several million in revenue, would it be feasible to an IPO through Havelock to help raise some additional capital? Seems like there are tons of mom and pop business out there that could offer stellar dividend... would also create a market for a legit BTC accounting firm.

Thanks!

I am likely biased, but a better course of action would be to contact an investment bank to help with your efforts. There aren't many that are specifically in the bitcoin space, but they do provide unique experience and resources to the table.

I am of the belief that a business should not manage its own public listing. There are conflicts of interest and its a mismatch of responsibilities to expect a business to know how to properly manage its own profit-shares or funding.

Otherwise, I'll tell you that you can email Havelock directly and they would surely be happy to share their listing requirements.

Good luck!

[DavidBAL]

I'm sure this is already written somewhere but wasn't able to find it... What is the process like and where do you begin if you wanted to get a security listed on Havelock? For example, if I owned a non Bitcoin business that generated several million in revenue, would it be feasible to an IPO through Havelock to help raise some additional capital? Seems like there are tons of mom and pop business out there that could offer stellar dividend... would also create a market for a legit BTC accounting firm.

Thanks!

I am likely biased, but a better course of action would be to contact an investment bank to help with your efforts. There aren't many that are specifically in the bitcoin space, but they do provide unique experience and resources to the table.

I am of the belief that a business should not manage its own public listing. There are conflicts of interest and its a mismatch of responsibilities to expect a business to know how to properly manage its own profit-shares or funding.

Otherwise, I'll tell you that you can email Havelock directly and they would surely be happy to share their listing requirements.

Good luck!

Which/who are the most credible Bitcoin IB out there?

[ThickAsThieves]

I'm sure this is already written somewhere but wasn't able to find it... What is the process like and where do you begin if you wanted to get a security listed on Havelock? For example, if I owned a non Bitcoin business that generated several million in revenue, would it be feasible to an IPO through Havelock to help raise some additional capital? Seems like there are tons of mom and pop business out there that could offer stellar dividend... would also create a market for a legit BTC accounting firm.

Thanks!

I am likely biased, but a better course of action would be to contact an investment bank to help with your efforts. There aren't many that are specifically in the bitcoin space, but they do provide unique experience and resources to the table.

I am of the belief that a business should not manage its own public listing. There are conflicts of interest and its a mismatch of responsibilities to expect a business to know how to properly manage its own profit-shares or funding.

Otherwise, I'll tell you that you can email Havelock directly and they would surely be happy to share their listing requirements.

Good luck!

Which/who are the most credible Bitcoin IB out there?

I'd like to think that we are, TAT Investments.

Otherwise, some of the exchanges themselves act in that role. I just happen to also feel that exchange operators should not also be issuers on their own exchange, conflicts of interest and such.

[DrGregMulhauser]

I am of the belief that a business should not manage its own public listing. There are conflicts of interest and its a mismatch of responsibilities to expect a business to know how to properly manage its own profit-shares or funding.

I'm a little bit puzzled by this. You haven't just said "get help from folks who know about this stuff"; you've said "get help 'cause it would be unethical to do otherwise" (given those "conflicts of interest" you've alluded to)...

In the fiat world, the primary role of an investment bank in the IPO process is that of underwriter -- providing cash up front, establishing an initial market for the new shares, taking on some risk should they mis-judge the level of demand for shares, and of course making a killing from the underwriting spread.

They typically have no involvement in ongoing "management" of "profit-shares", and it's hard to see how their underwriting role would have much to do with eliminating conflicts of interest. On the contrary, underwriters are often viewed as bringing their own baked-in ethical conflicts to the table, handing flipping opportunities to other large investors while directly disadvantaging the company which is floating via deliberately sub-optimal pricing of its equity. (And so ethical arguments are born in favour of eliminating underwriters, pricing via Dutch auction or other alternatives -- although as Google showed so nicely, trying to achieve reasonable pricing is still no walk in the park...)

Can you say more about what it is that you envision creates conflicts of interest that underwriters are able to take away -- and how they manage the feat without introducing more of their own?

[ThickAsThieves]

I am of the belief that a business should not manage its own public listing. There are conflicts of interest and its a mismatch of responsibilities to expect a business to know how to properly manage its own profit-shares or funding.

I'm a little bit puzzled by this. You haven't just said "get help from folks who know about this stuff"; you've said "get help 'cause it would be unethical to do otherwise" (given those "conflicts of interest" you've alluded to)...

In the fiat world, the primary role of an investment bank in the IPO process is that of underwriter -- providing cash up front, establishing an initial market for the new shares, taking on some risk should they mis-judge the level of demand for shares, and of course making a killing from the underwriting spread.

They typically have no involvement in ongoing "management" of "profit-shares", and it's hard to see how their underwriting role would have much to do with eliminating conflicts of interest. On the contrary, underwriters are often viewed as bringing their own baked-in ethical conflicts to the table, handing flipping opportunities to other large investors while directly disadvantaging the company which is floating via deliberately sub-optimal pricing of its equity. (And so ethical arguments are born in favour of eliminating underwriters, pricing via Dutch auction or other alternatives -- although as Google showed so nicely, trying to achieve reasonable pricing is still no walk in the park...)

Can you say more about what it is that you envision creates conflicts of interest that underwriters are able to take away -- and how they manage the feat without introducing more of their own?

Are you familiar with ActiveMining/AMC/VMC's history. They are a good example.

What you get is a business being distracted with writing a poor prospectus, and setting up poor IPO plans. Then they break the IPO plans and become/create victims of their prospectus, etc. In this specific case there were also instances where the CEO provided arbitrage opportunities to select shareholders as an incidental service for personal benefit.

I understand that any party serving these roles would have opportunity to misbehave, but that's where experience and trust/reputation comes in. Many roles in business have situations that create conflicts of interest, or opportunity for malfeasance; this will always be true. But a business can function better if it can focus on performing its role as a business, rather than add another hat to its responsibilities.

[ffssixtynine]

Tat, that's just basic mismanagement. You can't use that as an example.

I obviously dealt with Ken directly and whilst I wish him all the best, my view on his business skills could not be written here because children may be reading. He is more of an ideas guy IMHO (setting up the eASIC deal was good, the handling and follow through... less so).

[DrGregMulhauser]

Are you familiar with ActiveMining/AMC/VMC's history. They are a good example.

What you get is a business being distracted with writing a poor prospectus, and setting up poor IPO plans. Then they break the IPO plans and become/create victims of their prospectus, etc. In this specific case there were also instances where the CEO provided arbitrage opportunities to select shareholders as an incidental service for personal benefit.

I understand that any party serving these roles would have opportunity to misbehave, but that's where experience and trust/reputation comes in. Many roles in business have situations that create conflicts of interest, or opportunity for malfeasance; this will always be true. But a business can function better if it can focus on performing its role as a business, rather than add another hat to its responsibilities.

I don't think anybody would deny that either incompetence or an outright intention to defraud can easily wind up harming would-be investors. But none of that provides any actual argument that introducing an underwriter would in any way reduce conflicts of interest (as distinct from increasing them) or make the process as a whole any more ethical.

Your original suggestion ("a business should not manage its own public listing...[t]here are conflicts of interest") appeared to be that it was somehow unethical to issue shares without an underwriter, and that using an underwriter made the whole thing better by avoiding conflicts of interest in the first place. That's a pretty hefty claim to make without argument.

That interpretation of your original suggestion -- which I might have just understood -- could benefit from an actual argument, as merely pointing to examples of incompetent or ill-intentioned issuers doesn't do the trick.

[ThickAsThieves]

Are you familiar with ActiveMining/AMC/VMC's history. They are a good example.

What you get is a business being distracted with writing a poor prospectus, and setting up poor IPO plans. Then they break the IPO plans and become/create victims of their prospectus, etc. In this specific case there were also instances where the CEO provided arbitrage opportunities to select shareholders as an incidental service for personal benefit.

I understand that any party serving these roles would have opportunity to misbehave, but that's where experience and trust/reputation comes in. Many roles in business have situations that create conflicts of interest, or opportunity for malfeasance; this will always be true. But a business can function better if it can focus on performing its role as a business, rather than add another hat to its responsibilities.

I don't think anybody would deny that either incompetence or an outright intention to defraud can easily wind up harming would-be investors. But none of that provides any actual argument that introducing an underwriter would in any way reduce conflicts of interest (as distinct from increasing them) or make the process as a whole any more ethical.

Your original suggestion ("a business should not manage its own public listing...[t]here are conflicts of interest") appeared to be that it was somehow unethical to issue shares without an underwriter, and that using an underwriter made the whole thing better by avoiding conflicts of interest in the first place. That's a pretty hefty claim to make without argument.

That interpretation of your original suggestion -- which I might have just understood -- could benefit from an actual argument, as merely pointing to examples of incompetent or ill-intentioned issuers doesn't do the trick.

My argument is quite simple. There are people with experience that can help, and it can be beneficial to seek out those people, rather than fumble through things on your own.

Sure, if you choose the wrong people, it can be just as bad or worse.

Do you think it is better for a business to handle its own listing, like AMC?

Do you think exchange operators should also issue securities on their own exchange?

[DrGregMulhauser]

Your original suggestion ("a business should not manage its own public listing...[t]here are conflicts of interest") appeared to be that it was somehow unethical to issue shares without an underwriter, and that using an underwriter made the whole thing better by avoiding conflicts of interest in the first place. That's a pretty hefty claim to make without argument.

My argument is quite simple. There are people with experience that can help, and it can be beneficial to seek out those people, rather than fumble through things on your own.

That's not an argument that it is somehow unethical to issue shares without an underwriter -- which was the claim you appeared to be making originally.

If you're only claiming that there are people with experience who can help, that has nothing to do with conflicts of interest or ethical issues, and it's quite a bit less controversial.

Do you think it is better for a business to handle its own listing, like AMC?

As for whether it's better for an issuer to handle their own listing, "like AMC", that's akin to asking whether it's better to set up your corporate headquarters in Houston, Texas, "like Enron". Citing an example of poor corporate management and linking it to a particular geographical location carries no more logical weight than linking it to a listing decision.

Do you think exchange operators should also issue securities on their own exchange?

As for exchange operators issuing securities on their own exchange, quite a few people seem happy with, say, The Nasdaq OMX Group, Inc., whereas quite a few people find it loopy when those running Bitcoin-denominated exchanges (or tightly associated with them) issue securities on those exchanges. The difference suggests there's something more at work in how people are viewing the two situations than the simple question of whether operators should issue securities on their own exchanges.

I suspect that the primary difference that matters on that particular question is people's awareness that ultimately, without identity, there can be no accountability. When someone wants to run an exchange but refuses to come clean about their own identity, people are right to be cautious, and people are right to want to enforce limits on what they can do, given their ultimately non-existent accountability.

There is a difference between genuine trustworthiness and simply not having screwed anyone over yet. The pseudonymity of Bitcoin-land makes it easy to be lulled into conflating the latter with the former, because we're routinely deprived of the kinds of additional information that would enable us to evaluate genuine trustworthiness and to distinguish it from its murkier proxy.

I think that people's caution about things like exchange operators listing securities on their own exchanges is a bit like a little alarm bell going off and reminding them about that fundamental lack of accountability and all the dangers that go along with it.