[HAVELOCK](SFI) Seedcoin Fund I

[Germican]

No it was your poorly made anti Havelock thread a couple months ago.

[NotLambchop]

No it was your poorly made anti Havelock thread a couple months ago.

Link?

[Swordsoffreedom]

Buy-back offer - November 4, 2014

Subsequent to a consultation period initiated by Seedco Management Limited on October 1st the results of which have been posted on Havelockinvestments.com, Seedco Management Limited has decided to proceed with a buy-back and unit to share conversion offer.

From the date of this post SF1 units will no longer be trading on Havelockinvestments.com.

As stated in the Seedcoin Fund disclosure document (the “Prospectus�), the Seedcoin Fund (“SF1�) is the trading name of Seedco Holdings Limited (“Seedco Holdings� or “the Company�) which, as described in the Prospectus, is “the issuer of the units... (and)… the custodian of the shares of the Bitcoin startups�.

According to the Prospectus (page 5) there is a clause titled “Buyback policy / Termination of operations policy� that explains the mechanism to buy-back the units of SF1 (“Units�) from unit holders. This clause states: “SF1 shall reserve the right to close the listing […] closure may be effected via a buyback of all outstanding shares. Pricing of the shares will be based on the 30-day weighted moving average of the unit prices on the exchange prior to closure.�

As of the date and time of the temporary interruption of trading of SF1 units on Havelockinvestments.com, or October 1st 12 noon EST, prior to the consultation poll, each SF1 unit was priced BTC 0.00015 per unit with a monthly high at BTC 0.00029894 and a monthly low at BTC 0.00005 in September. However, Seedco Management Limited has determined that the buy-back price shall be BTC 0.00045 per SF1 unit.

Subject to holding more than 2,000 SF1 Units at the time of this offer, you will be sent a message by email within 10 days of this post, with the details of Shares and the conditions for the exchange of Units to Shares. Should you elect to exchange your Units for Shares you will be required to submit identification documents in order to become a shareholder of Seedco Holdings Limited. SHL Shareholder shall hold the equivalent proportional ownership of the Company via Shares as held in SF1 via Units.

If you are not eligible to subscribe for the shares via a SF1 Unit for SHL share exchange, your Units will be bought back via Havelockinvestments.com.

Thank you for your support and thank you to Havelockinvestments.com for the opportunity to contribute to the SF1 startups and the Bitcoin ecosystem.

Thank you for investing with Havelock Investments!
https://www.havelockinvestments.com

[AcoinL.L.C]

So... They are paying people back .00045BTC when they charged them .001BTC for the share. Considering that they are a fund that kept everything in BTC, this is incredibly fraudulent, as there is no reason the value of the fund should have changed (other than investments in companies, however they haven't invested in many startups, leading to the obvious conclusion they are still retaining a significant amount of BTC on hand).

[Korbman]

So... They are paying people back .00045BTC when they charged them .001BTC for the share. Considering that they are a fund that kept everything in BTC, this is incredibly fraudulent, as there is no reason the value of the fund should have changed (other than investments in companies, however they haven't invested in many startups, leading to the obvious conclusion they are still retaining a significant amount of BTC on hand).

It's actually fairly ingenious for a scam.
Step 1) create a fund that does essentially nothing, but you've got a clause in there that you can buy back shares based on 30-60 (etc) day moving average, 2) pretend that you're actually doing something for a little bit, 3) cease all activity for a time greater than a multiple of 30-60 days, so that by that time most investors had dumped their coins and crashed the price, 4) magically come back and take advantage of the clause, using the IPO funds to buy back all the shares at the dirt cheap average price.

With an IPO raising BTC2,000, and a buyback of BTC900, that's not a bad haul for 11 months of doing nothing.

[gogxmagog]

Buy-back offer - November 4, 2014

Subsequent to a consultation period initiated by Seedco Management Limited on October 1st the results of which have been posted on Havelockinvestments.com, Seedco Management Limited has decided to proceed with a buy-back and unit to share conversion offer.

From the date of this post SF1 units will no longer be trading on Havelockinvestments.com.

As stated in the Seedcoin Fund disclosure document (the “Prospectus�), the Seedcoin Fund (“SF1�) is the trading name of Seedco Holdings Limited (“Seedco Holdings� or “the Company�) which, as described in the Prospectus, is “the issuer of the units... (and)… the custodian of the shares of the Bitcoin startups�.

According to the Prospectus (page 5) there is a clause titled “Buyback policy / Termination of operations policy� that explains the mechanism to buy-back the units of SF1 (“Units�) from unit holders. This clause states: “SF1 shall reserve the right to close the listing […] closure may be effected via a buyback of all outstanding shares. Pricing of the shares will be based on the 30-day weighted moving average of the unit prices on the exchange prior to closure.�

As of the date and time of the temporary interruption of trading of SF1 units on Havelockinvestments.com, or October 1st 12 noon EST, prior to the consultation poll, each SF1 unit was priced BTC 0.00015 per unit with a monthly high at BTC 0.00029894 and a monthly low at BTC 0.00005 in September. However, Seedco Management Limited has determined that the buy-back price shall be BTC 0.00045 per SF1 unit.

Subject to holding more than 2,000 SF1 Units at the time of this offer, you will be sent a message by email within 10 days of this post, with the details of Shares and the conditions for the exchange of Units to Shares. Should you elect to exchange your Units for Shares you will be required to submit identification documents in order to become a shareholder of Seedco Holdings Limited. SHL Shareholder shall hold the equivalent proportional ownership of the Company via Shares as held in SF1 via Units.

If you are not eligible to subscribe for the shares via a SF1 Unit for SHL share exchange, your Units will be bought back via Havelockinvestments.com.

Thank you for your support and thank you to Havelockinvestments.com for the opportunity to contribute to the SF1 startups and the Bitcoin ecosystem.

Thank you for investing with Havelock Investments!
https://www.havelockinvestments.com

does this mean you need 2001 shares to qualify for transfer, or just 2000 only?

[ThunderSheep]

It's actually fairly ingenious for a scam.
Step 1) create a fund that does essentially nothing, but you've got a clause in there that you can buy back shares based on 30-60 (etc) day moving average, 2) pretend that you're actually doing something for a little bit, 3) cease all activity for a time greater than a multiple of 30-60 days, so that by that time most investors had dumped their coins and crashed the price, 4) magically come back and take advantage of the clause, using the IPO funds to buy back all the shares at the dirt cheap average price.

With an IPO raising BTC2,000, and a buyback of BTC900, that's not a bad haul for 11 months of doing nothing.

I was thinking much the same thing but with the added step of gaining additional "good guy" points by pointing out that the 30 day average is more like 0.0002 and then graciously offering 0.00045 instead.

Note: I'm just using very rough numbers for illustration.  I can't be bothered to actually work out what the true average is.

[seedcoin]

does this mean you need 2001 shares to qualify for transfer, or just 2000 only?

2,000 units or more

[seedcoin]

It's actually fairly ingenious for a scam.
Step 1) create a fund that does essentially nothing, but you've got a clause in there that you can buy back shares based on 30-60 (etc) day moving average, 2) pretend that you're actually doing something for a little bit, 3) cease all activity for a time greater than a multiple of 30-60 days, so that by that time most investors had dumped their coins and crashed the price, 4) magically come back and take advantage of the clause, using the IPO funds to buy back all the shares at the dirt cheap average price.

With an IPO raising BTC2,000, and a buyback of BTC900, that's not a bad haul for 11 months of doing nothing.

I did not realize we had ceased all activity for a while... oh, sorry you mean we were pretending to do something and then, we ceased pretending we were doing something, which is even more ingenious than 'pretending we are actually doing something'... but all the while we were busy making investors "dump their coins and crash the price"... since we have magical powers no problem we can come back and take advantage of the pretending we were busy doing (apart from that time when we ceased doing that) and 'magically' buy back the units.

After all this non-activity I am anxious to take more days off being busy non-pretending.

If you think my answer does not make sense, please read again your initial statement, that should clarify it.

[mooncake]

Could you offer some possibilities why the price dropped from the initial offer price of 0.001BTC to 0.00015BTC, a whopping -85%? As an investor, it really pained my heart to see the price of such a good security dropping so much.

Are the major shareholders in any way related to Seedcoin? Were all the securities sold to Havelock investors for all 4 blocks? Were there any securities unsold to Havelock investors and later taken up by Seedcoin or entities related to Seedcoin?

[twentyseventy]

Could you offer some possibilities why the price dropped from the initial offer price of 0.001BTC to 0.00015BTC, a whopping -85%? As an investor, it really pained my heart to see the price of such a good security dropping so much.

Are the major shareholders in any way related to Seedcoin? Were all the securities sold to Havelock investors for all 4 blocks? Were there any securities unsold to Havelock investors and later taken up by Seedcoin or entities related to Seedcoin?

Not only 'should (SF1) be valued' BTC .001 - it should have been valued much more... I am glad you see it now, it is unfortunate you or other forward-looking, perspicacious investors or traders did not buy SF1 units during the months its price was sitting at BTC.00015 per unit or even lower. I am not sure I follow this argument 'however they haven't invested in many startups' when we have been clear we have invested in 6 startups and recent stories in the media have mentioned third party investments of Venture Capital firms of $15m or $20m in one bitcoin startup (for example).

Look, SeedCoin, you can pick one or the other. If you think that the value is far in excess of your buy-back price, then you're doing the unitholders a disservice.

[Germican]

Could you offer some possibilities why the price dropped from the initial offer price of 0.001BTC to 0.00015BTC, a whopping -85%? As an investor, it really pained my heart to see the price of such a good security dropping so much.

The price tanked due to the climate of bitcoin and bitcoin securities. From the very beginning this was a long term investment that you couldn't expect anything for at least a few years. But because bitcoin changed so much (ie new investments, the price dropping or new alts ect) people want to constantly move their bitcoins around to the next big thing. The issue is most investors are amateur investors and couldn't properly assess what they were investing in and are very susceptible to hype. This cause people to sink money in at ipo then try pulling it out but there simply wasn't enough buy support to allow for that. There were 2 million shares released but it was rate rare to ever even see 1000 share buy walls when the price was above 0.0005.

That said I completely agree the value is over 0.001 bitcoins per share as the companies are doing great. Plus the value when bitcoin was invested in these companies for equity was when the buying power of bitcoin was 600+ USD. So by today's standards not even factoring in the growth I'd feel the value of the shares would be closer to 0.002 bitcoins. Because of this I have been buying since ipo consistently.

Now I am quite happy to convert to a registered SHL holding however they have not indicated the qualifications required. Currently they have not indicated if US citizens are able to convert. So I'm hoping they can but won't know until those emails are sent out our Seedcoin clarifies on here.

If they don't allow US citizens to convert I won't be taking that lightly. I am completely unwilling to sell back at a major loss when the shares have much much higher value. I do understand why they are deciding to move it off Havelock and I agree with it I simply do not agree with the value they plan on buying back at. I think a full refund is the only acceptable buy back price but even that I personally wouldn't want to sell back at due to my valuation of the shares.

My only question right now is... Has the Seedcoin lawyer identified any thing that may make holders of 2000+ shares unable to convert to SHL.

[NotLambchop]

RIP

[seedcoin]

Could you offer some possibilities why the price dropped from the initial offer price of 0.001BTC to 0.00015BTC, a whopping -85%? As an investor, it really pained my heart to see the price of such a good security dropping so much.

I think a full refund is the only acceptable buy back price but even that I personally wouldn't want to sell back at due to my valuation of the shares.

Thank you for making comments worth reading. However you should realize that 'full refund' IMO is not the right wording here; no one is refunding anyone, this is a buy back process and although you and some of the investors and/or outsiders to this process may feel the pricing is low please consider that there is no obligation for anyone to 'refund' nor to buy any of these units at a higher price than the last seller's price previous to our first information re. to a potential buy back.
I do not think any investor on Havelockinvestments.com is asking any fund to 'refund' their units based on the original IPO price, this would seem a dangerous precedent and in disregard of basic fundamentals of the investment process. SF1 Funds have been raised (back in January) and invested, any other operation such as this buy back process is a completely separate process, made with privately raised funds which could have been used for any other operation.

[Germican]

Could you offer some possibilities why the price dropped from the initial offer price of 0.001BTC to 0.00015BTC, a whopping -85%? As an investor, it really pained my heart to see the price of such a good security dropping so much.

I think a full refund is the only acceptable buy back price but even that I personally wouldn't want to sell back at due to my valuation of the shares.

Thank you for making comments worth reading. However you should realize that 'full refund' IMO is not the right wording here; no one is refunding anyone, this is a buy back process and although you and some of the investors and/or outsiders to this process may feel the pricing is low please consider that there is no obligation for anyone to 'refund' nor to buy any of these units at a higher price than the last seller's price previous to our first information re. to a potential buy back.
I do not think any investor on Havelockinvestments.com is asking any fund to 'refund' their units based on the original IPO price, this would seem a dangerous precedent and in disregard of basic fundamentals of the investment process. SF1 Funds have been raised (back in January) and invested, any other operation such as this buy back process is a completely separate process, made with privately raised funds which could have been used for any other operation.

Well you have to understand from the communities perspective you provided the fund per the terms of the prospectus. A buy back while indicated in there required a liquidation, accusation or other major event affecting share holder structure then the fund may be closed. The only event I can see was poor performance of the pricing which did not affect shareholder structure. People bought in at 0.001 then just under a year later are being forced to be bought back at 0.00045 for no real reason. Many including myself want to keep this regardless and as stated before I do hope to be able to convert. Many may still feel this way but can't convert.

Like you said the value of the shares are much higher than the prices being bought back at. Whose the one profiting from this transaction? The company buying back is getting the identical shares everyone paid for at a dramatically reduced price. If people felt the security was worth 0.00045 they would have placed sell orders at that price.

The issue isn't that your closing down the fund on Havelock. It's that your forcing people to sell something they don't want to sell at a huge reduced price because others have sold at that price or lower previously.

If I sell you a security at 0.001 and the companies are doing well and growing then I shouldn't be forced to sell back to you at 0.00045 because someone else sold for cheaper than that. As a venture capitalists what would you do if you invested money and had the same thing happen to you?

As well I would really like an answer about conversion of US shareholders to SHL holdings.

[seedcoin]

Look, SeedCoin, you can pick one or the other. If you think that the value is far in excess of your buy-back price, then you're doing the unitholders a disservice.

This comment was made as a personal hint to be taken in an ironic way. It could be taken out of context by some and given a more serious meaning. It is not a financial assessment in any way and should not be construed as such, it is a token of personal faith in SF1 since I have been deeply involved with SF1 for now more than a year as I started speaking with entrepreneurs back in Summer 2013. My remark, in case anyone missed this, is meant to draw the attention to the fact that I find IMO a hypocrite would have the audacity of blaming someone to see value where he/she did not only a few weeks ago. There is no 'value' for SF1 to be seen here other than the price of the last seller's price.

In response to your comment I do not agree with your remark about 'doing the unitholders a disservice'. In order to know if unit holders may or may be better off we would need to assess what would happen if no one bought back any units and let these sit at BTC 0.00015 with extremely low levels of trading. We now give the opportunity to unit holders to hold shares in these startups, that may be a better option in the long run for these unit holders. Granted we do not give this opportunity to all unit holders and that is unfortunate; however, unit holders with less than 2,000 units had units which represented at the time of the consultation poll effectively BTC 0.3 (maximum) in bitcoin value, for which they will now get BTC 0.9 (maximum - or 3 times the last selling price). For those holding much less, anywhere from 1 unit to 100 units of SF1 (worth BTC 0.00045 to 0.045 at buy back price) for example and this is a common case among SF1 unit holders the unavailability of the share conversion option may not seem to be a huge problem, as seen during the consultation poll conducted in October.

[Germican]

There is no 'value' for SF1 to be seen here other than the price of the last seller's price.

But wasn't the value the equity in the start ups? Per the prospectus in the event of a buy out of a start up company the unit holders will be compensated pro-rata. That's where I find the value in the shares. The price on Havelock had no bearing on that and that is where I developed my value for the shares.

[twentyseventy]

Look, SeedCoin, you can pick one or the other. If you think that the value is far in excess of your buy-back price, then you're doing the unitholders a disservice.

This comment was made as a personal hint to be taken in an ironic way. It could be taken out of context by some and given a more serious meaning. It is not a financial assessment in any way and should not be construed as such, it is a token of personal faith in SF1 since I have been deeply involved with SF1 for now more than a year as I started speaking with entrepreneurs back in Summer 2013. My remark, in case anyone missed this, is meant to draw the attention to the fact that I find IMO a hypocrite would have the audacity of blaming someone to see value where he/she did not only a few weeks ago. There is no 'value' for SF1 to be seen here other than the price of the last seller's price.

In response to your comment I do not agree with your remark about 'doing the unitholders a disservice'. In order to know if unit holders may or may be better off we would need to assess what would happen if no one bought back any units and let these sit at BTC 0.00015 with extremely low levels of trading. We now give the opportunity to unit holders to hold shares in these startups, that may be a better option in the long run for these unit holders. Granted we do not give this opportunity to all unit holders and that is unfortunate; however, unit holders with less than 2,000 units had units which represented at the time of the consultation poll effectively BTC 0.3 (maximum) in bitcoin value, for which they will now get BTC 0.9 (maximum - or 3 times the last selling price). For those holding much less, anywhere from 1 unit to 100 units of SF1 (worth BTC 0.00045 to 0.045 at buy back price) for example and this is a common case among SF1 unit holders the unavailability of the share conversion option may not seem to be a huge problem, as seen during the consultation poll conducted in October.

I've highlighted the part here that really matters with regards to my comment. I do understand that you're converting to real equity for over 2,000 shares but I find it unfair that you're excluding this possibility for smaller shareholders.

[seedcoin]

There is no 'value' for SF1 to be seen here other than the price of the last seller's price.

But wasn't the value the equity in the start ups? Per the prospectus in the event of a buy out of a start up company the unit holders will be compensated pro-rata. That's where I find the value in the shares. The price on Havelock had no bearing on that and that is where I developed my value for the shares.

'pro-rata of their unit holdings' refers to how many units of SF1 holders may hold, in this case this is a buy back not a single startup private acquisition by a VC fund for example.

re. the question about the investor eligibility to convert shares, please contact us at info@seedco.in as this is a conversation we would like to follow up on a case by case basis, and for which we need more information from you, thank you.

[Germican]

There is no 'value' for SF1 to be seen here other than the price of the last seller's price.

But wasn't the value the equity in the start ups? Per the prospectus in the event of a buy out of a start up company the unit holders will be compensated pro-rata. That's where I find the value in the shares. The price on Havelock had no bearing on that and that is where I developed my value for the shares.

'pro-rata of their unit holdings' refers to how many units of SF1 holders may hold, in this case this is a buy back not a single startup private acquisition by a VC fund for example.

re. the question about the investor eligibility to convert shares, please contact us at info@seedco.in as this is a conversation we would like to follow up on a case by case basis, and for which we need more information from you, thank you.

I will send an email about asking. However i was just meaning that the value of my shares were done in terms of the chance of a company being acquired not that I expect the buy back to follow that term. I personally do not agree with the buy back price but as long as I can convert I personally will be happy while I feel bad for others that can't.

Edit: email sent