We should become shareholders of MtGox and save it!

[gollum]

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1z6bpy/we_should_become_shareholders_of_mtgox_and_save_it/

I believe it is a great threat to the bitcoin community if MtGox fails by two simple reasons:

1. If the company goes bankrupt, the highest bidder may be a middleman for some criminal organization that buys the company for say 1 million dollars and uses the client database to scam people later on.
Or sells the data to NSA.

2. The bankruptcy itself will destroy the faith of many clients who have invested huge amounts of money and bitcoins in their MtGox account.
They might give up on bitcoin completely.

So as a bitcoiner I beg you to not wish the death of MtGox, instead we should help Mark to solve this mess.

My suggestion is as follows:

MtGox starts an IPO of 500 million dollars, and increases the share amount so Mark Karpeles only owns 1% of the company after the IPO.
The money you pay for the shares goes directly to the company, not to Mark.

500 million should be more than enough to cover:
-settle clients at bitcoin price of $500
-hire developers
-buy professional exchange system and back office from wall street technology firms

Company gets listed at Nasdaq and you sell your shares for a profit in a couple of years if you wish.

[1714976382]

1714976382

[1714976382]

1714976382

[thelema93]

HOW?

I have heard people say this but How is this even possible? Where to start?

[gollum]

We should demand Mark to present this option and give it a couple of weeks, if they fail with the IPO they have to sell the company to the highest bidders who will liquidate what is left from the company (customer data)

[gollum]

If we assume that 25% of the 1 million MtGox customers has a huge interest to save MtGox, and MtGox needs 500 million to get alive, that's just 3 bitcoins per client, or $1500 that they need to invest in MtGox shares.

[5flags]

You're insane.

I would not give pocket change to anything even remotely related to Mark. He is obviously pathologically incompetent and dishonest.

Secondly - Bitcoin is supposed to be decentralised. If we cannot allow parts of the Bitcoin ecosystem to die off, we cannot make that claim. We should let MtGox die and use this as proof that the network, the community, the technology is decentralised and resilient.

Opting for the "too important to fail" position dramatically weakens the evolutionary process of Bitcoin services. It should fail, and fail fast. This is the market in operation.

[hostmaster]

I believe it is a great threat to the bitcoin community if MtGox fails by two simple reasons:

1. If the company goes bankrupt, the highest bidder may be a middleman for some criminal organization that buys the company for say 1 million dollars and uses the client database to scam people later on.
Or sells the data to NSA.

2. The bankruptcy itself will destroy the faith of many clients who have invested huge amounts of money and bitcoins in their MtGox account.
They might give up on bitcoin completely.

So as a bitcoiner I beg you to not wish the death of MtGox, instead we should help Mark to solve this mess.

My suggestion is as follows:

MtGox starts an IPO of 500 million dollars, and increases the share amount so Mark Karpeles only owns 1% of the company after the IPO.
The money you pay for the shares goes directly to the company, not to Mark.

500 million should be more than enough to cover:
-settle clients at bitcoin price of $500
-hire developers
-buy professional exchange system and back office from wall street technology firms

Company gets listed at Nasdaq and you sell your shares for a profit in a couple of years if you wish.

i belive its honest approach and its also workable. People in mtgox should stand still and somehow clean this mess.

[gollum]

You're insane.

I would not give pocket change to anything even remotely related to Mark. He is obviously pathologically incompetent and dishonest.

Secondly - Bitcoin is supposed to be decentralised. If we cannot allow parts of the Bitcoin ecosystem to die off, we cannot make that claim. We should let MtGox die and use this as proof that the network, the community, the technology is decentralised and resilient.

Opting for the "too important to fail" position dramatically weakens the evolutionary process of Bitcoin services. It should fail, and fail fast. This is the market in operation.

The difference between Wall street bailout, and an IPO bailout is that you have a choice to participate or not, nobody forces you to save MtGox.

[gollum]

I believe it is a great threat to the bitcoin community if MtGox fails by two simple reasons:

1. If the company goes bankrupt, the highest bidder may be a middleman for some criminal organization that buys the company for say 1 million dollars and uses the client database to scam people later on.
Or sells the data to NSA.

2. The bankruptcy itself will destroy the faith of many clients who have invested huge amounts of money and bitcoins in their MtGox account.
They might give up on bitcoin completely.

So as a bitcoiner I beg you to not wish the death of MtGox, instead we should help Mark to solve this mess.

My suggestion is as follows:

MtGox starts an IPO of 500 million dollars, and increases the share amount so Mark Karpeles only owns 1% of the company after the IPO.
The money you pay for the shares goes directly to the company, not to Mark.

500 million should be more than enough to cover:
-settle clients at bitcoin price of $500
-hire developers
-buy professional exchange system and back office from wall street technology firms

Company gets listed at Nasdaq and you sell your shares for a profit in a couple of years if you wish.

i belive its honest approach and its also workable. People in mtgox should stand still and somehow clean this mess.

I believe it to be the most fair solution, and some venture capital firms would probably buy a stake in this IPO, for them it will be a small bet.

[techstorm3]

You're insane.

I would not give pocket change to anything even remotely related to Mark. He is obviously pathologically incompetent and dishonest.

Secondly - Bitcoin is supposed to be decentralised. If we cannot allow parts of the Bitcoin ecosystem to die off, we cannot make that claim. We should let MtGox die and use this as proof that the network, the community, the technology is decentralised and resilient.

Opting for the "too important to fail" position dramatically weakens the evolutionary process of Bitcoin services. It should fail, and fail fast. This is the market in operation.

Exactly, isnt that the old model we're trying to replace, too big to fail!!

Let Gox die and bitcoin moves on as always, bitcoin is not gox and vice versa

[5flags]

The difference between Wall street bailout, and an IPO bailout is that you have a choice to participate or not, nobody forces you to save MtGox.

There's a difference in the coercion used, but no difference in the damage it does to the long term health of the Bitcoin economy.

If I run an exchange, I shouldn't be thinking "if I screw up, an IPO will bail me out and all will be well".

[gollum]

The difference between Wall street bailout, and an IPO bailout is that you have a choice to participate or not, nobody forces you to save MtGox.

There's a difference in the coercion used, but no difference in the damage it does to the long term health of the Bitcoin economy.

If I run an exchange, I shouldn't be thinking "if I screw up, an IPO will bail me out and all will be well".

No but IF you go for an IPO bailout you will lose your majority share holdings and the new shareholders will kick you out from the management.

[raskul]

it would be preferable if all centralized exchanges failed. what we actually need is more p2p exchanges, not the reincarnation of a failed business, which died due to it's own incompetence.
gox has nothing to do with bitcoin (make this your mantra)

 

[softron]

Best to stay away form scam

[5flags]

I will also say that this should shake the faith people have in exchanges. One of Bitcoins failings is that it is increasingly being centralised, whether it's exchanges, mining pools etc. This is already driving alts like NXT to develop peer to peer exchanges - that's the market effect we should be rooting for.

[gollum]

it would be preferable if all centralized exchanges failed. what we actually need is more p2p exchanges, not the reincarnation of a failed business, which died due to it's own incompetence.
gox has nothing to do with bitcoin (make this your mantra)

 

I care about the customers privacy and their money, not MtGox itself.

[repentance]

Explain to me how you're going to find underwriters for a MtGox IPO.  

It sounds like you have no idea how the process works or how slow and expensive it is to undertake.  

[raskul]

it would be preferable if all centralized exchanges failed. what we actually need is more p2p exchanges, not the reincarnation of a failed business, which died due to it's own incompetence.
gox has nothing to do with bitcoin (make this your mantra)

 

I care about the customers privacy and their money, not MtGox itself.

well, that's honourable, however, suggesting an IPO to raise 500mil for this failed business, is not. sorry, i'm out 

[gollum]

Explain to me how you're going to find underwriters for a MtGox IPO.  

It sounds like you have no idea how the process works or how slow and expensive it is to undertake.  

Trust me an IPO is cheaper than 500 million dollars, Ive seen many bullshit companies get listed that even don't have any customers (penny stocks).

[5flags]

No but IF you go for an IPO bailout you will lose your majority share holdings and the new shareholders will kick you out from the management.

And my conscience would be clear, no one lost anything, all is well. I'll try another project. Right?

The market force should be "I cannot show my face in public because people are out of pocket"

[gollum]

No but IF you go for an IPO bailout you will lose your majority share holdings and the new shareholders will kick you out from the management.

And my conscience would be clear, no one lost anything, all is well. I'll try another project. Right?

The market force should be "I cannot show my face in public because people are out of pocket"

Yes, Mark would feel fine since all clients got back their money. But he would lose his firm, in worst case get just $1 after the IPO