Neo & Bee talk (spam free thread)

[Stelios]

So does anyone have any validated news on the trade freeze?

Cheers
SK
p.s. Also is anyone gonna be at Montreal in April?  

[1715387280]

1715387280

[1715387280]

1715387280

[1715387280]

1715387280

[1715387280]

1715387280

[Stelios]

I was in Montreal 3 weeks ago, at the Ritz, it was awesome

The Ritz (Noted ). If anyone is there though, I am buying the first round of beers .

[Herp]

Danny made this statement to a Coindesk reporter:

“My silence is for a very valid and personal reason, all the rumors that are flying about are false and couldn’t be further from the truth. I haven’t moved from Cyprus or anything of the kind I am TEMPORARILY out of the country resolving some big issues that were made much worse by people stating incorrect facts in a public forum.”

[BitSwe]

Danny made this statement to a Coindesk reporter:

“My silence is for a very valid and personal reason, all the rumors that are flying about are false and couldn’t be further from the truth. I haven’t moved from Cyprus or anything of the kind I am TEMPORARILY out of the country resolving some big issues that were made much worse by people stating incorrect facts in a public forum.”

Link to the article: http://www.coindesk.com/neo-bees-suspends-btc-share-trading-due-abnormal-activity/

[Herp]

This is getting shady. Fleeing is not the answer.

What? LMB is incorporated in the UK. Danny is flying constantly in and out of Cyprus for various business meetings and also personal matters since he's a British citizen.

My take is that he wanted to come forward with more clarity on regulatory side before taking in customers, but this is an ongoing process and government bureaucrats are not the most business friendly people.

Some investors in Bitcoin securities seem to be highly neurotic and impatient individuals unfortunately, most of them people who never invested in stocks before. This is a game where patience is biggest virtue.

[Cmark0]

This is getting shady. Fleeing is not the answer.

 

Some investors in Bitcoin securities seem to be highly neurotic and impatient individuals unfortunately, most of them people who never invested in stocks before. This is a game where patience is biggest virtue.

Couldn't agree with you more. The silence has been broken. People should be feeling more at ease.

[Herp]

This is getting shady. Fleeing is not the answer.

 

Some investors in Bitcoin securities seem to be highly neurotic and impatient individuals unfortunately, most of them people who never invested in stocks before. This is a game where patience is biggest virtue.

Couldn't agree with you more. The silence has been broken. People should be feeling more at ease.

Indeed. Thing is several dozen accounts operated by Mpex competition is creating a false perception of people being "uneasy" which stirs up the pot.

I think Neo is trying to resolve regulatory issues and the competition just found a good time to strike with disinformation, as Neo wanted to come forward with something solid hence why they were keeping silent awaiting a regulatory resolution.

[okaynow]

there has been some forum md activity in the neo thread, finally.
hopefully, conversation will now flow better, and criticism can be put to good use.

MPOE-PR perma-banned. His only option to get his account back is an appeal to theymos.

I am not fucking around.

[GreenBits]

I made an observation on the coindesk article concerning the trading freeze:

http://www.coindesk.com/neo-bees-suspends-btc-share-trading-due-abnormal-activity/

...Someone will be legally liable for this price manipulation eventually. The magnitude of investor in this particular game (NEOBEE) will not allow foolery of this nature. My curiosity; will it just be the the perpetrators of the false rumors, or the social outlets that allowed the dissemination of this false information without moderation?

And I notice we finally got some moderation on the parent thread. Cleaned up quite nice, but unfortunate they had to ban MPOE-PR. I don't agree with some of her opinions, but I hate to see anyone banned.


I hope this isnt considered off topic, that isnt my wish at all.

~Green

[Herp]

I made an observation on the coindesk article concerning the trading freeze:

http://www.coindesk.com/neo-bees-suspends-btc-share-trading-due-abnormal-activity/

...Someone will be legally liable for this price manipulation eventually. The magnitude of investor in this particular game (NEOBEE) will not allow foolery of this nature. My curiosity; will it just be the the perpetrators of the false rumors, or the social outlets that allowed the dissemination of this false information without moderation?

And I notice we finally got some moderation on the parent thread. Cleaned up quite nice, but unfortunate they had to ban MPOE-PR. I don't agree with some of her opinions, but I hate to see anyone banned.


I hope this isnt considered off topic, that isnt my wish at all.

~Green

The puppy accounts are out in full force already, including in the thread where ban was announced. You'll quickly recognize names like LeBag and Source101. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=551603.msg6010722#msg6010722

[okaynow]

herp  yes, i was watching that too.

they will keep it up long enough, be sure about that.
dont take them seriously mate, look at them like the clowns they are

You can see the personal commentary in many accounts.
I almost rofled when the guy with the activemin  link showed up, again, in page 200+

[velacreations]

I didn't mind all the accounts, really, I had them all on ignore. By some of my funnier comments got deleted, though.  Oh well.

[jakedeez]

I made an observation on the coindesk article concerning the trading freeze:

http://www.coindesk.com/neo-bees-suspends-btc-share-trading-due-abnormal-activity/

...Someone will be legally liable for this price manipulation eventually. The magnitude of investor in this particular game (NEOBEE) will not allow foolery of this nature. My curiosity; will it just be the the perpetrators of the false rumors, or the social outlets that allowed the dissemination of this false information without moderation?

And I notice we finally got some moderation on the parent thread. Cleaned up quite nice, but unfortunate they had to ban MPOE-PR. I don't agree with some of her opinions, but I hate to see anyone banned.


I hope this isnt considered off topic, that isnt my wish at all.

~Green

Not that I don't disagree that manipulation is wrong, can you point to some actual law that prohibits manipulations of non-registered, non-regulated, bitcoin denominated stock trading on a private exchange in Panama?    In what jurisdiction will the "someone" be liable?

[GreenBits]

Legal isn't my sphere, but check this out. I get the trader jargon but some of the legalese is beyond me:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Securities_Exchange_Act_of_1934#Antifraud_provisions

which yields:

Section 10(b) of the Act (as amended) provides (in pertinent part):
(b) To use or employ, in connection with the purchase or sale of any security registered on a national securities exchange or any security not so registered, or any securities-based swap agreement (as defined in section 206B of the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act), any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance in contravention of such rules and regulations as the Commission may prescribe as necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors.
.
You can argue jurisdiction, but for the US, participation in this grants the SEC jurisdiction. If they didnt have jurisdiction for some amazing reason (and didnt act regardless of this), they would simply use the FBI. If you think thats far fetched, observe this:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/31/fbi-high-speed-trading_n_5065622.html


Also, its clearly defined that this behavior is considered fraud, posted here
http://www.sec.gov/investor/pubs/cyberfraud.htm

which yields:

Online Bulletin Boards
Online bulletin boards are a way for investors to share information.  While some messages may be true, many turn out to be bogus – or even scams.  Fraudsters may use online discussions to pump up a company or pretend to reveal "inside" information about upcoming announcements, new products, or lucrative contracts.

You may never know for certain who you're dealing with, or whether they're credible, because many sites allow users to hide their identity behind multiple aliases.  People claiming to be unbiased observers may actually be insiders, large shareholders, or paid promoters.  One person can easily create the illusion of widespread interest in a small, thinly traded stock by posting numerous messages under various aliases.

Also, see here:
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/analyst/030102.asp

S&D Traders Manipulate Stock Prices With Smear Campaigns
A less-publicized and more-sinister version of short selling can take place on Wall Street. It's called "short and distort" (S&D).

Nothing is inherently wrong with short selling, which is permissible under the regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). However, the S&D type of short seller uses misinformation and a bear market to manipulate stocks. S&D is as illegal as the pump and dump, but is mainly used in a bear market. It is important for investors to be aware of the dangers and to know how to protect themselves...

...On the other hand, S&D (shock and distort) traders manipulate stock prices in a bear market by taking short positions and then using a smear campaign to drive down the price of the targeted stock. This is the inverse version of the "pump and dump" tactic, whereby crooks buy stock (take a long position) and issue false information that causes the target stock's price to increase...

...The S&D shysters try to profit by stimulating fear, but this only works if they have credibility. As such, when working online they will often use screen names and email addresses that imply that they are associated with the SEC or the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) (formerly the National Association of Securities Dealers), or that they can regularly spot worthless stocks. Their goal is to convince investors that every proponent of the stock has ties to the company and that the SEC is watching and will halt the stock. S&Ds also intimate that they are looking out for investors' interests.

S&D players clutter message boards, so optimistic information cannot easily be found. "Get out before it all comes crashing down" and "Investors who wish to enter a class action lawsuit can contact…" are typical posts, as are their projections of $0 stock prices and 100% losses. If their strategy is suspected by "longs", they attack the person who has caught them. In other words, the market manipulator will do everything in his or her power to keep buyers out of the stock and keep the price heading south.


This is also known as a "bear raid"

Im not quite sure, but this also might be provisioned under Microcap Fraud, given the size of the company and the fact it is unregistered.
https://www.sec.gov/spotlight/microcap-fraud.shtml

This would also be considered fraud in almost every jurisdiction it could occur in, including Panama. Which is obviously criminally and civilly actionable.

Speaking of which (edit):
http://www.supervalores.gob.pa/files/informacion_al_inversionista/LISTADO_DE_JURISDICCIONES_RECONOCIDAS.pdf
Which establishes jusrisdiction in the United States, inversely:

http://www.sec.gov/about/offices/oia/oia_crossborder.shtml
Which defines jurisdiction abroad (conferred by cooperation from foreign governments)


Hope this helps, feel free to help me understand this more if I am in error. I'm sure one of the legal subsection guys can provide clarification on this. At the very least; this would be considered libel and the perp, if identified, would be civilly liable for damages caused to NEOBEE.


~Green

[GreenBits]

I thought Panama wasn't governed by US law

And you would be right. But my country is a bit heavy handed and stubborn in these matters:

Use of Compulsory Powers

Section 21(a)(2) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, authorizes the SEC to conduct investigations on behalf of foreign securities authorities (as defined by the Exchange Act) and compel the production of documents and testimony from any person and entity, irrespective of whether that person or entity is regulated by the SEC. Section 21(a)(2) provides:

On request, the Commission may provide assistance in accordance with this paragraph if the requesting authority states that the requesting authority is conducting an investigation which it deems necessary to determine whether any person has violated, is violating, or is about to violate any laws or rules relating to securities matters that the requesting authority administers or enforces. The Commission may, in its discretion, conduct such investigation as the Commission deems necessary to collect information and evidence pertinent to the request for assistance. Such assistance may be provided without regard to whether the facts stated in the request would also constitute a violation of the laws of the United States. In deciding whether to provide such assistance, the Commission shall consider whether (A) the requesting authority has agreed to provide reciprocal assistance in securities matters to the Commission; and (B) compliance with the request would prejudice the public interest of the United States.

We tend to get what we want. Its the American way

But, I hope this illustrates the import of what has occurred here. This is no small matter.
(edit)Also, investigate this:

SEC v. Alexis Ampudia, a/k/a Alexis Geancarlos Ampudia Navalo, a/k/a Alexis Emias, a/k/a Alexis Rojas, Civil Action No. 07-CV-2762 (HB) (S.D.N.Y) (filed June 2009) (final judgement in action involving manipulation of numerous securities by Panamanian citizen) LR-21071, LR-20098, LR-20071

(double edit) this too:
SEC v. East Delta Resources Corp., Victor Sun, David Amsel and Mayer Amsel, Civil No. CV10-0310 (E.D.N.Y.) (filed January 2010) (settlement on alleged manipulation scheme through Canadian and US brokerage accounts) LR-21700, LR-21395

~Green

[NanoAkron]

I'm still seeing NotLambChop in this thread.

Can the person who promised us a cleaner thread here start doing something about this?

[jakedeez]

Green - I realize that manipulation of registered, listed, real stocks is illegal.  However, none of that is necessarily applicable to "stocks" that are not real, in companies that may or may not be real, and are traded for magic internet money on a server in someone's basement in Burunga.

I don't happen to be willing to invest in N&B, but I am not one of the guys saying that they have committed a fraud or anything... What I am saying is NO ONE should trust ANY of these "Securities".

People on these boards act like for some reasons Havelock, or who ever else is going to be forced to be a good actor by some set of imaginary laws.  There is NO safety in these "investments".  Again, not calling any individual company a scam here, but it is just too easy to run a scam.  I really think people shouldn't be investing on these exchanges.  You have no idea what actual property rights you have, nor do you have any real way of enforcing them.  It is really seems crazy to me.

[GreenBits]

Green - I realize that manipulation of registered, listed, real stocks is illegal.  However, none of that is necessarily applicable to "stocks" that are not real, in companies that may or may not be real, and are traded for magic internet money on a server in someone's basement in Burunga.

I don't happen to be willing to invest in N&B, but I am not one of the guys saying that they have committed a fraud or anything... What I am saying is NO ONE should trust ANY of these "Securities".

People on these boards act like for some reasons Havelock, or who ever else is going to be forced to be a good actor by some set of imaginary laws.  There is NO safety in these "investments".  Again, not calling any individual company a scam here, but it is just too easy to run a scam.  I really think people shouldn't be investing on these exchanges.  You have no idea what actual property rights you have, nor do you have any real way of enforcing them.  It is really seems crazy to me.

These are most definitely securities:

SEC. 205. DEFINITION AND TREATMENT OF BANKING PRODUCTS.

(a) DEFINITION OF TRADITIONAL BANKING PRODUCT- For purposes of paragraphs (4) and (5) of section 3(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78c(a) (4), (5)), the term ‘traditional banking product’ means--
(1) a deposit account, savings account, certificate of deposit, or other deposit instrument issued by a bank;
(2) a banker’s acceptance;
(3) a letter of credit issued or loan made by a bank;
(4) a debit account at a bank arising from a credit card or similar arrangement;
(5) a participation in a loan which the bank or an affiliate of the bank (other than a broker or dealer) funds, participates in, or owns that is sold--
(A) to qualified investors; or
(B) to other persons that--
(i) have the opportunity to review and assess any material information, including information regarding the borrower’s creditworthiness; and
based on such factors as financial sophistication, net worth, and knowledge and experience in financial matters, have the capability to evaluate the information available, as determined under generally applicable banking standards or guidelines; and
Also,

SEC. 206. DERIVATIVE INSTRUMENT AND QUALIFIED INVESTOR DEFINED.
Section 3(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78c(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
‘(54) DERIVATIVE INSTRUMENT-
‘(A) DEFINITION- The term ‘derivative instrument’ means any individually negotiated contract, agreement, warrant, note, or option that is based, in whole or in part, on the value of, any interest in, or any quantitative measure or the occurrence of any event relating to, one or more commodities, securities, currencies, interest or other rates, indices, or other assets, but does not include a traditional banking product, as defined in section 205(a) of the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999.
‘(B) CLASSIFICATION LIMITED- Classification of a particular contract as a derivative instrument pursuant to this paragraph shall not be construed as finding or implying that such instrument is or is not a security for any purpose under the securities laws, or is or is not an account, agreement, contract, or transaction for any purpose under the Commodity Exchange Act.
....‘(B) ADDITIONAL AUTHORITY- The Commission may, by rule or order, define a ‘qualified investor’ as any other person, taking into consideration such factors as the financial sophistication of the person, net worth, and knowledge and experience in financial matters.’.

Essentially, Im proposing that NEO, by statement of intent, would be considered a bank or affiliate, and the product they offer could be construed as a certificate of deposit or a loan at the very least (the dividends could be considered interest, or a profit sharing scheme). The issuing of a prospectus also indicates intent.

It can also be argued as a derivative instrument, but that argument is beyond me.
All paid for with btc property (as per the recent IRS clarification), so the purchase is just as valid as it would be if it were fiat.

~Green

Can a legal dude come review this please? Im no expert and I dont want to disseminate false information.

[Herp]

I'm still seeing NotLambChop in this thread.

Can the person who promised us a cleaner thread here start doing something about this?

Check again. He managed to squeeze one in.

[Herp]

To recap so far:

- NEOBEE goes relatively silent after the 18th of March
  - some media appearances and ads
- Danny leaves Cyprus for the UK (not sure when, with in the last week?)
- share price begins to tank
- Trading of shares here on bitcointalk (btcapples)
- share trading on havelock is stopped by NeoBee Complaince officer.
- TAT quits in what appears to be a fit of rage (don't know him other than I've lurker and seen him involved in the securities for awhile...to my understanding is a trusted actor in community).
- no official statements and the actors involved at all silent, no reasons are given for current actions.

I think it's safe to say that the authorities are involved at this point and the complete lockdown on information is probably related to that.

Scam is unlikely as Danny did communicate through coindesk as much as he could.

He communicated it's a) personal and b) made worse or became a problem, due to actions on these boards.

It may have nothing to do with NeoBee and it might be something that is now effecting Danny's ability to be CEO.

Hmmm wonder wonder wonder...some real news would be nice.

Here is my take on how events unfolded:

-March 18th the Cyprus parliament hearing https://twitter.com/BtcDanny/status/445817697444851712 Prior to this hearing Neo also received a letter from Cyprus central bank
-March 21st last Neobee tweet https://twitter.com/NeoandBee/status/446926337945894912 3 days after the Parliament hearing
-after some time of tweeter and forum silence, the MPEx sharks sniffs blood following those hearings (where Neo faced some opposition) and silence period and start disinformation campaign using agent provocateur and multiple shill accounts
-disinformation campaign is somewhat successful and price drops
-suspicious sale thread emerges in a manipulation attempt to drive down the share price created by BTCApples user (who starts negative trolling in Neo thread following the sale, even though he claimed he sold out). Shares were advertised at a price much lower than share price at the time.  I've warned in that thread even, whole sale looked suspicious.
-following this suspicious sale share price drops even more
-a trading halt is requested by Neo security officer invoking suspicious activity on LMB website where BTCApples supposedly sold his shares and trading on Havelock is halted
-Coindesk article appears as a result of the trading halt, causing further edginess among investors
-Danny comes out with a statement on Coindesk (in the same article), saying he's and I quote "TEMPORARILY" in UK, letting investors know the disinformation spread on forums made Neo's situation more difficult.
-other media outlets pick up the Coindesk article