|
havelock
|
 |
October 28, 2014, 10:14:27 PM |
|
Well, I guess I don't know much. What do you know about it?
I dont have facts or inside info either, but its a very safe bet its registered in Panama not because the operators have Panamese nationality or residence, but because its dead easy to register a PO box company there and evade regulation/taxation/etc. We are located and regulated locally in Panama. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Every time a block is mined, a certain amount of BTC (called the
subsidy) is created out of thin air and given to the miner. The
subsidy halves every four years and will reach 0 in about 130 years.
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
Chalkbot
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 896
Merit: 1001
|
|
October 28, 2014, 10:19:32 PM |
|
Well, I guess I don't know much. What do you know about it?
I dont have facts or inside info either, but its a very safe bet its registered in Panama not because the operators have Panamese nationality or residence, but because its dead easy to register a PO box company there and evade regulation/taxation/etc. We are located and regulated locally in Panama. Has Havelock commented on whether they received a letter from the SEC, and/or how they would respond to that scenario? |
|
|
|
|
|
jjdub7
|
|
October 28, 2014, 11:02:28 PM |
|
What about Havelock/Panama? I'm unfamiliar with the relationship between Panamanian government and US regulatory agencies. Do you really believe the people running Havelock reside in Panama? Didn't Erik Voorhees relocate to Panama for cryptobusiness operations? |
|
|
|
|
pedrog
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2786
Merit: 1031
|
|
October 28, 2014, 11:12:55 PM |
|
What about Havelock/Panama? I'm unfamiliar with the relationship between Panamanian government and US regulatory agencies. Do you really believe the people running Havelock reside in Panama? Didn't Erik Voorhees relocate to Panama for cryptobusiness operations? He did. |
|
|
|
|
MichaelBliss
|
|
October 29, 2014, 12:09:26 AM |
|
Correct, but highly unlikely China will assist the SEC in any action, making any action impossible. Far more likely, the SEC will concentrate its efforts elsewhere.
Exactly. You can claim to have dominion over the world, but here in reality America isn't the world police so they can say what they want, but they have no jurisdiction so no way to enforce their "rules". |
|
|
|
|
gogxmagog
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1456
Merit: 1009
Ad maiora!
|
|
October 29, 2014, 02:19:12 AM |
|
Ok, this part of the letter; A must-read, imho. I imagine we will hear a lot more about the topic, but for now:
“A key element of the letter requires that those receiving the letter stay quiet and treat it as confidential. They may seek legal counsel but they may not reveal the fact they received a letter to those who are not directly involved with responding to the letter nor the public so the exact number of letters going out nor the companies receiving them will not be revealed by those affected without legal consequences.”
And, the whole thing is voluntary for now... I really don't know what will come of this, even how the SEC could enforce anything if operators work and reside out of country? Wouldn't their only option to be to ban U.S. citizens from trading on such services? I don't know enough about these areas of international and business law. SEC's mandate is to protect american investors. How would they go about policing the foreign based companies caught doing something wrong? Interpol? Falling btc, no divs, now this! Yeeeesh |
|
|
|
|
|
supert
|
|
October 29, 2014, 08:32:41 AM |
|
Actually I suspect AM may be able to argue that since there is no 'ownership' of the company conferred by owning AM shares, that they did not offer securities. This is obviously muddied by the use of the words IPO, share, securities etc.
|
|
|
|
|
Puppet
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 980
Merit: 1040
|
|
October 29, 2014, 08:42:21 AM |
|
I really don't know what will come of this, even how the SEC could enforce anything if operators work and reside out of country? Wouldn't their only option to be to ban U.S. citizens from trading on such services? I don't know enough about these areas of international and business law. They certainly wouldnt ban users (/investors) from using those services. Interestingly its not all illegal to buy unregistered securities, its the selling and promoting thats the issue. As for what they can do; typically the sec would demand the seller stop promoting its products to US investors and demand they implement reasonable safeguards to make sure they do not sell to US nationals. Failing to do so may lead to prosecution, it may prompt them to contact their (in this case) Chinese counterparts. I dont know how chinese authorities look up on this, nor am I at all familiar with chinese security regulations, but considering their crackdown on bitcoin exchanges, this might be a more scary prospect than the SEC. |
|
|
|
|
Puppet
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 980
Merit: 1040
|
|
October 29, 2014, 08:44:04 AM |
|
Actually I suspect AM may be able to argue that since there is no 'ownership' of the company conferred by owning AM shares, that they did not offer securities. This is obviously muddied by the use of the words IPO, share, securities etc.
Clearly you have not read the legal definition of a security, nor have you been around for very long or you would have known better. There is absolutely zero doubt AM shares are legally securities subject to SEC regulation in so far they are offered to US investors. |
|
|
|
|
sharky101
Member
Offline
Activity: 108
Merit: 10
|
|
October 29, 2014, 12:16:19 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
hdbuck
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1002
|
|
October 29, 2014, 12:48:25 PM
Last edit: October 29, 2014, 04:43:51 PM by hdbuck |
|
Hum so i guess thats good news. Sort of a build up between these 4 manufacturers. Need to scale up and cooperate in order to be sustainable in this industry and in front of the (private) megalodon bitfury. |
|
|
|
|
|
supert
|
|
October 29, 2014, 08:48:10 PM |
|
Actually I suspect AM may be able to argue that since there is no 'ownership' of the company conferred by owning AM shares, that they did not offer securities. This is obviously muddied by the use of the words IPO, share, securities etc.
Clearly you have not read the legal definition of a security, nor have you been around for very long or you would have known better. There is absolutely zero doubt AM shares are legally securities subject to SEC regulation in so far they are offered to US investors. Applying a little bit of thought, you are clearly right. |
|
|
|
|
FUR11
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 378
Merit: 250
FURring bitcoin up since 1762
|
|
October 29, 2014, 11:18:50 PM |
|
Over 500 shares just dumped on Havelock! Holy cow, who do you think did that? Insider information or just an early adopter cashing out some of his stash? Maybe someone is willing to buy some AMHash???  |
|
|
|
hdbuck
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1002
|
|
October 29, 2014, 11:20:50 PM |
|
Over 500 shares just dumped on Havelock! Holy cow, who do you think did that? Insider information or just an early adopter cashing out some of his stash? Maybe someone is willing to buy some AMHash??? just some people leaving the boat. |
|
|
|
|
|
jjdub7
|
|
October 30, 2014, 01:06:21 AM |
|
Actually I suspect AM may be able to argue that since there is no 'ownership' of the company conferred by owning AM shares, that they did not offer securities. This is obviously muddied by the use of the words IPO, share, securities etc.
Clearly you have not read the legal definition of a security, nor have you been around for very long or you would have known better. There is absolutely zero doubt AM shares are legally securities subject to SEC regulation in so far they are offered to US investors. JOBS Act, Title III. |
|
|
|
|
|
chairforce1
|
|
October 30, 2014, 01:54:07 AM |
|
<0.1 BTC a share.
This should get interesting.
|
Death is nothing to us, since when we are, death has not come, and when death has come, we are not. #yolo
-Epicuru$
|
|
|
kingcrimson
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1025
Merit: 1000
|
|
October 30, 2014, 02:28:55 AM |
|
Surprising it took this long, it should have dumped hard on fc's latest announcement, but you all have stockholm syndrome.
|
|
|
|
|
xhomerx10
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3822
Merit: 7969
|
|
October 30, 2014, 02:50:45 AM |
|
Surprising it took this long, it should have dumped hard on fc's latest announcement, but you all have stockholm syndrome.
Stockholm syndrome?? You're posting in the wrong thread man! KNCminer is the Swedish company. |
|
|
|
|
laustcozz
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 32
Merit: 0
|
|
October 30, 2014, 05:45:04 AM |
|
Surprising it took this long, it should have dumped hard on fc's latest announcement, but you all have stockholm syndrome.
Mehh, although this news is disappointing, it isn't unexpected. It has very much been priced in already. I don't think anybody was expecting any Divs from Gen3 at this point. Mining is a tough game with falling btc prices. Hopefully the price of BTC stabilizes and rises for Gen4 so people start buying equipment again. |
|
|
|
|
|
EternalWingsofGod
|
|
October 30, 2014, 07:58:44 AM |
|
Over 500 shares just dumped on Havelock! Holy cow, who do you think did that? Insider information or just an early adopter cashing out some of his stash? Maybe someone is willing to buy some AMHash??? just some people leaving the boat. At this point its more along the lines of Well I'm not getting any return on this asset for X months May as well just come back later |
|
|
|
|
