hdbuck
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1002
|
 |
May 28, 2014, 03:34:17 PM |
|
i think fc dont mind exchanges nor regulations, he'll probably convert the fiat with his personal, his buddies or the company's coinz to have some pocket money to spend for some well-deserved ice creamz this summer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
bitsalame
Donator
Hero Member
Offline
Activity: 714
Merit: 510
Preaching the gospel of Satoshi
|
|
May 28, 2014, 03:37:13 PM |
|
It is tiring to see so many people whining.
I am disappointed as well like everyone else, but becoming crybabies will not make it happen sooner.
If you truly feel this is a critical sign of untrustworthiness, please sell your shares and stop coming by.
|
|
|
|
|
|
bitcoiner49er
|
|
May 28, 2014, 03:53:06 PM |
|
Divs were typically on Wed and not until after around 4-5:00 GMT. Sooooo, what's the problem?  |
Homo doctus is se semper divitias habet
|
|
|
server
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 892
Merit: 1002
1 BTC =1 BTC
|
|
May 28, 2014, 03:59:40 PM |
|
It is tiring to see so many people whining.
I am disappointed as well like everyone else, but becoming crybabies will not make it happen sooner.
If you truly feel this is a critical sign of untrustworthiness, please sell your shares and stop coming by.
I agree with you that it's really hard to keep us posted once a month... very time consuming... much inconvenient. |
|
|
|
SaintFlow
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 476
Merit: 250
The first is by definition not flawed.
|
|
May 28, 2014, 04:12:21 PM
Last edit: May 28, 2014, 04:28:20 PM by SaintFlow |
|
Since a boardmember requires 5000 shares and it is stated nowhere that a boardmember is required to be a natural person I suggest that minority shareholders with sufficient stake agree to pool their shares into a groupentity. There should be more then enough people that have 100 or more direct shares to also get one seat together. I suggest that the person to become boardmember shall be elected representitive for this group by votes per direct shares per group member. Your control of your shares shall not leave you, all that will be required is a signed message to agree to form the group and give boardmemberstatus to group by proxy. Anyone interested can contact me. Editing: Grammer and spelling Second edit: Maybe 50 shares is fine, too? Also 1/5th of required shares are allready interested  |
don't let me make you question your assumptions
|
|
|
prancing_around
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 30
Merit: 0
|
|
May 28, 2014, 05:19:35 PM |
|
Since a boardmember requires 5000 shares and it is stated nowhere that a boardmember is required to be a natural person I suggest that minority shareholders with sufficient stake agree to pool their shares into a groupentity. There should be more then enough people that have 100 or more direct shares to also get one seat together. I suggest that the person to become boardmember shall be elected representitive for this group by votes per direct shares per group member. Your control of your shares shall not leave you, all that will be required is a signed message to agree to form the group and give boardmemberstatus to group by proxy. Anyone interested can contact me. Editing: Grammer and spelling Second edit: Maybe 50 shares is fine, too? Also 1/5th of required shares are allready interested This is a great idea, unfortunately I am short about 20 shares to be involved. I still think this should be attempted though. |
|
|
|
|
Chris_Sabian
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 896
Merit: 1001
|
|
May 28, 2014, 05:33:51 PM |
|
Since a boardmember requires 5000 shares and it is stated nowhere that a boardmember is required to be a natural person I suggest that minority shareholders with sufficient stake agree to pool their shares into a groupentity. There should be more then enough people that have 100 or more direct shares to also get one seat together. I suggest that the person to become boardmember shall be elected representitive for this group by votes per direct shares per group member. Your control of your shares shall not leave you, all that will be required is a signed message to agree to form the group and give boardmemberstatus to group by proxy. Anyone interested can contact me. Editing: Grammer and spelling Second edit: Maybe 50 shares is fine, too? Also 1/5th of required shares are allready interested This is a great idea. Message sent. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jdany
|
|
May 28, 2014, 05:38:07 PM |
|
Since a boardmember requires 5000 shares and it is stated nowhere that a boardmember is required to be a natural person I suggest that minority shareholders with sufficient stake agree to pool their shares into a groupentity. There should be more then enough people that have 100 or more direct shares to also get one seat together. I suggest that the person to become boardmember shall be elected representitive for this group by votes per direct shares per group member. Your control of your shares shall not leave you, all that will be required is a signed message to agree to form the group and give boardmemberstatus to group by proxy. Anyone interested can contact me. Editing: Grammer and spelling Second edit: Maybe 50 shares is fine, too? Also 1/5th of required shares are allready interested This is a great idea. Message sent. I'd be willing. 75 |
|
|
|
|
|
bitfair
|
|
May 28, 2014, 05:49:01 PM |
|
Since a boardmember requires 5000 shares and it is stated nowhere that a boardmember is required to be a natural person I suggest that minority shareholders with sufficient stake agree to pool their shares into a groupentity. There should be more then enough people that have 100 or more direct shares to also get one seat together. I suggest that the person to become boardmember shall be elected representitive for this group by votes per direct shares per group member. Your control of your shares shall not leave you, all that will be required is a signed message to agree to form the group and give boardmemberstatus to group by proxy. Anyone interested can contact me. Editing: Grammer and spelling Second edit: Maybe 50 shares is fine, too? Also 1/5th of required shares are allready interested I'm sorry to poop on this parade, but this is a horrible idea. Firstly, the "group entity" would have to hold all shares in one address, suggesting one person would be the actual owner as far as FC would be concerned and all "group member" would have to trust this person entirely to manage their shares, transfer the shares in and out of the "group address", and to pass on the dividends. In other words, the group would have to include one person that would accept to do a lot of accounting work and that everybody could trust. Such a person can be hard to find (and/or expensive, although more expensive if an untrustworthy person is chosen)! Secondly, it's not obvious that any more information would be made available. Jutarul (and other board members) usually post updates when there is new, relevant information. The board meetings don't occur that often, and the chances are that the board members have no more information than we have at this point anyway. |
|
|
|
|
|
Franktank
|
|
May 28, 2014, 05:53:56 PM |
|
Since a boardmember requires 5000 shares and it is stated nowhere that a boardmember is required to be a natural person I suggest that minority shareholders with sufficient stake agree to pool their shares into a groupentity. There should be more then enough people that have 100 or more direct shares to also get one seat together. I suggest that the person to become boardmember shall be elected representitive for this group by votes per direct shares per group member. Your control of your shares shall not leave you, all that will be required is a signed message to agree to form the group and give boardmemberstatus to group by proxy. Anyone interested can contact me. Editing: Grammer and spelling Second edit: Maybe 50 shares is fine, too? Also 1/5th of required shares are allready interested I would ask for those who wish to be involved to be very careful in doing this. To be considered as a board member, all 5000 shares must be under one bitcoin address. When the group shares are collectively gathered under one address, the "representative" is considered the sole owner of ALL the shares (to friedcat) and will be treated similarly to the Havelock Passthru. Keep in mind as well that should friedcat be willing to go through with this during this busy time, it will require agreement from all parties before the group is able to split the shares back to the rightful owners again. We all want information on AM's current status and the next incoming dividend but understand the potential consequences (and headache) from this endeavor. EDIT: Bitfair has already posted similar thoughts already. Jutarul has been forthcoming with all available information; as tough as it is, it's best to sit tight for now. |
|
|
|
|
|
JoTheKhan
|
|
May 28, 2014, 05:56:19 PM |
|
Would it not be possible to have 5K Shares add up from multiple different signed addresses?
Then designate a specific address holder as representative for a specific duration.
I don't plan to be a part of this as my shares are on HL and under 100 total. But I think there is a safe work around, that by all means would only add 15 minutes to the amount of time it would take to verify whatever information needs to be verified.
|
|
|
|
|
SaintFlow
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 476
Merit: 250
The first is by definition not flawed.
|
|
May 28, 2014, 05:56:53 PM |
|
@ bitfair
why would it have to be all owned in one address?
Say for example i would actually own 10 000 shares,
but for safety i would have them split to 100 wallets
in different cold storage places - since each is quite valluable.
As long as i have one signed message from each wallet that
states the same thing, i am one person!
Can you prove the opposite?
Regarding information trust within the group is an unproven
assumption.
|
don't let me make you question your assumptions
|
|
|
|
bitfair
|
|
May 28, 2014, 06:05:20 PM |
|
@ bitfair
why would it have to be all owned in one address?
Say for example i would actually own 10 000 shares,
but for safety i would have them split to 100 wallets
in different cold storage places - since each is quite valluable.
As long as i have one signed message from each wallet that
states the same thing, i am one person!
Can you prove the opposite?
Regarding information trust within the group is an unproven
assumption.
I can't see the rest of the board agreeing to such a solution. But good luck, though. |
|
|
|
|
|
minerpumpkin
|
|
May 28, 2014, 06:07:59 PM |
|
@ bitfair
why would it have to be all owned in one address?
Say for example i would actually own 10 000 shares,
but for safety i would have them split to 100 wallets
in different cold storage places - since each is quite valluable.
As long as i have one signed message from each wallet that
states the same thing, i am one person!
Can you prove the opposite?
Regarding information trust within the group is an unproven
assumption.
I can't see the rest of the board agreeing to such a solution. But good luck, though. It also remains unknown, what information is actually allowed to leave the board meeting and be passed on to the public. |
I should have gotten into Bitcoin back in 1992...
|
|
|
SaintFlow
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 476
Merit: 250
The first is by definition not flawed.
|
|
May 28, 2014, 06:14:59 PM |
|
if {the group}TM gets to the board -
and i only count 1400-1500/5000 shares
interested right now, by definition IT IS
part of the board with all duties and benefits.
Can i ask the most critical person in this place with
better facility of buisness language write a preliminary
draft of agreement that does not require any transfer
of shares?
|
don't let me make you question your assumptions
|
|
|
|
bitcoin.newsfeed
|
|
May 28, 2014, 06:26:13 PM |
|
Maybe is time for PT @ ColoredCoins, you never know, maybe one day you'll get 5k shares this way, maybe soon, advantage of being 1st , look at TAT what he did on old Havelock
|
... Question Everything, Believe Nothing ...
|
|
|
|
aahzmundus
|
|
May 28, 2014, 06:32:06 PM |
|
Maybe is time for PT @ ColoredCoins, you never know, maybe one day you'll get 5k shares this way, maybe soon, advantage of being 1st , look at TAT what he did on old Havelock
I would welcome this, can you add more shares after the fact with ColoredCoins? I need to do some reading. I would totally be willing to manage one, but I would need to see that people trust me... but no one here really has a reason to trust me... so that would be tough. I wonder if any relatively known and trusted person would be willing to step up and manage a PT. Havelock needs competition. |
|
|
|
|
bitfair
|
|
May 28, 2014, 06:34:33 PM |
|
if {the group}TM gets to the board -
and i only count 1400-1500/5000 shares
interested right now, by definition IT IS
part of the board with all duties and benefits.
Can i ask the most critical person in this place with
better facility of buisness language write a preliminary
draft of agreement that does not require any transfer
of shares?
Ownership of the shares would probably have to be transferred to "the group", otherwise "the group" would not be the owner of the shares and thus not entitled to a board seat. Any other arrangement, I believe, would be at the discretion of the current board. |
|
|
|
|
dhenson
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 994
Merit: 1000
|
|
May 28, 2014, 06:35:36 PM |
|
My understanding is limited, but as far as I know:
Friedcat could issue the asset and distribute the shares to the initial holders. The only problem is that he couldn't just send the colored asset to the current public addresses as the client wallets people are using would simply un-color the coins. Yes you can issue more shares after the initial offering (as an asset creator).
There would have to be a process by which we submitted a new address to hold our colored asset.
I really don't see another stockholder being able to pull off enough trust to make this work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
