wachtwoord



Offline



Activity: 2100

Merit: 1040







LegendaryActivity: 2100Merit: 1040 Re: btt December 15, 2012, 04:50:43 PM #3 So at a full sale 6250 shares will be out of which 1250 will belong to Eric Corlew. At 0.33BTC you value the entire company at 2062.5 BTC or approx $28k at today's exchange rate.



Also on the 4:1 distribution base I think it is unlikely more shares will ever be issued if a majority of shareholders is required to agree.

creativex



Offline



Activity: 434

Merit: 250









Sr. MemberActivity: 434Merit: 250 Re: btt December 15, 2012, 05:10:21 PM

Last edit: December 19, 2012, 07:05:11 PM by creativex #4 Quote from: wachtwoord on December 15, 2012, 04:50:43 PM So at a full sale 6250 shares will be out of which 1250 will belong to Eric Corlew. At 0.33BTC you value the entire company at 2062.5 BTC or approx $28k at today's exchange rate.



Also on the 4:1 distribution base I think it is unlikely more shares will ever be issued if a majority of shareholders is required to agree.

I intend to issue only 5000 shares in this IPO including the shares issued as a founder's stake. I apologize if this was unclear. I have fronted the capital for the pre-ordered bASIC01 and all mining hardware. It's difficult to determine the future earning potential of this hardware as it's not yet available and there are many variables affecting it's potential future revenue(difficulty, time to market, future BTC price, etc...). A now closed batch 1 bASIC01 has the potential to earn many times it's purchase price over it's serviceable lifetime.



Funds raised by the IPO are to be used for the bulk purchase of more ASIC hardware, that would then be owned collectively by shareholders. I realize this is a significant pooling of resources that is why I've included my personal information.



Thanks for posting. I intend to issue only 5000 shares in this IPO including the shares issued as a founder's stake. I apologize if this was unclear. I have fronted the capital for the pre-ordered bASIC01 and all mining hardware. It's difficult to determine the future earning potential of this hardware as it's not yet available and there are many variables affecting it's potential future revenue(difficulty, time to market, futureprice, etc...). A now closed batch 1 bASIC01 has the potential to earn many times it's purchase price over it's serviceable lifetime.Funds raised by the IPO are to be used for the bulk purchase of more ASIC hardware, that would then be owned collectively by shareholders. I realize this is a significant pooling of resources that is why I've included my personal information.Thanks for posting. ▓▓▓ BITMIXER.IO ▓▓▓ ▓▓▓ High Volume Bitcoin MIXER ▓▓▓

btcash



Offline



Activity: 969

Merit: 500









Hero MemberActivity: 969Merit: 500 Re: btt December 15, 2012, 06:13:41 PM #6 Quote from: creativex on December 15, 2012, 05:58:33 PM I've successfully launched and manage two funds currently([LTC-GLOBAL]LTC-DMF and [CRYPTOSTOCKS]AGLTC), but this is my first stock. If there is something that is unclear in the contract or someone has a suggestion that would provide additional clarity I'd be happy to hear suggestions. The stock is not open for trading or moderator approval at this time. This is the time to work these things out.

When are you planning on unlocking the asset? When you receive the asics?

Looking forward to invest in bASIC. I hold a few DMF shares at the moment and I really like the transparency. If you continue that with bASIC it should be a successful stock.



PS: You should fix the profile links. When are you planning on unlocking the asset? When you receive the asics?Looking forward to invest in bASIC. I hold a few DMF shares at the moment and I really like the transparency. If you continue that with bASIC it should be a successful stock.PS: You should fix the profile links.

creativex



Offline



Activity: 434

Merit: 250









Sr. MemberActivity: 434Merit: 250 Re: btt December 15, 2012, 06:26:46 PM

Last edit: December 15, 2012, 08:20:49 PM by creativex #7 Quote from: btcash on December 15, 2012, 06:13:41 PM Quote from: creativex on December 15, 2012, 05:58:33 PM I've successfully launched and manage two funds currently([LTC-GLOBAL]LTC-DMF and [CRYPTOSTOCKS]AGLTC), but this is my first stock. If there is something that is unclear in the contract or someone has a suggestion that would provide additional clarity I'd be happy to hear suggestions. The stock is not open for trading or moderator approval at this time. This is the time to work these things out.

When are you planning on unlocking the asset? When you receive the asics?

Looking forward to invest in bASIC. I hold a few DMF shares at the moment and I really like the transparency. If you continue that with bASIC it should be a successful stock.



PS: You should fix the profile links. When are you planning on unlocking the asset? When you receive the asics?Looking forward to invest in bASIC. I hold a few DMF shares at the moment and I really like the transparency. If you continue that with bASIC it should be a successful stock.PS: You should fix the profile links.

I'm hoping to unlock it for approval this evening and begin trading as soon as it's approved. As I'm a miner and have been for 1.5ish years I have a modest revenue stream to share until BTCFPGA ships bASIC units. In fact due to the way in which I've structured the IPO and the fact that expenses come only from dividends on my own shares I will be in the red for some time as revenue from the GPUs will no longer be paying the electric bill.



Thank you, I've enjoyed creating and running LTC-DMF, and one of the first thoughts I had with regard to creating bASIC-Mining was that I would be unable to add it to LTC-DMF's portfolio due to the obvious conflict of interest. I intend to manage bASIC-Mining in the very same transparent fashion.



I had no idea there was a problem with the profile links. What happens when you click them? I believe you have to be logged into BTCJam to view profile information, I don't know a way around that, other than a screenshot.



Edit: Profile links fixed. I'm hoping to unlock it for approval this evening and begin trading as soon as it's approved. As I'm a miner and have been for 1.5ish years I have a modest revenue stream to share until BTCFPGA ships bASIC units. In fact due to the way in which I've structured the IPO and the fact that expenses come only from dividends on my own shares I will be in the red for some time as revenue from the GPUs will no longer be paying the electric bill.Thank you, I've enjoyed creating and running LTC-DMF, and one of the first thoughts I had with regard to creating bASIC-Mining was that I would be unable to add it to LTC-DMF's portfolio due to the obvious conflict of interest. I intend to manage bASIC-Mining in the very same transparent fashion.I had no idea there was a problem with the profile links. What happens when you click them? I believe you have to be logged into BTCJam to view profile information, I don't know a way around that, other than a screenshot.Edit: Profile links fixed. ▓▓▓ BITMIXER.IO ▓▓▓ ▓▓▓ High Volume Bitcoin MIXER ▓▓▓

creativex



Offline



Activity: 434

Merit: 250









Sr. MemberActivity: 434Merit: 250 Re: btt December 16, 2012, 05:00:51 AM #9



Anonymous voted YES with comment:



Quote The buyback at 105% of the 7d average price is a much better option than some of the others I've seen which can buy back at the IPO price whenever they feel like it regardless of the current trading price. I feel it would be fairer if additional offerings don't follow this 4:1 ratio scheme. Good luck with getting the stockholders to approve any issues following this scheme.

I added the bolding



I thought about this for some time prior to writing the contract and the primary reason I chose to maintain this ratio for all offerings is because I'd like to keep investor shares unencumbered and it's not difficult to envision a scenario where expenses could grow significantly. While ASICs are efficient compared to GPUs they still use power, PSUs & cooling systems croak and have to be replaced, etc. I also wouldn't feel comfortable hosting a large number of ASICs owned primarily by others without insurance & additional security. I agree it's a tough sell down the line, but if we're all making money, then who knows where this thing could lead.



Thanks for the vote and the comments. This comment was posted anonymously by a moderator on btct.co:Anonymous voted YES with comment:I thought about this for some time prior to writing the contract and the primary reason I chose to maintain this ratio for all offerings is because I'd like to keep investor shares unencumbered and it's not difficult to envision a scenario where expenses could grow significantly. While ASICs are efficient compared to GPUs they still use power, PSUs & cooling systems croak and have to be replaced, etc. I also wouldn't feel comfortable hosting a large number of ASICs owned primarily by others without insurance & additional security. I agree it's a tough sell down the line, but if we're all making money, then who knows where this thing could lead.Thanks for the vote and the comments. ▓▓▓ BITMIXER.IO ▓▓▓ ▓▓▓ High Volume Bitcoin MIXER ▓▓▓

Deprived



Offline



Activity: 532

Merit: 500







Hero MemberActivity: 532Merit: 500 Re: btt December 16, 2012, 05:44:22 AM #10 The hardware already owned + the already pre-ordered ASIC. Are they being GIVEN to the company by you? SOLD to the company by you (If so, for how much?), loaned to the company by you?



Imagine a scenario where you only ever sell 100 shares. Do those 100 shares (and your own 25) then own the hardware (plus the cash from the 100 sold shares)? If not, what relevance does the hardware have to the offering?



After how you started DMF (for those who don't know it was given a small portfolio of shares before sales even started - adding great value to the IPO), wouldn't surprise me if you were giving them - and hoping that would generate enough sales that your 20% would cover it - it sure worked well for DMF. But would like to be sure.



creativex



Offline



Activity: 434

Merit: 250









Sr. MemberActivity: 434Merit: 250 Re: btt December 16, 2012, 06:54:36 AM #11 Quote from: Deprived on December 16, 2012, 05:44:22 AM The hardware already owned + the already pre-ordered ASIC. Are they being GIVEN to the company by you? SOLD to the company by you (If so, for how much?), loaned to the company by you?

These items are being given to the company and will be 100% owned by shareholders.



Quote Imagine a scenario where you only ever sell 100 shares. Do those 100 shares (and your own 25) then own the hardware (plus the cash from the 100 sold shares)? If not, what relevance does the hardware have to the offering?

I've imagined such a scenario, though it's not my favorite version. I don't expect that to happen once my commitment to this endeavor is demonstrated.



Quote After how you started DMF (for those who don't know it was given a small portfolio of shares before sales even started - adding great value to the IPO), wouldn't surprise me if you were giving them - and hoping that would generate enough sales that your 20% would cover it - it sure worked well for DMF. But would like to be sure.

I choose to look at it as a long term commitment to a business startup. Businesses require initial funding, as well as effective management to succeed, I'm committed to providing both of these things.



Thank you for providing an opportunity to clarify this point. These items are being given to the company and will be 100% owned by shareholders.I've imagined such a scenario, though it's not my favorite version.I don't expect that to happen once my commitment to this endeavor is demonstrated.I choose to look at it as a long term commitment to a business startup. Businesses require initial funding, as well as effective management to succeed, I'm committed to providing both of these things.Thank you for providing an opportunity to clarify this point. ▓▓▓ BITMIXER.IO ▓▓▓ ▓▓▓ High Volume Bitcoin MIXER ▓▓▓

creativex



Offline



Activity: 434

Merit: 250









Sr. MemberActivity: 434Merit: 250 Re: btt December 16, 2012, 01:55:44 PM #13 Quote from: odolvlobo on December 16, 2012, 08:01:15 AM Quote from: creativex on December 15, 2012, 04:44:28 PM ...

Should management be unable or unwilling to continue operations of bASIC-MINING, a suitable replacement, designated by management, will be sought out. If none can be found, all outstanding shares of bASIC-MINING will be bought back at a price no less than 105% of the 7d Avg price.



Since the hardware is owned by the shareholders, shouldn't you be saying that the hardware will be liquidated and the proceeds will be distributed to the shareholders? What about the 30% of mining revenue held in reserve? Or, do you intend to keep it? Since the hardware is owned by the shareholders, shouldn't you be saying that the hardware will be liquidated and the proceeds will be distributed to the shareholders? What about the 30% of mining revenue held in reserve? Or, do you intend to keep it?

You are absolutely right. This language was added to LTC-DMF's prospectus prior to trading, but failed to make it into this contract, this has been corrected. Thank you for bringing this to my attention.



Quote Though, I don't know how you can guarantee to pay 105% of the 7d Avg price. How do you ensure that the 7d Avg price is not manipulated. For example, if people found out that you are shutting down, they would buy as many shares as possible beforehand in order to drive the average price up as high as possible. On the other hand, you could counter that by dumping all your shares onto market to drive the average price down. This could be a problem.

Likely I'd simply halt trading prior to announcing closure. Closing down can be a messy business, someone is surely to be unhappy regardless of how it's handled, I simply chose the way that seemed most fair.



You are absolutely right. This language was added to LTC-DMF's prospectus prior to trading, but failed to make it into this contract, this has been corrected. Thank you for bringing this to my attention.Likely I'd simply halt trading prior to announcing closure. Closing down can be a messy business, someone is surely to be unhappy regardless of how it's handled, I simply chose the way that seemed most fair. ▓▓▓ BITMIXER.IO ▓▓▓ ▓▓▓ High Volume Bitcoin MIXER ▓▓▓

Deprived



Offline



Activity: 532

Merit: 500







Hero MemberActivity: 532Merit: 500 Re: btt December 17, 2012, 02:27:56 AM #15 One more minor clarification needed.



Contract says:



"For every four IPO shares of bASIC-Mining sold one share will be paid

to bASIC-MINING management as a founder?s stake."



The issue not addressed is what happens if the company itself buys back shares. Two options I see:



1. Company not allowed to buy back shares.

2. If share bought back then 1 founder share returned for each 4 bought back.



I'm sure you can see why one of these two is needed.

creativex



Offline



Activity: 434

Merit: 250









Sr. MemberActivity: 434Merit: 250 Re: btt December 17, 2012, 06:34:43 AM #17 Quote from: Deprived on December 17, 2012, 02:27:56 AM One more minor clarification needed.



Contract says:



"For every four IPO shares of bASIC-Mining sold one share will be paid

to bASIC-MINING management as a founder?s stake."



The issue not addressed is what happens if the company itself buys back shares. Two options I see:



1. Company not allowed to buy back shares.

2. If share bought back then 1 founder share returned for each 4 bought back.



I'm sure you can see why one of these two is needed.

Interesting point. You must stay awake thinking this stuff up.



It's not inconceivable that a situation could develop in which it would benefit shareholders sufficiently to justify the buy back of shares. As such I wouldn't care to rule out the option entirely, particularly as it's mentioned in the contract in the event of closure. If such a scenario did play out, I think it only fair that the same ratio apply, and those founder shares be returned as well. Interesting point. You must stay awake thinking this stuff up.It's not inconceivable that a situation could develop in which it would benefit shareholders sufficiently to justify the buy back of shares. As such I wouldn't care to rule out the option entirely, particularly as it's mentioned in the contract in the event of closure. If such a scenario did play out, I think it only fair that the same ratio apply, and those founder shares be returned as well. ▓▓▓ BITMIXER.IO ▓▓▓ ▓▓▓ High Volume Bitcoin MIXER ▓▓▓