Author Topic: [LTC-GLOBAL] CIPHERMINE Industrial Cryptocoin Mining & High Perf. Computing  (Read 317986 times)

Offline Ethera

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 488
    • Litecoininvest - litecoin investment platform
CoinBomb dont worry, your vote has no power, she can do whatever she wants.

Kate, I have all the rights to spam in here, I AM your investor. Bought 1 share just to have the right to address all the concerns that I have. Cool isnt it?

Offline CoinBomb

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 17
CoinBomb dont worry, your vote has no power, she can do whatever she wants.

Kate, I have all the rights to spam in here, I AM your investor. Bought 1 share just to have the right to address all the concerns that I have. Cool isnt it?

Apparently so, with 20,000 yes votes suddenly appearing out of nowhere. Wanting to keep another 3000 from the dilution for staff is a slap in the face for investors.

EDIT: Keep in mind the fact it is 20,000 yes votes is even stranger. This means Kate is using the reserve shares to vote with, not her own shares. As there are only 10,000 public shares
« Last Edit: July 02, 2013, 09:51:39 PM by CoinBomb »

Offline killerstorm

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 76
EDIT: Keep in mind the fact it is 20,000 yes votes is even stranger. This means Kate is using the reserve shares to vote with, not her own shares. As there are only 10,000 public shares

You didn't bother to read the contract, did you?

Quote
5.6 Voting

All shares listed on LTC Global shall have one vote and we shall use the mechanisms it provides to poll our shareholders. Any shares listed on BTC Trading Co via a pass-thru shall also get one vote per share. Motions may be called by and shareholder or group of shareholders with more than 25% of the total share capital (>25,000 shares). A motion shall be considered approved on a majority of more than 50% of the shares (50,000 shares).

In the near-term this does mean that Kate has absolute control of CipherMine. However, this is in the investors' interests since she will be less likely to sell much of her 65% stake for fear of losing that control. Further, this should assure investors that she is unlikely to pass a motion resulting in significant dilution for the same reason. In practice Kate will heed the wishes of her investors unless there is good reason not to. If a motion achieves a narrow majority (less than 60%) the matter will be discussed with the CipherMine team before action is taken, and further input may be requested from the shareholders.

Those shares that belong to Kate and others mentioned in contract, they are all listed on litecoinglobal, and they all can vote. They are all public, not reserve shares or anything. (So it's more confusing why we didn't see higher rate of approval.)

While we are here, 90% of LTC-GLOBAL shares are held by Burnside. And he can do whatever he wants, obviously. But somehow nobody complains.

Offline CoinBomb

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 17
EDIT: Keep in mind the fact it is 20,000 yes votes is even stranger. This means Kate is using the reserve shares to vote with, not her own shares. As there are only 10,000 public shares

You didn't bother to read the contract, did you?

Who / What
   

Shares / Percentage

Kate 65,000 65.0%

Giles 3,000 3.0%
CipherMine: Giles' reserve 8,000 8.0%
Simon 2,000 2.0%
Ross 2,000 2.0%
CipherMine: funding reserve 10,000 10.0%
CipherMine: IPO 10,000 10.0%

Total 100,000 100.0%

Offline killerstorm

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 76
Both IPO and "funding reserve" were sold, 20000 shares total.

Offline shacky

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 155
I had read each post, and finally Im with Ethera.

You're doing whatever you want because you are the owner of 65%. It's make you sure that what you want is what you will do.

I suggest to you, play slow, and start showing us what you can do with the money you have.

About your number, I will tell you only one thing:

You can't delivery what you promise.

When I read this:

3.2 Tangible assets and real-world finance

The tangible assets (mining hardware) are owned by Wood Technology LLP. CipherMine may be considered a subsidiary of Wood Technology LLP, except that CipherMine shares convey no ownership, voting rights or any other rights in Wood Technology LLP and except that Wood Technology, its partners, customers, employees, suppliers, shareholders and associates shall be held in no way liable for any losses associated with CipherMine.


Wood Technology LLP are owner of ALL the tangible assets (Hardware), but the same company are NO LIABLE for ANY LOSSES?

Wood Technology LLP, have hardware that was pay with the investor money, increasing the ASSETS BOOK of the company, increasing the VALUE OF THAT COMANY, with the money of the investors?

With this contract, CIPHERMINE don't have any tangible assets. The investor money only increase the asset book of Wood Technology LLP.

I don't know how this stock was approved in LTC-GLOBAL, with this contract! It's very strange.

In my country the ppl always say:

"Everyone have a Price, with money you can buy almost everything"
« Last Edit: July 03, 2013, 04:09:09 AM by shacky »

Offline odie158

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 274
Ok, I have been reading these posts too. I believe that Shacky and Ethera in fact are incorrect despite what the contract says. Now I should preface my reasons by saying that I am in the United States which surely has different laws than England but I also know that the laws in both countries are similar. The Business plan states that Wood Technology is the sole owner of all tangible assets... Now should Katie or Ciphermine commit some act of malfeasance which results in investors losing their investment; Wood Technology would in fact be in the line and, in the US at least, could be sued into the ground. The fact that Wood Technology is the "real" owner of Cyphermine  should be a relief to investors for it is their deeper pockets which will help insure investors against Ciphermine's collapse.
Now, in the us if Cyphermine were a corporation this would protect it's owners (Wood Technologies) from losing their assets should Cyphermine fail. Unfortunately for Wood but fortunately for us investors a corporation can't have an IPO without lengthy and expensive filings with the SEC. This is a process that takes months and costs hundreds of thousands of dollars. there is no way that any Litecoin Global security has undertake these measures especially since Litecoin Global is merely a simulated exchange.
In short, it is my belief that Ciphermine is one of the safer investments on the exchange because of the exposure to liability from unhappy investors that Wood Technology undertaken by starting Ciphermine. Now in the US, at least, a line or two buried in an electronic contract will do nothing to protect Wood Technology from litigation.

Offline Ethera

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 488
    • Litecoininvest - litecoin investment platform
odie158 seing as this is virtual exchange, operating on virtual unregulated currencly, the law doesnt count here. Read both ltcglobal disclaimer and then again read the ciphermine security. They made it so perfectly and almost slipped through.

Offline shacky

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 155
Ok, I have been reading these posts too. I believe that Shacky and Ethera in fact are incorrect despite what the contract says. Now I should preface my reasons by saying that I am in the United States which surely has different laws than England but I also know that the laws in both countries are similar. The Business plan states that Wood Technology is the sole owner of all tangible assets... Now should Katie or Ciphermine commit some act of malfeasance which results in investors losing their investment; Wood Technology would in fact be in the line and, in the US at least, could be sued into the ground. The fact that Wood Technology is the "real" owner of Cyphermine  should be a relief to investors for it is their deeper pockets which will help insure investors against Ciphermine's collapse.
Now, in the us if Cyphermine were a corporation this would protect it's owners (Wood Technologies) from losing their assets should Cyphermine fail. Unfortunately for Wood but fortunately for us investors a corporation can't have an IPO without lengthy and expensive filings with the SEC. This is a process that takes months and costs hundreds of thousands of dollars. there is no way that any Litecoin Global security has undertake these measures especially since Litecoin Global is merely a simulated exchange.
In short, it is my belief that Ciphermine is one of the safer investments on the exchange because of the exposure to liability from unhappy investors that Wood Technology undertaken by starting Ciphermine. Now in the US, at least, a line or two buried in an electronic contract will do nothing to protect Wood Technology from litigation.

I will take your words, and will see it again in a few months.

You can't compare real life IPO, to IPO on LTC-Global.

What do you think that will protect your investment in LTC-Global? When you try to fill a litigation with this in mid:

1) Payment with cryptocurrency. (A good start for US)
2) Investing in a Exchange not regulated by SEC. (This point will break all litigations. Read around, a lot of forex brokers, binary option brokers, and many other finance/investment service don't allow investor from US because don't )
3) See the country where LTC-Global operate.

PD. I suggest to you read about the scammer forex brokers, and tell to me if the US customers got the money back. (Speaking about fiat money, and transferred using a US bank account with good proof of payments)

Point numer 2: You are breaking the rules investing, and LTC-Global break the rules too, accepting you from US to invest.

Read the contract, read everything in LTC-Global, this is a simulation, game, virtual. Let me know if you know a scammer investment from LTC-Global or BTC Trading corp got a litigation for bankruptcy a (virtual, simulation, game) company management?

Important: Im don't saying that all the company's listed in LTC-Global or BTC Trading corp are a bad investment, instead of it there is a LOT of good company to invest. Ciphermine maybe will run a great business, but Im sure that won't/can't get the profit Kate and business plan said.

Im only telling to everyone that you can sued anyone, but Im sure that is impossible to WIN the litigation in this type of market (cryptocurrency, virtual/game/simulation  exchange market, and many more things that will complicate the sue.)

Offline shacky

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 155
CoinBomb dont worry, your vote has no power, she can do whatever she wants.

Kate, I have all the rights to spam in here, I AM your investor. Bought 1 share just to have the right to address all the concerns that I have. Cool isnt it?

Apparently so, with 20,000 yes votes suddenly appearing out of nowhere. Wanting to keep another 3000 from the dilution for staff is a slap in the face for investors.

EDIT: Keep in mind the fact it is 20,000 yes votes is even stranger. This means Kate is using the reserve shares to vote with, not her own shares. As there are only 10,000 public shares

Im checking the Motion at LTC-Global, and don't see the 20.000 yes votes. Maybe anyone regrets? Or Kate thinks a little more, and don't show her votes until the end?    ::) ::) ::)

Offline odie158

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 274
My point is that with cyphermine at least you have a company to go after. There was a scam security called botminer as far as I know no one really knows who Greedo, the owner, really is so there is absolutely no recourse for investors who lost.
Nothing protects someone from being drug into a courtroom. You can sue anyone for anything and they will have to hire an attorney to defend themselves at their cost. Neither litecoinglobal's nor any security's contract would stop this. You may not win, and the lawyers may be the ones to end up with all of the money, but you could certainly bankrupt a small company.
I myself am hoping to float a mining bond soon. you can bet that it will be set up as a proprietorship with my name on it so if it goes south you'll know who to sue, me.
On a related note the value of a company is the present value of all of its future earnings not the value of its assets. A good example of this the Fortune 500 company Navistar International. Navistar has negative net worth yet the market values them at 2.25 billion. This is because they have growing sales and enough working capital.

Offline odie158

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 274
I did vote no on the motion to float more shares at this time though. They had their IPO, it is not investors fault that it was undervalued.
Didn't Buy a Hash try to do something similar after their successful bond offering only to have the plan vetoed by Burnside?

Offline Ethera

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 488
    • Litecoininvest - litecoin investment platform
CoinBomb dont worry, your vote has no power, she can do whatever she wants.

Kate, I have all the rights to spam in here, I AM your investor. Bought 1 share just to have the right to address all the concerns that I have. Cool isnt it?

Apparently so, with 20,000 yes votes suddenly appearing out of nowhere. Wanting to keep another 3000 from the dilution for staff is a slap in the face for investors.

EDIT: Keep in mind the fact it is 20,000 yes votes is even stranger. This means Kate is using the reserve shares to vote with, not her own shares. As there are only 10,000 public shares

Im checking the Motion at LTC-Global, and don't see the 20.000 yes votes. Maybe anyone regrets? Or Kate thinks a little more, and don't show her votes until the end?    ::) ::) ::)

Yes its not 20 thousand, its a whole whooping set from the ciphermine :) its like "oh we will do the motion, so you can actualy pretend that your vote matters.. NOT" :D and not to mention, that by the rules it should be a 1 week motion, and it was what, 24 hour deadline? Thats a great entertainment :)

Btw lets not forget that in the same motion there is so many inconsistencies:
Quote
Motion to issue 10k more shares; 9.1% dilution; expected 61% annual yield increase

and at the bottom of the motion
Quote
a 42% increase in yield.

I love this so much :D

Offline WoodTech

  • VIP Donator
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 278
  • Kate Craig-Wood
    • Wood Technology LLP
You are massively overextending your reach. You don't even have the first batch of FPGA's up and want to dilute shares and buy even more? On top of wanting to start hpc cluster sales and a darknet exchange?

Start small and work your way up. If you go too fast you'll fail hard.

Actually, we have all the FPGAs (80 Ztex clones, 10 dual spartans), we've tested them and are in the process of deploying them all today.

The 3,250 ASICs on order is only 200 K16 boards. Giles can build 10 a day and they will be arriving in batches between late July and mid-August, so no issue there. The additional 3,500 (215 K16 boards accounting for some DOAs) will similarly take him less than a month.

Building GPU rigs is trivial; 15 is 3 more rigs, the extra 25 is another 5. Simon and Ross can knock those up in a few days. We've automated the software elements of rig deployment and management so no bottleneck there.

We have a team of four already and have accomplished a lot in little time. Remember that we were not entering this cold at IPO; we already had functional infrastructure and expertise. Also, I'm used to running high-growth, fast moving businesses. This is stepping things up a notch I admit, but I have carefully considered the requirements and sincerely believe this small dilution is in all our interests. Remember; I am the main one being diluted!

With ASICs, any delay costs us dearly due to difficulty increases. If we can get them operational in September, and even if we assume a difficulty of 40m by then, they pay for themselves entirely (after power) in about 40 days. If we wait until then to be buying substantial amounts more (the ASICs are the main cash generator for hardware re-investment), we might not get another big shipment until December, and in January their ROI window might easily be 80+days.

Kate.

Offline shacky

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 155
Right now, Kate said YES with more than her 62000 shares.

Kate approve her OWN motion. Why make it public, if you will win always the motion?



Do whatever you want, and let us know only. LOL