Quote from: Silverspoon on March 10, 2015, 01:49:39 AM

Quote from: MidwestMiner on March 10, 2015, 01:02:27 AM

...
You can't protect investors from scams 100%.

Not 100%?
The selection on Havelock is 100% scam or, at best, simple fail. Only two exceptions: Matt's betting operation, (B.EXCH; B.MINE; B.SELL), and Branny's RENT (which is above IPO, most likely another pre-NthPO pump). The rest selling way below IPO and/or ran.

For instance, Havelock swore up and down that it's holding 100 BTC in escrow for MintSpare (ticker:MS). The issuer hasn't been heard from for half a year or more (longer than friedcat), the price tanked (much like here), and Havelock is ...doing what Havelock does best, ignoring & denying.
MS market cap, BTW, is vacillating between 6 and 12 BTC, substantially short of the alleged 100 held in in escrow by Havelock.
Not that Havelock's own ...offering, Havelock Investment Fund (ticker:HIF) is doing much better. Nope, tanked hard and never paid divs Sad

So yeah, somewhat less than 100% scam protection. Especially considering recent past like Basic Mining & NeoBee. Such concentration of fail being purely due to chance is nearly impossible. Not unless Bitcoine4rs are an order of magnitude dumber & suckier @ business than regular people.

~Happy Investing!

I disagree. Havelock has cristal clear rules and they take no responsibility for anything but listing, trades and dividend distribution. In the mintspare case, what do you suggest they do? Just give shareholders escrowed funds? That's not how it works. Also, your rant regarding concentration of failures: fail rates well within range for 1st year startups.