Quote from: MidwestMiner on March 10, 2015, 02:18:30 AM

Quote from: muyuu on March 10, 2015, 02:02:11 AM

Quote from: MidwestMiner on March 10, 2015, 01:55:50 AM

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.

Well, that's the deal.

Havelock is de facto a mere broker, whereas it may appear to be a stock market with some guarantees - an image reinforced by their statement that only certified/qualified companies are listed.

In reality it's a broker, and the underlying market is a no-rules, no-guarantees bucket shop fest.

People should re-adjust their perceptions accordingly.

Agree 100%. Its the "Hashfast scam" all over again. People wildly invest $100,000s into DEVELOPING a product and then have a heart attack when its late and under spec. Hashfast wasn't a scam, they were a company that failed to product a product on time and was bankrupted by refunds (and diff increase) it happens and it will keep happening. Adjust your expectations and manage your risk people!!

The point is that even if it was a bonafide scam, which I don't know for sure, then Havelock would just take zero ownership and responsibility of that fact.

You're basically on your own and have no more guarantee than the word of whoever offers their "virtual stock" to you.