Quote from: BitCsByBit on September 16, 2013, 09:38:57 PM

Quote from: runam0k on September 16, 2013, 09:16:51 PM

Quote from: N_S on September 16, 2013, 08:37:24 PM

Quote from: BitCsByBit on September 16, 2013, 08:30:36 PM

I got a feeling that this will turn out into a mess similar to the Labcoin IPO.
People were putting bids 30% higher than the IPO price just to make sure they get in. And that was happening before 10% IPO price bids were filled.

The fact people do that doesn't ensure a Labcoin-esque fiasco. That mess is a result of Labcoin's continued incompetence, something we haven't seen a shred of from N&B.

Not sure why people refer to the Labcoin IPO as a fiasco. Yes, they underestimated demand, but when this became apparent they placed the shares as fairly as possible (at the IPO price!). Everyone who placed a bid got shares (according to the amount of BTC they bid). I got fewer shares than I wanted but I still think it was fair given the circumstances.

This is worse IMO: it's an auction with a deadline of the IPO date and a minimum starting bid of .003. It should at least be advertised as such.

What if there is a rush of very late, very large bids on BTC-TC? Does this mean e.g. Havelock could potentially miss out on shares altogether? A bit of a pain for potential investors to have to monitor all three exchanges looking for something close to the advertised IPO price.

This looks messy.

Sorry I should have been clearer what I meant.

The reason why I said the Labcoin IPO was a mess was because they forgot to lock the shares after the IPO was approved. That's what caused the whole mess. I actually agree that they have done a great job having distributed shares the way they did.

Now we have a similar situation.

It was also a huge mess because BTCT was bugged for the few hours before the IPO and wouldn't accept bitcoin deposits.

Many people asked for the IPO to be delayed because of this but they refused and lots missed out.

I tried to buy 250,000 shares and ended up with 0.