Quote from: Bostonbitcoin on January 11, 2014, 02:45:33 AM

Quote from: Inedible on January 11, 2014, 02:14:09 AM

Let's say you're totally legitimate (your personal details are available for anyone to contact you and find out more about you).

What exactly is it that you need to know?

What technical hurdle are you coming up against?

What information do you need to make a decision whether to take this forward?

Surely as a forum, we can all provide you with that information and then you can assess whether this will work or not.

Surely this would be a better route than you to keep proving yourself to us and us continuing to grill you?

Thanks -- the thread is getting long and I actually got a lot of what I needed in PMs.

It's great that people are happy to PM you (I'd bear in mind the number of con artists going around - don't take this as an endorsement that you, or I for that matter, aren't in that same group) but I'd recommend you keep the technical details public where details don't impinge on regulations. This will a) help others and b) save a lot of people a lot of time when answering.

Quote from: Bostonbitcoin on January 11, 2014, 02:45:33 AM

Main things I'm wondering is how much, if at all, large BTC holders see as a value of public vehicles backed by BTC. As suspected, for some it's no advantage at all,for others it's perceived as a major advantage.

When you say how large BTC holders value public investment vehicles, you mean those interested in becoming involved? I would think all of them would be interested in any legitimate means to increase their wealth. What you'll see here is a very protective and vocal part of the community defend itself from perceived threats.

Quote from: Bostonbitcoin on January 11, 2014, 02:45:33 AM

The technical hurdles mainly relate to security of large numbers of Bitcoin -- in two phases, one in setup and another for an operational fund. How would people secure their Bitcoin in escrow so something along those lines. If we bought something like the amount BIT has which is $70 mm or so, (this would be money from public investors) what are the best practices for that. I'm a bit aware of the 2/3 Armory solution where two of three people need (piece of ) a key....also there are 100 (1000?) years plus of good physical security best practices which have been used for metals and gems etc. so that part is not new....it's the main weakness point of transitions to the physical security in cold storage.

As far as securing Bitcoins is concerned, it's very similar to standard IT security for banking. I guess the operationally, only you know the requirements as you're the only one who knows how the underlying investment vehicle works.

Quote from: Bostonbitcoin on January 11, 2014, 02:45:33 AM

To move forward there are still some regulatory things I'm looking at and also weighing the benefits and drawbacks....I mentioned that I think I have a method of listing which is superior to an ETF and it is in many ways....but it does have some drawbacks....for example it is more static than an ETF without need to worry about redemptions....but less scalable than an ETF....the Winkelvoss fund could literally be worth $100 billion if BTC grows enough.....this model that would be much harder....but it would be quicker to market for the first new $100-200 mm or so which would be a good inflow into BTC.

As an investment vehicle, I guess the liquidity will determine the types of investors (I still find it incredible that a currency can be used for investment) but as long as there are longer term investors around, there will be interest.