the longer-term solution is for Havelock to hold IPO funds in escrow and to actually do something proactive to protect their investors and build credibility for their exchange. a start-up goes to the public market for capital fine . . . let's just have a bit of oversight and have Havelock turn-over the funds on a draw-down basis that would comply with their published prospective. . .
other controls. . . a requirement for a publicly viewable wallet and monthly/quarterly financial statements. it seems pretty basic but, if a company doesn't comply with these requirements, they would risk de-listing. these kinds of controls exist on other exchanges and they make sense.
If Havelock halts trading, "investors" are left holding teh bag.
someone is always going to be left holding the bag. . . but is it really ethical to be offering a forum (and collecting commissions) where people can buy MS when in all likelyhood MS does not really exist? based on the information on Havelock's website, one would think that you are buying into an existing operation. . . and Havelock, while collecting commissions, and having promoted this company, takes no responsibility in helping "investors" determine whether this company actually exists or is just a fiction. . .