Don't get me wrong icebreaker, i've already written this investment off as a loss long ago, so I hardly feel that any assessment I make is 'premature'.

Realistically I am expecting the worse, while hoping for the best. I'm saying that future investors will be looking at this thread, and the way in which ID founders have handled this bad situation, and this will affect how willing they are to invest in any new project. It's all in the public domain, so it's in the best interests of everyone involved here for some regular and transparent communication. To their credit, Will et. al have so far been fairly forthcoming in describing the ongoing issues with hashfast, but they've also tried to push unrealistic KYC, attempted to change the terms of he IPO after the fact, and focused efforts on a trading platform which as far as I can tell, serves no useful purpose.

A mixed bag even by the most lenient of standards I trust you'd agree.

Honoring IPO conditions are central to restablishing trust amongst the shareholders. What kind of trader would buy these useless 'PUs" without an established dividend history and with questionable ties to bitfunder-era startups?

Until these obligations are fulfilled, all future startups by ID founders in bitcoin space should (and will) be considered scams. This isn't even a personal assessment of how capable or duplicitous the founders are, it's just a realistic guage of sentiment.

I just wanted to confirm quickly that the full amount of units have been credited to my CMX account. I appreciate that our voices here are not as ephemeral as I have been suspecting.


I wish you wouldn't say vague things like 'the end of july'. It's better to underpromise and overdeliver, this venture is already experiencing a deficit of trust. Even delivering on this unlikely target still leaves you negative overall. This is not a good environment for the launching of an asset let alone an entire market for assets in general.

With the skepticism out of the way, I'm glad to hear that negotiations with hashfast moving forwards. At this point their brand has been damaged so badly it will be pretty hard to get more investors on board for their new lease model, so their success is far from gauranteed, but it sounds like they are making the best of a pretty dismal situation.

If their gambit pays off, Hashfast restructuring around a lease model will guarantee -some- kind income, a baseline from which decisions like payouts vs reinvestment can be made. Given that this is a first step of sorts towards a sustainable business model, i'm happy to accept more delay in honouring IPO terms so long as it is backed by solid reasoning. This requires direct and frequent communication, not vague platitudes and timescales. Friedcat can get away with poor communication because he has proven himself to be trustworthy, 'licedrill' does not yet enjoy this sort of reputation.

I'd prefer honest bad news to positive-sounding bullshit. At least with honesty you can plan around it. This is bitcoin-land, we're all waiting for 'positive cashflow', and willing to accept some bumps in the road along the way. The next couple of months are going to be pretty interesting...

If you outsourced your handling of fiat to Bitreserve (http://support.bitreserve.org/hc/en-us/articles/203399387-Does-Bitreserve-accept-fiat-deposits-) it would eliminate the need for KYC altogether, as they would be required to field all of your regulatory burden. Hopefully it exits beta before / if cryptomex goes live.

As for reward payments, the more divs which are distributed pre-launch the more value icedrill will gain as majority shareholders. It is therefore in your best interests to restore investor faith by honoring icedrill initial IPO terms and paying out public holders the equivalent of 0.0016BTC per share as a bare minimum, before actual trading could ever conceivably begin.

To be blunt, I still see little value in opening up a trading platform without trading mechanisms and div payouts already being established and maintained. At this point IPO terms haven't even been met, our hashfast equipment is worse than useless and there are precious few new manufacturer relationships being formed. The trading platform has no prospect for competition if there isn't at least one decent starter.

As long as these issues remain unsolved, these shares will be worthless even if cryptomex ever actually manages to trade live.

*edit
Also the decimal placing on my asset list is wrong. I mistakenly bought 1112 of these shares and not 111.2 as your interface describes.

I should also reveal for fairness here to any who are still misguided enough to expect full compensation according to existing IPO terms,
that I've already received two separate test payments totalling 0.005293btc from icedrill.
At a promised rate of 0.0016btc per share that still leaves 1.773907btc outstanding.

If this is an attempt to shear away my confidence with mathematical slightery then bravo.

There should be an option to disable / enable 2FA once you are logged in.

The 'funds withdrawal request form' (funds_form.php) needs some cleanup work. Mousing over the text fields reveals some erroneous field data, clicking the vestigial settings button in the top-right corner produces a pop-up when moving to another window. Withdrawing and depositing funds should be as sanitary as possible. Not revealing underlying variables and firing off random triggers or events from simple, ordinary use. Without access to the code I can't be sure that everything under the hood is secure, but it certainly doesn't feel that way.

It's very encouraging to see some actual dividends getting distributed, hopefully it is a sign of things to come and a useful vehicle for addressing some of these lingering technical issues.

Still waiting for the full 0.0016BTC per share which public shareholders were promised under the original IPO, as well as the promised 75% of mining profits thereafter.

As things currently stand these shares have exactly as much value as people have confidence in your ability to deliver on the original IPO terms. And based on the sentiment around on this forum that amount is very low. Regular and transparently audited dividends are the only way to establish this base of confidence, and trading on an active platform is the only way to realize that base if it ever gets created.

Still lots of work to do, but this first step is a good sign in my books. Keep it up.

This is an excellent idea. Regular financial reports pushed onto some basic website would do wonders for decluttering this thread, and would also help provide some stability and fairer price discovery. Friedcat would be free to update more often without worrying about shifting the price one way or another, and it would go a long way towards legitimizing this firm in the eyes of traditional investors.

Yeah if we're going the DEX route, counterparty seems like a more proven and stable option as things currently stand.


I'm all for not reinventing the wheel, it just seems like overkill at the moment to have a whole platform dealing with a single issuance. What is the plan for developing cryptomex as a platform? Why would a a firm release an IPO here rather than through counterparty or Nxt? What work is being done to advertise cryptomex as an option at all?

The site itself seems polished and functions well enough but it still feels like beta software. For example, branding is not consistent across the site, which is a shame because the logo looks pretty good. I also don't like that the login page is separate to the index / splash page. It's particularly bad that there isn't a way to return 'home' from the login page. These are minor things but they all add up and detract from the user experience.

Having a whole platform for icedrill seems overly ambitious to me. It would be much simpler to use a dex or passthrough for now, and keep cryptomex on the backburner until it offers some unique and compelling reason for firms to issue there.

Is there any way to remove 2FA from an account once you have logged in? If I were to lose my phone or access to records of my 2FA private keys I'd likewise lose access to my account and have to rely on email support to get it up and running. Might save some headaches down the track?

Back to topic, I think exposing these shares through a passthrough would be an excellent way of discovering a fair market price for icedrill while cryptomex matures as a platform. Any thoughts?

This might have been covered already but is there any info on asicminer branching out into other territories?

I can't imagine china's increasing hostility towards bitcoin is doing them any favours, especially if the day should come where they need the cooperation of a chinese bank for whatever reason. Some aggressive regulating could quickly prove to be a liability for asicminer, it might be prudent to have some kind of plan in place before it becomes an issue.

I remember friedcat mentioning some vague intention to go overseas a while ago, was there any followup on that?

I'm not above hurting people where it is deserved, but we are no where near that stage yet. Despite the setbacks and poor communication, Will has demonstrated good faith by responding to our concerns about privacy and is still far from being the out and out scammer that you consider him to be. We all put faith into this venture by buying shares either on bitfunder or during the IPO, give icedrill the time they need to make good on that faith.

Violence is an extreme and last resort solution that is totally inappropriate here. It's only money, and this is bitcoinland, where nothing is certain.

Please don't make threats you are not willing to keep, it undermines the salience of any point you try to make.

And for the record I also see no reason why divs should not be payed. Just my two cents.

These questions are invasive and poorly written.

How would an 'illiterate' person even be able to read the 'vulnerability' section, let alone any part of the document? why should it matter if i am 'unsophisticated'? how would I qualify such a description? etc etc.

Which of these questions are legal requirements? Most of them read like a user survey or data mining than legitimate questions laid out by some regulatory framework.

I don't feel comfortable giving out this sort of information to a firm that can't even put together a legible and comprehensible document which is supposedly required by law.

It is also ridiculous to expect anyone here to give you bank details and expect that they will be comfortable accepting fiat payments rather than bitcoin straight into a bitcoin address. This is 'bitcointalk' after all.

+1

This is the only piece of information missing to allow a reasonable valuation of this share price, not to mention the dividends owed to each share based on blocks already mined.

More than anything we shareholders need a timeframe on when dividends will start being paid. This has not been addressed in any official update, and does little to foster confidence. Without this information what is to stop all shareholders from simply dumping their shares once cryptomex goes live?
Without a reasonable expectation of return or at least a timeframe for return these shares are effectively worthless.

Nice to hear things are still moving and that my initial trust as a shareholder was not misplaced. Just a few questions.

how goes the mighty struggle with canadian taxation law?
Is it true that KYC requires you to disclose the bitcoin addresses of dividend recipients?

I stumbled across something recently that might be of interest to that independent accountant you alluded to in an earlier post.

http://www.ato.gov.au/Business/Imputation/In-detail/Refunding-franking-credits/Refunding-franking-credits---individuals/

regards,
a Sunny australian