Quote from: burnside on September 10, 2013, 09:54:54 PM

I have not been handed a list unless I missed it somewhere.

I hope the LABCOIN guys don't mind me disclosing this. Over 85% of the 3 million shares have not left a specific account I know is held in the Labcoin name. The other 15% could easily be held in any of the next few top shareholders, but I am not privy to who is who without some assistance.

Edit/add: and this account is not locked. I will not lock it without a specific request from the owner.

Thanks for your answer. I certainly don't see why they would mind such information being disclosed, one has to wonder why it did not come directly from them already with a link that the general public could actually verify. You know yourself how easy it would be to do. I simply can't think of a reason why it is not shown.

Quote from: radiumsoup on September 10, 2013, 10:22:33 PM

And another thing to keep in mind: just because you might lose money in an investment doesn't mean it was a scam - a scam requires bad faith. If a company acts in good faith, but is merely slow to fulfill its promises, or misses a few deadlines, or doesn't communicate to your level of comfort, your natural remedy is to sell your shares, perhaps at a lower price than what you paid. Such is the nature of risk and reward. Now, I'm not saying that regulation is something that should be abandoned - on the contrary, I think burnside has done a marvelous job of balancing the demands of the market with reasonable protections for all parties. But he's exactly right in that he's not responsible for the broken promises of anyone that lists with him - it's the sole responsibility of the pseudonymous entity you transact with when you buy shares. If you're not comfortable transacting with that party, demand a lower price to fit your risk model, or walk away.

I do believe LABCOIN is operating in bad faith, rather than being 'merely slow' or not so good with communication, that is the basis of my argument.

I don't beleive Burnside is responsible for other persons choice of investment beyond undertaking certain background checks before authorising the listing, and shouldn't be around to babysit investors every step of the way. I also don't expect him predict the future. He could of allowed this listing in perfectly good faith- same goes for Moderator votes.

Nonetheless when it comes to situations where an issuer starts acting suspiciously (go and read posting history of and tell me this is not the case) then refuses to co-operate with owner of exchange alarm bells start going off.

I'd like to ask following question (some could intepret things this way): If the owner of an exchange becomes aware of fraud, would it be acceptable to continue to allow it under his watch as long as he is earning fees from trading volume? would feigning ignorance or pointing to the 'it's just a game' disclaimer be a good enough excuse to get them off the hook?

mightaswellallowanonymous

Posts

Merits