I get that needing $3m in capital is a reasonable thing for an operation of this sort. Our issue isn't that you need these funds - it's that the investors are getting such a low ownership stake given the risk we're taking. I think that you've got a great idea and there are many of us that will be willing to give you the funds to see if you can execute.

However, with investors appearing to have more skin in the game than the owners ($3m vs ), the 20% - 80% ratio doesn't sit well with me. I'm sitting on the sidelines for now.

Now that I've typed that out and thought about it a bit more I'd like to speculate some more about the generally expected value appreciation of Bitcoin, and how that relates to this IPO.  

If I was a group of banking and financial experts I might want to capitalize on my knowledge and build a Bitcoin related financial services company.  I'd write a plan, acquire funding, hire people, and profit.  We received all the funding we needed to get off the ground and cover the first couple years of operation so there's no need to take the company public to acquire growth capital.

If I was an unscrupulous group of financial experts intimately familiar with Bitcoin I might think to myselfs: "hey we've got this valuable asset now, but it's not generating revenue yet."  "This venture is kind of risky due to uncertain regulations so how can we use it now to generate some cash flow to recoup our outlays in case this all goes wrong?"  Asks one unscrupulous expert.  Another unscrupulous expert says: "I have an idea."

Maybe we could "offer" it as a "stock" on one of the Bitcoin exchanges.  We could quadruple the value (how would they know any different?).  We could offer the business plan, edited and redacted, in such a way that gives the impression that we bring $12million in total assets to the offer then ask for a further $3million from the community.  Voila!  We've made our initial outlay back in a matter of weeks!  "But wait!" says one expert, "why would anyone invest in us without proven dividends, or even a working prototype, at a time when BTC is likely to appreciate?"  "They likely wouldn't if they were thinking more than one month ahead, but people are dumb and will do what I tell them, I'll just dodge a minor question here and there..  pff there likely won't even be any awkward questions."

A year passes and our $3million worth of BTC is now worth $3.9 million (conservative 30% appreciation) our company has now started to turn a profit also.   At this point we could start paying out dividends to our investors based on our absurd valuation, but we're really unscrupulous experts now.  We've already gotten suckers to cover most (or all) of our initial risk.  Why don't we take this scam one step further.  

Instead of paying out actual company profits lets start paying out "dividends," but ONLY out of the realized profit from the appreciation we scammed out of our "investors" ("if they were dumb enough to buy into our offer in the first place they don't deserve to have real profits anyways" !DOUCHEBAGHIGHFIVE!).  This way we could keep the dividend payouts to a rate far less then they'd actually be entitled to if we were paying them out of real profits and we'd get to keep 100% of company profits, and our own BTC holdings would continue to appreciate.  How would they ever find out?  

I think you are misunderstanding.  Havelock does not make business decisions for the companies we list, determine what the valuation of a company should be or perform accounting audits.  We do our best to verify that a business will legitimately follow through on what they say they will do by vetting their business plan and verifying identifications.  We offer guidance and advice, but ultimately it is up to each company listing to structure their business in the way they feel will help them succeed.

Also, it's important to realize the difference between venture funding/crowdfunding and traditional IPOs and how each applies to the bitcoin securities world as it is now.  Venture funding at its heart is investing in people and their ideas and does not involve investing in established businesses (as with IPOs).   Right now, the bitcoin securities world is a hybrid of the two. Some companies list when they have revenue or will have revenue in the short term and are looking to expand (you could look at them as IPOs) while other companies list when they have a plan in place but won't be operating immediately and are looking to get started (you could look at them as venture funding examples).  So with that view, I understand why people would have questions looking at CFIG as a traditional IPO but if viewed as early stage venture funding, CFIC appears in a different light.  Again, Havelock isn't saying you should pick up some units in any of our listings, but we are giving people the opportunity if they so desire.

Hope that clarifies things.  Cheers.

Dear canth,

In order to operate internationally as a fiduciary financial services company we are required to maintain a minimum amount of capital in the amount of at least $10 Million (Backed by US, not raised by this IPO). The $3 Million dollar value is the amount used for the start up operation of the company, during its first year. We are not looking to start the company on a shoestring budget and hope to grow from there, instead we are looking to be financially secure and build a strong company to face the head-winds of the Bitcoin world. The $3 Million offer was put in place to offer anyone interested the opportunity to get in "On The Ground Floor" before our company lunches. Please remember that Financial Companies are not only just in the Business of Money, but are also in the Business of Trade. We personally believe that once adopted by Corporations world wide the valuation of Bitcoin would sky rocket, as they see it as a way to first and foremost cut cost of moving funds around borders.

Crypto Financial is offering the Bitcoin community an opportunity to be a part of our growth potential. If Bitcoin or another Crypto Currency is truly the future of money, we together with you would like to be a part of it.

If I'm following correctly, one of your main services is offering bank accounts with freely interchangeable USD/BTC balances, with a floating exchange rate at the time of sale/withdrawal based on the order books from partner exchanges/trade aggregators.



This looks great, but the big $10m "" surrounding CFIG's square is the key to this whole thing being real or being nothing.

A couple of reasonably intelligent people could whip together a business plan like this in two weeks, but unless the "" is real, you're just selling an idea for $3m.

Does Havelock at least know the name of the bank you're partnered with?

i'm glad that latest communication is a little more constructive here.
trying to be optimistic but still ending being realistic until now. hm...


@Havelock

confirmation? 
THE question (maybe i have missed this already, but hey):

*) is there a panamian bank really backing these guys @ ~$10 mio?
=> if that's not explicitly verifiable, then is that at least plausible to you (Havelock)?

just yes/no style answer would suffice for me now...

this answer could change my mind about the 20/80 problem here in some degree. |
well there are other questions regarding, but this one is right one at the moment.

I assumed it was part of the statement: "Full Company and Personal Credentials have been provided to Havelock Investments" that Havelock has confirmed the affiliation with the bank in question...

The Crypto Financial website was up earlier today informing potential customers of what is planned:

http://www.cryptofinancial.io/

The link above is from the main page on Havelock under the "What's New" listing for CFIG. When I viewed the website earlier, I thought there was a reference to Belize in the website. I cannot confirm as the website is not up now. Is the partner bank in Panama or Belize?

sorry for shorting of wall of text
i personally DO NOT assume something yet. i'm just neutral due lack of information.
because of that there was stated by me:


presumably i trust Havelock and his opinion would be worth a consideration for me.

further:
[1] CF stated it here and thus my particular assumption-question :


[2] Yes
[3] I do not assume
[4] Yes
[5] Yes. => Even if this were a mining bond, some more informativeness is demanded.