Author Topic: Asset (SRWP) - Stable and Real Weekly Profit for small stakeholder  (Read 13021 times)

warmach #45 on: November 13, 2016, 01:59:27 PM

  • Senior Fimker
  • ***
  • Posts: 231
    • View Profile
Is this asset still on sale somewhere and buyable and doing money for the owners?

I don't think so.  I think the seller of this asset cashed out his FIMK stake.
Warmach's Forging Pool
http://fim.warmach.info/pool/
May the forge be with you...

Eliphaz Fimk #46 on: November 15, 2016, 11:11:48 PM

  • FIMKrypto coordinator
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 821
    • View Profile
    • FIMKrypto
I don't think so.  I think the seller of this asset cashed out his FIMK stake.
Were there some conditions / agreements about the FIMK tied to the asset, or was it just based on good faith and kind of a gambling game setup?

kani #47 on: November 17, 2016, 04:57:34 AM

  • Senior Fimker
  • ***
  • Posts: 154
    • View Profile
Were there some conditions / agreements about the FIMK tied to the asset, or was it just based on good faith and kind of a gambling game setup?

I believe the answer to your question is in the opening post.
BitShares - Your share in the Decentralized Exchange

Zska #48 on: November 17, 2016, 05:15:19 PM

  • Fresh Fimker
  • *
  • Posts: 15
    • View Profile
Well please explain it to me.
I don't understand what was the deal at beginning, proof investment with guaranteed profit or gambling deal?
How asset owners can get their investment back if funbug has cash out FIMK?

kani #49 on: November 17, 2016, 05:48:34 PM

  • Senior Fimker
  • ***
  • Posts: 154
    • View Profile
<snip>
Therefore I can offer 1% of stable profit a week so far all assets won't be sold out (it will be guaranteed by my active balance more than 23'200'000 FIM
<snip>
I again will act as the guarantor the assets and so on.

The asset creator stated they would act as guarantor.
« Last Edit: November 17, 2016, 06:28:25 PM by kani »
BitShares - Your share in the Decentralized Exchange

wiser #50 on: December 11, 2016, 08:30:32 PM

  • Fresh Fimker
  • *
  • Posts: 13
    • View Profile
This asset has not paid a dividend since July. What's the deal?

kani #51 on: December 13, 2016, 06:38:38 AM

  • Senior Fimker
  • ***
  • Posts: 154
    • View Profile
This asset has not paid a dividend since July. What's the deal?

 :'(

the seller of this asset cashed out his FIMK stake.

:o
« Last Edit: December 13, 2016, 07:12:53 AM by kani »
BitShares - Your share in the Decentralized Exchange

wiser #52 on: December 13, 2016, 08:30:24 AM

  • Fresh Fimker
  • *
  • Posts: 13
    • View Profile

Eliphaz Fimk #53 on: December 13, 2016, 02:20:27 PM

  • FIMKrypto coordinator
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 821
    • View Profile
    • FIMKrypto
Please try to contact the asset issuer to clarify the situation for your FIMK stakes.

Heat Ledger Ltd is in possession of a large amount of FIMK from this person pledged for the initial HEAT distribution. It's our general policy to not intervene with 3rd party business (whether good business or bad business), however as seen before, in obvious cases - where in our power - we may make decisions to promote the common good. The FIMK in question is currently held by the company, pending refund to the sender for exceeding the HEAT participation limit per capita, while waiting for clarification of the circumstances.

I believe the answer to your question is in the opening post.
The opening post is unclear regarding whether it was a gamble or promise. "Guaranteed by active balance of 23M" doesn't factually mean anything as the active balance can be removed at any time. These kind of deals are often considered a gamble by everyone, and understood as such by practically all the players, in which case the operator's bona fide / pseudo bona fide intentions are approved while fully prepared to lose the stake should the worst case scenario materialize. Thus, further views on the matter, from possible "losers" of the gamble, as well as others, are appreciated to widen the reference frame in order to make any kind of viable conclusions about a possible breach of implicated terms by funbug.
« Last Edit: December 13, 2016, 02:28:46 PM by Eliphaz Fimk »

kani #54 on: December 13, 2016, 05:58:01 PM

  • Senior Fimker
  • ***
  • Posts: 154
    • View Profile
The opening post is unclear regarding whether it was a gamble or promise.

Not at all unclear.  A promise was made by funbug to personally guarantee the assets.

I again will act as the guarantor the assets

This can only be seen as a 'gamble' in respect that any cryptocurrency investment may be seen as a gamble...  loose logic indeed.  However with a personal guarantee attached to it, a violation of that guarantee turns it into a scam.

Please don't legitimize these activities as 'business' (good or bad).  Funbug scammed 180 FIMKers out of 1.2M FIMK and exceeded the 15M HEAT redemption limit.

I have no kind words if this scammer is allowed to steal and profit, all under the guise of 'business'. 

No special treatment -- excess FIMK submitted should be donation to company as stated in ICO procedures.
« Last Edit: December 13, 2016, 09:59:40 PM by kani »
BitShares - Your share in the Decentralized Exchange

kani #55 on: December 13, 2016, 08:56:54 PM

  • Senior Fimker
  • ***
  • Posts: 154
    • View Profile
Thus, further views on the matter, from possible "losers" of the gamble, as well as others, are appreciated to widen the reference frame in order to make any kind of viable conclusions about a possible breach of implicated terms by funbug.

Everyone!  Please share your thoughts -- I've made mine clear.
BitShares - Your share in the Decentralized Exchange

Zska #56 on: December 14, 2016, 12:24:59 AM

  • Fresh Fimker
  • *
  • Posts: 15
    • View Profile
I feel scammed.
Funbug should have pay everybody out /return orginal investment before quitting

Eliphaz Fimk #57 on: December 14, 2016, 01:57:37 AM

  • FIMKrypto coordinator
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 821
    • View Profile
    • FIMKrypto
Funbug scammed 180 FIMKers out of 1.2M FIMK
1.2 Million only in total - I thought the amount would be higher for such a large number of participants.

FWIW I haven't seen funbug quitting anywhere. The FIMK have been locked in since July. In private he argued the funds were directed to HEAT participation in order to produce further profit for SRWP holders, and he couldn't expect the delays in the proceedings. That's very reasonable and I don't doubt it. Granted, very risky and explicitly in breach of HEAT terms, but bona fide in terms of SRWP holders profit. According to my long experience of this kind of players I believe the perception of rules and right to take risks on other people's money is a cultural issue. It's certainly challenging to try to understand and I don't claim to do so, nor am I on funbug's side in any way other than through the voice of reason. However it's beneficial to know about these aspects.

Thus, the situation has been frozen for quite a while and is awaiting for info and views for resolution. My mentioning of business doesn't mean business literally, as in commerce. It means business as in handling of things. We try to refrain from judging and see it constructive to mostly mind our own business, which I believe is considered a virtue on the part of a operator with power such as ours being the creator of FIMK. Refunding SRWP holders is quite many steps away from our business - and that's just a note with face value, without implicating anything about which direction things are going after hopefully seeing a bit more discussion.

kani #58 on: December 14, 2016, 06:31:17 AM

  • Senior Fimker
  • ***
  • Posts: 154
    • View Profile
In private he argued the funds were directed to HEAT participation in order to produce further profit for SRWP holders

That’s an interesting story, and one I would expect from someone in his position.  However it was only one of the stories he prepared.  I will not go into detail here, but he left a (sloppy) trail in the blockchain from which he could have spun a couple of tales.  Perhaps he decided it best to own up partly to the attempted deception.

The reason this story does not convince is the simple economics of SRWP asset:  Every one SRWP owned earned 1 FIMK per week.  At original sale price of 100 FIM per SRWP, this yielded the 1% weekly profit.

Funbug has no reason to increase profit for SRWP holders.  In fact, he could have previously shared more earning rewards with SRWP holders (because he earned more than 1% per week in forging than he paid), but he never did.  He always stuck to the formula (until he stopped, that is).

No.  He simply wanted to use SRWP monies to increase his own personal holdings.  I don’t buy this story for one second!

P.S. If Funbug was really looking out for SRWP holders he would have offered a buyback wall (from the very beginning if you ask me), so that SRWP asset holders could have cashed in FIMK for HEAT.  I feel for the FIMKers who lost money to this clown.
 
(I will now yield discussion so that others can participate)
« Last Edit: December 14, 2016, 07:52:36 PM by kani »
BitShares - Your share in the Decentralized Exchange

wiser #59 on: December 15, 2016, 06:59:10 AM

  • Fresh Fimker
  • *
  • Posts: 13
    • View Profile
My expectation was that this asset was a way to essentially have the issuer handle the forging, and pay it out as weekly dividends, and I remember it being said it would be 1% per week, so that's what I was expecting.

I believe that we (the shareholders) should have been informed prior to the weekly dividends stopping, and with that information, should have been given an opportunity to cash out (such as with a buy wall). I am not sure what HEAT is all about, but it was not mentioned at the time that I bought the asset. If the issuer thought that buying HEAT would make a good investment for shareholders, then shareholders should have been informed and given the opportunity to exit if they didn't think buying into HEAT was going to be right for them. Whenever fundamental information about an asset changes, shareholders ought to be informed and given the chance to either vote, exit, or whatever other options make sense.

But simply stopping weekly dividend payments with no explanation and no updates to the asset thread is not cool, and yes, that makes the venture look like a scam.

Also, selling out the forging Fimk on an asset advertised as a Fimk forging asset is not appropriate. That balance should be in an active forging wallet minting new Fimk which then gets divided up among the issuer and all the shareholders. If the reason the issuer no longer has Fimk is because he "invested" it into a new asset (HEAT) which has yet to yield returns, that's at least better than simply dumping all the Fimk and leaving the shareholders high and dry. Still, though, shareholders should have been informed prior to him making such "investment" because doing so fundamentally changes the nature of the original asset.

I would have liked to have been given the chance to either say "yes, go for it, HEAT sounds like an amazing investment!" or "I'd prefer to not participate at this time; please buy me out so that I can put the funds towards a different investment of my own choosing."