|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
cosmoray
Bella Vista Holdings Corp
|
Posted - 2009.10.24 15:51:00 -
[1]
No one worried about the 40% price drop in Titan BPC's?
|
cosmoray
Bella Vista Holdings Corp
|
Posted - 2009.11.09 01:16:00 -
[2]
What you will see is that alliances will have a core home system (or a few core systems), which is/are fully upgraded, has cyno jammmers etc.
In this system a lot of cap ship production will occur. Instead of being spread out it will be heavily concentrated.
On the downside, if the Devs want to make Titans more diffcult to build, and also reduce the income of the major alliances then this would be a severe blow to Titan manufacture.
note: it looks to me that CCP has alliance finances in their site with this patch. The numbers at the top of the big alliances must be huge!
|
cosmoray
Bella Vista Holdings Corp
|
Posted - 2010.01.03 06:28:00 -
[3]
If you invested you want to hope that the Titan BPC market rebounds or this won't be paying out much at all.
EBANK also hopes the market rebounds as about 50% of their monthly income comes from this too.
I would seriously doubt that a Titan BPO would even be worth NPC price.
|
cosmoray
Bella Vista Holdings Corp
|
Posted - 2010.01.05 16:24:00 -
[4]
If 2 directors have truly left the game this will have an effect on the security lockdown.
If BB (I don't think he will) institutes a vote to unlock BPO's at least 1 director has to vote no to nullify BB. If no directors vote then BB would unlock the BPO's. With 2 directors gone that is a 50% drop in security (2 out of 4).
|
cosmoray
Bella Vista Holdings Corp
|
Posted - 2010.01.05 17:46:00 -
[5]
The mechanics of voting are quite simple.
Lets say that there is Bad Bobby and director A,B,C and D to make 5. They each own 20% of the shares in the lockdown corp.
BB creates a vote to unlock BPO's. BB votes yes (20% for unlock) no one else votes (0% against)
The vote will then carry and BB can unlock the BPO's. In an ideal world it would take 3 yes votes to unlock BPO's, but if 2 are absent/gone it now takes 2, or if no one is around to check only 1 as no one will vote.
|
cosmoray
Bella Vista Holdings Corp
|
Posted - 2010.01.07 21:54:00 -
[6]
I got 1 spare ALT spot left. I can do it if you want.
|
cosmoray
Bella Vista Holdings Corp
|
Posted - 2010.01.08 15:45:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Bad Bobby
Originally by: cosmoray I got 1 spare ALT spot left. I can do it if you want.
The approach I suggest is to create an alt on a trial account, add that to the sekrit titan copying corp and then let the trial lapse. This way it does not use up one of your subscribed account slots. Should there be a need for you to sub that trial account in order to liquidate T4U then the costs would be covered as part of the liquidation.
The shares that you use to monitor unlock votes are a seperate issue and ideally should be held by a character that you log on to regularly.
Provision was made for 1% of profits to be paid to each Trustee in order to compensate them for their involvement. Some Trustees have waived this right, but the choice is yours.
Originally by: Emmgel I have a spare alt - if needed - for the remaining position.
Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha I can join in with an alt and help at the task.
Thanks for the offers, we are only seeking to add one additional Trustee on the basis that Kazzac is MIA.
I've seen Shar in-game so I believe him to still be active, however I do not know if he currently has forum access. I will try to make contact with him and if I have no luck we can then make moves to replace him.
I can set up a trial account, and hand shares to cosmoray who is on everyday. Be completed in next 2 days.
|
cosmoray
Bella Vista Holdings Corp
|
Posted - 2010.01.08 17:14:00 -
[8]
I am not worried about the 1% pay. If liquidation occurs as long as I get the costs back for re-activation that is fine.
1% FEE WAIVED.
|
cosmoray
Bella Vista Holdings Corp
|
Posted - 2010.01.13 14:52:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Bad Bobby
Originally by: Bad Bobby
Originally by: cosmoray I can set up a trial account, and hand shares to cosmoray who is on everyday. Be completed in next 2 days.
Much appreciated cosmo!
Share creation complete. Is your trial account ready?
Yeah, send an eve-mail to Cosmoray with details about where to apply
|
cosmoray
Bella Vista Holdings Corp
|
Posted - 2010.03.23 17:53:00 -
[10]
Some costs are going to be required.
Remember that the initial costs were based on a Titan BPC selling for 10B ISK. In that scenario 10% or 1B ISK would be taken for costs. Now that the BPC is selling for 5B ISK the 1B for costs still needs to be deducted, though this does have the effect of making costs total 20% of revenue on sales.
It would be too dangerous to remove all liquid capital from the business. What happened if an opportunistic/unlucky wardec hit and the POS was put into reinforced which could have effect of cancelling the copying jobs.
In this type of operation there is always a need for emergency capital.
Now you are within your right to talk about returns (all investors/potential investors may), but the costs have to be paid. Fact is the Titan BPC market has changed significantly since the last patch.
Varo, One Stop has a fixed bond schedule and you have to pay 7.5B a month in interest no mattter what. How would you deal with your POS'es in reinforced or destroyed, you can run out of money real fast.
|
|
cosmoray
Bella Vista Holdings Corp
|
Posted - 2010.03.25 02:29:00 -
[11]
What if 6% of sales no longer covers costs? How do costs get handled?
Costs of running the business has to come from revenue. This was launched as an IPO (in the MD terminology) not a bond, so the payout is dependant on profit.
If investors are unhappy with dividends, they can sell their shares or push for a liquidation.
|
cosmoray
Bella Vista Holdings Corp
|
Posted - 2010.04.27 05:52:00 -
[12]
Got back today (off again tomorrow).
I can confirm I have an ALT in the corp, which has a director role. I do not own shares in the ALT corp, and therefore can't vote on lockdown/unlock. I also don't own shares in Titans4U, so won't see any share expansion vote.
My only function is to help liquidate if something happens.
In this expansion BB will have access to the cash until he requests lockdown vote of the BPO. I can confirm that the other Titan BPO's are currently being copied and are locked down.
|
cosmoray
Bella Vista Holdings Corp
|
Posted - 2010.04.27 15:15:00 -
[13]
security/directors/trustees what it provides:
1. There are 5 trustees in the ALT corp (Proton Power, Kazzac, Shar Tegral, AC155 and Cosmoray) all with director roles. I joined primarily as Kazzac hasn't been around much. 2. Primary responsibility it to liquidate corp if anything happens to BB. 3. Shares are provided to trustees (I don't have any) to allow votes on lockdown/unlock of BPO's 4. The ALT directors forward those shares to the ALT players main 5. When there is a vote (lock/unlock) the players main can vote on it
Risks:
1. At anytime Bobby could try to unlock BPO's but would need more people to vote yes than no. If no main is online for 24 hr period he could get a lucky vote unlock.
2. Bobby could run with the cash he is receiving from expansion. That ISK is not secure until he has purchased BPO and requested lockdown vote.
3. Bobby or ANY director could run with the BPC's or any corp assets not locked down. Includes corp master wallet, POS, fuel, labs etc.. .
4. Any director could cancel a corp job, which would wipe a copy run, possibly costing investors 5-10B ISK.
There are risks, but this setup is the best protection that can be found using CURRENT game mechanics.
|
cosmoray
Bella Vista Holdings Corp
|
Posted - 2010.05.08 08:52:00 -
[14]
Is it really worth it at this point?
The beauty of T4U is the minimal work, so why bother creating some for minimal gains.
Lets say you trade 5-10 Titan BPC's a year, that will net you 5-10B in profits at most. Roughly 0.125-0.25% ROI per month on what will be a 300B IPO.
|
cosmoray
Bella Vista Holdings Corp
|
Posted - 2010.07.11 14:54:00 -
[15]
Edited by: cosmoray on 11/07/2010 14:55:37 Gratz on the quick expansion. Not many Erobus ME2 BPO's floating around. I wonder did EBANK just unload one of their assets?
What is total capitalization of T4U now?
|
cosmoray
Bella Vista Holdings Corp
|
Posted - 2010.08.23 20:28:00 -
[16]
Director Update
I kind of forgot about T4U and the fact I had a director in the corp. I have deleted all my admin characters and closed all but 1 of my accounts (my main one).
I no longer have a director in T4U or have any BOD shares in T4U. I can no longer perform any lockdown/unlock votes for T4U. My understanding is that there are currently 5 directors (one was Kazzac who barely plays). I would advise finding another director to replace me.
Due to my limited time in game I won't be able to put a character in T4U or have any dealings with T4U if issues arise. I have also removed some roles in other corporations and declined a few directorships/BOD requests recently.
This post isn't meant to stir up trouble or worry investors it's just that I forgot all about it.
|
cosmoray
Bella Vista Holdings Corp
|
Posted - 2010.08.25 17:35:00 -
[17]
Directors
I would consider adding some voting roles to other people.
1. Although Kazzac may appear online he has no presence on MD anymore, and has not done so for at least a year. I am sure people would like the directors to be public and accessible.
2. I thought PP had severely limited play time (may not be playing at all).
That basically leaves AC155 and Shar as director/trustees. Both of these I consider completely trustworthy but a couple more bodies wouldn't hurt, especially public ones.
|
cosmoray
Bella Vista Holdings Corp
|
Posted - 2010.08.25 18:26:00 -
[18]
Agree totally there is no reason to panic. So far it is a well run business without management issues. It is inevitable that people leave the game or slow down their activities and need to be periodically replaced or added to just like in RL.
As the fund grows I don't see a problem with growing the board.
Some people could be given shares with no director roles whose only duty is to vote on lock/unlock procedures. The directors could stay the same as they are trustworthy enough to liquidate, and if the other BOD members didn't think so they could vote against unlock.
Plenty of time to take people on board.
|
cosmoray
Cosmoray Holdings Corp
|
Posted - 2010.09.04 22:48:00 -
[19]
Just logged in, quite the drama, and possibly biggest scam ever? Not sure.
I don't have the information about the recent votes, but I can tell you about the process of me becoming a trustee and how I left.
note: don't exactly remember dates (or specific posts), and I haven't got time to trawl through this post.
1. There was initially 5 BOD members. Bad Bobby + PP, Kazzac, AC155 and Shar. 2. 1000 shares were created giving 200 to each director. 3. Some time ago it was apparent that Kazzac was not around much, so it was decided another trustee would be added - Cosmo 4. I added an ALT into the corp and was given director roles. 5. After a few days/weeks I did make a post about not yet receiving shares, and Ray even commented that BB should hurry up and send them. 6. After this point my director become unsubbed, so I would not have been able to grab any shares or anything from the corp wallet 7. Due to RL (expectation of little Cosmo's), I deleted or sold all characters on 4 out of 5 accounts leaving my main one. 8. I totally forgot that 1 was a director in the T4U 9. At this point I made my post about this, and made the suggestion of adding more trustees.
At various points in the system there is always the ability of a major SCAM. The BOD/trustees can only reduce the risk. It still comes back to the trust issue. At the launch and at the expansion points the ISK has to be sent to Bad Bobby. Bad Bobby could at any point walk off with expansion finances as this is unsecure. The investors are trusting BB NOT to do that.
The trustee shares are held on the main characters so they can actually see votes occuring. This still means that the investors and the trustees are trusting BB not to kick the directors from the corp. The only way around this would be fully subbed director alts who would be required to log in every day to see if votes are taking place. This is expensive and un realistic.
Finally if BB is persistant he can force a vote through. If he knew Kazzac was barely logging in, that people were away he would have a good chance of passing unlock.
Trustees can only improve security to a degree that satisfies investors, but after that point you are still trusting Bad Bobby with your money.
|
cosmoray
Cosmoray Holdings Corp
|
Posted - 2010.09.04 23:52:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Estel Arador
Originally by: cosmoray The trustee shares are held on the main characters so they can actually see votes occuring. This still means that the investors and the trustees are trusting BB not to kick the directors from the corp. The only way around this would be fully subbed director alts who would be required to log in every day to see if votes are taking place. This is expensive and un realistic.
That's a false dichotomy, the shares can spread among multiple characters. Seeing votes occurring only requires 1 share, preventing getting kicked takes 50 (assuming 1000 total shares); with 5 BoD members, that leaves 149 shares to spread as you like among as many of your characters as you like.
That would assume that if a trustee saw a vote they would have to log on the director ALT. The director ALTs are all unsubbed accounts. They are only to be activated upon the *hit by bus scenario*. Not a practicle way to handle votes.
All the mechanics that have been set up in MD to try and control losses only work to a certain degree. There is no such thing as 100% secure in MD or Eve in general. BB worked the mechanics so that he could break the investors requirements.
The trustees did what was asked of by investors, BB worked around it.
Bad Bobby is the thief, end of.
|
|
cosmoray
Cosmoray Holdings Corp
|
Posted - 2010.09.05 00:22:00 -
[21]
Not really disagreeing with anything you have said.
It's just that when the IPO was set up and then expanded the investors were happy with the set up.
Could controls have been better? With hindsight yes Did anyone really push for these changes? No
T4U was an idea of the "most" secure investment, and an investment in Bad Bobby. The trust was destroyed and he scammed.
There is almost no way I see of stopping a determined scammer because it is not protected by EULA. MD has only been successful in killing the obvious attempts, and limiting the damage of others.
|
|
|
|