| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Ray McCormack
hirr
   |
Posted - 2009.06.25 16:08:00 -
[1]
 Originally by: Bad Bobby
1. To vote against any unlock votes unless they have been agreed to in an open public discussion with shareholders that results in a decision to liquidate, relocate or something else sensible.
So we can hold it against them when they all miss that well-timed 24h unlock vote?
|
Ray McCormack
hirr
|
Posted - 2009.06.25 17:51:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Bad Bobby
I am asking people to trust me with up to 265 billion with as many controlls in place as we can come up with.
The problem is the controls are not up to scratch, they are barely worth the effort.
To the four individuals that stepped up to join "the board" I strongly suggest you rethink your position. You are putting your name forward as some level of security when in fact you will have no control over the CEO walking away with everything.
Bad Bobby, the only option I can see would be to have the shares spread as thin as possible amongst public investors with a reason to shout and scream at the board and vote no for unlocks. I understand how unattractive this is; but when it comes to 280b in ISK, and considering recent events, I don't think MD should be entertaining something so risky.
|
Ray McCormack
hirr
|
Posted - 2009.06.25 18:07:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Bad Bobby
The problem with that is it would mean the location of the tower and the BPOs would be public knowledge and this amplifies another of the risks of the operation. Maintaining POS security, defending against frequent have-a-go attacks, shipping from a known location to a known marketplace, all these issues would become much more troublesome. I feel that secrecy of corp and location is the best defence against these issues and I think we would have to rethink the entire enterprise without it.
The alternative is to have the POS and product delivery under semi-permanent guard from a heavy fleet, which isn't something that can easily be worked into the profit calculations with any good result.
The threat of lost profit is less than the threat of total capital loss.
Whilst I see you're trying your best to mitigate any risk on any side, there simply is no way to safely secure this - there will always be risk, the most likely of which is complete loss.
| Auction Prowler |
Ray McCormack
hirr
|
Posted - 2009.06.25 18:19:00 -
[4]
Shar, you realise fully that your half-arsed disclosure is against my express wishes. To even intimate my involvement publicly is extremely disrespectful.
|
Ray McCormack
hirr
|
Posted - 2009.06.25 18:29:00 -
[5]
There is an interesting discussion on the forums somewhere here started by Eefrit as to the best effective setup for a board securing a private corporation by lockdown vote. My suggestion would be to read that.
All I ask is for you to make the potential investor specifically aware of the risks involved, and that your measures only go part way towards mitigating them.
| Auction Prowler |
| |
|