Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Bad Bobby
Ugly Toys Zzz
|
Posted - 2009.06.19 04:04:00 -
[31]
Originally by: Breaker77 Pros of being in a research alliance: Wardecs are a lot more expensive.
Not that much more expensive, definately not prohibitively so. We're talking 50m isk vs 2m isk.
Someone intending to destroy a hi-sec deathstar is going to invest a lot more in the operation than 50m, such that the war-dec fee is of little relevance.
As someone who has been a member of multiple research alliances for years, I can say that war-decs against research alliances are extremely common. But there is a big difference between a war-dec and an actual threat to the operation.
My thinking is that there are a lot more small corps owning hi-sec POSes than there are small corps within research alliances owning hi-sec POSes and the level of anonymity afforded by the former is greater than the latter.
Also, a war-dec against a research alliance could be a potential threat, but could be nothing. It would be very difficult to guage. You can be certain of frequent 'false alarms'.
On the other hand a war-dec against a stand-alone corp would be much easier to guage, you know they are comming for you specifically and you know that serious preperations are needed.
|
cosmoray
Cosmoray Construction
|
Posted - 2009.06.19 04:45:00 -
[32]
Comments
1. The lockdown proposal looks sound with BOD owning shares in secret corp. 2. How does mechanism of trial accounts for BOD's work exactly? 3. Happy with corp placement in or out of research alliance. As long as the BPO is locked down the principle asset won't be lost.
Financing(some musings) Too gain further trust on the amount of sums we are talking about you could set up an EBANK sweep account (no interest), and ask for NO withdrawal rights. The ISK could be sent directly to that account.
|
Bad Bobby
Ugly Toys Zzz
|
Posted - 2009.06.19 05:22:00 -
[33]
Originally by: cosmoray 1. The lockdown proposal looks sound with BOD owning shares in secret corp. 2. How does mechanism of trial accounts for BOD's work exactly?
I haven't used the trial accounts approach before, so it's definately something I want checked and discussed, but this is how I believe it would work:
Each trustee will hold shares in the SECRET corp with an active character, be it their main or otherwise. This is important for visability as, in general, the more effort involved in checking these things the less often they will be done.
Each trustee will create a trial account alt and join the SECRET corp. These alts will be given roles in the corp sufficient for them to initiate any votes/actions that might be needed in the case of a bus related incident. These accounts will then be allowed to lapse so that no additional cost is incurred in their maintainance. In the event of a bus related incident one or more of these accounts will be subbed so that they can take the neccessary action.
Obviously the trustees will have to be trusted by all involved to at least the same level as myself as they will have access to information and corp roles that would allow them to sabotage the operation. The lockdown measures will protect the investment from a rogue trustee in the same way that they will protect the investment from a Very Bad Bobby.
Originally by: cosmoray
Financing(some musings) Too gain further trust on the amount of sums we are talking about you could set up an EBANK sweep account (no interest), and ask for NO withdrawal rights. The ISK could be sent directly to that account.
It's an interesting idea. But ultimately, won't I gain access to either the isk for purchasing a Titan BPO or the BPO itself at some point in the process? I can understand something like this being used in the case of a multi-BPO operation so as to restrict the exposure to one BPO worth at a time. But is there any workable method for preventing me from being able to steal either isk or a BPO at some point? Suggestions are definately welcome!
|
Ji Sama
Caldari Tash-Murkon Prime Industries Sex Drugs And Rock'N'Roll
|
Posted - 2009.06.19 05:23:00 -
[34]
Edited by: Ji Sama on 19/06/2009 05:24:21
Originally by: Kazzac Elentria
Originally by: Bad Bobby
Originally by: Kazzac Elentria So an auditor, at least one making sure to cross all possible links would catch it... so its possible that someone so curious that had the key might, but not likely.
Unless we can think of a good reason to do so, I wasn't intending to share the API key(s) associated with this with anyone. Should we decide there is a need for the API key(s) to be shared then I would suggest it only go to one or more of the trustees involved in the lockdowns as they would already have access to the critical information and would therefore pose little additional risk.
Agreed, more or less just thought vomiting the entire process out.
i think one trusted auditor should have access to the API. And combining that with a trusted BOD... is pure win imo
TMPI |
Bad Bobby
Ugly Toys Zzz
|
Posted - 2009.06.19 05:28:00 -
[35]
Edited by: Bad Bobby on 19/06/2009 05:31:42
Originally by: Bad Bobby
Originally by: cosmoray
Financing(some musings) Too gain further trust on the amount of sums we are talking about you could set up an EBANK sweep account (no interest), and ask for NO withdrawal rights. The ISK could be sent directly to that account.
It's an interesting idea. But ultimately, won't I gain access to either the isk for purchasing a Titan BPO or the BPO itself at some point in the process? I can understand something like this being used in the case of a multi-BPO operation so as to restrict the exposure to one BPO worth at a time. But is there any workable method for preventing me from being able to steal either isk or a BPO at some point? Suggestions are definately welcome!
More on this point:
I can see that, potentially, we may be able to use a supremely trusted individual or group to receive the isk, purchase the BPO(s) and oversee the lock down before I can gain access to any of it... but I'm not sure on how. Ideas?
[EDIT] Also: Sorry if I am being dense today, but I've been up since 3am in the morning so my brain might as well be in someone else's body right now for all the good it is doing me.
|
Ji Sama
Caldari Tash-Murkon Prime Industries Sex Drugs And Rock'N'Roll
|
Posted - 2009.06.19 05:50:00 -
[36]
well i think with the right group it wont be a problem.
set up the BOD Investors transfer ISK to 1 trusted member of the BOD. BOD then buys the BPO's BOD then moves the BPO's BOD then lockdown the BPO's BOD then goes into hibernation, untill a vote is needed.
Dont think its complicated tbh. Again this all depends on the people in the BOD and Bobby. With the right people behind the wheel and the right numbers this will launch easely. |
Bad Bobby
Ugly Toys Zzz
|
Posted - 2009.06.19 05:50:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Ji Sama i think one trusted auditor should have access to the API. And combining that with a trusted BOD... is pure win imo
I am not opposed to the idea of sharing the API for the account used to run the SECRET corp with a trusted auditor. They may or may not be one of the trustees as well, there are arguments for and against that when it comes to potential conflicts of interest. But I am opposed to doing so without a good reason and I'd like to hear from people about what the justification for this would actually be.
My thinking is that there is relatively little to be gained from the API, in this case, and what has to be gained has to be weighed against any increased risk and effort. I suppose the main benefit would be that, if I was pulling a fast one, we may be able to figure that out earlier with an API key... but I'm not sure what kind of scam I could pull that would be detected this way. Essentially, I'm thinking that if I didn't bother to copy the BPOs or if I tried to make off with the copies that could be traced this way... but I expect that the API key could only be used to detect a "long con" rather than a "smash and grab" scam. I could still invalidate the shared API key and make off into the sunset with a Titan BPC, for example.
So my questions are:
What will an API key held with an auditor give us that we cannot get without it?
How valuable are any such advantages?
What viable scams will it prevent and what scams will it not?
Are any additional risks introduced by this? |
Ji Sama
Caldari Tash-Murkon Prime Industries Sex Drugs And Rock'N'Roll
|
Posted - 2009.06.19 05:52:00 -
[38]
Also... imo... members of the board should be chosen very carefull, the location of the prints must remain top secret. |
Ji Sama
Caldari Tash-Murkon Prime Industries Sex Drugs And Rock'N'Roll
|
Posted - 2009.06.19 05:56:00 -
[39]
I think its a very good idea to have the auditor sit on the BOD.
also. as justification i only want to add this, i think maximum transparency and the good will of the BOD are good choices. But your right, an API audit wont do jack ****. And holds zero security.
1: Trust and Transparency 2: I value the above fairly high tbh 3: It wont prevent a scam. 4: There are additional risk introduced, this can be mitigated by having the auditor join the BOD |
Bad Bobby
Ugly Toys Zzz
|
Posted - 2009.06.19 06:21:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Ji Sama set up the BOD Investors transfer ISK to 1 trusted member of the BOD. BOD then buys the BPO's BOD then moves the BPO's BOD then lockdown the BPO's BOD then goes into hibernation, untill a vote is needed.
So we would be exchanging myself as "the single most likely point of failure" for the BOD in a number of these steps. We would need to look at who we trust enough to take on that role.
Also, I'd like to know opinions on this:
Can I be trusted with 70b isk of your money at one time? Because if the answer is "yes", the need for the BOD to be responsible for these steps is somewhat diminished and it becomes a matter of detailed cost:benefit analysis. If the answer is "no", then these steps are more easily justified.
|
|
Ji Sama
Caldari Tash-Murkon Prime Industries Sex Drugs And Rock'N'Roll
|
Posted - 2009.06.19 06:27:00 -
[41]
tbh its not the case of risk or default. you can be trusted with 70B you dont need to do an API audit
But that is exactly the reason you should do it.
for members of the board, i recomend people like.
shar, hexxx, athre, caleb, kazzac, evalf? the last 3 is totally biased btw... and the above list is at the least subjective.
TMPI |
Bad Bobby
Ugly Toys Zzz
|
Posted - 2009.06.19 06:33:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Ji Sama 4: There are additional risk introduced, this can be mitigated by having the auditor join the BOD
Does it really? Because I can see benefits from having the auditor be independent of the trustees. The trustees can sabotage and, with sufficient co-operation between them, steal. Would having the auditor as an outsider policing the trustees be better than having them be a member of the trustees?
Are we talking about additional risk either way? The total number of involved parties would most likely be the same either way and the information available to them would be the same either way. The key difference is that the auditor would not have the power to intervene, only blow the whistle. Is that better, or worse?
You will all have to excuse my insistance on playing devils advocate with all the subjects we have up for discussion here, I'm looking at this both as a potential 'IPO proposer' and with my more usual 'IPO critic' role. I'm expecting to get some help on this from other members of the "established cartel" at some point, because this idea needs a lot more criticism from a lot more angles before we can even start writing a proposal.
|
Ji Sama
Caldari Tash-Murkon Prime Industries Sex Drugs And Rock'N'Roll
|
Posted - 2009.06.19 06:39:00 -
[43]
i actually think you bring some fair and valid points, and yes it would indeed be "better" overall for this venture, if the auditor could play a watchdog role. but it also has to be put up against the fact that the less people that know, the better. ie. i dont see this board getting to big, since keeping a lid on the size, you minimize risk to exposure! But perhaps 3 very trusted members of the BOD, and 1 very trusted auditor would be an acceptable risk!
From a personal point of view, it would be safest IMO if you agreed to not dying IRL, and not quit EVE + didnt involve anyone else but yourself.
and i wouldnt worry about getting the leet md'ers in here :D its a timezone thing, its morning here in europe!
TMPI |
Bad Bobby
Ugly Toys Zzz
|
Posted - 2009.06.19 06:55:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Ji Sama tbh its not the case of risk or default. you can be trusted with 70B you dont need to do an API audit
But that is exactly the reason you should do it.
Now that is an argument I like.
Originally by: Ji Sama
for members of the board, i recomend people like.
shar, hexxx, athre, caleb, kazzac, evalf? the last 3 is totally biased btw... and the above list is at the least subjective.
Shar and Hexxx I would agree with pretty much without reservation. It's all about the 'price' of a person's reputation. I get the feeling that Shar and Hexxx have a price so high as to be more or less unreachable. I guess that their principles could hold to the point of irrationality.
The others I would need to have sold to me and more importantly to the potential investors. No offense meant to any of them, they have all probably figured out that I'm pretty paranoid anyway! |
Bad Bobby
Ugly Toys Zzz
|
Posted - 2009.06.19 07:00:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Ji Sama From a personal point of view, it would be safest IMO if you agreed to not dying IRL, and not quit EVE + didnt involve anyone else but yourself.
I appreciate the vote of confidence, but I cannot agree to those terms as they rely of circumstances beyond my control. It is my intention to be here until the EVE servers get switched off, but my mind and body may not last that long.
Originally by: Ji Sama and i wouldnt worry about getting the leet md'ers in here :D its a timezone thing, its morning here in europe!
I know! I'm GMT timezone too, I've been up since 3am! Grrrr... |
Ji Sama
Caldari Tash-Murkon Prime Industries Sex Drugs And Rock'N'Roll
|
Posted - 2009.06.19 07:05:00 -
[46]
well tbh i am fairly certain i know when ill die :D but i understand why you wont go there.! |
YouGotRipped
Ewigkeit
|
Posted - 2009.06.19 07:13:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Ji Sama well tbh i am fairly certain i know when ill die :D but i understand why you wont go there.!
I'm pretty sure Genghis Khan died in 1227. |
Ji Sama
Caldari Tash-Murkon Prime Industries Sex Drugs And Rock'N'Roll
|
Posted - 2009.06.19 07:14:00 -
[48]
i agree. that when push comes to shove, its the investors percieved image of the BOD and you that only matters.
shar and hexxx, has reached a reputation that is unreachable, i dont see anyone come near them ever in EVE...
i understand your paranioa.
its a very thin line you have to walk, because choosing the wrong person on the BOD or as auditor could undermine the credibility. also the reason i think this should only be a few very trusted members.
i would recomend from a PR perspective to avoid people that might draw any uneeded attention and noise to the venture. (thats people like me etc :P) |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar Dark-Rising
|
Posted - 2009.06.19 07:16:00 -
[49]
Quote:
You will all have to excuse my insistance on playing devils advocate with all the subjects we have up for discussion here, I'm looking at this both as a potential 'IPO proposer' and with my more usual 'IPO critic' role. I'm expecting to get some help on this from other members of the "established cartel" at some point, because this idea needs a lot more criticism from a lot more angles before we can even start writing a proposal
CDS risk of default payment formulas tell us that the longer the time the (much) more dangerous an operation becomes. Furthermore, in a similar pattern, more points of failure raise failure rate in a worrying non linear way.
Just have Chribba handle most of this stuff imho, he's the most simple and trusted solution available.
Having several controllers and whatsnot is a nice exercise but imho it brings conflicts of interest and "friends of friends".
Quote:
I guess that their principles could hold to the point of irrationality
And they are not alone :D
And it has to be so, if you involve some highly influential EBank people in a business where your interest may be seen as overlapping / clashing on their own projects.
|
Ji Sama
Caldari Tash-Murkon Prime Industries Sex Drugs And Rock'N'Roll
|
Posted - 2009.06.19 07:20:00 -
[50]
i call bs vv...
since bobby has to trust them, it will be friends of friends, no matter what.
TMPI |
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar Dark-Rising
|
Posted - 2009.06.19 07:58:00 -
[51]
Noticed the ""? |
Bad Bobby
Ugly Toys Zzz
|
Posted - 2009.06.19 08:53:00 -
[52]
Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha more points of failure raise failure rate in a worrying non linear way.
Just have Chribba handle most of this stuff imho, he's the most simple and trusted solution available.
Having several controllers and whatsnot is a nice exercise but imho it brings conflicts of interest and "friends of friends".
My thoughts on the matter is that it has to be multiple people, 5 probably being the magic number, in order to remove a major point of failure. It's a case of it being the lesser of two evils. Laying the responsibility for securing this venture at any one person's door is a risk in and of itself no matter how reputable that person is.
The reason why I favour 5 people (myself included) is that the SECRET corp shares would be divided up so each of us hold 200 shares and it would require 3 of us to force through an unlock vote, in the case that all 5 trustees voted. In the case that (for the sake of argument) 2 of the trustees were on holiday, on a break from eve, indisposed or having a good sulk in a corner somewhere, we can still get the job done with the 3 remaining trustees while still having a decent level of 'resistance' to any monkey business.
By contrast, do it just with me and Chribba and all I have to do is wait for him to be 'otherwise engaged' and I can slip through an unlock vote and disappear into the sunset with all of my investor's hard-earned iskies. Alternatively, if Chribba was the only shareholder and the only party with voting rights, then we could be effectively crippled by him going missing. Neither of those alternatives are acceptable to me and they should not be acceptable to potential investors either. |
Bad Bobby
Ugly Toys Zzz
|
Posted - 2009.06.19 09:02:00 -
[53]
Originally by: Ji Sama since bobby has to trust them, it will be friends of friends, no matter what.
It has to be people I trust, that much is true, but it does not have to be my friends. In fact I would very much prefer it not to be people I have strong links with.
Shar and Hexxx, for example, are not people that I know well. We've exchanged words in forums, channels and possibly in the odd convo in the past but that is the limit of it. We have never done business together and we could not discribe eachother as friends in any honesty. Also, I would trust both of them to be critical of me even if we were to become friends in the future. This, as well as many more obvious things, makes them ideal candidates in my eyes. |
Bad Bobby
Ugly Toys Zzz
|
Posted - 2009.06.19 10:02:00 -
[54]
Ok, so discussion on security elements is rather dry and the level of opposition is far too low. This thread is not keeping me sufficiently entertained! So, let's get a little more aspirational and bring in more elements to discuss...
How? How much? How soon? How will it end?
Here's one way:
280 billion isk, 4 Titan BPOs, 1 mother of a deathstar.
2 BPOs, the ones that are considered to be the flavour of the month, get put into copying from the outset. The other 2 BPOs, the ones that are considered to be less desirable, get put into ME research from the outset.
...fast forward 110 days...
2 Titan BPCs pop out of the labs and are put up for sale. The BPOs are then put into ME research.
...fast forward 17 days...
2 Titan BPOs pop out of the ME labs and are put back in for copying.
...fast forward 110 days...
2 Titan BPCs pop out of the labs and are put up for sale. The BPOs are put into ME research. The two other BPOs pop out of the ME labs and are put back in for copying.
The routine continues on a 237 day cycle until we reach a suitably desirable level of ME on all the BPOs and then we change the cycle to repeated 110 day copying cycles.
With the BPCs being produced at increasing levels of ME we will have some hope of retaining a competitive edge, but also we increase the value of the locked down BPO asset so that if/when the time comes to sell up the BPOs we should have little trouble finding a buyer and should get a good return from the sale.
But, here is the big question, how much of a return can we expect?
After 110 days, 2 ME 0 Titan BPCs: How much would we get for them? After 237 days, 2 ME 1 Titan BPCs: How much would we get for them? After 347 days, 2 ME 1 Titan BPCs: How much would we get for them? Total income from year one? How will that change in year two? Is that enough?
So, rip it apart chaps! Change it from a half baked scheme into an ironclad plan... |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar Dark-Rising
|
Posted - 2009.06.19 10:33:00 -
[55]
Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha on 19/06/2009 10:35:45 Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha on 19/06/2009 10:33:55
Quote:
Shar and Hexxx, for example, are not people that I know well. We've exchanged words in forums, channels and possibly in the odd convo in the past but that is the limit of it. We have never done business together and we could not discribe eachother as friends in any honesty
Neither you nor JI got what "friends of friends" is used for, maybe it's unique to my country.
Friends of friends is a compound form for "less than 100% reliable people claiming being friends of your friends to gain a position they should not be entitled to have". Aka "friends by proxy". They would leverage and slip in undue things using the common friend as key to breach in the trust chain. Being in a situation to (unwillingly of course) bring in "friends of friends" is an unlikely but possible scenario with wildly unpredictable results (see, you are not the only one being mega-super-prudent and diffident ).
Quote:
How? How much? How soon? How will it end?
Here's one way:
280 billion isk, 4 Titan BPOs, 1 mother of a deathstar.
2 BPOs, the ones that are considered to be the flavour of the month, get put into copying from the outset. The other 2 BPOs, the ones that are considered to be less desirable, get put into ME research from the outset.
...fast forward 110 days
This is what I tend to do with other BPOs (in an infinitely smaller scale of importance of course).
Quote:
After 110 days, 2 ME 0 Titan BPCs: How much would we get for them? After 237 days, 2 ME 1 Titan BPCs: How much would we get for them? After 347 days, 2 ME 1 Titan BPCs: How much would we get for them? Total income from year one? How will that change in year two? Is that enough?
Imho the big question is "how can I predict math with 1 year of forecast, when math is only part of the equation?"
The demands for titans to be nerfed are still here to stay, Goons muscling a whole fleet of them demonstrated that those ships are as powerful as ever but can be stacked in ways the developers may reconsider in the middle term. That is a term compatible with the time frame to have researched those BPOs. Furthermore, even with zero CCP intervention, will the defeat of Kenzoku impact on Titans production? And how much? And in positive or negative terms?
Those imho are the possible "holes" in this plan.
|
Ji Sama
Caldari Tash-Murkon Prime Industries Sex Drugs And Rock'N'Roll
|
Posted - 2009.06.19 10:57:00 -
[56]
good thougts vv. i really cant discuss any specifics about titan bpc prices... imo they go for around 15-20B each? but i have never dealt in this, nor ever produced any of this. so ill just stay out from here on.
its very vulnerable to nerfs imo. and there is a chance that it could fall apart.. a break even might even only cover half if not a quarter of the total venture.
looking forward to seeing this getting ripped apart.... or whatever... also looking forward to seeing some real numbers on this.
/ji out
|
eVaLF
Delivery Luck
|
Posted - 2009.06.19 11:04:00 -
[57]
I kinda ignored some of this thread tbh, so if I am missing somthing slap me in the head and point me to the right post please, maybe I will read it all then.
I don't understand why this would need all these people involved. 4 people + bad lock down the bpo's. That means 3 of the 5 or more would have to scam to walk away wiht what? 20bil, maybe 80bil if you get 1 of each.
Basicly one trusted player joins with you, locks the BPO down and distributes 200 shares to each person involved, this way not each person would even need an alt to join your corp.
And soon as one person contacts another person to scam, this would put him in potentially a very bad situation if the person he contacts says no.
I just see you adding more and more people to the list of who should do what, meaning less and less profits in the end on a BPO that may drop in value as it is. |
Bad Bobby
Ugly Toys Zzz
|
Posted - 2009.06.19 11:24:00 -
[58]
Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha Imho the big question is "how can I predict math with 1 year of forecast, when math is only part of the equation?"
The demands for titans to be nerfed are still here to stay, Goons muscling a whole fleet of them demonstrated that those ships are as powerful as ever but can be stacked in ways the developers may reconsider in the middle term. That is a term compatible with the time frame to have researched those BPOs. Furthermore, even with zero CCP intervention, will the defeat of Kenzoku impact on Titans production? And how much? And in positive or negative terms?
Those imho are the possible "holes" in this plan.
Edit again: Basically, what are the contingency plans to deal with a possible nerf or a visible drop in Titans demand?
Yes, these are valid concerns and ones I share in one degree or another.
Personally, I think the current power level of these vessels was entirely predictable when the stats were first released. I don't have a big problem with them as they stand, but I could easily see how they might be 'improved' so that they can have a more positive effect on EVE conflict than they currently do. But obviously, my opinion on this is of little consequence as it is CCP that have hold of the reins.
Yes, Titans can be nerfed, buffed or changed. None of those eventualities is likely to reduce the value of a ME researched BPO or BPC to zero, so while returns may diminish I think it highly unlikely that they will stop completely. More importantly, the BPOs themselves are our get-out clause as if BPC sales becomes a waste of time the researched BPOs will still have a sale value which I believe will be sufficient to protect our capital if nothing more.
I think recent events, particularly mass Titan action from Pathetic Legion (Hai gais o/) will do no harm to the un-nerfed demand for Titans. The defeat of Kenzoku does not spell the defeat of the Titan either. I believe that Titan consumption is on an upward trend and as anti-Titan tactics (and tools) get refined and improved I think Titan consumption is likely to reach even more epic proportions.
Yes, an act of CCP is quite likely to change the Titan landscape at some point in the future. We don't know what and we don't know when. But I am personally confident that Titans are here to stay and Titan usage will survive any but the most ridiculous nerfs. Of course, CCP are capable of ridiculous nerfs too, so while I think the risk is relatively slight I can in no way disagree with anyone who feels the risk is too much for them to invest in a scheme like this.
In many ways, with this venture I am considering a bet on the future of Titans. But I believe I'm betting on the favourite whereas others will think I'm betting straight up on number 13.
|
Bad Bobby
Ugly Toys Zzz
|
Posted - 2009.06.19 11:38:00 -
[59]
Originally by: eVaLF I kinda ignored some of this thread tbh, so if I am missing somthing slap me in the head and point me to the right post please, maybe I will read it all then.
I don't understand why this would need all these people involved. 4 people + bad lock down the bpo's. That means 3 of the 5 or more would have to scam to walk away wiht what? 20bil, maybe 80bil if you get 1 of each.
Basicly one trusted player joins with you, locks the BPO down and distributes 200 shares to each person involved, this way not each person would even need an alt to join your corp.
And soon as one person contacts another person to scam, this would put him in potentially a very bad situation if the person he contacts says no.
I just see you adding more and more people to the list of who should do what, meaning less and less profits in the end on a BPO that may drop in value as it is.
Slap!
The intention would be for 4 people (trustees) plus myself to hold 200 shares each for lockdown vote control and those 4 people to each have an inactive trial account alt in the corp in case of my being hit by a bus. That's just 5 people involved in the venture and 4 of them will be taking the back seat in it all while I do 90%+ of the work.
Essentially:
Originally by: eVaLF for this IPO to get off the ground I would want to see the bpo's locked down with atleast 1 other person if not 3-5 people.
What was your objection again? |
Kazzac Elentria
|
Posted - 2009.06.19 12:24:00 -
[60]
To be perfectly honest, as much as I am a fan of verifying things, I don't think any keys should be released for this sort of thing and anyone who does the locking down should also do so on an account that cannot be traced back to their main. Trial account for instance.
It just adds another layer of exposure that could ruin the gravy train.
On the actual profit ventures, I think the ideal of having all four prints is enticing but you'll find that two of those four are going to move much easier than moving 1 of each every cycle. Personally I would focus on Caldari and Gallente with an extra print in Amarr |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |