I’ll be the first:

I’m in!

Yes, ignore the haters. I like the idea and the discussion

John, were you being facetious when you indicated the shares would be worth $11/$3.1? I would have figured that the shares would be worth $11 - $3.1 because that would be the amount of "profit" the fund increased from the time of its inception.

My biggest worry would not being able to line up a buyer for the shares at the $11 and taking the profit ($11 - $3.1). If you could only get $9 for each share/token (or whatever they want to call it), then wouldn't the actual value of the entire portfolio be $9M instead?

All you would have to do is try to maintain a >50% ownership and the block chain wouldn't mean crap because if you have a majority of the shares, then what you say/vote is going to be what happens with the "fund" (or whatever you want to call it).

Thanks RHotchkiss I appreciate that. Means a lot to get your input as you are one of the people I look up to here as a collector not only because ur collection is the stuff of my dreams lol but you always have an open minded perspective on the hobby.
Like I said I enjoy all discussion both positive and the ones that have questions or aren’t a fan. I know Peter_Spaeth isn’t huge on it but I’ve enjoyed his constructive perspective and curiosity.
This is a space that’s developing and it could be amazing or it could be a bust but I’m always curious and love trying new things and taking some risks here and there


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Maniac,

Agree with Ryan, you're doing nothing wrong, and these aren't scams. They are basically just setting up a partnership, LLC, or corporation to invest as a group. This isn't really anything new at all, except that they're doing it all via the internet and calling the ownership units "tokens" instead of stock or partnership interests. They are simply changing the longstanding terminology, and making it sound more modern and "cool" I guess for the younger crowd.

Heck, 20 years ago I used to review the partnership tax returns for a ladies investment club. Some well-off women each kicked in the same amount of money and they decided how they wanted to invest it then. It was more of an excuse for them to get together every few weeks or so over coffee and tea (or maybe something stronger), and complain about their husbands, or so I was told. Bottom line is, it was a group that pooled money to invest, and then got together to talk and make decisions about it in person. These DAOs have everyone interacting via the internet instead, that's really the only true difference from what I can tell so far.

Look back at what I said in post #80. They're still going to have to set these DAOs up as some type of taxable entity, and someone is going to have to follow-through to actually buy/sell things decided upon, keep some type of books and records, make sure the proper tax returns are prepared and filed, have hired and directed the attorney(s) to create and formalize the agreements and documents everyone is is going to follow, open up a bank or some type of monetary account to hold, receive , and disburse funds, designate someone responsible for handling and in charge of the bank/monetary account, decide who will be responsible to set up and manage accounts at AHs and Ebay so you have venues to buy and sell cards through, determine who is responsible for appraising the DAO if someone wants too sell their interest in it so they know what it is worth at the time, and on and on and on. And all this necessary activity generally isn't going to be free, so there are probably going to be continuing costs that may be higher than anyone would have expected, as well.

You're just setting up an investing business that still has to do everything by the current books and rules. The use of the term "Decentralized" in the naming of these supposedly new investment vehicles to me is a complete joke. As I just noted in a few of the things above, any such business is going to have to deal with and decide which person(s) will be responsible for doing all of those, and potentially so much more, and handle them for and on behalf of all the investors in the DAO. That all pretty clearly calls for some semblance of a centralized effort(s) on behalf of the operations of the business. A decentralized effort would be totally inefficient and pretty much ridiculous for operating any such business. But if they want to call them decentralized merely because of the implied connotation that the ownership group is supposedly more democratic and the decision making process is not centralized in a single person or small group, so be it. But how does that work if you have a single investor in a DAO, or small group of similar minded investors that band together, and own a voting majority of the "tokens" in the DAO? That sure sounds like it may end up being a form of centralized decision making to me after all.

Again, anyone thinking of getting into one of these, be sure to read AND UNDERSTAND FULLY, any and all documents and agreements regarding the formation and operation of any DAO before you sign or agree to anything, ever!!!

Very true (please excuse my brevity, as I am busy taping coins to the inside of a SASE for my next order of cards. Thankfully I received confirmation from the dealer by mail that they were in stock).

Brian

Thanks BobC. Some very important things to think about and consider. I appreciate you lending your voice of experience.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Do these investments usually come with a maximum ownership stake? I guess you could easily get around that by having different accounts.

It would be interesting to get in on the bottom floor and then see what happens.

I'm still trying to visualize this.

What type of administrative fees are associated with investment vehicles like these?

I'm always interested in learning, so I appreciate the discussion. How many members are there in this DAO? What are the cards involved?

If the current value of the fund is $11 million dollars and there are 3.1 million shares, as you posit, they are worth $3.70 each, not $11 each. Up 270% from an original theoretical share price of $1. Not up 1000%, which is what it would have been from a $1 start price. That would mean the fund would have to be worth $30M+ currently. It was just bad math.

I must have misunderstood. I thought the change in value was $11M (current value) - $3.1M (original value) or about $7.9M in "profit". Therefore I was thinking the shares should be selling at the current value of $11M. It's understood that the increase in share by percentage is 11/3.1 (or about 3.55x).

Tlp
 

As a member of the Trotskyite Labor Party I am firmly against Decentralized Autonomous Organizations...as least I think I am supposed to be...Jerry

I do need some block chain for my old bikes. Chainrings and cogs too...

If there's a buyers group being put together to fund a production run I might be in if the price/ft is good.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

https://www.net54baseball.com/pictur...ictureid=30871

Lot of dinosaurs on this site. Some fair questions and, but in other cases, conclusions without appropriate knowledge. But whatever. Anyway, I am interested in discussing further.