Are you suggesting that CRobber et al. have a history of blowing smoke up investors' backsides and being dragged to court over their inability to fulfil their commitments?
The Star Citizen Thread V10
- Thread starter Sir.Tj
- Start date
- Status
DamnAre you suggesting that CRobber et al. have a history of blowing smoke up investors' backsides and being dragged to court over their inability to fulfil their commitments?
![[VR] Merkir](https://d2aefvhu2f0gi9.cloudfront.net/data/avatars/m/141/141091.jpg?1553527154){kind=avatar}
Net worth doesn't require "pocketing the money". You own shares, they are part of your net worth.
Just because you believe the company value is negative doesn't mean it is. I'm using a valid method to determine share price, which is a significant investment of $46 million in 2018 for 10% of the shares. Also their revenue is significant and historically quite stable - commercially the basis for a solid share price.
If you believe no profit and small loans are a significant factor in company valuation, you might want to take a look at a recent case study like Uber. Prior to their May 2019 IPO, they disclosed that they may never "achieve profit". Quoting from prior to the IPO, "last private market value of $76 billion". Based on that private valuation they set the IPO price at a valuation of $74 billion, raised $8 billion during the IPO, the share price immediately dropped 8% on close of day 1, and has clawed its way back to what was the private valuation since then.
Perhaps the private investors' 10% buyout of CIG last year was a smart move, comparatively?
All good points, albeit based on speculationNet worth doesn't require "pocketing the money". You own shares, they are part of your net worth.
Just because you believe the company value is negative doesn't mean it is. I'm using a valid method to determine share price, which is a significant investment of $46 million in 2018 for 10% of the shares. Also their revenue is significant and historically quite stable - commercially the basis for a solid share price.
If you believe no profit and small loans are a significant factor in company valuation, you might want to take a look at a recent case study like Uber. Prior to their May 2019 IPO, they disclosed that they may never "achieve profit". Quoting from prior to the IPO, "last private market value of $76 billion". Based on that private valuation they set the IPO price at a valuation of $74 billion, raised $8 billion during the IPO, the share price immediately dropped 8% on close of day 1, and has clawed its way back to what was the private valuation since then.
Perhaps the private investors' 10% buyout of CIG last year was a smart move, comparatively?
This is an important point. I'd be very surprised if the investors didn't negotiate to mitigate risk. For example I'm negotiating anti-dilutive clauses for my company right now (names and amounts deleted ofc) as we're investing in another company:
"8.2 Where an existing Shareholder or any new Shareholder is issued Shares following the date of this Agreement, the Company will issue additional Shares to <Company>, such that <Company>’s ownership of outstanding Shares shall not fall below 16.5 percent (16.5%) on a fully diluted basis, as calculated after giving effect to the anti-dilutive issuance of the new Shares. The issuances of additional Shares shall continue until <Company> has received additional Shares valued at $[insert amount]. Thereafter, no additional shares shall be due to <Company> pursuant to this clause. "
And the result of such clauses would tend to reduce slightly the company valuation, the magnitude of the reduction based upon the percentages involved (equity percentage and dilution limit percentage).
For the $46M, you can bet your butt their is a risk management tool of some sort being utilized. While Venture Capitalism is extremely risky, you can mitigate a significant portion of it. For instance, and I don't know if this is true, CIG could have bought bond protection for $46M. The $46M could be broken up amongst many heavy hitters, aka, the share holder could have sold off the $46M worth of shares, etc.
Lots of creative ways to mitigate risks
Lots of creative ways to mitigate risks
Net worth doesn't require "pocketing the money". You own shares, they are part of your net worth.
Just because you believe the company value is negative doesn't mean it is. I'm using a valid method to determine share price, which is a significant investment of $46 million in 2018 for 10% of the shares. Also their revenue is significant and historically quite stable - commercially the basis for a solid share price.
If you believe no profit and small loans are a significant factor in company valuation, you might want to take a look at a recent case study like Uber. Prior to their May 2019 IPO, they disclosed that they may never "achieve profit". Quoting from prior to the IPO, "last private market value of $76 billion". Based on that private valuation they set the IPO price at a valuation of $74 billion, raised $8 billion during the IPO, the share price immediately dropped 8% on close of day 1, and has clawed its way back to what was the private valuation since then.
Perhaps the private investors' 10% buyout of CIG last year was a smart move, comparatively?
In a risk tolerant market that we have now, you can bet on high valuations without the need to generate a profit. Telsa (which I like) is another example of this.
Net worth doesn't require "pocketing the money". You own shares, they are part of your net worth.
Just because you believe the company value is negative doesn't mean it is. I'm using a valid method to determine share price, which is a significant investment of $46 million in 2018 for 10% of the shares. Also their revenue is significant and historically quite stable - commercially the basis for a solid share price.
If you believe no profit and small loans are a significant factor in company valuation, you might want to take a look at a recent case study like Uber. Prior to their May 2019 IPO, they disclosed that they may never "achieve profit". Quoting from prior to the IPO, "last private market value of $76 billion". Based on that private valuation they set the IPO price at a valuation of $74 billion, raised $8 billion during the IPO, the share price immediately dropped 8% on close of day 1, and has clawed its way back to what was the private valuation since then.
Perhaps the private investors' 10% buyout of CIG last year was a smart move, comparatively?
If the game never releases and the company collapses, those shares become worth zero.
I would possibly dispute "cost of the game" since the ACTUAL cost for a new player is about the same as an AAA publisher - 65 with the Sq42+SC package.
Whatever people CHOOSE to pay is something entirely different from what the sales price is of a games package.
The comparison is of the business models. Therefore the game itself is irrelevant, as is whether it's released, and what can be bought in game. See how it all depends on your point of view? At present I'm much more interested in the business shenanigans than the game.
But I fully accept that many fixated on the "game" would not find such a comparison pertinent.
The comparison is of the business models. Therefore the game itself is irrelevant, as is whether it's released, and what can be bought in game. See how it all depends on your point of view? At present I'm much more interested in the business shenanigans than the game.
But I fully accept that many fixated on the "game" would not find such a comparison pertinent.
There hardly is all that much "game" to fixate about so I welcome all kinds of SC related info. Cross-information has helped to unveil a lot of things about this project in the past and its always good to evaluate outside things to CIG and SC in order to remaini realistic. Focus too much (and by focus I mean "neglect" other related information) and you can easily slip into the assumption that CIG is indeed creating groundbreaking tech, might become rich by outsourcing their own tools, has more content then already released AAA titles etc.
So thanks for the comparison
Yes, but the the ridiculous part is that Roberts got all his shares for free. All the millions being poured into the project - it's his. Without requiring any form of accountability. If you raise capital like people used to, there'd be shareholders for the capital being contributed or bondholders if not going the equity route. There is nothing like that. Is equity ex machina. It shouldn't be possible - this just invites fraud, misappropriation, misuse and theft. Not to mention the big problem of money laundering if the authorities dont come to their senses and start regulating this crap.
Theres a ton of red flags in this project from 2013 and up. The very first TOS changes should ve raised crapstorms and trigger peoples suspicion. It did exactly that for a certain group of folks but so many continued with the kool-aid chugging empowering CRoberts to keep doing what hes doing. Every change in policy, every deviation from the original plan, every single little thing that chipped away backer rights and decreased CIGs accountability was defended by the white knights and fanboys and directly lead to the current situation.
Blind "devotion" and "faith" didnt enable Star Citizen to survive this long. These things allowed CIG to run rampant without a goal, without a direction. Its easy to paint CRoberts as an "innocent fool" who just took the road of least resistence. In reality its HIM who recognized and abused the system....maybe even designed it from very early on to take advantage of peoples trust and money.
Whoever claims to "love" Star Citizen and is hoping for a great game at the end absolutely should ve been its most vocal critic, not its defender. Companies NEED to be held to promises, deadlines, goals etc. If all you do is always forgive slips, delays or lies and even go so far to reward it by throwing yet more money at the creator of said chaos you just empower the chaos...not the order.
No, its not "good versus evil". theres no need for a "crusade". But its worth it to point out the obvious things so even the people who are most sucked into this scam get the chance to wake up. Eventually somebody else will take the decision into his own hands. Not the backers (of whom many have proven they cannot resist on their own), certainly not CRoberts (who is directly rewarded for the duration of the project)...maybe damages to consumers will cross a certain threshold triggering governmental institutions to step in and start investigations. We already had reports in the past where disgruntled backers attempting refunds went to higher levels of authority to claim their rights and were told that "the issue with CIG is a known one...."
Giving things a chance is one thing but people need to keep an emotional distance. Its not a family member or dear friend (tho I understand that the inner circle of whales is pampered and treated as such to keep their loyalty) and while its okay to reward improvements and effort, its equally okay to criticise or even punish lies or breaks of trust. Both things have happened with Star Citizen and have led to a chasm in the community where the critics are called haters and the fanboys being called worse then just "fanboy". These people are all the same...invested into the project if not by money or status then by interest. And while this might happen in every game community the degree of one-sideness of who defends and who criticises is eye-opening (pretty much all the media bashes SC, experts soeak out against SCs approach of doing things and doubting the games capabilities to ever deliver on promises).
Maybe the next scam or troubling project will have more people speaking up when they see something they dont like, or just sit tight and observe instead of blindly defending something that doesnt deserve their time and empathy yet seeing as some scams keep running for the better part of 2000 years already I doubt it. Every day another sucker/idiot/etc is born certainly is true.
Me, I m just waiting for SC to finally draw its last breath. It wont ever be a success, yes jmp, it might release and people like you will probably celebrate that as a success but it will never live up to its 2012 statement. I m convinced of that. You are invited to call me out on this and make me eat my words
Last edited:
- Status