Star Citizen Discussion Thread v11

[LanceLord]

More self pollination. Looks like Chris just expanded CI's horizons into the business acquisition realm. Is this a Softbank brain fart buying vaporware unicorn the likes of WeWork? Or a genuine investment the likes of Google buying Youtube which has made Google billions to date? Or as SaltEMike/Twerk points out, it may be a imaginary share transaction with hopes of reaping QoL community benefits once Turbulent's tech (or whatever project they're now quietly working on besides the website) matures. Regardless, if this purchase was with backer money, then Chris may have a lot to answer to the fan base about. Is this the start of a potential exit strategy on CR's end?

 

[Snarfbuckle]

Looks like Chris just expanded CI's horizons into the business acquisition realm. Is this a Softbank brain fart buying vaporware unicorn the likes of WeWork? Or a genuine investment the likes of Google buying Youtube which has made Google billions to date? If this purchase was with backer money, then Chris may have a lot to answer to the fan base about.

That can be debated.

We do no know the reason and if the purchase was merely an exchange of stocks it's also difficult to accertain the reason.

And, since Turbulent is handling more than merely the website and forums of Star Citizen it can also be seen like CIG securing assets in Turbulent for the game and making the partnership in building a game stronger.

It's all about the narrative.

 

[ZeeWolf]

Crowdfunding 101:

We want to build an awesome game, you give us money, you get game soon.
We need to build a company to make the awesome game, you give us money, we make company, you get game soon.
We need to buy a company to make the awesome game, you give us money, we keep building company, people buy our company, you give us money, we make many shell companies, you give us money, we buy companies, you get game soon.
...This is how big games are made..stop complaining...send more money

 

[n4p0l3on]

There's no charity, since you are paying VAT in all countries. They are abusing crowdfunding, though, indeed.

perhaps I should use "" in the word charity, but then if this is legally counted as sales, would a Banu Merchantman buyer able to sue them now? because it has been at least 6 years and the model is not even in the game yet.

 

[Zyll Goliat]

People have been easily scammed of money from company investment for over a century and if CIG is a scam it's a poorly designed one.

That said, I do not disagree with you that the Kickstarter and also Early Access should have a higher degree of oversight in general because it's literally tossing money over a cliff and hope you get something back and there is no clear view where the tossed money went. If anything it should have more legal protection similar to high risk investment into actual companies with the same insight.

So instead of kickstarting a game, it should be treated as sponsoring a separate section of a game company and there should be a clear insight into that company for those who invested/kickstarted.

Well you see snake oil salesman selling you also product that you can see,fell,touch and drink or put on your skin if you wish....The problem is that his product ain't work as intended and NEVER going to cure you from some incurable disease as he promised it will.......

 

[Sanya V. Juutilainen]

No, but we get a ship (...)

Except when you don't, right, eh? ;>

 

[Sanya V. Juutilainen]

perhaps I should use "" in the word charity, but then if this is legally counted as sales, would a Banu Merchantman buyer able to sue them now? because it has been at least 6 years and the model is not even in the game yet.

I would be even more curious about refunds in cases of changed ships. I believe they'll argue you can always melt and buy something else, though. It would be a funny lawsuit for sure, but would have to happen in EU, as US branch is hidden behind arbitration clause, which is like "lolnope".

 

[Mole HD]

From what I can gather...Ci¬G owed Turbulent money...Turbulent accepted a mutual exchange of shares as payment gaining 1% stake of Ci¬G shares...Ci¬G also gained 2 seats on Turbulent's board and a 25% share stake via the transaction.

As much as I suspect Ci¬G have previously misused backers pledge monies for certain business...and personal acquisitions in the case of the top board members, in this case it seems no funds actually changed hands...Still more Hollywood accounting though.

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

From what I can gather...Ci¬G owed Turbulent money...Turbulent accepted a mutual exchange of shares as payment gaining 1% stake of Ci¬G shares...Ci¬G also gained 2 seats on Turbulent's board and a 25% share stake via the transaction.

As much as I suspect Ci¬G have previously misused backers pledge monies for certain business...and personal acquisitions in the case of the top board members, in this case it seems no funds actually changed hands...Still more Hollywood accounting though.

If my company owed your company money - why would you trade away control over your company to me? I mean, it could just be a valuation thing but come on...

 

[StuartGT]

I think some money has been involved.

If it was a straight stock swap, then the official announcement would have stated so; but it didn't. It's instead written in a way that readers can assume it is a straight swap. CIG knows that the fanbase will invent whatever story ("truth") it wants.

The timing of the stock-sales is very convenient too: following Star Citizen's most successful ship-sale event ever which brought in many $millions.

We will only find out for sure how much money was involved (zero, or more likely $millions) when the relevant annual financials of either company are released (for CIG this will be October 2020).

 

[Viajero]

From what I can gather...Ci¬G owed Turbulent money...Turbulent accepted a mutual exchange of shares as payment gaining 1% stake of Ci¬G shares...Ci¬G also gained 2 seats on Turbulent's board and a 25% share stake via the transaction.

As much as I suspect Ci¬G have previously misused backers pledge monies for certain business...and personal acquisitions in the case of the top board members, in this case it seems no funds actually changed hands...Still more Hollywood accounting though.

Which part in all that represents the payment of the money that CIG may have been owing to Turbulent? Remember that if a payment was due the exchange of shares can not be simply swapped at "same value". And the value of those CIG shares (theoretical self valuated one) is short of just 1 million USD.

The only way that can work out without added cash on the table by CIG is if you consider Turbulent´s value as a company is pretty much irrelevant.

Also, this:

If it was a straight stock swap, then the official announcement would have stated so; but it didn't.

 

[sovapid]

I cannot really even think of getting a mining ship.

I mean, after all the games one remembers that has had mining of some kind (World of Warcraft, EVE, NMS, Elite Dangerous) it was never really FUN. Not to mention THAT profitable.

In terms of mining being profitable in games, you haven't played Elite lately I take it. You can go from nothing to trade elite and pull in a billion credits in a day by mining.

 

[LanceLord]

That can be debated.

We do no know the reason and if the purchase was merely an exchange of stocks it's also difficult to accertain the reason.

And, since Turbulent is handling more than merely the website and forums of Star Citizen it can also be seen like CIG securing assets in Turbulent for the game and making the partnership in building a game stronger.

It's all about the narrative.

Good point. What's the stock ticker symbol for Turbulent? Can't find it on Google Finance. I wasn't aware this was being traded let alone had an IPO. Or perhaps it's undisclosed private stock being traded under a group portfolio under a holdings company? Like the way Rockstar is a private dev game company, but public traded (indirectly) under it's publisher Take Two Interactive Software? If the holdings company scenario is true, then wonder which of CR's shell companies could have the legal oversight to do said trading? That would really open up a Pandora's Box of intriguing possibilities--both good and bad for backers, CR and his board members.

edit: then again, that sort of speculation is completely presumptuous. The still smoldering carnage from WeWork's public suicide (and Uber's impending train wreck in oblivion) should be flashing lights to any of CR's companies he's considering to take public. Once you go public, you've resigned yourself to being tarred, feathered, and flayed alive with iodized salt by global investors in the cut throat finance community. All of your sins would become public knowledge. Given CIs unique valuation which is based on an exclusive backer investment to date, any sort of public trading would result in the sort of unhealthy scrutiny that neither CI or CR would likely survive.

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

Good point. What's the stock ticker symbol for Turbulent? Can't find it on Google Finance. I wasn't aware this was being traded let alone had an IPO. Or perhaps it's undisclosed private stock being traded under a group portfolio under a holdings company? Like the way Rockstar is a private dev game company, but public traded (indirectly) under it's publisher Take Two Interactive Software? If the holdings company scenario is true, then wonder which of CR's shell companies could have the legal oversight to do said trading? That would really open up a Pandora's Box of intriguing possibilities--both good and bad for backers, CR and his board members.

edit: then again, that sort of speculation is completely presumptuous. The still smoldering carnage from WeWork's public suicide (and Uber's impending train wreck in oblivion) should be flashing lights to any of CR's companies he's considering to take public. Once you go public, you've resigned yourself to being tarred, feathered, and flayed alive with iodized salt by global investors in the cut throat finance community. All of your sins would become public knowledge. Given CIs unique valuation which is based on an exclusive backer investment to date, any sort of public trading would result in the sort of unhealthy scrutiny that neither CI or CR would likely survive.

You can be stock company without being listed on a public market.

 

[Skizomeuh]

If my company owed your company money - why would you trade away control over your company to me? I mean, it could just be a valuation thing but come on...

Chris needed a seat to satisfy Sandi's ambitions, and Turbulent are masochists.

 

[jmp470]

I switched the Prospector for the Razor EX last night. Fun little ship, but, I woke up with heart burn, as I feel I just ed away $155. So I will be melting it today and going back to the Prospector. I really don’t need another ship, minus my 600i, unless I rent it or buy it in the game.

 

[Viajero]

Good point. What's the stock ticker symbol for Turbulent? Can't find it on Google Finance. I wasn't aware this was being traded let alone had an IPO. Or perhaps it's undisclosed private stock being traded under a group portfolio under a holdings company? Like the way Rockstar is a private dev game company, but public traded (indirectly) under it's publisher Take Two Interactive Software? If the holdings company scenario is true, then wonder which of CR's shell companies could have the legal oversight to do said trading? That would really open up a Pandora's Box of intriguing possibilities--both good and bad for backers, CR and his board members.

edit: then again, that sort of speculation is completely presumptuous. The still smoldering carnage from WeWork's public suicide (and Uber's impending train wreck in oblivion) should be flashing lights to any of CR's companies he's considering to take public. Once you go public, you've resigned yourself to being tarred, feathered, and flayed alive with iodized salt by global investors in the cut throat finance community. All of your sins would become public knowledge. Given CIs unique valuation which is based on an exclusive backer investment to date, any sort of public trading would result in the sort of unhealthy scrutiny that neither CI or CR would likely survive.

Suspect Turbulent is not traded, but if you can find the usual annual revenue that would also be good enough to very roughly estimate the company value.

 

[Firkrayt]

the usual annual revenue that would also be good enough to very roughly estimate the company value.

Is it? I'm not qualified in company evaluation, but if I remember correctly, Uber was showing net loss for several years in a row whe it was estimated to cost gazillions of buckzoids for IPO

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

Is it? I'm not qualified in company evaluation, but if I remember correctly, Uber was showing net loss for several years in a row whe it was estimated to cost gazillions of buckzoids for IPO

Revenue, not loss. If you'd use profitability as Venture Capitalist you'd end up with very little to invest in. Revenue multiple is one of the simpler valuation models. You look at revenue, look at industry peers and the relation to their market capitalisation and apply that multiple to your investment subject at hand. Voilà, you get valuation indication.

 

[Viajero]

Is it? I'm not qualified in company evaluation, but if I remember correctly, Uber was showing net loss for several years in a row...

That should actually give you an idea how much Uber should be really worth