Invictus Innovations to Return PTS Donations

[Overthetop]

Think unity not division. If you can't see any division going on here in this thread then you haven't truly understood the danger of making ambiguous posts in the community.

I trust I3's technical skills and leadership in general, but not so much in PR and marketing. This doesn't help to strengthen my confidence.

I have the same feeling in this point with Thom.

It would be better if we can avoid ambiguous statements when we are trying to announce something important.

[stevejobsghost]

I'm not a US citizen, not an accountant, not a lawyer...
By returning the "gift", would that be treated as a NOP by the IRS and therefore no tax liability?

I still don't see how PTS 2.0 can make any sense/have any value.

This decision seem to both enable PTS 2.0 (no more huge stake of I3 that would have too much voting power) and undermine it (the new PTS 2.0 must now be post november 5th snapshot, which does not represent well the real founders anymore, since many PTS were sold - or is that false ?).

I hope that the real reasons behind this will be revealed soon, as well as the reasons behind the form of this murky revelation : playing the interpretation game is a waste of time, and this thread gives a very bad impression.

Real reasons?   What kind of evil conspiracy could this represent?   They have already said that no government agencies have contacted them thus this is not being forced on them.   

One can easily read between the lines and see that this is being done for tax purposes.    If they return the funds this year and reject the donations thereby rescinding the transactions then the result is to declare any and all contract between PTS donors and Invictus void as well as to make the transaction nonexistent for tax purposes.   If they keep the funds then they either have to spend them or pay taxes on their receipt.

The IRS didn't publish their guidance until after AGS was started.   According to IRS guidelines income from virtual currency payments is taxed at the value it had upon receipt.   If I3 had originally planned to treat PTS/BTC as a currency then these guidelines would have changed how profit, income, and expenses would be calculated.  Treated as a currency I3 would only have income equal to the present value of the PTS (a couple hundred thousand dollars).   Under this new IRS treatment I3 would face an income tax bill based upon a $3+ million valuation of PTS at the time it was given which could not be offset by the capital loss.

Rescinding the PTS transactions moves the capital loss from I3 back to the donors and removes $3+ million worth of fantom-income from I3's balance sheet.  The donors can use the capital loss from PTS to offset the capital gains from BTSX, DNS, Play, etc which have a cost basis of 0. 

They were probably advised that if they kept the donations and the IRS declared them income to I3 they would have to pay 35% tax on the value of the donations at the time they were received.  They clearly couldn't pay a $1 million tax bill by selling the PTS they have.   Refusing to accept the donation is the only thing they could possibly do.

I3 also has about $3 million worth of income from BTC which they will have to pay taxes on if it is not spent in 2014 on business expenses.   I suspect this is a large motivating factor for giving the development team large end-of-year bonuses.   The developers will still have to pay taxes on the income, but it won't be double taxed.  Almost all companies with large profits end up doing this kind of thing at the end of the year. 

Looking at the public BTC balances it looks like I3 is on track to spend all of the BTC they received this year.  My guess is that they will end up spending a total of $3 million on deductible expenses by Dec. 31st which will completely offset the value of the BTC donations.   Any capital losses they incurred from BTC falling will offset capital gains made on BTSX that they have spent.   

Assuming they are working with a world class accounting firm they have likely legally organized themselves in such a way as to pay little or no corporate income tax on the donations they received.   

After racking my head about what would motivate them to give back all of the PTS this is the clear open and shut case.  It is also clear that if this is the reason, those who gave PTS would clearly support rescinding the donation.   I could be completely wrong. 

This theory also explains the push to enable dilution to fund development.   I3 has burned through the donations.  This probably happened because BTC fell 50% and I3 was budgeting on the original value and not the present value of BTC.   So while they raised $3 million in BTC they were only able to buy about $2 million in development and had to burn through $1 million worth of the BTSX they were given to avoid a $350,000 tax bill they would be unable to pay without dumping BTSX on the market.

Some may look at this explanation and assume I3 has mismanaged their development fund to run out in 1 year.  In my opinion they have done a great job managing the funds and have produced $50 million worth of value based upon $3 million dollars worth of R&D in just 1 year while securing the long term future for BTS at the same time.

The IRS has effectively forced all businesses accepting crypto-currencies to liquidate immediately because otherwise they could face income taxes on the value at the time of receipt and be unable to offset that income with capital losses.    A very sly move by the IRS that effectively kills using crypto as a currency to actually buy things.   
 

[sschechter]

I generally agree with you Stan, but in the face of last October's foopa of BM's merger post that set the community on edge and generally made a mess, your request to simply "have faith" in your posts here is like asking people to shut off their brain and stop thinking.

You would be wise to note the negative comments here and discard those that are simply nay saying FUD and those which are expressing a genuine concern for your continued style of communication that harkens back to October.

Think unity not division. If you can't see any division going on here in this thread then you haven't truly understood the danger of making ambiguous posts in the community.

I trust I3's technical skills and leadership in general, but not so much in PR and marketing. This doesn't help to strengthen my confidence.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your PTS refund, only asking why and why this way. But it seems my point is being ignored and my expression is falling on deaf ears.

I don't want to be identified with the nay sayers and FUD slingers, I'm not in their camp. But I will not sit silent and "go with the flow" when I see something that troubles me or I believe is contrary to helping with our joint mission here. I'm an ally not an adversary and I've made my case. If you choose to ignore it that's your choice, but it doesn't help your mission to alienate people when there's no good reason to.

  Its human nature to be suspicious of someone who's trying to give you something for free. This is default biological behavior.

[Thom]

I generally agree with you Stan, but in the face of last October's foopa of BM's merger post that set the community on edge and generally made a mess, your request to simply "have faith" in your posts here is like asking people to shut off their brain and stop thinking.

You would be wise to note the negative comments here and discard those that are simply nay saying FUD and those which are expressing a genuine concern for your continued style of communication that harkens back to October.

Think unity not division. If you can't see any division going on here in this thread then you haven't truly understood the danger of making ambiguous posts in the community.

I trust I3's technical skills and leadership in general, but not so much in PR and marketing. This doesn't help to strengthen my confidence.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your PTS refund, only asking why and why this way. But it seems my point is being ignored and my expression is falling on deaf ears.

I don't want to be identified with the nay sayers and FUD slingers, I'm not in their camp. But I will not sit silent and "go with the flow" when I see something that troubles me or I believe is contrary to helping with our joint mission here. I'm an ally not an adversary and I've made my case. If you choose to ignore it that's your choice, but it doesn't help your mission to alienate people when there's no good reason to.

[bitder]

I'm not a US citizen, not an accountant, not a lawyer...
By returning the "gift", would that be treated as a NOP by the IRS and therefore no tax liability?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gift_tax_in_the_United_States

[Ben Mason]

If we picked any good reason
to be our favorite reason
the suspicious would still reason
there was some other reason.

...and we would be right back to this same place again.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/fed-speak.asp

Very true Stan, but you have failed to provide ANY reason whatsoever, leaving the community to guess your motives and purpose. clear communication at least allows your supporters to have a firm platform of facts to dispense with any contrary claims. This is what I mean by you guys not learning your lesson.

You should study the trivium and Aristotelian logic to understand this and know when you're stepping into the world of sophism.

That's not true, BM has already stated that the attempt to regrow PTS had merit.  This was not possible with a single stakeholder of that size using DPOS.  This is reason enough.

Sorry Ben, but nothing I said was untrue. I am not saying I'm against the decision at all. Your "assuming" what the reasons are. I'm only asking for clear communication rather than ambiguity and community guesswork. That's no way to lead. It just isn't good for the reasons I've stated that STILL REMAIN unchallenged or even addressed.

I tell you what, I'll be hanging out on mumble if anyone cares to discuss this rationally.

Ok.  I've been able to reach my own conclusions, right or wrong, based on what has been posted in the forum about this subject.  That is not the case for everyone and understandably so....and  communications can always be improved. 

I just find myself feeling a little frustrated at the speed with which suspicion and anger seems to appear.  They have earned our trust over and over.  I accept you are trying to highlight the communication part.   

I'm listening to your 'The Truth About World War I: The Hidden History' link.........very interesting

[Stan]

I tell you what, I'll be hanging out on mumble if anyone cares to discuss this rationally.

It would be rational to assume that we have rational reasons for everything we say or don't say.

[Thom]

If we picked any good reason
to be our favorite reason
the suspicious would still reason
there was some other reason.

...and we would be right back to this same place again.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/fed-speak.asp

Very true Stan, but you have failed to provide ANY reason whatsoever, leaving the community to guess your motives and purpose. clear communication at least allows your supporters to have a firm platform of facts to dispense with any contrary claims. This is what I mean by you guys not learning your lesson.

You should study the trivium and Aristotelian logic to understand this and know when you're stepping into the world of sophism.

That's not true, BM has already stated that the attempt to regrow PTS had merit.  This was not possible with a single stakeholder of that size using DPOS.  This is reason enough.

Sorry Ben, but nothing I said was untrue. I am not saying I'm against the decision at all. Your "assuming" what the reasons are. I'm only asking for clear communication rather than ambiguity and community guesswork. That's no way to lead. It just isn't good for the reasons I've stated that STILL REMAIN unchallenged or even addressed.

I tell you what, I'll be hanging out on mumble if anyone cares to discuss this rationally.

[Overthetop]

The motivation is more important than the form in talking.

After tracking with the BTS project for a long time, I personally wish to believe  3I has good motivation to make decisions.

Therefore, although it may be not perfect in the style of statement ,it would be ok ultimately.

[Ben Mason]

If we picked any good reason
to be our favorite reason
the suspicious would still reason
there was some other reason.

...and we would be right back to this same place again.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/fed-speak.asp

Very true Stan, but you have failed to provide ANY reason whatsoever, leaving the community to guess your motives and purpose. clear communication at least allows your supporters to have a firm platform of facts to dispense with any contrary claims. This is what I mean by you guys not learning your lesson.

You should study the trivium and Aristotelian logic to understand this and know when you're stepping into the world of sophism.

That's not true, BM has already stated that the attempt to regrow PTS had merit.  This was not possible with a single stakeholder of that size using DPOS.  This is reason enough.

[Thom]

If we picked any good reason
to be our favorite reason
the suspicious would still reason
there was some other reason.

...and we would be right back to this same place again.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/fed-speak.asp

Very true Stan, but you have failed to provide ANY reason whatsoever, leaving the community to guess your motives and purpose. clear communication at least allows your supporters to have a firm platform of facts to dispense with any contrary claims. This is what I mean by you guys not learning your lesson.

You should study the trivium and Aristotelian logic to understand this and know when you're stepping into the world of sophism. 

[Stan]

If we picked any good reason
to be our favorite real reason
the suspicious would then reason
we had some other reason.

...and we would be right back to this same place again.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/fed-speak.asp

[inarizushi]

I still don't see how PTS 2.0 can make any sense/have any value.

This decision seem to both enable PTS 2.0 (no more huge stake of I3 that would have too much voting power) and undermine it (the new PTS 2.0 must now be post november 5th snapshot, which does not represent well the real founders anymore, since many PTS were sold - or is that false ?).

I hope that the real reasons behind this will be revealed soon, as well as the reasons behind the form of this murky revelation : playing the interpretation game is a waste of time, and this thread gives a very bad impression.

[nomoreheroes7]

...aren't the main reasons to do this because I3 no longer has any association to PTS, and they don't want to be a controlling holder of a currency they no longer support, and it offers a better distribution of PTS for AlphaBar or whoever to go ahead and try and revive?

Makes sense to me, not sure what's with all the anger and "community suspicion" etc going on here...

[Thom]

Unsurprisingly neither Dan nor Stan have yet given a plausible reason for this decision. Besides the obligatory memes they have yet failed to address suspicion.
You make a business decision that reeks of covering up fraud and decide to better not address the circumstances, but post funny pictures of cartoon characters instead?

Yet the brainwashed plus 5ers are content with the notion of 'free money'.

Really, this is ridiculous. Nobody in this community questions anything at all, although suspicious decisions seem to basically be the backbone of Invictus' business plan.

There are a dozen good reasons and few downsides. 

Perhaps you can make an argument on why we shouldn't.

This a lame proposition. YOU should be the one to explain yourself BM, you made the claim.

AND WHY THE FUCK ONE CAN'T a n y o n e ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF UNITING / DIVIDING THE COMMUNITY WITH POSTS LIKE THIS???

Look, I'm a strong advocate of I3 / BM / Stan, but they have said NOTHING here that instills my confidence they know what they're doing in posting nebulous stuff like the OP. It DOES NOT serve the community at large.

If it was necessary to disclose to PTS owners I3 was going to gift them their contributions back, there are far better ways to do than this. If I were a PTS holder I might even see a case for them disrespecting my donation by returning it.

STOP THE VAUGE COMMUNICATION TO YOUR SUPPORTERS!

Really, this is ridiculous. Nobody in this community questions anything at all...

I agree with your first sentence, your post is ridiculous. Obviously you haven't been reading this thread much.