open All Channels
seplocked Market Discussions
blankseplocked Titans For You IPO
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 62 63 64 65 [66] 67 68 69 70 ... : last (75)

Author Topic

Berikath
Posted - 2010.08.25 16:13:00 - [1951]
 

Edited by: Berikath on 25/08/2010 16:19:33
Originally by: Breaker77

2. Say Bobby wins the lottery, decides to spend his fortune on plexes and buy back the offering. Most investors paid 1 mil per share, but the newer ones paid 1.2 mil per share. How would Bobby know which person to pay which price to? If the people that paid 1.2 mil per share sold their shares, it would be impossible to track that. Does everyone get paid 1 mil per share (thus screwing over the ones who paid more) or does he pay 1.2 mil per share (thus overpaying the original investors).

Quote:
Chapter 8 - Exit Strategy

If the Titan BPC market dies we will liquidate all assets and pay all recovered isk to our investors.

If I am hit by a bus the trustees will sub up their trial account directors and liquidate all assets and pay all recovered isk to our investors.



That's the closest thing to a buyback stated in the IPO. I can only assume liquidation for any reason would be handled the same way, intentional or not.

Bad Bobby
The Dirty Rotten Scoundrels
HYDRA RELOADED
Posted - 2010.08.25 16:45:00 - [1952]
 

Originally by: MailDeadDrop
I'm under the impression (perhaps misinformed) that you do not vote your large block of shares for the votes.

You are misinformed. I do vote with my large block of shares and I have always announced that fact with "+X votes for yes!" or something similar. As a shareholder I am the same as any other, so I get a vote like any other. I am the largest shareholder but my holding is only 10% of the total so my control is limited, particularly when compared to the combined votes of the 10 largest shareholders who are the ones that are really in control of the voting results.
Originally by: MailDeadDrop
Originally by: Bad Bobby
Still a bit overcomplicated unless there is a really good reason for doing it this way. What are the real benefits compared to issuing a fixed number of shares at a variable price? Indeed is issuing non-fixed shares or at a non-fixed price a good idea given that it will likely put an end to profitable flipping and remove one of the incentives to buy the shares in the first place?

The advantage is that it reduces the dilutive effect on future dividends. For example, compare the cases of issuing X shares at 1M versus Y shares at 1.25M. Presumably Y = X/1.25 then (for the same capital raised). So that is 25% fewer new shares issued, which means that their dilutive effect on all future dividends is reduced by 25%.

But if Y shares are issued at 1.25m and the whole 1.25m goes into the IPO then the funds available to generate profit increase and the NAV backed value of each share increases. I think it's just two different ways of cutting the same cake with one involving more effort than the other.
Originally by: MailDeadDrop

As for removing the incentive for flipping, I don't think that it completely removes it. Estel's scheme does make flipping more speculative though (the bidder has to believe that the shares could be sold immediately after they're in-hand at a value more than the auction price). Because the interest in the issue is likely still high immediately after the auction closes, and since there is a small delay between the auction closing and the receipt of shares, I suspect that there would still be some flipping occurring. It wouldn't be the ISK printing machine it currently is though.

It depends how much we want to preserve the flipping marketplace and positive price stimulus that comes with it. Personally I'd rather charge less than best price for the shares, encourage that market and keep the benefits for the active shareholder while at the same time giving further benefits to the passive shareholder. Aside from the profit side I think it keeps things more interesting.

SetrakDark
DarkCorp Citizens Holdings
DarkCorp Citizens
Posted - 2010.08.25 16:50:00 - [1953]
 

Edited by: SetrakDark on 25/08/2010 16:55:04
A share is an equity stake in all assets and income of a corporation. If the value of a share rises or falls after the purchase date according to changes in the value of assets or income streams, that is the benefit/loss of those who bought shares. If a new share issuance sells above asset value, that is because people believe they will pay dividends sufficiently that they will profit after an asset liquidation or they will no longer be holding the shares because they sold them for a profit.

My comment from the last expansion:

"What you're describing could work, but, as I mentioned above, would require a completely open sale. This kind of equity expansion may be possible, but it would be risky without solid secondary market institutions like widely used exchanges and underwriters. What Bobby is suggesting instead is that current investors are given the opportunity to act as underwriters and reap the reward.

Long story short, you're right, but I don't know if the secondary market is sophisticated enough to handle it.

This is pretty theoretical stuff, so if you're unsatisfied with the answer by all means say so. I love discussing this crap.

Edit: Upon further consideration, I realize what was wrong with your suggestion. An equity expansion in real-life would be for a target amount of money, in this case 70b, and would be based on the market value of the shares. It was the premium and special dividend ideas that were wrong.

This is where a vibrant equity exchange and investment bank (underwriters) would come in. The investment bank would use the market information to estimate the number of shares needed at post-expansion market price (plus their premium) to raise 70b. They would then buy all the new shares for 70b, then sell them on the market at a premium. The advantage to existing shareholders is that they are able to bring in assets which will have a greater value than their cost in share dilution.

Without the equity market to help price and distribute the shares as well as the technical expertise and risk-shouldering of the investment bank, the company would shoulder all the risk of overpricing shares and falling short of the 70b, when they should be concentrating on their core business.

We do have an equity exchange, but there just aren't enough companies to justify an investment bank, and the exchange is also underused because of a lack of public companies. However investment banks are probably the next phase of advanced market institutions, if the number of public companies does grow, and they actually make economic sense in Eve, unlike this bastardized deposit model people keep trying."

Long story short, a proper issuance is possible, but comes with risks due to the the lack or weakness of supporting institutions in the investment market. The restriction of the issuance to current investors is an imperfect yet viable solution; it is, however, a solution that could be improved upon if investors feel that they are not all reaping the benefits, which they are not.

Bad Bobby
The Dirty Rotten Scoundrels
HYDRA RELOADED
Posted - 2010.08.25 16:57:00 - [1954]
 

Originally by: Berikath
Originally by: Breaker77

2. Say Bobby wins the lottery, decides to spend his fortune on plexes and buy back the offering. Most investors paid 1 mil per share, but the newer ones paid 1.2 mil per share. How would Bobby know which person to pay which price to? If the people that paid 1.2 mil per share sold their shares, it would be impossible to track that. Does everyone get paid 1 mil per share (thus screwing over the ones who paid more) or does he pay 1.2 mil per share (thus overpaying the original investors).

Quote:
Chapter 8 - Exit Strategy

If the Titan BPC market dies we will liquidate all assets and pay all recovered isk to our investors.

If I am hit by a bus the trustees will sub up their trial account directors and liquidate all assets and pay all recovered isk to our investors.



That's the closest thing to a buyback stated in the IPO. I can only assume liquidation for any reason would be handled the same way, intentional or not.

I encountered the same issue with the Ugly Toys Holdings IPO (my first MD offering), because in the last expansion to it I auctioned off shares rather than going for a fixed price, later when I refinanced the IPO into the Ugly Toys Holdings 4% BOND I hit the issue of overpaying early investors and underpaying late investors compared to what they had originally put into the IPO. Now while I was under no obligation to resolve this issue I decided to raise additional funds with the BOND and set two different prices for the two different groups so that everyone got back more than they put in.

I suspect that in the "lottery win" scenario that B77 suggests I would be in a position to act with similar generosity, but since such a scenario is highly unlikely (I don't play the lottery and I don't think I'd buy out the IPO with my winnings even if I did) we should instead consider the particular scenario laid out in the exit strategy. If I get hit by a bus and the trustees are called in to liquidate the IPO and pay off all investors how will they do so? The answer is simple, they will give the same to each shareholder by issuing dividends in the same way that profits are currently distributed. So if the IPO was to charge an official price of more than 1m per share those buying in at that price would be at risk (as with anyone currently buying at over 1m per share) of losing out in the case of liquidation.

Bad Bobby
The Dirty Rotten Scoundrels
HYDRA RELOADED
Posted - 2010.08.25 17:30:00 - [1955]
 

Originally by: SetrakDark
The restriction of the issuance to current investors is an imperfect yet viable solution; it is, however, a solution that could be improved upon if investors feel that they are not all reaping the benefits, which they are not.

Which is, I believe, where I started this discussion as I am looking for another viable solution that brings us nearer to perfection by allowing all investors (and the IPO itself) to reap the benefits.

At present my favourite solution is to offer a fixed number of shares at a fixed price that is above the 1m per share standard (Example: 100,000 at 1.1m for 110b total) then retain a portion of the isk raised that is above the 1m per share standard (Example: 1.05m per share for 105b total) and pay an expansion dividend to all shareholders (Example: 5b dividended).

With this approach the existing shareholder that does not buy new shares or flip their shares benefits from an increase in NAV that slightly outpaces the increase in shares and an expansion dividend that compensates for the short term reduction in dividend per share caused by the BPC production lead times.

The new shareholder buys "overpriced" shares (Example: 1.1m per share when the actual NAV value is somewhere between 1m and 1.1m) but is taking a calculated risk in doing so. They will be planning to make up the difference through future dividends, through future NAV growth or by re-selling their shares at a higher price.

The flipper gets to buy shares at 1.1m and sell them at 1.2m to 1.3m a share as they currently do.

The existing shareholder that buys new shares gets a blend of these deals depending on the exact ratio of existing shares to new shares.

The IPO benefits by improving its NAV per share ratio and thereby increasing its long term dividend capabilities as well as generally being a better IPO as a result of fairer treatment of it's investors.

I benefit because I am a shareholder, because increased profits result in a larger management fee and because the whole system is only slightly more complicated to administrate than the current one.

I'm interested to see if anyone can come up with a better solution than this when all parties are considered.

cosmoray
Perkone
Posted - 2010.08.25 17:35:00 - [1956]
 

Directors

I would consider adding some voting roles to other people.

1. Although Kazzac may appear online he has no presence on MD anymore, and has not done so for at least a year. I am sure people would like the directors to be public and accessible.

2. I thought PP had severely limited play time (may not be playing at all).

That basically leaves AC155 and Shar as director/trustees. Both of these I consider completely trustworthy but a couple more bodies wouldn't hurt, especially public ones.

Bad Bobby
The Dirty Rotten Scoundrels
HYDRA RELOADED
Posted - 2010.08.25 17:57:00 - [1957]
 

Originally by: Bad Bobby
We still have PP, Shar, AC155 and Kazzac as trustees. Kazzac's "absence" is debatable as I see him online fairly often. Even if you assume him to be absent then there are still 3 trustees that are active that can vote down any attempt by me to unlock a BPO without good reason. Should a trustee attempt to unlock the BPOs then I would also vote down their attempt.

We still have multiple directors in the SuperSekrit corp, including at least two (mine and one trustees) that are currently subbed. These director alts are there in case I am hit by a bus so that the operation can be liquidated.

I do not believe there is any need for concern.

If we do add an additional trustee we have to remember that they are being trusted with 342+ billion so the number of candidates are increasingly small.

Originally by: cosmoray
Directors

I would consider adding some voting roles to other people.

1. Although Kazzac may appear online he has no presence on MD anymore, and has not done so for at least a year. I am sure people would like the directors to be public and accessible.

2. I thought PP had severely limited play time (may not be playing at all).

That basically leaves AC155 and Shar as director/trustees. Both of these I consider completely trustworthy but a couple more bodies wouldn't hurt, especially public ones.

All very fair points.

The key points of my post were:

1. I do not believe there is any need for concern or put another way: DON'T PANIC!
2. We need to be very carefull who we bring in as trustees.
3. Given 1 and 2 I believe we can afford to take a little time to resolve this issue correctly.

So the questions are:

1. How many trustees should we add?
2. Who do we (the shareholders) trust to perform this function?
3. Do they need to have director alts to provide further liquidation ability or are we sufficiently protected there?

I'm thinking:

1. Three. To bring the total to 7, including 2 that may not be active but already have shares, alts and full knowledge of the SuperSekrit corp and POS so there is little point in removing them. Plus me makes 8, worth considering when you consider that a trustee is also in the position to unlock the BPOs and run with them. But from the point of view of fully active and functioning trustees that aren't me we would have 5 which gives ample protection.

2. That's a big question that I'm going to have to give a lot of thought to personally.

3. I don't think so, at least not all of them. Remember that if they do not have a director alt then they cannot actually steal anything or propose an unlock vote so they are "safer" trustees. We do however have to have at least two reliable liquidators.

Ji Sama
Caldari
Tash-Murkon Prime Industries
Posted - 2010.08.25 18:13:00 - [1958]
 

When the government of other official people tell you not to panic, that is the time you have to panic!

Run to the hills

cosmoray
Perkone
Posted - 2010.08.25 18:26:00 - [1959]
 

Agree totally there is no reason to panic. So far it is a well run business without management issues. It is inevitable that people leave the game or slow down their activities and need to be periodically replaced or added to just like in RL.

As the fund grows I don't see a problem with growing the board.

Some people could be given shares with no director roles whose only duty is to vote on lock/unlock procedures. The directors could stay the same as they are trustworthy enough to liquidate, and if the other BOD members didn't think so they could vote against unlock.

Plenty of time to take people on board.

Jadun
Posted - 2010.08.25 19:04:00 - [1960]
 

yo ho

I would like to offer myself. For the position of Director.

Ji Sama
Caldari
Tash-Murkon Prime Industries
Posted - 2010.08.25 19:37:00 - [1961]
 

Originally by: Jadun
yo ho

I would like to offer myself. For the position of Director.


This or Emmgel imo. Since it would be safeR to assume that a majority investor have the best interest of the venture in mind.

Though personally I do not see a reason for another trustee to be involved, the 3 currently in place is fine by me.

Emmgel
Posted - 2010.08.25 19:47:00 - [1962]
 

Well if it helps, I don't mind disclosing that (assuming the expansion goes ahead, which I suspect it will) I will have 40,000 shares in this venture.

As I say, the offer is there if people feel it would be helpful.

Emmgel

Bad Bobby
The Dirty Rotten Scoundrels
HYDRA RELOADED
Posted - 2010.08.25 20:31:00 - [1963]
 

Originally by: Emmgel
Well if it helps, I don't mind disclosing that (assuming the expansion goes ahead, which I suspect it will) I will have 40,000 shares in this venture.

As I say, the offer is there if people feel it would be helpful.

Emmgel

Originally by: Jadun
yo ho

I would like to offer myself. For the position of Director.

Originally by: Ji Sama
Originally by: Jadun
yo ho

I would like to offer myself. For the position of Director.


This or Emmgel imo. Since it would be safeR to assume that a majority investor have the best interest of the venture in mind.

Though personally I do not see a reason for another trustee to be involved, the 3 currently in place is fine by me.

I agree, on the basis that "lock/unlock vote" control is provided by SuperSekrit corp shares but "steal everything that isn't nailed down" control is not provided to these individuals because being a large shareholder does align your interests with the IPO but does not prevent you from wanting to take it all. No offense intended.

So I would recommend these new trustees:

1. Emmgel, the 2nd largest shareholder both currently and after the expansion.
2. Ji Sama, the 3rd largest shareholder both currently and after the expansion.
3. Jadun, the 5th largest shareholder now and the 4th largest shareholder after the expansion.

I have presumed that Ji Sama would not object to taking a trustee position and have proposed a general shareholder vote on the decision that these three are given lock/unlock control shares.

Proton Power
Amarr
Retirement Retreat
Posted - 2010.08.25 20:36:00 - [1964]
 

Originally by: Bad Bobby
Originally by: Emmgel
Well if it helps, I don't mind disclosing that (assuming the expansion goes ahead, which I suspect it will) I will have 40,000 shares in this venture.

As I say, the offer is there if people feel it would be helpful.

Emmgel

Originally by: Jadun
yo ho

I would like to offer myself. For the position of Director.

Originally by: Ji Sama
Originally by: Jadun
yo ho

I would like to offer myself. For the position of Director.


This or Emmgel imo. Since it would be safeR to assume that a majority investor have the best interest of the venture in mind.

Though personally I do not see a reason for another trustee to be involved, the 3 currently in place is fine by me.

I agree, on the basis that "lock/unlock vote" control is provided by SuperSekrit corp shares but "steal everything that isn't nailed down" control is not provided to these individuals because being a large shareholder does align your interests with the IPO but does not prevent you from wanting to take it all. No offense intended.

So I would recommend these new trustees:

1. Emmgel, the 2nd largest shareholder both currently and after the expansion.
2. Ji Sama, the 3rd largest shareholder both currently and after the expansion.
3. Jadun, the 5th largest shareholder now and the 4th largest shareholder after the expansion.

I have presumed that Ji Sama would not object to taking a trustee position and have proposed a general shareholder vote on the decision that these three are given lock/unlock control shares.


Are you replacing the old team with these new members or are these in addition to.

This could be good and bad:

Spread the shares out enough, half the people may miss the votes.
Spread the shares out enough, more people to notice whats going on.


Bad Bobby
The Dirty Rotten Scoundrels
HYDRA RELOADED
Posted - 2010.08.25 20:39:00 - [1965]
 

Do the trustees that I have recommended require a cut of the profits for their appointment or are they happy to simply protect their own investment? We currently have one paid trustee (who it must be said keeps his director alt subbed and shows a very keen interest in the IPO) who receives 1% of profits. I would not refuse a 1% cut to any additional trustee if they requested it but I believe that such a request should be public prior to shareholders voting on the appointment as that cut would come out of the dividend.

Proton Power
Amarr
Retirement Retreat
Posted - 2010.08.25 20:42:00 - [1966]
 

Originally by: Bad Bobby
Do the trustees that I have recommended require a cut of the profits for their appointment or are they happy to simply protect their own investment? We currently have one paid trustee (who it must be said keeps his director alt subbed and shows a very keen interest in the IPO) who receives 1% of profits. I would not refuse a 1% cut to any additional trustee if they requested it but I believe that such a request should be public prior to shareholders voting on the appointment as that cut would come out of the dividend.


Wihtout being an @sshole. If one of the new people that come onboard what a % then those that refuesed it from the start should get it as well.

Also still need clearification does this replace those of us that have been doing this. I let you basicly do as you need, but I am always watching :)

Bad Bobby
The Dirty Rotten Scoundrels
HYDRA RELOADED
Posted - 2010.08.25 20:45:00 - [1967]
 

Originally by: Proton Power
Are you replacing the old team with these new members or are these in addition to.

This could be good and bad:

Spread the shares out enough, half the people may miss the votes.
Spread the shares out enough, more people to notice whats going on.

Firstly, I take this post as proof that PP isn't afk and is paying attention as I believed! Very Happy

Secondly, my intention is NOT to replace the old team but to add additional trustees (I believe I stated this in an earlier post) as I believe that spreading the shares out is the most secure option here. The potential for half the shareholders to miss the vote is not an issue in my opinion as the votes pass/fail on the vote of the majority of respondants and therefore it doesn't matter if half do not notice provided those that do notice vote against an incorrect unlock vote. The majority rules and those that do not vote are not counted at all.

Bad Bobby
The Dirty Rotten Scoundrels
HYDRA RELOADED
Posted - 2010.08.25 20:55:00 - [1968]
 

Originally by: Proton Power
Originally by: Bad Bobby
Do the trustees that I have recommended require a cut of the profits for their appointment or are they happy to simply protect their own investment? We currently have one paid trustee (who it must be said keeps his director alt subbed and shows a very keen interest in the IPO) who receives 1% of profits. I would not refuse a 1% cut to any additional trustee if they requested it but I believe that such a request should be public prior to shareholders voting on the appointment as that cut would come out of the dividend.


Wihtout being an @sshole. If one of the new people that come onboard what a % then those that refuesed it from the start should get it as well.

It is only right that the existing trustees get to change their decision in response to the decision of new trustees.
Originally by: Proton Power
I am always watching :)

I never doubted it.

Jadun
Posted - 2010.08.25 20:58:00 - [1969]
 

yo ho

as for me i would not want a % cut for being a director.


P.S. where do i sent the iskis to for the expansion bad bobby or t4u ?

Ji Sama
Caldari
Tash-Murkon Prime Industries
Posted - 2010.08.25 21:00:00 - [1970]
 

Thank you for the vote of confidence.

I would of course decline any compensation associated with this, since I pushed for the same with the other trustees back in the beginning.


Titans 4U
Titans For You
Posted - 2010.08.25 21:07:00 - [1971]
 

In all this discussion I missed something...

The expansion vote passed.

YES: 97.2%
NO: 2.8%

If you are on this list you may send your isk now:

Originally by: Bad Bobby
Existing Shareholder Reservations

8,000 Bad Bobby
10,400 Emmgel
1,000 Kithran
2,000 max ikabon
10,000 Jadun
4,500 AnthonyKiedis
5,000 Ji Sama
2,001 Phoebe Halliwel
600 Xi Khan
5,000 Lord Schmock
5,000 Marbo Slyder
1,000 jwingenderowns
1,000 Morrow Borric
1,000 GX307
4,000 Norah Sin
300 Banque
600 Bert Rebus
5,000 Amarr Citizen 155
300 Marijke Mcneely
450 Zilkin
1000 Gagarthoe III
7,000 Kapila Parthalan
2,000 Onyth
4,000 Trayjan
1,900 Biff Hanran
200 Jovan Geldon
1,000 Jeddeita
2,000 Pierced Brosmen
500 Captain Siria
1,000 Kell Braugh
1,000 Sandrane Kipler
10,000 Dalden V
3,000 Miyuki Suzumiya
4,000 Philip Ogtaulmolfi
200 Nexo92
100 Quadrantid
250 Archielaus
1,699 Anastasia Heron

Total: 108,000 of 108,000


The eagle eyed will notice my reservation has been reduced from 10,000 to 8,000. This was to allow Jadun to increase his reservation from 8,000 to 10,000 without impacting anyone else. I may offer some of my reservation to other queued investors as I might have a small liquidity issue caused by my inability to add one number to another... I'll check in the morning when I am sober enough to see the numbers clearly.

Titans 4U
Titans For You
Posted - 2010.08.25 21:09:00 - [1972]
 

Originally by: Jadun
yo ho

as for me i would not want a % cut for being a director.


P.S. where do i sent the iskis to for the expansion bad bobby or t4u ?


Send isk to Titans 4U

SetrakDark
DarkCorp Citizens Holdings
DarkCorp Citizens
Posted - 2010.08.25 21:26:00 - [1973]
 

Originally by: Bad Bobby
I'm interested to see if anyone can come up with a better solution than this when all parties are considered.


It makes me nervous because it's unorthodox, but I can't see any serious faults. Furthermore, it is far more fair than letting a few rich investors dominate all the gains that other shareholders earned as well. The biggest issue is picking the correct price that still fills the target amount.

Trayjan
Federal Navy Academy
Posted - 2010.08.25 22:02:00 - [1974]
 

4B ISK sent.

(also voted to add trustees.)

Phoebe Halliwel
Posted - 2010.08.25 22:28:00 - [1975]
 

2.001b ISK sent, voted yes to additonal trustees.

Apologies for the incorrect comment further up regarding shares being offered to new shareholders on this one, not sure where I got that from (fail reading when tired most likely).

Originally by: Bad Bobby
At present my favourite solution is to offer a fixed number of shares at a fixed price that is above the 1m per share standard (Example: 100,000 at 1.1m for 110b total) then retain a portion of the isk raised that is above the 1m per share standard (Example: 1.05m per share for 105b total) and pay an expansion dividend to all shareholders (Example: 5b dividended).

That sounds like a reasonable strategy for now. I'd personally prefer retaining the additonal revenue and using it for BPC trade rather than immediate payout in the form of dividends to existing shareholders.

Couple of questions though, you've stated your intention to attempt to increase the fund over the next few months to a year without issuing new shares (or I might have misread that). If so, what will be your ongoing policy in terms of share valuation at issue, if in a year's time you manage to significantly increase the value of the IPO.

Are you capping new shares at 1.1m or 10% on issue? What if people start trading shares at 1.5mil each or higher for a sustained period?

If your intention is to increase the value of the IPO, presumably not all profits will be paid in dividends. How will you split profits to be retained and those to be paid in dividends? Might have missed this if it was covered earlier, if so apologies.

Quadrantid
Posted - 2010.08.25 22:28:00 - [1976]
 

Originally by: Titans 4U
Originally by: Jadun
yo ho

as for me i would not want a % cut for being a director.


P.S. where do i sent the iskis to for the expansion bad bobby or t4u ?


Send isk to Titans 4U


100M ISK sent

Norah Sin
Posted - 2010.08.25 22:33:00 - [1977]
 

4B ISK sent

Companion Qube
Minmatar
Electron Conservation Inc
SRS.
Posted - 2010.08.25 23:55:00 - [1978]
 

If any of you that were shut out of the expansion are still looking to acquire shares I have ~1315 remaining that I'll sell for 1.2m per share - evemail me.

Nexo92
Death Incarnate INC
Posted - 2010.08.26 00:04:00 - [1979]
 

200m ISK sent

Onyth
Had Holdings
Posted - 2010.08.26 01:14:00 - [1980]
 

Isk for 2000 shares has been sent to Titans 4U


Pages: first : previous : ... 62 63 64 65 [66] 67 68 69 70 ... : last (75)

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only