Haiyah...he he he....even though you grit your teeth to say you "Not that I am a fan of moderation for 'positive comments only'", I can just about feel your resentment in what I have posted on the facts of the matter in trying out what has been suggested.
There is an old Chinese saying which I heard from somewhere:
One monk, has plenty of water to drink.
Two monks will have sufficient water to drink.
But with 3 monks, they will die of thirst.
Have you ever have to deal with 3 (or more) shareholders in your company? Believe me, it's not an easy task. I can only imagine what it would be like having 99 shareholders to deal with. What I can absolutely guarantee is that not everybody can agree with anything! An excellent good example would be you & I here at this very moment : ) .... and there are only 2 of us.
At usd100 per share x 100 shareholders = usd10,000 capital, while at usd1k= usd100k capital.
And I don't supposed one can start a high capital venture company, like forex brokerage, with just usd100k (let alone usd10k).
Read more on the subject over at 100Forex Brokers site on "How to start a Forex Broker company" (or something to that effect).
But hey, like I have mentioned earlier, don't let my skepticism stop you guys.
I'm just trying to work as factually as possible here, with all do respect I find it difficult that can postulate what physical actions my body is undertaken, and that you can esoterically ascertain any of my emotions over a poor communicative system such as a web forum? You may very well be good at picking trends in the market but I can assure you your assumptions as to my reasoning/emotions is well off the mark.
Let's try to keep this professional and on topic rather than delving into the human psyche, shall we? Your apprehension and concerns about placing your funds into the care of this individual/team has been noted, if you do not want to participate then that's fine, nobody will force you. I just suggest that for the most part that expressing that opinion further is going to be a waste of your time. That is not to say that you cannot validily present "Black Hat" thinking models for us to try to find solutions to, however, of which I welcome wholeheartedly.
On topic, regarding your comments about getting shareholders to agree, this could potentially be an issue, yes. What I invisioned was that a board or select group of people form a committee to spearhead the project, and that it is drafted contractually that most of the shareholders (regardless of the actual financial input) are merely present as investors, with no direct control of business direction [but can certainly cast comments to the board]. The board itself would direct decisions, which at the least, finances involved, may limit the initial amount of money that any one person could scam, thus perhaps lessening the risk via distribution. Also, it may be easier to form a paper trail for money if multiple people are critiquing the cash flow. Alternatively if this is totally an altrustic organisation the board members may chose contractually to waive any personal income from the project until all shareholders have been bought out with initial profits (as I mentioned earlier) after which the company could relist on the stock exchange or buy out and stay privately owned, or any other agreement in between.
Regarding $100 unit price, I am aware that this denomination accounts for only 1/10th of the funds, what I was alluding to was that perhaps risk of investors could be mitigated by lowering the unit price, so that potentially more people would be able to invest with a lesser risk to each person, if they choose, in order to obtain the required funds.
While it is not impossible for a board to have ulterior motives, I believe in a large business model that it at least manages some risk of personal greed if more people have access to financial data and business direction plans, while still allowing for the company to develop [so long as the board isn't huge, such that no majority can easily be obtained].
