Why does Nyan.A need to be approved?  You previously said everyone would get their full 1 BTC back eventually.  So just dividend out until they've received it back - with a forced buyback on the last one.

If anyone wants to sell to you cheaper it can be done by trade.

I don't actually disapprove of it being listed - IF contract clearly states your commitment (if it still exists) to pay back the full 1 BTC, gives some sort of schedule (to whatever extent it can) and there's a link to some post that very clearly says what has been paid back so far, what (if any) assets remain, what funds are owed by Nyan and/or CPA and what remains to be paid back.

Similarly I don't object to BMF being listed once the contract is updated to reflect that it's closing, any commitments you've made about value (I recall one about a guaranteed minimum) are clearly in the contract and there's somewhere a clear list of what assets it had at closure, which have been paid for and which still have funds owed (not sure whether all the mining gear has been paid for - seem to recall you saying  2 had been refunded).  Without ANY information on what current assets it has noone can possibly place a value on it and it has no business being listed.

As far as I know (correct me if wrong) nyan.b/c and nyan/cpa all have zero assets (or - in the case of CPA and nyan - have liabilities exceeding assets).  As they have absolutely zero value why should they be listed?  Anyone who buys them is paying something for nothing.  Any assets CPA has should by now have been paid to nyan.a on liquidation.  Any assets Nyan has should by now have been paid to either nyan.a or nyan.b (there's an issue on that which means nyan probbaly should hold back payment until it sees whether CPA clears nyan.a's capital repayment).

I can't see ANY reason to try to let the market find a price for things which have no value - that's a charity not an investment.  

With nyan.a/BMF there's no reason why they shouldn't be tradable once the contract reflects accurately the situation and sufficient information is provided to allow the market to properly assess their value.  Though I don't approve of blackmail attempts by threatening to withhold funds due to investors until you're allowed to trade.  If I were more cynical then I may even guess you just want to try to low-ball investors at below value by failing to provide information letting them realise what assets remain.

EDIT: Removed comments about SILVER/TU.SILVER as not relevant to thread.

Nothing wrong with saying the bet was badly worded and couldn't be resolved.

So long as both sides get paid out as though they won.  Then it would be a great gesture from the site - to pay both sides (not refund, pay out in full) when BFL clearly didn't deliver.  If the site thinks THEY screwed up by offering a flawed bet then, rather obviously, the site should be the one to absorb any financial loss resulting from it.

Obviously what they've actually done is either a scam or gross incompetence.  The reasons why have already been clearly detailed - which (scam or incompetence) is anyone's guess.  I'd tend towards shipping a scammer tag then let them prove they really ARE That stupid to get it removed.

Yes - that's, in theory, a very good to resolve the exchange-rate issues and stabilise BTC value of assets/capital.

But anyone who has to go to BTCJam to raise funds at 3% per month is unlikely to have had that option available.  Unfortunately most "investments" don't give proper consideration to that sort of isse - and investors end up with massive, undisclosed, exposure to exchange-rate movements.

There are a few issues with it in practice:

1.  Sourcing USD-denominated credit.

I faced a similar ssue myself - I run a small LTC-denominated trading fund which conducts most of its trading in BTC-denominated assets.  If I took no action then we'd either not be able to do most of our trade or end up with 80%+ of capital effectively denominated in BTC - meaning fund value would almost entirely be determined by the LTC/BTC exchange-rate.  I addressed that by selling BTC-denominated bonds - with most of our BTC denominated investments effectively done with that bond capital (not all - we have to keep some BTC exposure ourselves to ensure bond-holders' debt is safely covered if LTC crashes AND we make fairly heavy trading losses).  I maintain an exposure level of around 15% to BTC.  So if LTC rises vs BTC (as has just happened dramatically) then a doubling of the exchange-rate ends up only losing around 10% of value rather than 40%.

But here is where we run into a problem for anyone trying to the same in terms of BTC/USD.  I have no problem raising explicitly BTC-denominated capital that's transacted in LTC (the bonds have a face value in BTC, but are sold/traded/bought back in LTC).  But I expect there'd be little interest here in bonds with a face-value in USD (but transacted in BTC) which is actually a bit of a paradox as the same people who wouldn't touch an openly USD investment will happily throw their funds at one that's providing the same exposure covertly (and, in many cases, without even fully realising it).  Personally I'd rather take on a specific risk (e.g. exposure to a certain currency) where the issuer had identified the exposure and was properly ensuring clearly defined exposure than take it on where the issuer hadn't properly considered the situation.


2.  Cost

If the shares aren't sold denominated in USD and USD-denominated capital is raised seperately then there's going to be an interest-rate associated with servicing that USD-denominated debt.  Is that going to leave anything at all for investors who bought shares?  I can't see anyone on here buying USD-denominated debt (bonds/loans/whatever) for trivial rates.


3.  Duplication/Lack of use of capital

Linked to both the above is the issue of what is actually done with shareholders' capital if it's no longer being used to conduct business?  Would people invest if their investment was just being used to pay off existing debt and line the issuer's pockets (taking a significant multiple of total profit to date as an up-front payment as well as a huge share of equity is lining your pockets) whilst capital for actual trading was going to be raised via new debt which, being debt not equity, would get paid first from earnings and have first claim on assets?  There'd still have to be capital raised from share sales - to ensure backing for debt in the case of trading losses.

This is actually the issue I ran into - that funds from actual investors in the fund were largely sitting idle, with 90% of them just sitting around as collateral for the bondholders' capital that was actually being used.  I had plans for how to address that - but the recent massive rise in LTC price has effectively solved it for me (by increasing the value of LTC assets such that they no longer represent such a minority of investment - coupled with buying back of units to reduce LTC-denominated capital, with the higher rate meaning bonds are still very well protected).  And the problem was never quite so severe for me - as at least I was always doing some significant LTC-denominated trading, whilst a business such as this has all active capital (that actually in use rather than reserved for use) in USD (specifically, in the process from payment by a purchaser until it becomes liquid in the hands of the issuer and can be converted).

I'm not sure what the solution is - though something like what I discuss above is definitely one approach.  The real problem is the continuing insistence of companies that are effectively fiat-denominated (i.e. all active assets/capital are in fiat) to list in BTC because they can't raised capital elsewhere.  Ones such as this are (probably unintentionally) deceptive - as on the face of it they can appear to be BTC-denominated.  But in practice the only BTC exposure they have is from inactive capital which, if a significant part of total capital, means they've compounded one error (misidentifying exposure) with another (raising excessive capital so that earnings are diluted).

I mention my fund/bond to illustrate how a similar situation was addressed - not to try to get investment.  The fund is buying back rather than selling units (we have more capital than we need due to LTC's rise) and no new bonds have been issued for a few weeks.  LTC has quadrupled vs BTC this week.  Without the bonds, units in the fund would have lost ~60% of face value in LTC and gained only around 40% if valued in BTC.  With the bonds they've lost under 20% of face value in LTC and approximately trebled in value if valued in BTC.  That's why managing currency exposure is key - without it, a rise in LTC vs BTC would be a disaster for my investors as they'd take heavy losses in LTC without any large gain from the currency's own increased strength/value.  Of course there IS a flip-side to it - if LTC falls vs BTC then investors DO lose value as a result (LTC value of units rises a small bit, BTC value drops a lot) but that's what they should expect from investing in something in currency X - that the price is largely unaffected by changes in exchange-rates and the value (expressed in any other currency/measure) moves broadly in line with the fortunes of currency X.  And that's what investors in all these USD-denominated in practice but pretending to be BTC investments are NOT getting - the ability to manage their own exposure to different currencies.

Oh it was a horrible investment to make in LTC - but then pretty much ANY asset which is fiat-based will be.
For every 1 LTC paid into a fiat-based company when this one started (with LTC about $.07) there'd now be (with LTC at $3.6),  .0194 of an LTC of value left/share if ALL they did was convert it into fiat.  Now current LTC price is inflated - but some significant rise was pretty inevitable.

In fact I think you'll find when Bob produces the accounts that there's actually more value left than that - as he still has/had a chunk held in BTC/LTC.  But as he's not been communicative lately shares have sold down likely well below book value.

Until people realise that investing BTC/LTC into fiat-based operations totally defeats the purpose of having BTC/LTC in the first place, this issue will continue.  Only way they work out good investments long term is if the crypto currency falls vd fiat in which case you shouldn't have been using it in the first place.  Investors need to wake up and realise people aren't selling shares here because their offerings are somehow suited to BTC/LTC - they're selling here because they lack the credit/friends/cash to raise capital anywhere else and here's full of gullible/uninformed people happy to throw funds around.

I don't recall pointing out this was a scam from day 1.  I didn't believe it to be a scam when it started (and still thing it probably isn't a scam) - just a horribly bad investment with zero chance of making a profit denominated in LTC and not much better chance of even making a fiat-denominated profit (which is of no interest to me anyway).  I have, of course, still traded the shares and my fund does own some picked up cheap (I hope lol) in panic-selling.

To point out the REALLY obvious, ART was sold in LTC not BTC.  And LTC has gone from $0.06 to $4 (though starting its downwards correction now), so share price/book value could reasonably be expected to have fallen by well over the 90% you mention.

Not sure where the 98.41% is coming from (is there a deleted post or something?) - but the expected (and actual) losses need to be done in the currency it's denominated in.  You can't just pick another currency to use because it's convenient - if you did that then people running losing BTC investments could price in USD prices to pretend to have made a profit and all manner of nasty things.

Well it's pretty crazy at the moment - with LTC now at over 0.04 vs BTC and at over $4.

I've sold back 30 more of my shares - and someone else sold back 20.  Mine has been converted to BTC - and will buy back in if necessary (at 25% markup to a much higher NAV/U than I sold at) should (as I expect) LTC crash right back down.  It may well rise a bunch further before final collapse - but I can't see this price (or anything near it) being sustainable at present.  If I'm wrong then I just lost out on some equity in the fund (plus on further growth of LTC).

I still won over half the fund.  I don't plan to sell any more unless LTC hits about $10 when I'd sell another small batch (and STILL have ~50% of the fund).

With this big rise we're obviously not short of backing for our bonds (at present bonds are 20% of NAV/U and our safe limit is 150%).  Main impact of the sell-backs (mine and others) is to reduce our LTC cash position - which is no big deal when we don't use it.  It doesn't impact LTC position per share - as after any sell-back I readjust to a 15% holdings in BTC position.  Those adjustments (which I do even without buybacks) mean we DO take more NAV/U loss when LTC rises (and more profit when it falls) than you may expect from a 15% BTC position.  Here's why:

Consider if we start with 15% assets BTC and LTC doubles.  First instinct is to think we lose 7.5% of NAV/U (as the 15% in BTC loses half its value) - but in fact we lose more.  That's because at various times during that currency movement I'll be adjusting our currency balance to get us back to 15% BTC again.  That increases our NAV/U change when movement is sustained in one direction - especially when it's slow and steady.  I can't just leave the balance alone - or no investor would ever be able to estimate what exposure they had to BTC.  Plus we could end up not properly covering bonds (the balance changes due to trading as well as from exchange-rate movement of course).

I would estimate that if LTC doubles vs BTC we'll usually lose somewhere in the 10-12% of NAV area before mitigation from trading.  WHere the change is sudden and huge that will lower (as I don't have a chance to rebalance).

RIght now with LTC at .042 vs BTC (more than 4 times what it was at start of week) we're at about 51.15 NAV/U - which is a bit under 20% down on the week (or day).  I'll try to keep bids up in case anyone wants to sell - but sometimes LTC changes by 25% in a few minutes to I'm having to be pretty cautious.

I'd agree with that.  His identity's too well known and the amount too large for him to just vanish - would assume one or more of the larger debtors will either take matters into their own hands (unlikely unless they're Canadian), go to the police (it's a large enough amount to get an investigation going - and I expect the forum would undelete some of his posts if necessary) or start negative publicity (website in his name so any Google of him finds it, contacting anyone likely to know him etc).

Being unable to repay the debts isn't a crime.  Stealing the investors' hardware plus that part of the debt he's able to repay IS.

I own zero shares now, so have no skin in this (took a tiny loss selling off what I happened to hold).  And he's in the wrong continent for me to do a lot anyway (though if he had owed me a lot I'd be going the law-enforcement route - as I don't have contacts to allow the more personal/effective method in Canada but can file a complaint from anywhere).

I agree nefario won't assist - he's on the hook for a lot of money himself which he won't return (presumably because he hasn't got it).

Not sure how you see this as being an issue for burnside though.  It's namworld's asset - so up to namworld to issue shares as he sees fit.  Burnside should only intervene if the actual operator of an asset defaults - not if someone they deal with defaults.  If brendio had listed an asset it would be different.

You should be providing a link to an old record of NYAN's holdings and asking namworld to issue you the shares.  If burnside starts intervening in assets without any assertion that the asset owner has done wrong then we're in a right mess.

Incidentally I'm not clear which Nyan held them - I assume when you say Nyan you mean nyan.a (as actual Nyan itself sold all its holdings not long before GLBSE closed down).

Nah they didn't.  Someone TRIED to involve them and they basically said "Not interested - we're sending to the original address entered when the order was made."

They can't start deciding to change where they send orders because of disputes they aren't involved in.  Much as I'd love to see Bakewell get his come-uppance, it won't be Avalon who do it.

You were seriously expecting the exchange to open today?

You might want to look for Canadians rather Americans.  Unless the US has recently absorbed Canada and I never noticed.

If you look back early in his thread you'll find one of his investors actually met up with him - that could be a place to start.  If it was a scam from the start then that'll be a sock-puppet account he's abandoned - but I don't think that's what happened.

Just a quick note as I believe this should be disclosed.

Today there have been two sell-backs of LTC-ATF shares (both partially filled by other orders, rest bought back by the fund).  The second one (a few minutes ago) was by me - of 50 units.  I haven't lost confidence in the fund or anything (I still own over half) - I just believe that LTC was nearing the top of a bubble so am protecting my own investment position as it was becoming too heavily LTC-based.

If LTC stays high then I'll have missed out on some profit but will have maintained a safer (for me) invetsment balance.  If LTC stays high then the fund benefits from the sell-backs anyway - as with a high LTC we still have more LTC-denominated capital than we need to cover out bonds.

If LTC falls to the extent that the fund needs to sell new units then I'll buy back in at the same rate as anyone else (likely NAV/U+25% again) and the fund will have gained a NAV/U increase (and I'd still personally be well ahead from having moved funds over to BTC during the fall).   Pretty sure the other person selling is planning exactly the same.

The fund DOES have liquidity to allow this sort of thing - so if anyone else thinks LTC is bubbling then feel free to try the same.

My sales back were done same as anyone else's - I sold into market and the fund's Bid was placed at NAV/U -2% (anyone other than myself would have got NAV/U -1%).

At present fund is down about 6% NAV/U on the week (would have been ~10% from the exchange-rate move but trading/profits on sell-backs have made around 4%).

The owners of ZigGap have shown up on IRC by the way - claiming the site was just down from hardware problems for a few days and everything will be back to fine soon.  If so, we'll make an absolute killing on this - as I actually bought MORE of them overnight at about 1.5% of what trading price was.  Figured in for a penny, in for a pound - and well worth risking 2 BTC for the chance to make 50-100 profit.

Thanks for the change to a rolling model for fees - it's very welcome.

Well LTC just went through the $1 USD mark (and is well up vs BTC as well).  So we're decently into loss for the week.  Hopefully that continues - I'll happily take a small drop in NAV in return for a large rise in LTC.

Bid will obviously drop as LTC rises.  This is the sort of loss I LIKE making (we are actually up 0.5% or so from trading but that's wiped out by the 30% rise in LTC).

Thanks for the answer.

The problem is that it doesn't address the fundamental problem that sellers of BTC face.  Which is that any holdings in USD are going to lose value any time BTC rises - and you can't avoid having holdings in USD because when someone busy from you, you don't get the USD immediately to exchange back.  What you're doing may, on the surface, appear to solve the problem - but in fact it just moves it AND amplifies it.

Let's forget, for a second, about your BTC reserves - they keep the same (BTC) value no matter what happens.  And let's look at what happens when BTC gos on a rise (which is the time you'll get most buyers).

Say the rate is 1 BTC = 100 USD
And you have 5k USD ready to replace purchases.

Someone buys 10 BTC (for 1k USD + markup).

You now buy 10 BTC and have made a profit of the markup.

You now have 4k USD left and 1k USD pending with Google.

Now BTC rises to 110 USD.

Whilst you replaced the BTC at same price you IMMEDIATELY take a loss on the whole 5k USD you're holding (expressed in BTC).  That is actually a BIGGER hit than if you'd held 0 USD and not been replacing BTC until the funds arrived from Google.

It's actually NOT possible to maintain a fixed BTC value of assets if you hold ANY significant assets in USD - any float you hold to buy replacement BTC with is immediately making the BTC valuation of assets move as the exchange-rate moves.  And you face a second dilemma if you try to do this as well.  If you hold most of assets as BTC and only a minority as USD then what do you do if you have a bunch of orders and run out of (immediately usable) USD to replace BTC?  Do you stop selling?  If so, then ALL BTC you hold over your target USD value to hold are completely unused (as you can't ever replace them as USD reserves will exhaust before they're reached).  The only purpose they serve is to allow maintenance of same trade volume (in USD) if BTC price falls.  But, of course, if BTC price falls then having held a ton of BTC in case it happened isn't exactly something to congratulate yourself on.

This seems to be a structural issue with a lot of BTC-selling vendors.  If BTC rises then you can happily trade away making a profit on every trade - but then when you come to do accounts you'll find you've actually made a loss (in BTC) due to your USD reserves driving value down.

There's two fundamental ways to address it:

1.  Be a USD-valued company.  You'd then hold only USD, buying BTC and shipping them based on orders.  Value would be stable and profits actual - but only measured in USD.
2.  Be a BTC-valued company.  You'd never hold any USD for any longer than necessary - zero USD floats of any kind.  They key then is to set the correct markup on sales.  That's comprised of 3 elements:
a)  The profit you want
b)  The costs of doing business
c)  A margin to cover the average expected rise of BTC during the period you're FORCED to hold USD between a sale and being able to purchase BTC with the received payment.

c) Is what is routinely being ignored and/or underestimated.  If it takes 2 days from the time a customer buys BTC until the time you manage to buy BTC with those USD then you have to markup by the average you expect BTC to rise in those 2 days.  It's my view that a lot of companies are just ignoring this and acting as though the BTC/USD exchange-rate can be treated long-term as being essentially random so that no markup is necessary.  That's pretty clearly untrue.  If BTC succeeds in gaining use then it HAS to rise long-term - and that MUST be priced in.

The impact of ignoring that is NOT trivial.  If your reserves are the correct size then at any given time a significant part of them WILL be in USD.  Holding an extra USD float just makes the situation worse in 2 ways:

1.  It increases the change in BTC valuation of your assets caused by exchange-rate movement.
2.  If strictly adhered to it artifically restricts your ability to actually trade.

The question then becomes what is the markup to apply for c)?  Answer to that depends very much on how long it takes you to convert received USD into BTC.  If it's only hours then not too much.  If days then quite a lot.  And your value will STILL only be likely to be stable in the long-term : in the short-term there's absolutely nothing you can do to prevent it short of not using the majority of capital (when absolute losses remain identical - just appear less when expressed as a percentage).  The slow nature of converting USD payments to BTC is what causes the problem - until a way around that is found I'm not seeing how selling BTC can be profitable in a rising-BTC environment at the sort of pretty small markups you (and others) charge.  You make profits on transactions but a loss overall (when expressed in BTC) and so would probably be better off running completely in USD so at least investors consciously chose to short BTC by investing.

WEEKLY REPORT




LTC fell vs BTC for most of the week but has risen towards the end, finishing very slightly above where it was last week.  We made just under 2.5% profit this week - that would have been nearly 3% but for the small rise in LTC.

For much of the week we were at significantly higher profit - but then two apparent defaults occurred on Bitfunder wiping most of it out.

The single largest threat to our growth has always been default by asset issuers.  I've mentioned a few times before that sooner or later one or more will default causing us significant loss - and this week it happened.  This is bound to happen because a part of my strategy involves bids placed to catch panic sells.  Those CAN be very profitable - but it also opens the door to shares being dumped on us when an operator defaults and decides to steal extra by selling shares.  My view remains that the benefits of this far outweigh the downside to us - so long as we make a profit from it more often (and larger) than we make a loss it continues to be a viable and profitable part of our activity.

Whilst I don't usually disclose the securities we invest in, I think it only fair to disclose them when they incur significant loss for us.  So here's the two that hurt us a bit this week.


BAKEWELL

Asset issuer has proven in the past to be somewhat less than honest, bad at dealing with problems and unreliable.  In many ways that's made his asset perfect to trade in -as people panic sell, can't properly value it and the spreads are massive.

Recently he took out personal BTC-denominated loans (supposedly) to invest in some fiat-denominated business opportunity.  With the massive rise this month in BTC he's obviously screwed.  This week he dumped shares that belong to the company NOT him into low Bids - including some of ours.  He hasn't shown his face since.

I don't believe he intended to scam/steal - just got in well over his head.  But the end result is the same.

We pretty much dodged the bullet on this one.  Although we got sold a bunch of shares, someone then placed up a Bid at well over what we paid.  So we filled that, dumped the rest cheap and came out of it with only a small loss.

In the past we've made a LOT trading this share - including getting dumped shares at a stupidly low price that we sold off for a 900% profit.

If price drops low enough I may still buy back in.


ZIGGAP

A money-exchange website that clearly had serious problems and financial incompetence from the start.  I've traded it pretty profitably for us previously - that someone is doomed isn't a reason not to trade it, just a reason to get out of it in time.  I got the timing wrong on this.  My calculations had indicated that the shit wouldn't hit the fan for them until at least mid-April.  I was wrong - clearly there were non-visible factors I hadn't factored in (e.g. some share-sales were faked so didn't raise capital, they had other undiclosed debts etc).

This week someone dumped shares at tiny prices - including a good sized bunch into our orders.  On quick investigation it was obvious it was the asset issuer.  Their website had been non-functional for much of the week (unfortunately I hadn't realised this) and they missed a dividend payment at around the time of the dump.  Dumping those shares was totally against the contract - which specified a minimum price for further shares to be sold at.

Issuer has logged in since but not posted.

The main reason our profits are depressed this week is because I applied a very large write-down on the value of these shares.  The price hasn't totally collapsed yet - Asks are still well above what we paid, let alone what they're now marked down to.  I would have written them down even further were it not for the fact that the website is now back up and functional and there's some signs of life.  I don't believe this company will be viable as an investment (there's structural faults in their plan and a total lack of understanding of exchange-rate risk/mitigation) - but if they make ANY sort of positive announcement there'll be enough idiots around for us to get rid of our remaining holdings without further lossm probbaly at a profit to current book value and quite feasibly at a profit to what we actually paid.

Without the write-down of these, we'd have been up around 6-7% this week.  If the issuer totally fails to return then profits will be reduced again next week by writing them down to near zero.

I'm less inclined to dump these for cheap as I did with the Bakewell ones - as issuer has some credibility in the community which they'll likely exploit to delay their collapse (and allow us to exit with profit).  I expect some vague announcement about unspecified problems which are being resolved and an assurance that everything will be OK : which should generate enough Bids for our purpose.


ODDS AND ENDS

Trading on LTC-GLOBAL is especially tricky at present.  LTC is rising vs both BTC and Fiat and the vast majority of securities on LTC-Global are effectively denominated (either in full or in large part) in one or the other of those.  So profits there are slim at present.  We're now very heavily into default country - the sharp price in both BTC/LTC vs USD has meant there'll be plenty of issuers around with debts denominated in BTC/LTC that were used for fiat purposes and are now very hard for them to repay.  I'll be exercising more caution than usual in trading - and would advise everyone else to do the same.

Management fee this week is 1 unit.
Bid at : 62.2

Youd be surprised how many "Bitcoin" businesses hold reserves in USD.  And probably less surprised at how many of them then run into problems because of it (especially when coupled with BTC-denominated debt).  As well as the ones with problems on Bitfunder (Ziggap/Bakewell being the obvious but not only two) there's ones on LTC-GLobal with similar currency-related issues (either unable to sell shares because of LTC's rising price and/or unable to fulfil obligations and/or 'borrowed' funds for fiat-related purposes which are now very hard to return).  It's not a problem limited to only one exchange.

I'd guess part of the (totally invalid/incorrect) reason some hold reserves in USD is a flawed belief that by doing so they avoid exchange-rate risks.  Others may do it simply because it makes life easier when producing accounts for tax etc.  I've yet to see a company that functioned in USD but sold shares in BTC where investors over any length of time ended up better off than if they'd just kept their BTC.

How capital is held (i.e. in which currency/ies) is a key part of determining valuation.  This isn't stated - only implied as being USD by results being given in USD (with BTC only estimated).  Now Ukyo appears to be saying capital is held as BTC.

How capital is held is important in at least 2 respects:

1.  It determines how the assets/book value of the company changes when exchange-rate moves (which of BTC/USD valuations is the one that changes?  It could be both if by default balanced holdings are held.).
2.  Trade volume is constrained to an extent by capital (received USD can't instantly be converted into BTC).  The upper-bound of that volume is set in the currency capital is, by default, held in.  If held as USD when idle then a rise in BTC means max volume (in BTC) falls.   Vice-versa if held in BTC.

Would be nice if issuer could confirm Ukyo's statement that BTC value doesn't change - i.e. all idle funds are held in BTC.

THis would also clarify Ukyo's statement that all profits are in BTC - which is clearly only true if no/limited USD are held.  If X% profit is made on a trade then whether that profit is in BTC or in USD depends entirely on whether the profit is left in USD or converted to BTC immediately.

Put simply:

If exchange rate is $100=B1 and company makes 5 BTC profit.
Then exchange-rate rises to $250=B1.
Does the company still have 5 BTC (and a LOT of $) more than before the trade or $500 more (and a LOT less BTC in total)?

Obviously if BTC fell then the figures would be reversed (holding USD would be better).  Issue isn't so much which is right/wrong - but which is the currency investors need to value this in?

Think only actual question you missed was:

WIll the remaining capital from the BTCjam loan be in the company's wallet or is the issuer taking all funds already in the wallet himself?

TradeFortress asked it.

Asking what assets a company that is IPOing has isn't an unreasonable question.

He didn't borrow to gamble on futures - he borrowed to use in fiat.  But of course with repayment in BTC it works out as though he HAD gambled on futures.