Dividend will drop to under half - as there's more shares owned by Bitfountain that sold to public.

Also some of profits will be retained to pay for future development, more mining gear etc.

Dividends DO include non-ming profits - such as shares of hardware they sell and income from any next-generation ASICs they develop.

In theory it would, yes.

In practice Diablo has a declared policy on paying out half received dividends as dividends and using half to execute buybacks of shares.  Last dividend he actually paid out over half as dividends, used well under half for buybacks and kept about 1/4 as cash.  No idea why - so you take on the gamble of his semi-random actions.  On the bright side, every time he buys back you own more ASICMINER shares/share - so its good for long-term exposire.  On bad side he pays dividends monthly so you have to wait for them then see what random percent he pays out, what random percent he buys back with and what random percent he keeps as cash for no stated reason.

Cutoff is who owns the shares when burnside pays dividends - there's no means in the system to do otherwise.

Count the zeroes in the prices ...

Exchange-rate : .0049
Adjusted NAV/U : 54.063
Bid at : 52.5

The massive jump in the price of LTC has taken into loss so far for the week.  We're down 5.7% - all of it from the exchange-rate movement (if exchange-rate is factored out then we're up about 3.4% from trading - in line with the results of recent weeks).

The above exchange-rate is only an estimate as BTC-E has been down most of the time today for me.  This has stopped me properly trading our pass-throughs as I can't do the currency conversion I do as part of every set of trades.  Whenever I buy or sell on one of our pass-throughs I (nearly) simultaneously execute a trade in the other direction on CoinBR and a currency conversion.  This removes all risk from us - as we just take our cut whilst being immune to currency/price movements (exception being if the orders I'm trying to fill vanish right at the second I try to fill them - but that pretty much never happens and I do the riskiest one first).

LTC seemed to be peaking out last time I was able to actually see the BTC-E trade screen briefly.  So long as it doesn't rise much more I'm fairly confident I can trade us back to at least even for the week.

We would have been not quite so badly off had I not somehow failed to cancel some gold buy orders (which were very low when placed) and ended up buying gold shares at what shortly became over the going rate.

If LTC manages to stay anywhere near where it is, then we won't be needing to sell more units for quite a while.  The bonds : NAV ratio (which was at 100 prompting me to sell the last 100 units) is currently sitting at just under 50%.  And that's AFTER I dropped 500 more into overpriced buys in the market - on average they were 8% over face value meaning the profit on selling them has paid the first 3 months of their interest.  As I was planning to sell more bonds later this week anyway, there was no way I was passing that up.  At current exchange-rate we could issue another 80 BTC worth of bonds before needing to stop (can't see me actually wanting to sell more than another 10 BTC worth this week - and I'd prefer to make sure LTC isn't going to plummet straight back down before even selling those).

So you're claiming the house running above the expected ROI was due to WINNING players keeping playing?  Would have though it's more likely to be losing players who wouldn't give up until they bust.

Sure - winning players DO often give back a big chunk of a large win: but if they keep even one satishi of their winnings they've NOT contributed to the site's profit and have definitely NOT been responsible for the site running above expectation.  When there's a house edge only LOSING players give profit or can be responsible for the house running above expectation.

Couple of quick questions.

1.  You refer to 2 managers.  I assume you're one - who are the other 2?

2.  What happens as far as dividends and voting are concerned whilst only some shares are sold?  If those are allocated as though all shares had been sold then it would be impossible to pass any motion until at least 25001 shares had been sold - making it impossible to function at all.  Really you should issue 100,000 shares on ONE platform and take 50k yourself (or split with other managers) with a contractual obligation to abstain on votes with your shares if you don't intend to vote.  Then dividends would scale properly with sales - and vote would be possible from the start.  Sales on other platforms would then be pass-throughs where you'd end the votes ahead of on main platform and proxy the votes in.

Selling different batches of same company on different platforms sounds great until a problem arises.  There's various issues that could cause controversy - e.g. exchange-rate conversions meaning sales on a platform actually occurred at the 'wrong' price, failure/hacking of one platform with loss of funds (do investors on other platforms have to take losses made on a platform shares weren't even for sale on when they invested?)

I think 10k+ BTC is a big ask for a website without any customers yet : to get any sort of trade justifying that you're going to need pretty good systems for depositing/withdrawing fiat (the BTC/USD and BTC/EUR pairs would have to generate bulk of trade - as there just isn't enough market cap in the alt currencies to generate profits justifying the price tag). What deposit/wihtdrawal methods are you intending to strat with?  Do you intend to require AML/KYC information from anyone depositing or withdrawing fiat?  Quick calculations show that to pay even 10% dividends per year you'd need to be handling a fair few million USD/EUR in deposits/withdrawals - that's the sort of size of transaction that it's hard to slide under the radar in most countries.

In the short-term it won't - but there may be occasions when there's need to retain profits (for example to fund next-gen ASICs or to fund building retail products).  ASICMINER isn't some shitty mining bond that pays out dividends whilst it values decline - the plan is very clearly to grow the company and profits.  And if that means foregoing dividends at times, so be it.

That's wrong.

Take a look at the maximum that can be won on a single bet, then look at the expected profits in a month.  Then realise that loads of volume in small bets can have their profit wiped out by a few winning large bets - and realise that you're just totally wrong.

In fact it's already HAD a losing month.

Risk of Ruin can be reduced to zero by controlling max bet sizes based on backing capital - but you can't remove the risk of losing months without capping max bets at a level which would lose the best customers.  And of course the possibility of losing months also means the possibility of months where you win well above expectation.

If you STILL aren't convinced then look at the results for the month that just ended.  Now look at how far ABOVE expectation S.DICE did.  Now try to think of a good reason why it can finish that much above expectation but not that much below expectation given a small house margin and fair games (hint: there's no such reason).

All of you talking about junk like odds of X losing days in a row are totally ignoring the very high odds on some wagers and the massive range of bet sizes available.  There'll be more losing months.  There'll also be more months of winning well above expectation.  And investors need to take both in their stride.

There's actually 400,000 shares.

The 163k you refer to are the ones sold on GLBSE.  Dividends are going only to those shares until they've been paid back the initial 0.1 BTC the shares were sold for.  After that all future dividends will be split between all 400k shares (the other shares are ones taken by those running ASICMNER for their work/investment into it plus some which were going to be sold on GLBSE but weren't in the end as the funds weren't needed due to a rise in BTC price).

So for now each share gets 1/162k of each dividend - once each share has received 0.1 BTC it'll get 1/400k of dividend thereafter.

We expect once a week (on Thursdays) but not sure it's absolutely written in stone.

Heh, that was my first thought on seeing the "proof".

ASICMINER is nowhere near ready to sell to the public but can show 5 TH.  If someone's ready to actually sell then I'd expect them to be able to flip a bit more than that on.

Not sure what your comments have to do with my post you quoted (it reads as though you thought I was in some way opposed to it).

I was asking about the mechanics of how (according to TradeFortress) asset issuers get credited in some way for trade on their assets without making sales themselves.  I don't know how reliable or credible TradeFortress is - but it's the first I've heard that moving up the gee table can be done without actually selling anything.

I've no problems at all with the listing - and if DT wants to run it for free, I'm certainly not going to complain.  And I'm sure I'll be trading it once we get a few people selling shares.

I do think you may be reading more into friedcat's involvement than is actually the case (jumping from him being aware of it to him approving of it without any source - when his OWN comments on pass-throughs/derivatives in general suggested he didn't support OR approve of them, just accepted them as inevitable). 

And I'm not sure how you think some element of approval by firedcat makes this OK.  It's fine regardless of whether he approves or not.  A pass-through, at root, is essentially an investment fund which only holds one asset: there's no need for approval from asset issuers to hold their securities.

At the time of posting the spreadsheet in previous post, highest bid (on LTC/BTC) was at .00298 and lowest ask at .0032 giving a rate of .003.  By time I finish this post it may well have moved significantly in either direction.

We've ended this week with growth of 13.83%.  I'd estimate trading profit (ignoring exchange-rate movement) at around 18-19% (my spreadsheet says 21.27% but I know the assumptions it's based on aren't correct).  Final adjusted NAV/U is 57.333 - it was over 59 before LTC started to move up and we've definitely made profit since then.

The sale of new units was responsible for around 2% of growth - with the rest being from our usual trading.  DMC shares are no longer listed as long-term : with their price rising and there still no easy way to directly convert them into ASICMINER (as no trading platform) I have sold some of them and will sell the rest assuming I can get the right price.  We'll have made over 100% profit on them in the few weeks we've held them.  Around 8% of trading profit this week came from sales of part of our holding of them - with another nice chunk still to come.

The sale of new units went smoothly and so did the sale of 1k new bonds shortly afterwards.  At present I'm in the middle of selling a further 200 bonds (last part of it is taken down for now - so I can type this without having to keep checking exchange-rate).  This week the timing worked out much better for us than it did last week - the sharp rise in LTC didn't happen until after the units/bonds had been sold (and a portion of the proceeds converted to BTC).  That meant that our percentage exposure to BTC was lower than it had been for the last weeks - just in time for the LTC rise.

It's not at all clear (to me) where the LTC price will go now.  I may sky-rocket or it may fall back to (or below) where it was until earlier today.  Until I get a clear view of what's happening I'll just be keeping us in my target range of 15-20% BTC exposure (we can't fall much below that due to our commitment to ensure proper backing for bonds).  If the LTC price stays where it is then I don't see there being a need to issue new units for at least a few weeks - for the coming week my expectation is that I'd only consider issuing more units if LTC falls back below .0025.

S.BBET and S.MPOE have both been paid their small dividends for this month - the (much larger) S.DICE one should arrive within the next day or so.  Trade has been sluggish on all the pass-throughs - with the main activity being when LTC rose sharply and I was suddenly able to fill some orders (and with LTC falling back down a bit those purchasers can now likely sell at a profit).  I've also managed to buy back some more S.BBET - the fund has actually made enough profit just from buying back units of that to more than cover its ticker cost.

With ASICMINER pass-throughs now starting on both BitFunder and BTC.CO, as well as a few fairly active (trading wise) new companies on Bitfunder we don't look like running short of trading possibilities for a while.

The main concern for us now should be the mountain of largely unused LTC we're building up.  I have an idea or two how to deal with that which I'll hopefully post about later in the week.

Tomorrow (Monday - actually today now for me) I'll be out nearly all day on business.  With the LTC price currently in flux I won't leave orders up on the pass-throughs.  I'll be back around and conducting business as usual from Tuesday (I WILL be around for an hour or two on Monday but not my usual active self).

Management fee for this week is 7 units (rounded down from 7.79) which will be transferred shortly. 
Bid at : 55.5 (a bit wider than usual due to the exchange-rate volatlity).

Posting the spreadsheet then will do rest of writeup in a second post.  I want the spreadhseet to be posted whilst the quote exchange-rate is roughly right (this is third try - the previous two times the rate move a mile whilst I was preparing the screen-shots).

The table in that is based on the value of shares you sell.  I'm a few tiers up in it myself fro my sales whilst trading.

TradeFortress appears to be claiming DT will get get credit somehow by someone else selling shares in his asset.  I wasn't aware that existed : it ought to be publicised if asset issuers get credit for sales they aren't involved in, as that's something of definite benefit to potential future asset issuers.

How does that work?

I knew the person selling the shares (in this case the owner of the ASIC-MINER shares transferred in) would get a volume discount - but are you saying the asset issuer gets volume discount for shares he TRADES to people (without ever selling them via the market or paying a fee)?  Isn't that just a little bit abusable?

Just a quick note that I'm holding off on doing the weekly report until the LTC/BTC exchange-rate settles down a bit.

I don't want to produce a report that could be off by a few % by the time I've finished writing it (and I don't want to take a management fee then LTC rises further and by time I submit the post I'm no longer entitled to the fee).

Even with the large rise in LTC, NAV was still above where it was at after selling the extra units yesterday.  We've made tradng profit since then and have pretty low exposure to BTC right now.

I WILL do the report before I go to bed tonight.

Cool story bro.

Please point to where in the BTCJAM listing it indicates the loan is a personal one not to the business?  Do you notice that the account name taking it is out is ZIGGAP?  Do you notice that when asked what will happen if the business struggles he talks about what the BUSINESS will do not about what personal assets he has that would be realised to pay off the debt?

Do you notice it's listed as a business loan not a personal one?  Do you realise that if you go to a bank and ask for money to be loaned to you personally to invest in a business then it will be a personal loan not a business one?

Do you notice that earlier in this very thread he's stated he's assuming personal responsibility for the debt?  (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=146611.msg1562542#msg1562542)

Do you realise that you can't assume responsibility for something if you're already responsible for it?

Are you any closer to getting the point?

The debt was to the company but he's now taking on personal responsibility to pay it.  That was agreed (including by him) a page or so back.  So long as he repays it, that's end of story.  If he defaults then it gets messy - but if he defaults then it gets messy regardless of whose name the debt is in.  And there's no reason why he should default as he'll have what was left of the loaned capital to make repayments from until dividends kick in.

If the seller put his shares up in an Ask wall at .005 then I expect they wouldn't last too long (though this time of night they may as probably not too many around).  But consider it from the perspective of a buyer who wouldn't mind buying at .005 but hasn't any great need too.  If they put up a bid at .005 then there's a few bad (by which I mean sub-optimal) things that happen:

1)  They get outbid - and the price rises meaning they miss the chance to buy at .005 at all.
2) Seller slams his shares up in a sell wall BELOW .005 and they buy at .005 when everyone gets theirs cheaper.

The seller's shown he isn't willing to wait to sell at a higher price so there's no reason for buyers to be impatient.  Let him put his shares up, underbid with small asks to see if he can be persuaded to go lower and only buy if/when it looks like his wall is going to get cleaned out.  The goal isn't to buy shares, it's to buy them as cheaply as possible.  If he'll fill a bid at .005 then why not wait and see if he'll go even lower?  If he won't fill a bid at .005 then you gain nothing by putting up a bid - as it won't get filled anyway.

Not all securities work like this - S.DICE is especially good for panicky sellers and lower liquidity.