If you think its a good investment, but dont want to rely on the exchange (on the latter we're in the same boat), lets make a deal. I will offer you what cryptx offers +10% for a period of 6 months. So you would pay me the market price (escrow or multisig is fine), I would pay you the same divs as cryptx +10% for 6 months and then return you the remaining market value.

Since this would constitute a naked short on my part, we'll have to cap the theoretical maximum gain, but Id be okay escrowing a fairly unrealistically high amount.

As pedro pointed out, deployment seems 3-6 months away, and by that time, that price isnt going to look good at all.

As far as hosting/collocation goes (the "b" shares), datatank solves a problem that isnt one yet: cooling costs. This is still  insignificant compared to the hardware devaluation. Small residential miners dont care at all because they need no active cooling, the mega mines dont care yet because many of them they pay ~$0.02/KWH, and cooling costs represent only a tiny fraction of their overall costs.

Datatank's comparisons with traditional datacenters is also very flawed; these datacenters are obviously more expensive, but not so much because they use aircooling, but because they provide all sorts of HA features like  backup power (arguably their biggest cost), advanced fire suppression, access control, intrusion detection, high speed interconnects, data backup facilities,  etc, etc. All things needed for enterprise hosting, but increasingly pointless for bitcoin mining; as mining margins dwindle and costs shift to electricity,  it will increasingly become better to risk some outages than pay high fees for high availability hosting.

Still, B shares are worth a look IMO, Ill have to run some numbers before deciding if its worth investing in, but longer term at least conceptually it makes some sense; Just dont pay attention to the flawed comparison they make with traditional DC's.

Which is of course, a very, very stupid reason.

Dont get me wrong, Im appalled cryptx is even mining there, and I would welcome a switch to p2pool or some smaller pool (my vote goes to bitminter), but buying existing shares from another shareholder at an inflated price is going to change what exactly about where cryptx mines, or for that matter, with how many TH he mines ? If you had bought in to an IPO at least you could claim you want to "support" the security issuer for mining at your favorite pool, but thats not what you did.

Thats what I meant, since that is what IPO investors got for their money.


If Im not mistaken, thats what "rescued" previous investors who bought in at 0.05 but saw their hashrate increase significantly thanks to the new investors.

Ouch!

Also of note, ~1.6 BTC/TH resale value. Remember the last IPO was for 6.5 BTC/ TH not even a month ago, current bond price represents ~4.2 BTC/TH minus the loan..

I think I sufficiently proved my point by now. Best of luck to those who didnt get out yet.

Have to +1 that. As much as I think this is a toxic asset, I cant fault the issuer, he has been acting exemplary IMO.
Id be happy to invest in some future cryptx venture if it has a business plan I  believe in.

Closer to the truth: sell both units for $4000 and pocket $8000. Keep doing that until your pile of cash is big enough to deploy something like KnC's datorhall,






And thereby kill the ROI of all your former customers with hardware paid for by them, costing only marginal production cost, and electricity costs far below any residential miner:

But even then, rather than self mine with your new megamine, it turns out its actually better to rent/sell that hashrate for as long as people are gullible enough to overpay for cloudmining.

This is exactly what KnC,  Cointerra and Bitury/cex.io have been doing. Like I said before, you dont win this arms race unless you are an arms dealer.

Let me suggest an alternative investment strategy to you; if you burn half your money, and with the remaining half you buy a lottery ticket, you may just win $10M. Therefore, burning half your money may actually make sense. Right?


Other than than my google calendar, correct.


BS.


There are plenty of people trying to educate cex.io bagholders and countless threads on BFL. This thread had almost nothing but newbies all of whom seemed to think Peta's proposition is somehow a novel concept that is going to make them a profit.


Judjing by the numbers, its a far worse story. 
Besides, let me tell you what would happen if cryptx at some point could get some killer deal from any of the chip manufacturers; since no one is going to buy in at IPO price anymore, to actually raise capital,  he will  do what every mining security issuer before him did, launch a new security, call it ZetaMine or CryptY and allow cryptx investors to "upgrade" to crypty.  Gigamining/terramining all over again.

 

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/bag-holder.asp

Its going  faster than even I had thought. Current hashrate according to blockchain: 115PH  
Cryptx share of the network: 1221 TH / 115 PH = 1.06%
That 2% goal sounds like a distant pipedream and  with 8+ weeks of no reinvesment and thus further decline ahead even 1% is completely out of reach. 0.6% will be closer to reality before the loan is paid back. Good luck bag holders.

It would be a miracle if they had folded already. A quick glance at their site indicates the "trading pool" contract runs 120 days, the "mining pool" contract 365 days (ask yourself: why?). They only seem to have started their newbie "Full disclosure: I am not related to this site in any way, shape or form. " sockpuppet referral spam campaign here earlier this year.

I assure you cryptx' CEO does, and the bitcoin related businesses that actually have a sensible business plan (and capable management) dont seem to have any problem securing VC capital. I sure wish I could have bought shares in Bit-pay when it launched and would still very much like to invest today, but they didnt need an unregulated BTC IPO to get their funds.


I agree, there are cases where it makes sense, like AM,  but just asking yourself the question will in the vast majority of current bitcoin related securities reveal it does not make sense. For instance, if bitcoin-trader pays out 3000% interest per year on fiat and BTC deposits alike, allegedly by "margin trading", it doesnt pass the sniff test of why they would need (ever more) external capital.


Pretty much none of the securities trading on either exchange were worth anything anyway. Closing down only exposed faster how worthless these things were.

Bingo. Apply that logic consistently and you'll avoid at least 90% of the ponzi's, scams and other investment traps out there.
And even in cases where external capital makes sense, ask yourself why not get a bank loan, angel investment or VC capital if the business plan is sound.

Accepted and I appreciate the candidness. After all the scams and bad investments I have tried to expose over the years, I dont actually recall being thanked once even after the fact.  I do recall often being accused of actually having caused the collapse. Im sure that will be next here too .


As I tried explaining for quite some time now, reinvestment ratio doesnt change the outcome.

A 0% reinvestment strategy will give you the maximum possible return for the investment in the shortest time, just like when buying a miner,  but that  will not be enough to achieve a positive ROI due to the far too high $/GH and $/KwH. My numbers show it would yield at best in the neighborhood of ~40% ROI (ie, a 60% loss).

A 100% reinvestement strategy will not pay out a satoshi in dividends ever but will also not be able to increase the hashrate at the same pace as the network; the mining revenue as % of investment is simply lower than the difficulty growth, so your share of the network and therefore,  share value will simply slide over a long time until approaches zero and thus you end up with ~0% ROI.  Its like buying a unprofitable miner and using all your revenue to buy more unprofitable miners.

Any reinvestment ratio in between will be a mix of both, but wont change the fact you will lose.

Obviously. Last year we saw nearly a 1000 fold increase in hashrate. That is not going to happen again, but if whatever you intend to offer has an ROI that is dependent on difficulty growth slowing down so it wont increase 10 fold in a year, I wont be buying.

Fair enough. So what do you see ? I see 1-1.5% daily growth. Unlike anyone else in this thread, I actually ran the numbers and published the results, based on an assumption of less than 1% daily growth and 3%/week growth deceleration, which is much faster than historically, and very unlikely given whats about to hit the market (hint: Neptune, AM gen 2, BFL and some others). In case you missed it,  even in that scenario, the outcome  wasnt exactly very good.

So why doesnt anyone show me a simulation that does yield a positive ROI and is remotely plausible?


And that almost sounds reasonable, but its not. What you miss here, is that if PETA mining could be profitable with its off the shelve, 4.7 BTC/TH purchase costs and skyhigh electricity costs, then all the new hardware being offered today, and  if nothing else, those private KnC/Bitfury/BFL/AM mines will be many times more profitable So the market is not saturated, not by a long shot, and difficulty will keep going up as fast as these companies can produce hardware until even they are no longer clearly profitable at marginal production costs. We are at least an order of magnitude away from that.

If you gamble some coins on satoshidice, or any of the betting sites, or by playing online poker for bitcoin, you might make a couple of coins and actually get some excitement.
Betting mid/long term on mining derivatives, not a chance. ITs like looking at this graph:



And then betting next month difficulty will be lower. I sure hope that excites you a lot, because it wont make you any coins.

Ive been following bitcoin since 2011 or so. I must have seen nearly 1000 BTC denominated investment instruments come and go, and I remember all of 2 that made their investors a positive ROI; ActiveMiner, which was high risk but did pan out,  and SatoshiDice, even though that profit was extremely limited for investors,  and mostly went to Eriks own wallet. So if you ask me now which is the third one, I dont see it yet, unless you can find ways to short sell all those junk bonds and shares.

In the meanwhile, cold wallets have grown in value ~10000% in just a few short years. I dont get why people insist on looking for maybe a few % on top of that, at a (usually)  enormous risk or even near certainty of loss.  I also dont get how people think BTC is even a good investment instrument. How many people try to invest their gold? A growing economy creates more fiat money, it doesnt create more gold, nor more bitcoins.

You're not the first to attack my credibiliy or motives in this thread or others. Allow me to go off topic and address this. Ive been called a troll or sockpuppet countless times before (even caused me to adopt this nick, the irony of which seems to elude most), including I believe by you on several occasions. But how often was I wrong?  Lets review a few of them, feel free to check my posting history to verify my claims:

- Usagi's Nyan A/B/C, BMF, CPA, & co

Lost count of how often I was accused of trolling, being a paid shill and what not, but in the end math doesnt lie and I was dead right and usagi's deceptive house of cards mostly imploded even before GLBSE went offline. Over 17K BTC was raised in the various IPO's, only pocket change was left in BMF  (and even that may have been "lost" when Usagi claimed to have lost his wallet recenly).

- Patrick Harnett starfish/kraken

Once, one of the must trusted people on this forum. Again basic math and logic proved without a doubt he wittingly or unwittingly was running a ponzi scheme on the back off pirate; didnt stop the fanboys from trying to crucify me for months until one day, Patrick vanished and ~10K BTC debt along with him.

- Labcoin

I demonstrated their initial business case to be highly improbable and as evidence trickled in, increasingly argued it was an obvious scam. Took over 8 months and 8000 BTC before I was proven right yet again.

- Gigamining

Pretty much a carbon copy of Cryptx. Petamine "avant la lettre", poster boy for bitcoin securities. Not a scammer, ran/runs his business professionally and best I can tell, honestly, but was simply smart enough to sell his overpriced hashrate to the biggest fools, just like crypx. ROI predictably never happened. GigaVPS was however not smart enough  to consult a lawyer until after I pleaded many times to do so after GLBSE closure. Just as predictably, his lawyer told him what I had been saying all along, and gigamining bonds where turned in to private, non tradable bonds (that never ROI'd).

- AMT

Demonstrated them to be liars from the outset, promising impossible specs and impossible delivery dates. Didnt stop half the forum from attacking me and questioning my motives. Now, more than 6 months later, AMT customer are still waiting in so far they are not involved in legal action against them.

There are many more examples, obsi's and countless other ponzi's, basically anything ever listed on GLBSE that I took the trouble to look in to, but this should give you an idea.

Was I never really wrong?  Well, when it comes to AM, I was sceptical and I always considered it high risk high reward. I did invest a small amount in the IPO and achieved a nice profit, but nowhere near what I could have achieved. Most important reason I didnt bet more and got out so soon, was that I had no trust in the legal viability of the exchange (GLBSE) and had serious doubts about the anonymity of the issuer.The former fear, I was proven right about only weeks later. Friedcat managed that well and investors didnt suffer, but its difficult to call this a bad call on my part.

ANd then about the only time I did get it wrong: MtGox. I was very late in recognizing that they were indeed out of funds and running fractional reserve. I found that very hard to believe based just on their trading fee revenue alone; barring a loss of their entire cold wallet, I couldnt see how they would be illiquid. Now I did not lose a satoshi on gox, I never keep more than a small amount of coins on any exchange for longer than 5 minutes, but I will admit I was tempted to wire some funds and buy some cheap coins on Gox before the collapse. Fully aware it would be high risk. Thats the closest I recall to being dead wrong.

As far as track records go, I will hold this against anyone on this forum. Particularly against yours Dhenson. I wonder how many BTC you would have saved had you listened to me only once in a while.

I thought they were already producing their own bitfury boards.
Of course, the real profit there is selling those boards,  there still seems to be a healthy margin to be had on mining boards if you can build them in volume. But any profit from that will not benefit petamine bag holders,  you didnt invest in a hardware company, you  didnt buy a piece of "cryptx", you invested in a mining bond, which used to be rightfully called a mining turd before everyone forgot how bad those have historically worked.

In fact cryptx could, if he wanted to, sell his own produced boards to all you peta bag holders at whatever inflated price he wanted to, and you'd have no say over it thanks to the reinvestment clause.