Lol, 10,000 not 10 million. Still, 10,000 is a lot of money and the site is negative now. I feel bad for dooglus.

No, if you look at the variance for a number of smaller bets totaling the same wagered amount the variance will go down. When you compare the error from this to the error we were looking for (0.9% to 1.1%) you have numbers x and y such that 0.9% < x < profit < y < 1.1%. The math isn't wrong, it's just less precise. However it restrains the profit just as well. The fact is that if we used many smaller sized bets we would actually be closer to 1% profit than if we used fewer larger bets.


You are off by four orders of magnitude. 3 million one satoshi bets is 0.03 bitcoins. What my example represents is fifty thousand million (50,000,000,000) one satoshi bets compared to one bet of 500:

0 < 4.95 < profit in btc < 5.05 < 500

(where 0 is the loss from 500, 4.95 is -1% from house odds, 5.05 is +1% from house odds, and 500 is the profit from a single lost bet @ 500).

Point being precisely correct math is a waste of time, it is easier to calculate looser bounds which restrain the profit in the desired fashion and are just as mathematically sound.


This isn't what I had in mind, I wouldn't make this kind of offer unless I felt I had something worthwhile to share tho. To answer elm, given that dooglus should have site profits of ten million btc by now but is struggling to hold 2000, I think what I have to say is worthwhile to him.

You are correct. But the problem is much much deeper than this. Let me begin by asking the simple question; since the KC maximizes profit over number of bets, and since variance decreases with bet size, how many max bets would we need to make in order to decrease variance to get, say, 0.9% < profit < 1.1% assuming all bets were max bets? Going with a set max bet size, say 500 BTC, guarantees we will find a sample size more than sufficient to limit profit in this way. Let's further simplify by going after the RNG and not the house edge.

So now we have simplified the problem into determining how many coin flips we need to make to show whether or not a coin is fair. Which is actually a well known problem. If we calculate this number, and determine that actually, just-dice has "flipped the coin" more times, we have then proven that just-dice is not a fair coin. It does not matter that we are not using the actual formulas for just-dice's statistics; our results are a superset of theirs. In short, if just-dice's numbers are within the sample size we require it may or may not be fair (we won't know) but if their numbers lie outside of ours we have proven that they are unfair. This proves using actual just-dice statistical formulas will merely create numbers x and y such that our figures bracket them as such; 0.9% < x < profit < y < 1.1%.

I'll even draw a picture. We will end up with a number (sample size) which will appear in one of the following places: A, B or C:
   

If our number shows up as A or B, we will not know which one it is (since we are calculating a simplified version of the statistics). In the case of A and B all we know is that just dice has not yet achieved the sample size we require to limit profit to 0.9% < profit < 1.1%. If, however, just dice has a sample size which falls at (C) -- which is greater than what we require -- we have guaranteed that profit should be limited to 0.9% < profit < 1.1%.

The formula for required sample size is (Z*Z)/(4*E*E), where E is the desired error (ex. 0.01 for 1%) and Z is how many standard deviations you want. 3 standard deviations gives a 99.7% level of confidence, which is less frequently broken than 1/300. A quick glance at a chart which shows how likely you are to die from various causes shows that it is far more probable that you will die by falling down (1:246) if you don't first die from committing suicide (1:121).

n = (3 * 3 ) / (4 * 0.01 * 0.01)
n = 9 / 0.0004
n = 22,500

In short, as long as we bet 500 bitcoins 22,500 times, we are guaranteed that the error will be no more than 1%. But the house edge is 1%, so this just states profit will be between 0% and 2%. (house edge +/- 1% is 0% to 2%.). That doesn't help us.

To get +/- 0.1%  or 0.9% < profit < 1.1%, we need to set E to be 0.001 not 0.01:

n = (3 * 3 ) / (4 * 0.001 * 0.001)
n = 9 / 0.000004
n = 2,250,000

There we go. How convenient. As you can see, we have just rolled over 2.4 million bets at 500 max bet. Therefore we arrive at the following connundrum:

1. 2,250,000 bets at 500 BTC is enough to guarantee variance within 0.9% < profit < 1.1%.
2. Actual sample size is a minimum of 2,400,000 because not all bets were made at max kelly bet.
3. Actual site profit is less than 0.2%.

0.2% < 0.9% < profit < 1.1%

This is a serious problem.

I am not merely suggesting something is wrong, I am proving it.

If Dooglus is interested in hiring me as a consultant I will help him fix this problem. Then again, the solution is obvious, but I think Dooglus needs someone to tell him. And no I will not advise anyone for free. You get what you pay for in life. That does not mean I am greedy it means I want Dooglus to listen to me, pay attention to what I say, and do it, or I will not waste my time. If he cannot value my advice then it has no value to him. It's that simple. That being said my rates are exceedingly cheap.

Chat soon~

Thanks for the tip re: Ciphermine. As an artistic concern, I would prefer not to have to mention fiat currency at all in the contract. Unfortunately, the property is not just denominated in fiat, but is massively denominated in fiat. This isn't a situation where if BTC goes to the moon my paycheque can cover the interest. I'm not willing to take a significant hit on the exchange rate. Looking at Ciphermine's contract for their bond, they seem to have created a perpetual bond. That is really more of a loan than a bond. I wanted to create an issue which was not perpetual.

A CIPHERMINE.B1-style idea:
1. 300,000 bonds are to be created priced at 0.01 BTC each.
2. 0.3%/week is 15.6% annually. Based on mtgoxjpy, 0.01 BTC = 131 yen. 0.3% of this is 0.393. Let's say 0.4 to keep it simple. So I could say, 0.4 yen into bitcoins per bond per week, that would give it an interest rate, to start, of 0.305%/week. If I paid 0.5% a week that would be 0.382% (closer to what ciphermine pays).

Ciphermine.B1 has some other clauses;
  - After 12 months, each bond may be redeemed at any time by bondholder for 0.01 BTC.
  - If before 12 months, three months notice is required to redeem bonds and rights to interest waived during that period.

I actually think these terms are fair, however I would extend the period from 12 months to 24 due to the nature of what we're buying. By the time 2 years is up I will have paid off 90% of the property and will be in a much better position to start redeeming bonds. But the issue is probably moot since you can likely sell these on the market.

"CipherMine has the right to redeem any bond in full with one month's notice to the bond holder at face value plus 12% less the number of months since issue." Actually, ciphermine's clauses sound very similar to what I had in mind.

"For example, after three months the redemption value would be 0.0109 BTC/bond, and after 12 months the redemption value would be 0.010 BTC/bond." This is a lot like the face value - (payments/2) * 10% penalty payment I came up with. I'll keep my version of the clause.

"The redemption value will always be at least 0.010 BTC/bond"
(that just determines face value.)

"The bonds shall ultimately be secured against the assets purchased with the funds, but this security would only be needed in dire circumstances where CipherMine had completely run out of cash."
Sounds similar to my idea.

I like what I am reading here so I will be moving the contract in the direction of what Ciphermine did.

The final question is what to do with investor's need to have a repurchase clause. If I use a lower interest rate, say 0.4 yen/bond/week, I would be much more comfortable guaranteeing a bid. I think that is better than forcing investors to wait 3 months to redeem shares. As an investor, what would you prefer; a slightly lower interest rate and the ability to sell shares back at 99% of face value, or a higher interest rate and the inability to redeem shares until a certain date (1-2 years into the future)?

Q&A ROUND 1


1.
That is what I am looking for. I'd like this to pass as a BMF motion, I.E. for it to make sense to my shareholders, and for my shareholders to trust that this is a sane plan. With community backing, I feel I can succeed.


2.
Fixed! Thank you. I was working from 200,000 bonds when I wrote that then decided to cut the issue lower.


3.
Sure, but all of that detail comes from me (I can explain the details but the conclusion won't change). The problem is, obviously, the more information I reveal the more it becomes apparent I'm revealing personal details to people who are not qualified to evaluate real estate. So what I am willing to do beyond just explaining details and throwing out numbers is to contact people like Rentalstarter (or yourself -- for example) and explain details and offer a sort of "information escrow" -- information escrow with someone who understands what the information represents. Then that person can act as a reference and say "Ok, usagi is telling the truth, it's real" and we can go from there. But until that can be done, when I say it's a good property, please take that on faith.


4.
I think the best way to illustrate this point is to discuss the bond issue as if we were going to bond the entire property @ 300,000 bonds (instead of 150,000). I still may want to do it this way, just for the sake of accounting. After all, we have already put a significant amount of money into the property, which can be documented to the information or identity escrow. So, for the money we have already placed onto the property, I will immediately receive 25,000 of 300,000 bonds. Further, we have approximately 11,000 bonds worth of capital sitting in the mortgage account which represents another 1 year of mortgage payments on the property. That raises the total interest I already own to 36,000 of 300,000 bonds. Now, in 2014, interested parties will donate (as in bestow) 50,000 bonds worth of capital to us towards the construction of the new structure. Why are they doing this? Because they have a vested interest in seeing this project come to fruition. Again, this can be documented to the identity escrow. This will bring the total number of bonds I own to 86,000 by mid 2014. During 2014 I will be buying approximately 1000 bonds per month out of my own personal paycheque -- which does in fact turn this into some sort of personal loan -- but one which I would have no trouble paying in any case given the strength of our bank account and projected 2014 cashflow.

Again, this property has already been bought. We've already paid 1/3rd of it and will likely end up paying off the land before summer 2014. But that means we can't build the house until next year, and that causes "problems". Then there is the issue of neighboring property "A" which I want to acquire and which may easily be acquired by someone else if we have to wait a year or so before we can buy it.

Point being it /is/ selling out, one way or another, before 3 or 4 years is up -- because I can and will buy it out all myself given enough time.
The question is, how much interest can I raise from others? Well, let's hope others chime in and give their thoughts



5. Anonymous via PM (letters added to questions for reference)
a) This is a bond denominated in USD (or we could say tied to initial BTC/USD rate) with interest 52% per year (in fiat, paid in BTC).
b) It will end after paying 200% of initial value or by the formula: (IPO - (payments/2)) + 10%.
c) This is backed by actual house - what is the probability for investor that the backing will be lost/without (fiat) value?
d) Will there be any option for redemption any time?
e) I would prefer listing at BTC-TC because of much lower fees - 0.4% vs. 1%, also at BF there already competition for you: Ukyo.Loan and Graet.Loan.
[/quote]

5a) No, it is not denominated in USD. It is denominated in bitcoins. However because I am buying bitcoins to pay the coupon, the bonds will tend to float against a basket of various currencies. To be absolutely clear the US Dollar, Canadian Dollar, or Australian Dollar will never be in this basket. I did say it would be tied to mtgoxusd, but now that I think of it, that is actually impossible. It may be close to mtgoxusd but it won't be mtgoxusd. Maybe mtgoxjpy?

5b) Yes.  The point is, you will get roughly the same purchasing power sent to you per bond per week until the bond returns 100% in terms of bitcoins. However, I will probably include a clause that caps the payout should bitcoins rise more than, say, 100%. I think that's more than fair considering what the investment represents. As you see, it wouldn't be possible to build a bitcoin economy with a highly volatile price without such a clause.

5c) Well, we already own the land. The great thing about this property is we bought it at 50% off (considering what people are asking for neighboring properties). If we have to sell it, we can pay off the bond. Keep in mind we have already placed a substantial amount of money into the property which we will get back when we sell. And we will likely be able to sell for at least 50% more than what we paid if we have to sell in a rush (100% more if we wait). I don't see any way for someone to steal a title in this day and age, so unless I stop making mortgage payments we should be fine. But there won't be a mortgage if we float any significant portion of this bond, so barring an act of god I don't think it is possible to lose all your money. There is a chance of loss but I feel it's really remote. I mean, the house could burn down. But we would still own the land, and we will be getting house insurance obviously so... the chances of losing the principal investment into the house are exceedingly remote in my opinion.

5d) Yes and no, because once we sink the money into the house the only way to redeem bonds would be to sell the house. The "yes" is if I launch with 300k bonds instead of 150k and don't pay a coupon (but instead, sell at under-face-value). For example, if I state that the bond is guaranteed to be repurchased in full after 1,200 days, and 120 days pass, the bond would be worth 0.011, After 240 days, 0.012. I could just repurchase any bonds listed below that price. What I would do is just add bids to the market instead of paying the mortgage (which wouldn't exist if we floated as much as 50,000 bonds). There are other issues. As I've alluded to, we will be receiving a large payment towards the development in early 2014. In theory I could use that to repurchase bonds. I am not sure how I will structure it but I will review what you have said deeply and come up with something that I am comfortable handling. I just don't want to get into a situation where I have to default on a clause. I definitely will not sell this house at the whims of bondholders, so the terms have to be clear in expressing that. This bond is not the kind of vehicle where you are going to be able to sell it back to me personally before the house is done. On the market, sure, at what price I don't know, but I can not afford to repay that much money until 3 or 4 years.

5e) I understand the desire to list on BTC-TC, however, I would like to consider myself closer to Ukyo because of our shared interest in Anime. Burnside is a really cool guy and I guess in terms of look and feel BTC-TC is better, but BitFunder has a lot of money going through it, and I wouldn't mind being on the same exchange as RentalStarter, too. Time will tell. Maybe we'll end up on Havelock or Crypto::Stocks? C::S is severely under-rated.

Thanks for the comments and questions.

Right now I am going to work on a re-hash of this with the following in mind:

1. Who wants to be the information escrow wrt. the title to the property, etc? (I am planning to provide a video walkthru of the property as well, for public consumption).
2. Issue of the full 300,000 bonds, with myself holding up to 1/3rd based on documents showing I've invested that much worth into the house already.
3. Some kind of repurchase clause.
4. Possibly issuing the bonds without a coupon (i.e. traditional bond) whereby the bond has a face value of (say) 0.02 but it is sold at 0.01 This would require guaranteeing a date upon which the bonds would be bought back. (This might be the most convenient thing. Actually, Deprived suggested it in PM).
5. Some kind of clause which limits my liability should BTC go to $5000. The fact is, you're not investing in BTC here, you're investing in a property and merely transacting in BTC. I may decide to tie it to gold, I may decide to tie it to case/schiller. Something realistic. If I do it that way it would be coupon (payment) based.
6. I wanted to make this into a super-duper bond but it may turn out to be another BTC-BOND copy with a high rate simply because I think it's more popular.

These were ordered from Amagi Metals earlier this year.

The rounds are no longer for sale in Bitcoins by Amagi Metals, and Coinabul does not stock them as well. Some examples for how much they cost;
* eastcoastsilver.com lists these rounds for $15.95/135 mtgoxusd or ฿0.1181 each (฿0.2363/oz).
* Coinabul sells 1/2 oz. Canadian Maples for ฿0.2080/oz.
* apmex.com sells 1/2 oz "apmex silver rounds" for about $14 (฿0.2074/oz).

Airmail, Tracking & Insurance will be actual cost, which is about 0.2 BTC per package (so order more tubes together to save on shipping). The coins will arrive within 7-8 days anywhere in the world.

To make things simple and help with shipping i'll sell tube by tube for 0.21/oz. Makes things more convenient. We can calculate an exact cost based on mtgox avg. and the lowest price you can find these coins, if you prefer.

So here is what I have left:

3 x tubes of 16 (8 oz ea. or 1.68 BTC per 16-tube)
1 x tube of 12 (6oz ea. or 1.26 for the tube).

Price for everything: 6.6 BTC (just being safe on the shipping there)

I've sold silver quite a few times here, lots of happy customers. I also run a Bitcoin Silver ETF (TU.SILVER) on BitFunder.com -- Check it out!

Good luck & happy shopping!

I would like to get shareholder opinion for this:

MOTION TO LIST BMF.B1

Should you vote NO, the motion will expire and nothing will happen.

Should you vote YES on this motion:

1. BMF will fund the listing of a new issue on an exchange, called (BMF.B1--to be discussed). I.E. the listing fee will be paid by BMF.

If the issue is not approved by the exchange, we may lose the listing application fees.
If the issue is approved and does not sell 50% before the end of the year, a full refund will be provided to investors.
Should this bond be approved by the exchange(s) and the listing successful (at least 50% of bonds are sold);

2. A payment of 100 BTC will be made to BMF as minimum* payments of 0.5 BTC per week, starting January 2014. BMF will have no other connection with the bond. (*payments may be made early.)

3. The bond will pay a minimum* payment of 0.0001 BTC per week per bond, tied to MTGOXUSD, starting January 2014, until such time as the bond has repaid 0.02 BTC to investors. Should the price of BTC remain stable, this will take approximately four years. (*payments may be made early.)

4. The bond will be backed by the redevelopment and/or sale of a property which was bought out of a distressed mortgage for 50% off. To finance the purchase and redevelopment of this property, the bond will sell 150,000 bonds at 0.01 BTC per bond. No further bonds will be issued.

5. No interest or ownership of the underlying property is granted by ownership of the bonds.

6. Force-Buyback
- The bond may force repurchase of bonds with a 10% penalty on what is remaining to be paid to investors.
- The formula used will be (IPO - (payments/2)) + 10%.
   - ex. If we sell all 1500 worth of bonds and repaid 500 BTC in weekly payments, we would calculate (1500 - (500/2)) * 10% as a penalty.
     The total repurchase for the 150,000 bonds would be for 1250 + 125 BTC, or 1375 BTC.
     This would only be done if we were forced to sell the property early for some reason.
     It's the most important clause which protects investors.
NOTE: The 10% penalty would easily covered by what we have put into the land already, we have already paid approx. 240 BTC into the land mortgage.

7. RISKS
--> the immediate risk that BitFunder (or whomever) will say no and we lose the listing application fees. This risk will be slightly mitigated if the discussion is positive on bitcointalk.org. If the community likes it, we are far more likely (but again, not guaranteed) to get approved.
--> The major risk to bondholders is that we get forced to sell the property and repay the bond immediately (see formula for early repayment above).
--> Fine print states, "There are or may be other risks undisclosed at this time." We can discuss it.

8. Why am I doing this (sharing) instead of keeping all the profit for myself?
--> There are businesses which have guaranteed their interest in renting out space in the building, and we have guaranteed rental income from students who live at nearby schools. Short answer, the faster I build this the more money I get from rental income waiting in the wings.
--> Second answer, doing it this way allows me to buy a small neighboring property and join it with this one, which I desperately want to do but cannot do until I finish paying off the current mortgage (which has about 600 BTC left to be repaid on it). Buying that property for cash all out would increase the value of what I have significantly. Short answer, TIME. I'd love to get this done by next year and not over the next ten years. I'm willing to give up around half of the profits for saving me that time. Time is money, that about sums it up.
--> If we can pay the development deposit and start development before the end of the year we will get a 500 BTC development bonus from a certain prominent paternal party (and pair) pandering for this purveyance..
--> Other major benefits (we own the street up to the intersection, our family owns the house across the street as well which means we own the entire block of property at the end of the street)

Final Note:
Please give me your thoughts on whether or not I should launch this motion, any ideas regarding it. For the moment I would like to put discussion of the property aside and discuss whether or not this is a good deal for BMF. I am of course suggesting that we pass this motion, but I'd like to discuss it before I put it to vote.

Edit: I just spoke with the designer and after a few thoughts I have cut the bond issue in half. The original was for 300,000 shares but I doubt we will "really" need all that much all at once. I could do 300,000 but there seems to be no point; 100 or 150k is enough to get property A and extend the house, and we can worry about the interior and clean up the lot on our own steam.

That's why the guarantor signs a statement of ownership and not a statement of identity (although such a letter would naturally include your identity). It means you provide proof of your ownership i.e. you sign a message with the withdrawal address. I completely agree that without accepting that MR X owns the account in question it would be ludicrous to turn it over to him simply because he proves he has an identity.

I wouldn't be surprised if ignoring such a letter would open you to some kind of civil suit in most parts of the world.

The 30 days is there to protect you, because someone who steals your wallet could check blockchain.info and start e-mailing exchanges asking for a password reset. 30 days is so if you did get hacked, you have plenty of time to contact burnside (and everyone else) and explain what happened.

If you have a lot of money and a lawyer or doctor friend, getting your account back immediately is trivial. Just have your lawyer or doctor friend guarantee the statement of ownership. Just write a photo-letter to burnside -- the guarantor must write a declaration "I certify this to be a true likeness of (name)" and sign the back of the letter, and sign and date the photo. A scan or fax will be sufficient, because burnside can then contact the individual independently to verify what you have given him is true. I expect burnside would charge a fee for this service but I can't see any reasonable reason he would decline the process. Then again it isn't exactly standard procedure in the world of bitcoin finance.

p.s. if you can't find a lawyer, traditionally accepted alternates fall along the lines of dentist, judge, police officer, mayor or notary public or above, or the signing officer or president of a bank.

Yes, once exercised in either direction they expire.
The buyback is for 1 share and 1 warrant (it's just a reversal of the original trade). Should Deprived choose instead to exercise them as purchase warrants, they would be spent in the process.

So in essence they can only be used once -- either to sell a share back to BMF at 0.032, or to buy a new share at 0.032.

Deprived can also sell these warrants if he so chooses, he doesn't even have to inform us of the sale (although in that case we would only accept his authorization to exercise them).

News Flash: LTC-ATF buys controlling stake in BMF
September 17th, 2013

TOKYO (bitcointalk.org) -- In a suprising all-cash deal which stunned investors sources reveal that LTC-ATF has obtained controlling interest in BMF. Deprived now holds more units than any other investor in the fund. "I have no intention of interfering in how it's run," said Deprived earlier today, "[unless usagi does something stupid]". He continues, "I'm in it to make a profit not just to screw [usagi] around."

As a vote of confidence, Deprived has committed not sell his shares back to BMF for a minimum of two months.

Commenting privately on the deal to investors, usagi quoted famed investor Seth Klarman, who once said "Risk is not inherent in an investment; it is always relative to the price paid. Uncertainty is not the same as risk. Indeed, when great uncertainty – such as in the fall of 2008 – drives securities prices to especially low levels, they often become less risky investments." Continuing, "I'd speculate BMF is a lot less risky as an investment today than it was a year ago." "I think the deal is great for existing investors. In fact, I think you will be pleasantly surprised where I take the fund with this money. Keep an eye on it even if you don't decide to invest right now, [...] it [BMF] may be something you are interested in later."

Under the terms of the private placement, each share was granted an additional assignable purchase warrant for one share at 0.032. These warrants expire one year from the date of purchase (they will expire as at September 17th, 2014 -- however the repurchase clause expires as at March 17th, 2014). These warrants imply that the bid price of BMF will not rise far above 0.032 since warrant holders can immediately exercise their warrants and take the price difference. For example, if the bid for BMF rose to 0.035, each warrant could be exercised for 0.032 and the share sold for 0.035, netting a profit of 0.003. In response to accusations of giving money away and ruining the future prospects of existing shareholders, usagi commented "There are a limited number of warrants. If the price is going to rise to 0.035 or 0.04, even if all the warrants are exercised the price will still be higher than 0.032. Investors will still make money." usagi then placed his fat-cat cigar into the ashtray and took another sip of whiskey. "I mean, come on. Volume was almost non-existant," he mused, munching on some mixed nuts. "The fund was always tightly held. Now, instead of 3 shareholders owning 75% of the stock, four shareholders own 75% of the stock. Big deal. The NAV didn't change. We were able to position ourselves more strongly. This deal is great for the fund and I think investors will agree." Deprived was quick to respond to this sentiment. "I'm still not convinced it's good for existing investors - but as I'm not one that doesn't bother me." In regards to what his investors might think, he speculated "Expect I'll take some serious flak for it ... but I've never really cared what people say..."

When asked to comment on BMF's current valuation and future prospects usagi was quick to point out that he hasn't lost much money this time around (yet). He then said "Now, you're going to love this. Look." He then pulled out a small black box, about the size of a FPGA miner. "This is our magic box," he said. He set it down on the coffee table and dramatically pressed one of the colored buttons on the top of the box. The box spit out a single white ribbon of paper with the number 0.031 printed on it. "What the heck?" we asked usagi. "Didn't you just publish a report containing the number 0.032? What happened?" In response, usagi picked up another handful of mixed nuts, mused for a moment, put them back and took another sip of the good stuff. He said, "Oh that. Due to investor concerns, we started valuing our face value bonds at face value instead of bid price. We'll make a full announcement at the end of the month. Look, see, if we value them at the 7-day average as reported by the exchange, it goes up again". usagi fiddled with some knobs on the side of the box and pressed some colored buttons in a deliberately drawn out "shave-and-a-haircut" knock-knock pattern. After a few seconds of silence we heard some whirring noises and started to smell something burning. Then suddnely a loud BANG. "I think it's blown a capacitor," he said. "Hold on, let me fix something." Usagi took some chopsticks and started fiddling with the paper tray. After a few moments he was able to draw out a small, fortune-cookie-like peice of paper upon which was revealed the number 0.03206137. "See! See! I told you it was ok. It's like what Warren Buffet said. 'Price is what you pay, but value is what you get.'"

Note: This story may contain inaccuracies. For more in-depth and accurate coverage of this story, please see the upcoming LTC-ATF announcement by Deprived.

The placement has been filled, and the offer is now closed. Thanks for participating! An official announcement will be posted in the BMF news and updates thread later today.

Update:

We have received a letter of intent and are currently discussing the offer with a single investor for the full amount. No oversubscription will be allowed, should this investor strike a deal with us the offer will be closed to other investors.

Basically this is just confirmation that a maximum total of 5,000 will be sold all in all, I am not planning to sell loads of these.

Hi all, I'm now offering a private placement for BMF shares.

This is a unique opportunity and is not to be missed. BMF has been in operation for more than one year now. Our performance since relaunch in June of this year is as follows:


The following rules are in effect:

1. Warrants
For each share bought at our IBV (0.032 BTC) via this private placement program, BMF will grant you an additional purchase warrant to for one share of BMF at current IBV (0.032 BTC) valid for one year. These warrants can be exercised any time within one year of purchase.

2. Six-month buyback guarantee
I guarantee the repurchase of one share at warrant-face-value (0.032), per granted warrant. This means if you purchase 100 shares of BMF via this program for 3.2 BTC total, I will repurchase the 100 shares from you at any time within six months for the price you paid & the 100 warrants you were granted. I.E. you can back out of the deal anytime over the next six months. It may take up to seven days to liquidate your value for large or multiple simultaneous redemption orders (20btc+).

3. Limited Engagement
Only valid for a maximum of 5,000 shares in total.

4. Ownership requirements
There are no ownership requirements, we will hold shares for you and will reinvest for you if you want, but we strongly recommend you hold the shares in your name on BTC-TC.

I see an opportunity to position this fund into an extremely strong position and wish to take it "now". Please feel free to contact me for details, especially if you are a current investor. I prefer to sell to strong hands, i.e. those who are familiar with the BMF strategy. This strategy has worked well for us so far, I do not mind bringing anyone else into the fold but you have to know what we're doing. For reference, the top five shareholders own more than 80% of the fund. The top three shareholders own more than 75% of the fund.

Solidarity is strength. First come first serve, max 150 BTC or about 4600 shares.

If you're a holder, it doesn't matter if dividends are paid today or tomorrow from the standpoint of how much you will get when they are paid, and from the standpoint of capital gains considering the book value. However the market value may fluctuate significantly. My suggestion is to watch the market fluctuations and "buy low sell high" considering our published financial information, which is accurate. The market OTOH does not know what it is doing, clearly, considering BMF.

I can see how you might have gotten used to dividends "today". We were one of the first companies to run daily dividends as a promotional event way back when GLBSE was still around. We still frequently run month-long events where we pay daily dividends. August was a great example of that. But we remain a strongly focused towards monthly statements. Monthly reports make more sense from an accounting perspective. Our contract states, "2. Payments are due on or before the 7th of every month for the previous month’s trading and investment activity." So you can expect payment in full for September's income on or before the 7th of October. You'll actually receive payments long before that date, the extra time is just breathing room.

Was there a reason you liked "daily dividends"? If you bought enough shares to reinvest a share a day I can see how going back to our contract after the promotion would feel kind of slow and pokey.

p.s. thanks for the concern stridey. Yes I'm fine now, I just need to start exercising again! My job allows me freedom in the mornings so I have plenty of time for that now. I'll also be practsing my piano now. My daughter is finally in school so it's a great time for me to explore freedoms I didn't have before. I'm having lunch much more often with my wife right now. We went out to a nice cheese steak place yesterday for example. The food was so great I ordered a second sandwich. Getting back to that exercise comment above...... Oh well, at least my appetite has improved.

Chat soon~

Aye, but as I said, do the math and compare. For example, PURCHASE went from 0.03353 to 0.03408678 (in current price + paid). That's a gain of just 1.66% -- less than half of what BMF achieved this month. It's pretty straightforward. I'm not calling Deprived a scammer or a fraud. That's what he said about me. The problem is that facts and reality are not Deprived's strong point. Maybe if he stopped trolling the forums and started actually working for his investors instead of calling them retarded idiots, he would be a competent fund manager. As it stands now he's second rate. If you want to be invested with a guy like that, well, enjoy your 1.66% a month. He's a crackpot. He claims to make over 10,000% a month that he apparently keeps for himself. You might want to ask him about that sometime.

Quick update; news posted to BTC-TC.

Leopards be Leopards. MPOE-PR has accused Burnside (i.e. BTC-TC) of being a fraud and a scammer. We find the comments as ludicrous as when they were lobbied against us. Don't you, as well? It's okay, hindsight is 20/20. No offense taken.

On the note of leopards and their spots. Deprived's comments against us on reddit and bitcointalk.org. Why? Again, competition. Deprived calls his investors idiots and retards, so he needs to make us look like total frauds in order to get people to invest with him. Remember, Deprived based his entire reputation on taking me down last year. He failed and was shown to have lied. So that leaves him on very shaky ground. But leaving that aside for the moment let's play a game to see if he's right and you are a retard. You do the math on what % you lost investing in DMS.PURCHASE and/or SELLING. DMS.PURCHASE went from 0.03353( (August 1st) to 0.01588 (September 1st). SELLING fell from 0.022 to 0.0128175. Personally I don't think you are a retard. I think you can do the math. For the interested reader, compare and contrast Deprived's performance as a fund manager with Usagi's.

There's not much to say, I've been told my quite a few people that no one listens to Deprived's crock anymore and I'm a bit too busy making money for the fund to get involved with it these days. Once again thanks to all and let's make some money this month!

it probably slipped off while he was stuffing a bird.

I hear surgeons lose watches in patients all the time.

buyers are in via here and pm! thanks guys.

No, would you like me to?