If this does move to another exchange (which is looking he most likely outcome) can we transfer all shares or only MINING+SELLING pairs?
All of MINING/SELLING would be transferred exactly as they are. Pairs of MINING/SELLING and PURCHASE would be able to be cashed out before the move (either all in cash or in cash + CIPHERMINE.B1). PURCHASE may or may not get transferred - depending on what support the new exchange has. If there's no way to automate transfers then its likely the new PURCHASE would be at a multiple (so 1 PURCHASE might equal 500 MINING + 500 SELLING) to get the manual swap level down to a managable level. If that happened then all PURCHASE that weren't a multiple of that new value would be transferred over split into MINING + SELLING already (I'd edit the export file from BTC-TC to do it - so new exchange could just import it). |
|
|
|
Although I prefer re-listing, but it's not easy to change the contract and transfer to another platform. So maybe we have to close DMS.
Deprived, you mention you'll use the market price at your post time to give to Mining and Selling holders. Could you please figure out the number?
I think he will only provide that number is if it is deciede that DMS will close and only at that time. Otherwise it may affect the free market trading that is essential for this security. If DMS moves to another platform, there will probably be a redemption of pairs of M+S. Mining is too cheap, this is good time for people to buy. But, if BTCT shut down and we have not migrated shares to other platform, then how do holders get dividends? If we haven't managed to move by the end of October when BTC-TC closes then we'd shut down. At that stage mining would be paid thier amount in full immediately, SELLING would get whatever was left. If there was still CIPHERMINE.B1 not sold then I'd have to do a final dividend manually when we sold them. I was too late to grap all those cheap DMS.MINING after your announcement. That means DMS.MINING will get 365 * the daily dividend at the last day, am I right? Without the voting of DMS.SELLING holders? That means, there's no any reason for DMS.SELLING to have a lower price than the one of the moment when burnside announce the closing. No. If DMS was closed now then MINING/SELLING would receive dividends based on market prices. The 365-day payout to MINING is if SELLING vote to close - which isn't going to happen unless/until difficulty stops rising fast. |
|
|
|
3. Now, if all you do is calculate what he WOULD have won had the dice result been shifted by 2, then I calculate +420,784 BTC!
4. If you shift it by 1, I calculate -427,822 BTC!
If what I said in point 3 and 4 are correct, then you wouldn't find this fishy? Almost like he was purposely leaving a trial?
I can very confidently say that both 3 and 4 are wrong. Somewhere you messed up. Note how 3 and 4 are VERY similar sizes but opposite sign? Note also that he was nealy always betting high. So most of the time shifting a win would stay a win. The only way you'd get that result for real was if he exactly alternated big/small bets and the RNG generated in high/low alternating sequence as well. And if he did that, shifting 2 would be roughly same results as he actually got. Your program is broken. Following on from my last post. If he waits for 2 small bets where the first wins and the 2nd loses, then bets big, then shifting by 1 will result in the big bet losing, while shifting by 2 will result in it winning. This would give exactly the results Peter is seeing. Yeah - very good point. If he's betting based on certain past actions then shifting WOULD give ridiculous looking results. And that would in no way be evidence of chearing - in fact the opposite if anything. If you can break down his behaviour into rules then in theory at least you could check to see whether it was just luck or he'd somehow spotted a real pattern (meaning the seeding system is broken). That would mean running loads of tests where you ran the betting rules against a long series of bets from multiple sets of seeds. |
|
|
|
If we haven't managed to move by the end of October when BTC-TC closes then we'd shut down. At that stage mining would be paid thier amount in full immediately, SELLING would get whatever was left. If there was still CIPHERMINE.B1 not sold then I'd have to do a final dividend manually when we sold them.
Man, you've been handling the whole thing like a pro so far. But this particular plan of paying out immediately based on market price at whatever moment really sucks. Even if you shut down DMS, why not paying dividends (bi-weekly or monthly) to the holders so everyone receives fair amount? Well unless there's a sudden change in the voting my plan is definitely to relist. Why wouldn't I carry on off-exchange if we couldn't relist? 1. It's a lot of work - with no management fee payable for it. 2. It wouldn't be practical with the current contract anyway - think of things like transaction fees on sending all the tiny little MINING dividends. 3. Noone who held mainly only ONE of MINING/SELLING would have any liquidity. Ever. As there'd be no way to trade shares. 4. How would I know when to close it down? At present it's done by me raising a vote. On an exchange without a voting system I could decide anyway based on traded price. With no trading and no easy way to run votes it would be pure guesswork. etc. In short the contract, operational details and management fee were all designed based on it being run on an exchange. And I'm sure most investors invested on the assumption that would be the case. |
|
|
|
Although I prefer re-listing, but it's not easy to change the contract and transfer to another platform. So maybe we have to close DMS.
Deprived, you mention you'll use the market price at your post time to give to Mining and Selling holders. Could you please figure out the number?
I think he will only provide that number is if it is deciede that DMS will close and only at that time. Otherwise it may affect the free market trading that is essential for this security. If DMS moves to another platform, there will probably be a redemption of pairs of M+S. Mining is too cheap, this is good time for people to buy. But, if BTCT shut down and we have not migrated shares to other platform, then how do holders get dividends? If we haven't managed to move by the end of October when BTC-TC closes then we'd shut down. At that stage mining would be paid thier amount in full immediately, SELLING would get whatever was left. If there was still CIPHERMINE.B1 not sold then I'd have to do a final dividend manually when we sold them. |
|
|
|
3. Now, if all you do is calculate what he WOULD have won had the dice result been shifted by 2, then I calculate +420,784 BTC!
4. If you shift it by 1, I calculate -427,822 BTC!
If what I said in point 3 and 4 are correct, then you wouldn't find this fishy? Almost like he was purposely leaving a trial?
I can very confidently say that both 3 and 4 are wrong. Somewhere you messed up. Note how 3 and 4 are VERY similar sizes but opposite sign? Note also that he was nealy always betting high. So most of the time shifting a win would stay a win. The only way you'd get that result for real was if he exactly alternated big/small bets and the RNG generated in high/low alternating sequence as well. And if he did that, shifting 2 would be roughly same results as he actually got. Your program is broken. |
|
|
|
You still haven't explained why you chose to shift by 2 rather than by 1 or by 3.
Excellent point. It would be interesting to see the distribution of bet outcomes across different shift values to see if it is warrants looking into, or if this is simply the result of cherry-picking. Correct or not, I appreciate the effort put into this analysis. Well shifting it is fundamentally flawed for a (pretty obvious) reason. Consider any significantly winning session of play which contains a mix of very high bets and very small bets. The result of the session are determined ONLY by the high bets - what happens on the very small bets is irrelevant. If you changed all the small bets to wins OR to losses the overall result would still be a significant win. So we already know that a much higher percentage than average of the higher bets won - but if the results were genuinely random we know nothing at all about the results of the small bets as they're irrelevant to how we picked the sample. If you take this session which has a much higher than average set of winning roll on BIG bets and an indeterminate set of tolls on SMALL bets and shift the results then, on average, the final result will be significantly lower. Because some of the lucky big bets will now be moved to small bets - and replace by rolls with an indeterminate lucky factor. In short, not only is there no reason why shifting SHOULD produce the same results, there's actually a good reason why it should NOT : that being how the sample for analysis was picked. This is Bayes Theorem at its most basic. It does, however, follow on from this that there IS an analysis which could be done to find a smoking gun. The means by which the sample was picked (i.e. why his rolls are being looked at all) DOES define what we should expect to see in big bets (more wins than expected) but says nothing about the very small ones. i.e. the small bets can be considered to be a genuinely independent sample not influenced by selection criteria. IF he knows the seed OR has some means of otherwise predicting series then we'd expect to see a LOWER than usual win-rate on the small bets. Whilst if everything is genuinely random then the results of the small bets would be unrelated to him winning overall on the big ones. IF a smoking gun exists then where you'd see it is in far more losses than expected on small rolls - where if there was no unfair advantage there'd be no reason for it to correlate with the opposite results in the big bets. We already know that his overall results on big bets are very significantly above average. By looking at the small bets seperately (we CAN legitimately treat it as a seperate data set) we can see if the results there are similarly significantly BELOW average. Such an analysis should be done by simply measuring his luck - not by factoring in varying bet size (as if a few small bets are much larger than the rest that would lead to no significant result). I have no idea what the outcome of that would be. |
|
|
|
If you generate 40,000 fair dice rolls, and use this to drive Nakowa's bet sequence, you never get anywhere near earning a profit of 1/2 the amount wagered no matter how many simulations you do. Shift this data all you like, but you'll never make it fit. If the file is correct and I didn't make a mistake, then this is a smoking gun.
Lastly, if you look at my earlier posts in this thread from this time yesterday, you will see that I was recommending people analyze the probability of Nakowa winning a session assuming he bets until he hits his target, or he busts through his large bankroll. I even made plots showing that Nakawa as "cake" was actually more likely to reach 4400 BTC before he bust his (assumed) 10,000 BTC bankroll. So we agree on this point.
On the first paragraph you clearly made an error somewhere - as he's not up by anything like half the amount wagered. Or even 5%. On the second paragraph you seem to be arguing with yourself here. You agree that him winning 4400 before losing 10k was actually a (small) favourite - but then seem surprised that if you shift the rolls you end up with a different result. When if you shift the rolls you then need to shorten or extend the series until +4400 or -10000. At a glance I suspect something's more basically wrong - as your results graph seems way too close to hugging the expectation line anyway. You still haven't explained why you chose to shift by 2 rather than by 1 or by 3. |
|
|
|
I also hold their shares, and waiting for the solution.
Solution  Also a reminder that Patrick Prendergast will be holding a webinar on the 1st October The listed page has a form for people to fill in - I hope you are subsequently going to ask them to transfer their shares to you before you give out shares on Bitfunder. Otherwise people can claim their shares then transfer them to someone else (or sell them on the market). |
|
|
|
img
That doesn't make any sense, why would he wait 2 rolls for everything? It doesn't make sense to me either. I think I either made a mistake, or there are errors in the file I downloaded from dooglus. If you look at Nakowa's actual bet data, he makes a bunch of small bets mixed in with his large bets. If you take his actual data, but just shift one colum so that he wages what he actually wagered 2 rolls earlier, then most the losses line up with the small bets and most of the profits line up with the large bets. This should be statistically impossible. So either I made a mistake, there is an error in the file, or the seed was known by Nakowa and he left a clue for us to find. You need to be very careful with analysis like this. What's special about shifting the bets 2 places rather than 1 or 3? Did you just try different shifts until you found one with results matching your theory? If you try different shifts then a few things are true: 1. You'll find one that matches your theory. 2. As his actual results aren't a favourite to happen from the number of rolls he made (they're only a favourite from the strategy - not one sample of its execution) then most shifts won't match actual results anyway and will tend to be be much nearer expectation. The thing here is that nearly ALL analysis being done is fundamentally flawed - and relies on the actual bets he made/rolls he did rather than the strategy being followed. Nearly everyone is looking at the probability for entirely the wrong things. Let me give an example to explain HOW all the rerunning same bets multiple times, calculating probabilities etc is horribly flawed. For this example I'll assume no house edge - I'm just showing how the calculations are fundamentally of the wrong thing, not what actual numbers are. Consider someone who makes a small series of bets every day. And every day they win exactly 1 BTC. What they're doing is a simple martingale - starting with 1 BTC bet at 50/50, then 2 if they lose, then 4 if they lose etc. Now here's how someone using the sort of math used when looking at the bets here would work it out: The likelihood of them winning on one day is exactly 50% - as the last bet is 1 BTC larger than the sum of all previous bets so whether they win or not is decided entirely by that bet. The odds of them winning 10 days in a row (from a fixed starting date) are thus 1 in 1024 - so there's only a 0.1% chance of it happening. Someone running an analysis where they ran exactly the same bets a load of times would come up with a very similar result. Yet those results are entirely incorrect - and the odds of it happening aren't 0.1%, 1% or even 10% : it's actually very heavily odds-on that it will happen. Where the math and the modelling both fail is that they fail to account for the strategy of the player - that they'll stop when (and only when) they have a winning roll or exhaust their bank-roll/hit the max-bet limit. You can do perfectly valid math, analysis or modelling - but when you don't base it on what actually happened (which includes modelling/accounting for decisions made by the player) then the results have little relevance. That doesn't so much apply to the quoted post here as to much of the other analysis of the topic. I already highlighted the main problem with this particular theory - that it seems to have started with a general theory then presented only one of many possible result sets which, of course, happens to be the one that matches their theory. Where my point DOES tie in very much with the quoted post is this: Consider the guy rolling martingales above - where he quits every day winning 1 BTC. Now imagine if you moved his bets around by 1 day = each day doing the previous day's bets. What would you see? Would he still win every day? Or would the results look more 'normal'? Yet he isn't cheating, doesn't know the seeds etc. If you take a specific set of RESULTS which differ greatly from the norm then OF COURSE if you shuffle them around the results will tend to look much more average. And if you try various shuffles and pick the one that looks most like the expected average then OF COURSE it will be near the expected average. |
|
|
|
|
In response to your very last point, namworld is back - he's on holiday at present but will be redeeming bonds at face value if you return them to him. Check his thread for details: he made a post then locked the security to prevent people selling on the market cheap (I actually disagree with that - security should only be locked when you're about to make a final full settlement).
I don't have time to go over the proposal in detail but here's a few pointers on how I look at things:
1. If any motion is being made for a massive change like this (which is effectively to use the cash for a brand new security) then, if the motion passes, anyone who wants out should be bought out at full NAV/U. i.e. They shouldn't be worse off then if the security had closed in accordance with the contract. I'm obviously not thinking of myself here - as I can sell back at .032 later anyway. When I say bought out at full NAV/U I mean immediately - not in the future.
2. Normally where I have a (near) controlling interest I vote down any motion with significant opposition (e.g. on LTC-ATF my position was always that if there were 10% NO votes I'd vote against my own proposal). So long as point 1 is very clear I wouldn't do that - as they suffer no disadvantage then if the motion passes compared to if it fails.
3. Even if I disagree with the motion I'd vote yes if the majority of other votes (excluding those controlled by yourself) voted yes - as my warrants/redemption rights give me personally protection.
4. For me to even consider giving up my warrants/right to sell back for 6 months at .032 would need some very good offer. As it stands I could approve any motion then have 6 months to see which way the exchange-rate moves. That sort of ability is worth a lot more than a few extra points on an interest rate. With my warrants/sellback rights if the change occurs as proposed I can effectively pick whichever is worth the more of .032 BTC or the current fiat value of .032 BTC converted back into BTC in 6 months.
5. One issue I see is that because of my sellback rights NAV/U for everyone else could be adversely effected if you close down - as they end up footing the bill for the excess of .033 over actual NAV/U. If you end up closing now then, in principle, I'm fine with just taking an equal share the same as everyone else and surrendering the sellback rights (the warrants would be worthless anyway as with no NAV left buying at .033 would be futile).
6. I'm not opposed in general to fiat-denominated investments. In fact I believe anyone whose entire investment portfolio are 'pure' BTC is making a serious error. Of course many (most?) will have their fiat-denominated investments elsewhere already - which is why there's fairly widespread opposition/resistance to them.
Easiest way forward by far is just to close BMF down - then start a new fund. No arguments from anyone over fairness or feeling pressured into accepting the change - and no need to get voting approval or worry about the thorny issue of my warrants. But I won't stand in the way if the majority of investors want to go for it - and will make my own decision on what to do when I see what exactly is on the table.
Right now my focus is on working out what to do with DMS and also where I can get another security listed. Not one of my own - but one I'd helped with the prospectus/contract for and which HAD been scheduled to be IPOing tomorrow (well, opening for bids) - if the ability to create new securities on BTC-TC hadn't been shut off a week or so back.
|
|
|
|
|
There's one other option I may be able to offer once we have the Coinlenders cash back.
We have 36031 CIPHERMINE.B1 bonds and 225378 effective outstanding units of PURCHASE (or MINING+SELLING pairs).
That means for every 6.255113652132886 PURCHASE (or MINING+SELLING) we have 1 CIPHERMINE.B1.
I could therefore calculate NAV/U IGNORING CIPHERMINE.B1 and offer the following:
99% of NAV/U + 1 CIPHERMINE.B1 for 7 PURCHASE (or MINING+SELLING)
99% of NAV/U + 10 CIPHERMINE.B1 for 63 PURCHASE (or MINING+SELLING)
99% of NAV/U +100 CIPHERMINE.B1 for 626 PURCHASE (or MINING+SELLING)
99% of NAV/U +1000 CIPHERMINE.B1 for 6256 PURCHASE (or MINING+SELLING)
At present the CIPHERMINE.B1 can be sold straight into bids for 80% of full value (though only for the first to do it) so that would give an exit route with very small losses.
Until we get the CL cash back I can't offer that - but I'll offer something along those lines as soon as I can.
Unfortunately I can't do the selling of them myself and value them at 80% as I then risk either:
1. If I sell first and noone buys I just dumped 20% of value of what I sold for no good reason.
2. If I don't sell until I receive transfers in then I can't guarnatee the bids will still be there when I need them.
By transferring the CIPHERMINE.B1 to those redeeming I lose all risk like that so could give an absolute fixed rate.
|
|
|
|
The emboldened line clarifies the exact point you're asking about. There's no way I can cash some people out as though all investments would be recovered at a 100% rate - as if some invetsments fully/partially default the other investors would then have to bear not just their own portion of losses but also the losses that should have been taken by the people who cashed out.
I later made an offer to PERSONALLY buy back pairs (with a value of 10 BTC+) at .0075 each - which represents full value for the Coinlenders bond and a sizable discount on CIPHERMINE.B1 (or full full value of CIPHERMINE and nothing for CL). That should give a view of how I personally believe things will pan out - I expect us to get back the CL bond totally and not take a massive loss on the CIPHERMINE.B1. But I can't value either at over 0 (for the purpose of fund buybacks) as I'd then be gambling with all other investors' funds.
Will return your shares to you for now.
If you (or anyone else) want to sell pairs of MINING+SELLING to me personally for .0075 then you can send them to my personal account (DeprivedPersonal) on BTC-TC. I believe you're likely better off waiting (obviously - I wouldn't be offering to pay more than what I think a pair will end up at) but the offer's there for anyone who needs cash fast and can't get more via the market.
Well, hell. I thought that I'd been paying enough attention to this security, but it seems not - it was my fault for not reading enough. It was, however, the explicitly listed PURCHASE buy-back rate that made me assume this was still a valid move. Since you were in possession of the pair when MINING divs were issued, can you send those to me? Sent. |
|
|
|
The Coinlenders CD matures on 27th - at which point we'll find out very promptly what the situation there is. Hopefully by then I'll also have enough information to produce a more accurate valuation for the CIPHERMINE.B1 and can then start offering redemption again.
There were problems with Inputs.io being ddosed and moving to another IP (a CloudFlare IP), this caused some connectivity issues to Inputs, followed by some problem with external websites (including CL) not being able to connect with Inputs properly. I withdrew some funds from CL this morning and it didn't show up in my Inputs account. However, the situation was resolved very quickly by TradeFortress after I mentioned the issue. Yeah - since posting I've been PMed that some other outstanding withdrawals also were sorted out. As I've repeatedly said I expect us to get that cash back in full - but I can't start issuing buybacks on that assumption. |
|
|
|
Will you still be buying back at NAV/U -2%?
Once we know what actual NAV/U is, yes. At present I'm reporting NAV/U as though our last investments were at full value - however I don't actually know if that is the case: 1. I don't yet know what the plan going forward is for CIPHERMINE.B1. 2. Until we actually have the cash from the last Coinlenders CD I can't in good conscience do redemptions as though it were repaid. There have been significant reports of problems getting cash out of it since BTC-TC closure. No way I can buy back some people's holdings based on full face value - and risk everyone else getting screwed badly by that if either/both of those last 2 investments turn bad. The Coinlenders CD matures on 27th - at which point we'll find out very promptly what the situation there is. Hopefully by then I'll also have enough information to produce a more accurate valuation for the CIPHERMINE.B1 and can then start offering redemption again. There's no queue to join for redemption - once I know the status of those investments for sure then any/all redemptions will be processed (everything other than the CIPHERMINE.B1 would be in actual BTC). Well, I'm asking because I purchased a number of MINING and SELLING on the market and sent them to you for redemption about an hour ago, as the last update before that time (yesterday's) still did show a PURCHASE buyback rate. Will you still honor that buyback at the rate, as this new update had not yet been announced? In any case, if I'm understanding, you will now suspend buybacks of PURCHASE until the redemption value of the Coinlenders CD and CIPHERMINE bonds is known? Here's the first post I made after noticing the announcement of BTC-TC closure: Will need to consider carefully how to proceed from here.
In principle the options are :
1. Move to another exchange,
2. Close down - and distribute funds approximately in ratio to what market prices were just before the announcement.
Problem with #2 is it's going to be hard to have any sort of rational discussion over how much should go to mining and selling as everyone with an opinion likely has a lot of one and not much of the other so isn't unbiased. Market prices is the only way to go - as those represent the prices people were happy to hold at (noone was trying hard to buy more of whichever they held or was desperate to sell into bids - or they'd have done so).
If problems arise with recovering investments then loss/delay from that MUST go to SELLING not MINING as SELLING were always getting the benefit from investment.
A few things seem pretty obvious immediately:
1. No new investments should be made.
2. Where investments can be cashed out they should be - so there's no further changes in NAV/U.
3. Debatably I should withdraw all funds to a BTC wallet under my control and only return them when distribution is to occur.
4. Trading will be disabled on PURCHASE - I won't sell more shares now obviously and also I can't redeem them until I'm sure all investments are safe and will be recoverable. It would be bad form if I allowed sale back of PURCHASE then found we couldn't get one investment back and so those who had sold back had received more than their fair share.
5. Similar to 4 I won't be redeeming pairs of MINING+SELLING.
This isn't a situation explicitly covered in the contract - but rest assured I'll resolve it in the fairest way I can.
The emboldened line clarifies the exact point you're asking about. There's no way I can cash some people out as though all investments would be recovered at a 100% rate - as if some invetsments fully/partially default the other investors would then have to bear not just their own portion of losses but also the losses that should have been taken by the people who cashed out. I later made an offer to PERSONALLY buy back pairs (with a value of 10 BTC+) at .0075 each - which represents full value for the Coinlenders bond and a sizable discount on CIPHERMINE.B1 (or full full value of CIPHERMINE and nothing for CL). That should give a view of how I personally believe things will pan out - I expect us to get back the CL bond totally and not take a massive loss on the CIPHERMINE.B1. But I can't value either at over 0 (for the purpose of fund buybacks) as I'd then be gambling with all other investors' funds. Will return your shares to you for now. If you (or anyone else) want to sell pairs of MINING+SELLING to me personally for .0075 then you can send them to my personal account (DeprivedPersonal) on BTC-TC. I believe you're likely better off waiting (obviously - I wouldn't be offering to pay more than what I think a pair will end up at) but the offer's there for anyone who needs cash fast and can't get more via the market. |
|
|
|
Will you still be buying back at NAV/U -2%?
Once we know what actual NAV/U is, yes. At present I'm reporting NAV/U as though our last investments were at full value - however I don't actually know if that is the case: 1. I don't yet know what the plan going forward is for CIPHERMINE.B1. 2. Until we actually have the cash from the last Coinlenders CD I can't in good conscience do redemptions as though it were repaid. There have been significant reports of problems getting cash out of it since BTC-TC closure. No way I can buy back some people's holdings based on full face value - and risk everyone else getting screwed badly by that if either/both of those last 2 investments turn bad. The Coinlenders CD matures on 27th - at which point we'll find out very promptly what the situation there is. Hopefully by then I'll also have enough information to produce a more accurate valuation for the CIPHERMINE.B1 and can then start offering redemption again. There's no queue to join for redemption - once I know the status of those investments for sure then any/all redemptions will be processed (everything other than the CIPHERMINE.B1 would be in actual BTC). |
|
|
|
In theory the DMS could run both at BF and HVL, just the price of PURCHASE would be adjusted for different sale fees (0.4% HVL, 1.-0.5% BF).
I'm not sure if it's possible, just a thought.
Yeah it's definitely possible - either with one as main and the other as a pass-through or as a dual listing (where both are considered to be of equal standing). One of the next securities I'd been planning to list was going to be dual listed (on BTC-TC and LTC-Global) with bot-managed transfers possible between the exchanges. That would allow both markets to effectively share liquidity and would have also allowed use of the securities to arbitrage on the LTC/BTC exchange-rate. Unfortunately if we relist on either of Bitfunder/Havelock then there's need to be unavoidable changes to the contract. There's no way around that - as neither exchange has the functionality to support all aspects of the current contract. Specific problem areas (some of which may only relate to one of them) are : 1. Lack of API support for transfers - meaning PURCHASE splits would have to be done manually so I'd have to impose limits on them to kep the workload bearable. 2. No direct transfer of BTC - so redemption of MINING+SELLING pairs wouldn't be possible (or would have to be restricted only to large bundles with the BTC paid off-exchange). 3. No voting system - so investment approval would have to be simplified. This also raises problems with the shutdown vote - which is a more serious concern that investment approval really. None of this is insurmountable - but do be aware that in the event of a move I WOULD have to change the contract to reflect what was actually practical. Which I hate - as contracts shouldn't get changed by an issuer. But the alternative - moving with a contract that couldn't be followed because of platform limitations - is even worse. Which is a large part of why my initial view was that closure was preferable. However that has its own issues - specifically that I then have to decide on settlement prices and people holding BOTH of MINING/SELLING are then going to feel aggrieved that they bought at a price they believed would be profitable and are now being forced to sell off without even a chance to realise that profit. Voting at present indicates a strong preference to relist and also a strong preference for Bitfunder over Havelock. Ownership of both MINING and SELLING is pretty broad - noone owns more than 10% of SELLING, one person owns just over 10% of MINING - so those results aren't just a few large investors. |
|
|
|
|
BTC Balance (BTC-TC) 1137.742277
9071 LTC-ATF.B1 90.71000000
CIPHERMINE Bonds 360.61000000
Coinlenders CD 27/9 203.3303975
Coinlenders Cash 0
Just-Dice Balance 153.86146722
TOTAL ASSETS 1,946.25414142
Outstanding MINING 210981
Outstanding SELLING 210981
Outstanding PURCHASE 14397
Effective Units 225378
Block reward 25
Difficulty 112,628,549
Hashes per MINING 5000000
Daily Dividend 0.00002233
50 days (Min Liquid) 0.00111629
100 days (Forced Close) 0.00223259
365 days (Buyback) 0.00814895
405 days (IPO) 0.00904199
400 days (Post SELLING div) 0.00893036
410 days (Pre SELLING div) 0.00915361
NAV Post MINING Div 1,941.22237700
NAV/U Post MINING Div 0.00861318
Days Dividend Post Div 385.79
SELLING Dividend -
NAV Post SELLING Div 1,941.22237700
NAV/U Post Selling Div 0.00861318
Have stopped posting the PURCHASE buying/selling prices for now as they could possibly confuse when, right now, NAV/U is what matters when considering prices.
|
|
|
|
OK.... one final doubt.
Out of the 10,000 LTC-GLOBAL shares, Burnside was owning less than 90%, which means that he had sold 1,000+ shares to others. At an average rate of 10 BTC per share, that corresponds to 10,000 BTC. Is there any chance that this amount can be paid out as compensation to the shareholders?
That's not what happened unfortunately. The shares were sold, if I recall correctly, at 15 LTC each back when LTC was worth about .003 BTC. So the 1K shares old only raised about 45 BTC for him - and BTC were only about $5 back then so it didn't actually pay for anything. Remember the shares were sold when only LTC-Global existed, not BTC-TC, and LTC was 1/10th of what it is now vs BTC. He hasn't benefitted from the rise in price at all - unless he sold more shares (believe he did sell a few more to get this pass-through started - but I know that due to a cockup he also bought back a bunch at 150 LTC). |
|
|
|
A tactical voting small problem: since the motions are both up and its current results are already public, if I prefer to be listed on Exchange B, while Exchange A is clearly winning, it might be convenient for me on the other motion to vote to close the fund (even if I actually wanted to keep it open).
Not that it can be solved now, nor that it is really important to solve it.
(just for the record, using Condorcet might have solved this, but it wasn't possible of course; also this could have been theoretically solved by either posting the "which exchange" motion after the other one, or by hiding the votes)
It's not that big a deal. And if the "which exchange" motion shows X and you'd absolutely not want to get shares on X then voting for closing is actually valid anyway. If a majority want exchange X and also all vote to relist then they'd win both votes whatever you do. Neither motion has a meaningful end date - so the expressed view could well change over time anyway if and when more information becomes available. It's just a way for me to get a very crude idea of sentiment - and see if there's an overwhelming demand for any particular course of action. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
