As usual you screw up simple facts and figures. Here's a complete record of all buys and sells done on the BMF account since the repurchase plan was announced:


Notice that all buybacks were done above NAV. Notice that no action that BMF took in any way increased the number of outstanding shares. In fact, the number of outstanding shares has fallen by 222 shares from 4,687 to 4,465 as a result of these buybacks. You can see that on our disclosure page.


Seriously dude? Just shut the fuck up and have another beer.

I'm assuming your bot is still running so I will be sending in lots of 25 shares (I have over 300 to trade) for DMS.MINING/SELLING.

Hi!

Today I have: 20x Canadian Maples, 10x Freedom Girl, and 10x John Galt 1oz rounds.

I am selling for a coin premium of 20% over spot.

Coins will be sent insured with a tracking number.

You will receive your coins in 7-10 days.

That's really all there is to it!

Current price as of time of writing: 1.2 * kitcosilver / mtgoxavg = 1.2 * 20.56 / 103.69745 = 0.238 BTC/oz

...so all 40oz plus shipping would max out at about 9.8 BTC.

Additional shipping options by request!

Sometimes when I get upset I like to blow off steam by "typing angry". Then I inevitably think better of it and go back and edit the post. *shrug* Deprived's posts here calling his investors idiots and retards struck a nerve. Yes people make mistakes and sometimes people should know better. But even when you are running a mining security you do your best. I run BMF and I find myself fleeing mining bonds and getting into face value to save my investors. Because I want to protect them. I do not think of my investors as idiots and retards.

I could go into all sorts of reasons why selling a virtual security below the cost of actual production is a ridiculously dangerous idea (and it is -- it is bound to have severe, unforeseen economic consequences) but that is not the topic of this discussion. I've decided to just condense it into this:

"Is DMS in violation of the BTC-TC terms of service?"
http://www.reddit.com/r/BitcoinStocks/comments/1k3cft/is_dms_in_violation_of_the_btctc_terms_of_service/

Thank you for your time, dear readers.

Wow, Deprived gets drunk and has a melt-down, calling his investors idiots and retards.


So when people lost money on BMF, I am a bad fund manager, and I am personally liable, and you spend a year lying about me and trying to get me delisted,

but when people lose money on DMS.MINING, they're idiots?

Well fuck you mr trollypants. I warned people about you.

And I hope your security gets canceled, because you are breaking BTC-TC terms of service. DMS invests into LTC-ATF both directly and via under the table loans. I cannot believe LTC-GLOBAL administrators approved your contract. You are a real piece of shit.

TU.SILVER deals exclusively with Amagi Metals. They are very responsive in E-Mail and have worked with me personally to resolve international customs disputes.

Examining your post here, it seems that there was a two week shipping delay, which is quite normal. I find it difficult to believe you are having an issue with them as you have described it. Fortunately this type of complaint is very easy to resolve. Just post your tracking number and we will be able to see where the delays occurred. They did ship the metal, didn't they? I don't really see why you are so upset.

I'm trying to diffuse tension with a humorous title to this thread. I'd like to mention that as the issuer of BMF I have company accounts on all the major exchanges, and other than a few hiccups (which turned out to be my fault in the end) I've had zero trouble using any of them.

BitFunder and BTC-TC are each excellent in their own way, I appreciate the statistics BTC-TC offers me, and I appreciate the speed at which BitFunder allows me to move money.

I hear some people are having trouble using either platform. May I suggest trying a new channel for support. PM isn't working, go to IRC. Try e-mail. It's true there are problems, but obviously thousands of other people are not having a problem which suggests, if you are having continuous problems it might be something you are doing wrong and not realizing it. For example when I logged into weexchange for the first time I forgot I had capitalized my username and I began to panic when I realized it was difficult to contact support. When the problem was discovered I felt embarrassed. The truth is the problem only took 3 days to fix by going through support. I think 3 or 4 days is probably acceptable. Contact support and be patient.

There are great issues on both platforms. And then there's Havelock, which I suspect has seen a lot of new users recently, with XBOND..

gratz

No, I'm just buying back shares to increase the net cashflow per share. I just don't feel that the market is properly valuing shares of BMF. Essentially, if I reinvested the money somewhere else, I would have to come up with a place that makes more than 5% a month (BMF's ROI is 5% a month) and I can't find a place that does that. Until I do, I will buy back shares of the fund.

It has the secondary effect of providing liquidity; investors know that it's safe to invest in BMF because the company will repurchase shares at a fair price.

Hi strideynet, thanks for the question.

In our monthly report, you can see that we have increased our daily dividends by about 6.7% in August. They should now pay 0.000016 per day.

However, as this is the first time I scheduled dividends, I accidentally scheduled them by adding a fixed amount. I noticed the problem after we started buying back shares. I noticed the amount was slowly creeping up, which happened because the same amount was being spread over a fewer number of shares:


As you can see, as we started buying back shares the amount of dividends per share began to increase. This wasn't a problem because the cashflow of the company remained the same (I had bought back shares out of income from our investments).

But when I transferred NYAN.A's shares to a separate account to help keep track of the different assets of NYAN and BMF, I realized it was going to be a problem:


I happened to be managing the portfolio when the payment for 0.00000813 went through and I immediately scheduled a payment for the balance (0.00000787).


This totaled 0.000016 per share. I then went back and canceled all the total amount payments and rescheduled them to be on a per-share basis.


Right now, everything is scheduled properly, and there shouldn't be any more problems with the dividend payments as we buy back shares. I'm sorry it was so confusing, I considered making an announcement, but there was no harm done so I let it be. I hope that answers your question. Thanks for investing with us

Chat soon~

I'm not sure -- I had many of these same issues but I've overcome them. If you're having trouble with weexchange and bitfunder, you should probably go to IRC for help. You probably don't know this because I never see you there, but that is how you are supposed to ask for help on BitFunder. They even have an irc client on their webpage in the "help" section.

Also, if you would rather not do so personally you can get exposure to the dozen or so companies not on BTC-TC through a fund. I run one (BMF) for example and we hold a lot of Ukyo.Loan.

I encourage and implore TAT investments to take advantage of people's greed and sell into the bid to 0.001/unit. Bidding over face value for a recallable face value bond is probably unwise. There are other places to put your money -- notably Graet.Loan and even Ukyo.Loan which pays 50% more than XBOND. Both of those haven't sold out their IPO yet so I don't understand why there is such a demand for XBOND.

Yeah. You may be wondering, why now? Well, I have received news that Todd has sold some of the ASICs he bought with the money he stole from investors to asset issuers and former asset issuers of this community. In short, he (and they) finally fucked up. See, now I can go after the people he sold ASICs too, since they knew they were buying stolen merchandise. And those people are not hiding in mortal fear like Todd is right now.

Oh and guess what. Todd has been hashing this whole time. But you may be surprised to learn his mining farm is not 50 GHash, it's 200. Yes, all this time, even back in the day, he was lying to his investors. But when you think that he has been mining all this time, and just decided to keep the money, it should make you even angrier. But what makes me the angriest is the people who bought ASICs off him knowing they were purchased with stolen funds.

Further to the index idea, I've created a list of every single mining issue on BitFunder, BTC-TC, and Havelock.

I've calculated market cap for each company, which amounts to the total amount of money the community has invested into mining at any given time.

I will work on calculating BTC/mHash for each company and creating a weighted index for that as well.

For now, here is the MINING MARKET CAP INDEX, courtesy of BMF:

August 5th, 2013
AllCaps   BMF.MMI   4,407.16
LargeCap   BMF.MML   3,619.45
MidCap   BMF.MMM   667.89 (Note; MidCap is approx. 2,000 to 20,000 BTC market cap)
SmallCap   BMF.MMS   119.81

I'm particularly open to changing the delineation of what a mid cap miner is. Do you think it would be more appropriate to separate issues which are deterministic vs. non-determistic, vs. those who are startups?

I really like that idea, but it turns out to be a lot of work -- much more so than it seemed at first glance.

For example, ASICMINER exists in the form of at least five separate pass-through vehicles, with different weights (ex. AM1 vs AM100) and all pay a slightly different rate. Their market cap together is about 180,000 BTC. That underlines the first problem I encountered, a the wide disparity in market caps. For example, PAJKA.BOND, B.YAMBC, COGNITIVE and DMS.PURCHASE aren't even worth 1,000 BTC put together. So any meaningful index would have to be weighted subjectively, perhaps in the way someone might tend to invest in that company. Say, equal weighting. But already we have created what amounts to a meaningless statistic, because it is obvious by the market caps of the securities that people do not invest equally in these securities. In that sense, a fund like BMF which invests in many securities is already a kind of index, although probably not a very useful one, certainly not one which could fulfill our goal of rating our relative performance.

I think the most meaningful kind of comparison you can do is comparing one security to another, one by one or in groups, and sorting them based on one or more statistics that interest you. For example avg price or (recnt price) over the last 30 days. On July 3rd, BMF had 200 volume at 0.0356. On August 3rd and 4th I recorded a significant volume of trades between 0.04 and 0.043. This represents a gain of about 10%. On the other hand, DMS.MINING was trading at 0.02 in early July (1st to 3rd) and is now trading at about 0.0085 -- a loss of more than 50%. COGNITIVE on the other hand, was trading at around 0.35 on July 1st, and has now reached 0.045 today -- a gain of about 30%. Then again, they had been trading in the high 0.90's just two weeks ago. So how much did COGNITIVE gain? How much did DMS lose? It's not always so easy to tell from just one number.

I've gathered that that the situation we find ourselves in as investors is nothing if not chaotic. It's difficult to find a stable place to invest, and I have a feeling that an index would not be very useful in and of itself. Lending is also exceedingly risky, I won't invest with CoinLenders because I just don't have the stomach for that level of default risk. For all these reasons I created BMF. I wanted a stable place to invest where the average investor could put their bitcoins and at least not have to worry about losing everything in a flash crash. A really great example is the recent ASICMINER crash from about 4.8 to 4.1. BMF didn't lose any value when ASICMINER dropped all those points, we were able to stand our ground.

Anyways I did have a go at creating an index, and although I don't think it works as we well as it could, it seems to say that buying one form of ASICMINER is better than any other:

issue            : relative value
TAT.ASICMINER      : 4.2347
AM1            : 4.190
AM100         : 4.1684
ASICMINER-PT      : 4.1317
G-ASICMINER-PT      : 4.0740
Weighted Average   : 4.1056

I'll look into some indexing strategies and will try to come up with something better later on.

Thanks again for the suggestion,

Huh? Last I heard we had confirmation from Yifu the units would be redirected to Tradefortress. The Fenix OP, run by Tradefortress states "A group of four ex-Bakewell shareholders banded together to recover the two Avalon ASIC mining units belonging to shareholders. The units are currently hashing at ~140 GH/s."

Correct me if I am wrong, but it looks like those two Avalons were originally going to be sent to Ian Bakewell for operation in BAKEWELL, and that they are now in the possession of Fenix Mining. 

Ok, after discussions with a few other investors/asset issuers on IRC I think I have a solution which is fair to all. Proposal:

BMF offers investors a chance to participate in a purchase warrant program. For each share sold back to the company at fair market value, the investor will receive two purchase warrants with a strike price equal to the fair market value of the company at the time of sale. These warrants operate like calls. It would be done manually so investors would have to contact me manually, either in email or here (via PM).

What this does is allow investors a very special, unique opportunity which provides:

 i) a financial incentive to sell;
 ii) without damaging the financial position of BMF.

What's the incentive? Simple. Should the price of BMF fall, investors will have made the right decision to sell and can walk away with more money than they would have had if they held on. Yet should the price of BMF rise, investors will have the ability to leverage back into BMF using their purchase warrants. In short, the purchase warrants allow the investor the option to reverse their sale at any time, but, should it be to their advantage, buy more shares of the company at that price.

From the standpoint of BMF this is also a good thing. One, there's no harm in buying or selling shares at NAV. If we sell 100 shares at NAV, buy 100 shares at NAV, or whatever, it does not affect the NAV and won't affect existing investors. Secondly, because we issue two purchase warrants per share, we have the prospect of raising capital for the company. Since this is done at NAV, it won't affect the value of the shares, but it will intangibly increase the value of BMF as a whole because the total net cashflow will have been increased. This makes managing the fund easier because we will have more purchase options. A stronger cashflow makes repurchasing shares out of income even more attractive for the company as well.

In short this looks like a win-win proposition. And the best part is, investors can choose whether or not they want to participate. If someone feels it's not to their advantage, they can choose not to sell their shares back to the company and the value of their shares and the income they receive will not be affected.

If there are no objections I am considering posting an official announcement mid next-week. I will run a motion if anyone (shareholder or not) thinks this could be a bad idea for the company. This discussion time and question and answer period is the time to raise your voice if you feel this is a bad idea, it will be too late after I post the announcement.

Do the numbers sound right? I was also considering doing one and one-half purchase warrants per share, but 2 seems like a better number. I might go as high as three depending on any comments I receive.

Yeah but BAKEWELL was on BitFunder so it makes sense to list there. Fenix is more concerned with transition for existing shareholders I'd warrant, than being an entirely new security in and of itself. In that respect I don't think anyone cares that you don't like the UI :p

Request for Discussion: Company Policy

BMF's share repurchase program is not going well, in the sense that very few investors want to sell shares back to the company. When we decided to offer a buyback program and repurchase a limited number of shares, we were attempting to give investors an incentive to sell their shares back to the company. Instead, it seems that the opposite has happened. Investors have taken the buyback offer as a sign of strength and have been placing bids above the company's repurchase bids. This was likely done in the hopes that the company would buy back the shares at a price higher than the already inflated price they bought their shares for.

While we can justify buying back a limited number of shares at a slightly higher price than our NAV as a promotional event, we cannot justify a price beyond that suggested by our cashflow. In fact, due to comments from investors last month, we have decided to limit the buyback program's bonus further, to just 5% over NAV.

I am looking for additional suggestions. We would like to encourage investors to sell their shares back to the company however there seems to be no way to encourage investors to do this. What ideas do you have for an incentive or bonus we can offer to investors choosing to sell shares back to the company? Do you feel a 5% bonus is justified? If not, what other deals or offers could we propose?

I'm unwilling to let the company languish, and growth is indeed a policy of the company. So on the surface an investor would want to hold BMF. The main issue is not to damage the company by placing too great a price on the repurchase of shares. All that is required is a fair deal, an exchange that wouldn't leave BMF worse for wear but would allow some investors to satisfy their goals with BMF in a fair and equitable manner. Please discuss. If your proposal is chosen, BMF will be pleased to offer you a consultancy fee of 10 shares for help discussing your plan and implementing it.

Thanks and good luck!