Your asset list is currently:

106 BTC-MINING
1000 BTCMC
1000 ASICMINER

Of these BTC-MINING is next to worthless (loaned their funds to AmazingRando who ran off with them) and BTCMC looks like becoming a scam (owner hasn't produced financial reports since September, decided tostop paying dividends and is basically doing nothing).

But obviously ASICMINER is worth a decent bit.  If I bought some DMC shares would you be willing to accept them back in return for ASICMINER shares (you can keep the other junk)?

There's 11579 DMC shares outstanding - so a trade of 116 DMC for 10 ASICMINER or 12 DMC for 1 ASICMINER would be correct.  That would leave DMC with more assets per share (slightly more ASICMINER/share and a lot more of the other 2 junk ones).

I value ASICMINER at somewhere in the .5 - 1 BTC range right now (there's trades actually occurred in that range that I know of).

If I value ASICMINER shares at 0.5 that would make DMC shares worth 0.043
If I value ASICMINER shares at 1.0 that would make DMC shares worth 0.086

Obviously we couldn't actually do the swap until we're able to trade ASICMINER - but would like to know if the trade is fine with you.  I'm not sure what your plan is otherwise - if you intend to sell the ASICMINER and dividend out the proceeds then I'd be fine with just hanging onto DMC.

I wouldn't worry about adding 52w figures in until we get to the point where some securities have actually been wunning for 52 weeks.  Before that it's just meaningless and the screen-space would be better used for something meaningful (13 week data maybe - representing data for the last rolling quarter).

Disagree with this.

As there's no closed period, there's no change in price that can occur whilst trading isn't open - and no surge of activity when trading opens to make that time of relevance.  With the reasons to make that data meaningful gone all the change would do is make those figures blank for the first part of each day and based on a small sample for most of the rest of the day.  For most securities there's so little trade that even the current rolling 24-hour system is largely meaningless - making the sample size smaller (with your proposal, on average it'd only be based on 12 hours of trade) has no logic behind it.

Yeah I looked at the fennece site just now and it's pretty clearly not being updated much.

It says it takes Solidcoin.
And it offers insurance from CPA.

So looks like noone's doing much there for a few months at least.

You're still wrong.

You CAN withdraw all your funds.  And then any orders you have that you can no longer cover will be cancelled - allows you to pull your cash out if you want without first having to go around cancelling orders.

It tells you how much you need to leave in so no orders are cancelled (the largest amount you have committed to bids on a single asset) - then it's up to you if you want to withdraw more and have some orders auto-cancelled (if that happens you get a pop-up telling you what orders were cancelled).

This problem still exists.

It nows shows a reserved amount of ฿6.46497350 for me on all assets - whether or not I have any bids at all on them.

I'd guess that it's displaying the reserved amount I have on some security - whether or not it's the one I'm actually looking at.  It's entirely likely I DO have that exact amount in bids on some security.

Unfortunately it's also now rejecting bids at the server based on that amount.

Both your examples about names refer to "later" actions.

I agree someone giving a name potentially lets them slip up later if a scammer (or just a compulsive liar) but that still doesn't explain how the act of them giving the name in the first place adds any security.

There's really only a few things I look for when determining the likelihood of something being legitimate (there's a whole raft of things that make it likely to be a scam):

1.  Is there strong evidence that they actually do what they claim to be doing and will be using funds raised for that purpose.
2.  Is it obvious how they personally make a profit from running their business.

If someone is definitely running their business AND making profit for themselves for it then a lot of the incentive to scam vanishes.  If they aren't obviously making a profit themselves then there's risk of either them giving up on it due to lack of incentive or that they're making the profit by skimming of funds or intent on blatant theft.  Obviously being legitimate (i.e. not a scam) doesn't make something a good investment -

Knowing their real identity IS useful as a security measure (to what extent depends on the individual) - but knowing their identity is an entirely different thing to simply taking their word for it.  If you'll take their word for what their identity is then you may as well go the whole mile and just take their word that they're honest and skip the whole identity thing entirely as you've already convinced yourself to take their word for stuff without any supporting evidence.

As for whether I invest in things owned by a guy named Joe (should really be "owned by a guy who claims to be named Joe") or in things with bidwalls the answer on both counts is no (if you're talking about my fund) we do very little investing - just trading.

But I'll happily trade things of either type - and even things I suspect (or on occasion am certain) are scams.  I don't massively care whether things I trade are genuine or scams, profitable or certain to make a loss - just whether I'm confident I can sell them to someone else for more than I paid for them (though my belief in the legitimacy/profitability of the asset DOES have an effect on the price at which I'm willing to buy).

On balance I'd prefer trading the shares issued by the guy who claimed his name was Joe - as ones with bid-walls are a pain for trading as you don't get to pick them up cheap much.  But if I were investing I'd go for the one with bid-walls - as I can determine whether they're real or not, they give liquidity and they also demonstrate the existence of SOME assets on the exchange.  But that would be a fair way down my list of things leading me to invest.

Exchange-rate : .00353
Adjusted NAV/U : 32.091
Bid at : 31.4

Obviously having sold more bonds and reduced our BTC exposure (down to around 17% from the ~30% when I produced report) LTC then drops.  Spreadsheet shows us up ~3% with ~1.5% of that from trading - in fact trading profits were over 2% before the drop in price but the spreadsheet has no way to know that the reduction in BTC exposure happened before the drop.

I managed to sell some S.BBET back before lowest Ask on it dropped and bought back some of the lowest priced ones on LTC-Global.  Won't be able to buy back more as, at present, the lowest Ask on MPEx is just too low for me to undercut and buy-back (and our selling price would be just over the cheapest ones currently listed on LTC-Global).  Will put up asks and/or rebuy soon as prices on either site change to make it feasible.

S.DICE seems to be holding steady at just under .0075 - so no change on prices there other than a small rise due to LTC weakening.

To clarify it's NOT showing the sum of your orders on the books.  It IS showing the highest amount of LTC you have committed in bids to a single asset (which is the point below which an order would be cancelled).  The implementation is correct - the description wasn't quite precise.

If you apply that line of reasoning then there's also no point in restricting the new offering to existing shareholders - if more people can bid then you'll get more (and higher) offers.  Either make it a public offering or make it rights-restricted (where its a per-share offer).  Allowing anyone who pays 1 LTC for a share to bid offers neither the best price (public offering) or rewards early investors.

Adding bid-walls doesn't add security (in the sense of establishing trustworthiness) and I've not claimed that it does.

But it 100% DOES add liquidity - that's the advantage I was referring to it offering to short-term investors: some other metals funds there's no way to sell out at anywhere near purchase price.

Not sure how a claim to a name can be verified.  In the example of the security we're talking about, the name claimed is a fairly common one.  Without an address to go with it I don't see any way that can be verified.  Someone giving a name, address and land-line telephone number (not pay-as-you-go mobile or skype) is different - as then it can be verified.

But if I say "My name is John Smith" (it's not) please explain how you'd verify that or what security it gives you?

It's impossible to do - as one of the main factors in such a calculation is difficulty - which depends upon the total network hashing power.  That depends on which ASIC manufacturers deliver when, how many they ship, how well (and for how long) they work etc.  All of which are at present unknown.  Earnings after that will obviously drop - but how quickly depends on a bunch of factors which also aren't known (one of the biggest being just how soon the prices of ASICs get slashed - letting in a whole new bunch of miners/mining companies with lower capital costs).

It would be possible to give a range - but that range would have too big a spread to be particularly useful.

If you're selling covered calls then your valuation should include a liability in respect of them (there's pretty standard ways to value holding an option - as issuer you'd have a liability equal to that value).  The cash doesn't all become yours unencumbered when you sell the option - it's not all finally the fund's until the option expires unexercised.

It would be reckless to dividend out fees for contracts that hadn't expired - and misleading to include those fees in their entirety into accounts without also having the liability in respect of them noted.  You should be able to do this in a spreadsheet easily enough - and I'm sure the parameters for valuing silver options (or the liability of ones you isseued) are available easily enough.

I have to respond to this as it's a pet peeve of mine.

If someone just SAYS their name is X then it adds zero security at all.  If they're genuine then it's likely their real name - if dishonest then it's not their real name.  As just stating a name is something both honest and dishonest asset-issuers can do it gives no indication at all of whether they're more or less trust-worthy than someone who doesn't claim to reveal their name.

That's in no way an attack on the guy behind those funds - or a claim that I have any reason to believe he's lieing.  I'm simply pointing out that it's entirely illogical to think that an unsupported claim to an identity is any indication at all of trustworthiness.  It's similar to another fallacy that many make - that paying dividends for a few months is somehow proof of not being a scam.

I'd agree with your other comments about his funds - unlike many he actually does maintain bids as well as asks (and keeps them updated in a timely fashion).  For those who don't know if they plan to invest short/medium/long term that's a massive advantage.

I'd be interested to see the math that has you value current shares at under .25 each - not disputing it, would just be interested to see it.  As the .P can be converted at will into standard shares they HAVE to be worth at least 4 times as much - putting an upper bound on the value of existing shares of .25 each.

However that only applies IF they're sold on open market.  I presume with the preferred stock you'd offer them to existing shareholders (as of a specified in advance date/time) with availability based on number of shares they currently hold - which would encourage them to buy and try to resell the .P whilst not devaluing existing shares quite so much.  Open market would then stabilise prices at .P being around 4* normal shares at some point above .25 for normals and 1 for .P (would necessarily have to be above this point as noone would buy at 1 with the intent of reselling for less).

Basically a good deal for anyone who would buy max allocation of preferred shares and not so good for those who wouldn't (although price of normal shares may not immediately fall below .25, the fact remains that when .P get converted there's only .25 extra cash in the company per new ordinary share - lowering asset value/share if it's above .25 and not taking it over .25 if it's already below there).

Not so convinced on the forwards - I'm generally not a big fan of companies moving into new areas of business (in this case currency trading).

You also need to fix or remove one of the following two clauses:

• Liquidation priority (In the event of liquidation, you will be reimbursed XX BTC per share.
• May be forcibly converted to Cognitive common stock, at the ratio of 1 preferred share to 4 common share

Together the liquidation priority has no value - as just before liquidation you could forcibly convert them, removing that entitlement.  In principle I think conversion shouldn't be forcible unless at a predefined date or under predetermined circumstances.  Once the ASICs arrive and get going all holders of the .P should WANT to convert as their stop-gap dividend would now be far less than from 4 ordinary shares.

For my money there's not really enough benefit in the .Ps over common stock to justify their existence.  It's about .003-.004 extra dividend per week compared to 4 ordinary - but only for the likely 6 weeks or so until hardware arrives - so a total discount on the price of about 1.5%.  That means purchasing would be almost entirely for the .25/share price and wouldn't even make sense if price of ordinaries fell below about .246 (and price WILL fall if this gets passed - as some people will have to sell their ordinaries to buy .Ps).

I'd have been inclined to price the .P higher and make the dividend significantly higher - so they were a good choice for those who want to invest but don't want to lose out if ASICs get delayed even further (0.4% dividend per week isn't that good if it's being paid from capital AND the capital is tied up in fiat so will lose value fast if BTC rises).  That then puts a bit more risk on ordinary stock - but also doesn't collapse the price so much (I'll have to have a look at the accounts some point and work out my own asset valuation).

Reserved amounts are now totally wrong.

It shows a reserved amount of  ฿0.5186460 for me on all assets - whether I have zero bids on them or a lot more than .5 BTC in bids.

Well there's plenty of ways he COULD have made that profit - but not from doing what his contract says he'd do.

And what's face value?  I can't even see a mention of it anywhere (as it's a fund it shouldn't have a face value - but a unit valuation of some kind).  You know something's wrong when the big Ask wall is at 1.0 but nearly all shares actually sold changed hands at .5 or less.  Looks like he's just gonna try to hit and run on a small volume - which he's already made if either of the 50 unit sales was to anyone other than himself.

Which is why there needs to be SOME quality control on what gets listed - or after he runs with his proceeds this time he can come back, provide a new disposable email address as his only form of identification/history and repeat with a slightly different but equally vague, unsubstantiated and unbelievable proposition.

Limiting it to current share-holders is pointless - as anyone can spend 1 LTC and become a share-holder.  If you want to give first shot to current investors then you need to restrict what they can bid on based on their current holdings - otherwise it's entirely pointless.

So first you'd fill orders up to the number of shares they currently hold, then up to 2* shares they currently hold etc.

It's possible we're talking at cross-purposes (and also I didn't make myself very clear).

Where transactions are conducted in (say) USD then I'm NOT suggesting every transaction should be converted into BTC for the books - that would be confusing and wrong.  If a ledger of some kind is prepared then it needs to reflect the currency in which transactions occur.

However, when it comes to preparing a balance sheet (and/or a list of assets) then that MUST be converted into BTC -as that's the currency in which units are being traded.  The value/unit needs to be given in BTC basically (it would actually consist of a mix of fiat, BTC and silver) to give a snapshot of the realisable value of a unit (no harm giving a fiat one as well of course).  It's only a snapshot - as the exchange-rates for silver and BTC to fiat will change all the time.

An alternative - maybe worth considering - would be to give the fund valuation in terms of Ag/Unit.  As the bulk of holdings would be in silver a valuation in silver per unit would actually be the one least subject to changes due to exchange-rates.  But that could get confusing for some people if the valuation is .1034 oz Ag/Unit but each unit only has a face-value of .1 oz Ag/unit.  But it's interesting to consider treating silver as a currency for the purposes of valuation (and, as I say, would lead to a more stable valuation than using fiat or BTC).

In a change of policy since my previous post I just released 1500 more LTC.B1 bonds.  Reason is simple.

Since posting the weekly results we've had over 15 BTC-worth of orders filled (BTC denominated) on various assets.  I had to shuffle funds around (and convert LTC to BTC) just to keep our other orders up.  Some of those purchased shares have already been sold for small profits - but it did highlight that in fact we're under-capitalised in BTC when someone panic sells into 1 or 2 of our orders.

Part of this is because a few weeks back I realised I was being WAY to cautious on bids - only bidding 1 or 2% of NAV on solid assets at cheap prices.  That was silly as it led to us not properly taking advantage of panic/desperation sells (which is where the real profit is - NOT trading across 5% spreads).  To an extent our last few good weeks have come from my change in bidding policy - as we've picked up 5% of NAV-worth of shares at cheap prices rather than the 1-2% we would have done previously.

Whilst we COULD have topped up our BTC by converting LTC that would expose us heavily to BTC (just the few exchanges I did earlier to prevent orders getting cancelled took us well over 30%).  For the last week or two, whilst LTC was falling, I wasn't too concerned about slightly higher BTC exposure - but now LTC is recovering I really dont want us to lose a bunch of NAV if it rises sharply vs BTC.

This sale of bonds gets our capital to safer levels to maintain orders - whilst also allowing me to get our BTC exposure down a bit.  And with trade picking up a bit on both BTC.CO and Bitfunder (Bitfunder especially has grown in trade in the last week - even if a decent chunk of it is an obvious ponzi) it keeps us positioned to take advantage of new opportunities as they present themselves.

Most of the 1500 bonds sold straight into bids - but as I type there's still a few up.

Bottom-line is that the maintenance cost of bonds is pretty trivial compared to the lost opportunity cost if we miss collecting a panic sell that we can resell for a 100% profit (some of our recent trades have actually been at over a 100% profit).