If LTC founder disappearing is a mistake, then where's the TRC founder?

I see a few people spamming new threads about it non-stop - but where IS the founder(s)?  Or is the plan to avoid the "mistake" of the founder disappearing by not having any founder appear in the first place?

Thanks for adding highlighting of Top Bid/Lowest Ask when it's mine on Market screen.  Any chance of adding it in the Portfolio screen too?

Your trade has definitely picked up significantly in the last week - but a word of caution.  Your policy of allowing anything to list will bump your trade volume in the short-term but at the cost of possible loss of trade later on.

One of the types of assets which bumps trade significantly is ponzis.  They bump it by trading shares to themselves early to make it look like demand - then pay high dividends (most of which gos to themself) to lure in investors to scam.  Right now you have one pretty blatant ponzi on your site:

Exchange.ESIF

Here's all the obvious things that make it a ponzi:

1.  No identity here or anywhere for issuer.
2.  Claims of very good past record - with absolutely zero evidence to support it.
3.  Zero records of what assets he claims to hold (he can't just make them up - as then he'd be unable to pay high dividends when it was apparent his pretend portfolio had made a loss)
4.  Willing to sell shares at any price - No stated face value or valuation of units and already sold into an order below his lowest Ask (quite probably to himself to make it look like demand - and did it cheap to reduce transaction fees he lost).
5.  Paid a high initial dividend despite fund only having been running a few days and where he claims to be investing in fiat-denominated assets (how CAN he make a high profit when assets are denominated in fiat and BTC was rising massively?).

There's a very similar one on Crypto (JDBIF) which amusingly still gets trades despite having stopped paying out his promised dividends back in October.

Hopefully nearly all the trades were sales to himself - as once he gains any traction you can bet that he'll just dividend out a percentage of his sales each week then vanish once sales dry up.

I'd seriously suggest you refuse to list such obvious crap - whilst it may generate some trade in the short-term, longer term a portion of all capital going into it is going to just vanish from your market.  Not only does that reduce the funds available for future trade it can also deter some investors from investing entirely.

That changed in last day or so - or seems to have done for me anyway.

This may be just a temporary display glitch.  If you cancel an order, when the screen refreshes it still shows the OLD reserved amount (same thing happens if you actually buy/sell - it displays old value).  If you go to market then back to the asset it gets updated.  You CAN still place bids even if the (outdated) reserved amoutn would indiicate you couldn't - there's no client-side check for validity, it's only checked at server-side (which has the correct amount).

Oh - and big thanks to Ukyo for implementing reserves being on a per-asset basis rather than global: allows me to trade a lot more without tieing up actual BTC on lots of orders that individually only have a small chance of filling.

WEEKLY REPORT




Thanks to some good trades yesterday evening/today we ended up absolutely smashing our previous post-exchange-rate adjustment record (24.07% growth compared to previous record of 15.53%).  We also just beat last week's record for growth before adjusting for exchange-rate - which is great as last week's record included a fair amount of profit gained from exchange-rate movement whilst this week the exchange-rate moved slightly in the opposite direction.  First post has had an updated table uploaded including this week's results.

Last week we did no trading at all on Bitfunder - this week it was our biggest profit source (LTC Global, BTC.CO and CoinBR/the pass-throughs all made good contributions as well).  Again no trades on Crypto::stocks - will likely pull out of there completely before long as it's pretty much a wasteland unless trading DevCoins which I have no intention of doing.

Our sharp growth this week means I see no likelihood of having to sell more bonds in the next week (no new ones were sold this week).  At present we're sitting on a pile of LTC and STILL have a higher percentage of assets in BTC than I'd like.  If we get a few more bumper weeks I may revisit the idea of a one-off dividend payment to reduce idle cash - but I DO have another idea in mind which would give some use to otherwise idle LTC.

I've deleted the OBSI.HRPT from the spreadsheet.  It was marked down to 0 value as soon as GLBSE died and as there's no realistic likelihhod of ever receiving anything for them there's no point leaving it in the spreadsheet.

I've written off the rest of the cost of the tickers - so trading profits this week were actually even higher than the spreadsheet shows.

Both pass-throughs have seen steady if not massive sales - chipping in their part to our profits.

S.DICE - price on this has risen up to the big wall at ~.0075.  As highest bid is just below this there's no room to buy up cheap shares - price of the pass-through on LTC-Global reflects this reality.

S.BBET - The wall at .0014 went earlier this week.  It got replaced but went again (not sure if sold out or taken down the second time).  Prices on LTC-Global are also sky-high now reflecting no availabilty below .002.

If you bought previously in either pass-through and want to try to cash out profits feel free to put up Asks - if I can sell shares in the underlying asset then I'll happily fill Asks (unless someone else buys them before me of course).  With S.DICE I can likely sell into Bids, with S.BBET there's a huge  empty gap so I'd have to actually place an Ask myself and wait for it to fill before filling your ask.

Management fee this week is 9 units (rounded down from 9.55) and will be transferred shortly after this is posted.

Bid up at 30.6

Well you DO need to insert it into the right place in the query (and maybe qualify it with which table/query/view amount is to be taken from - which could be the bug in first place if 'amount' occurs as a field both in the transactions table and also in some query used to get current holdings).  Would guess current quantity held isn't a value stored in an actual database table (that would break normalisation) but rather a value in a query (or a virtual table - dunno which RDBMS they use).

Not sure what your issue is with that case - which I've just looked at.

Noone was ever accused of scamming in it - someone sending you unsolicited funds isn't scamming.  Looks like it was taken to this rota thing as a test without any attempt at sorting it out otherwise first..

Seems clear to me that MP's disagreement with the rota is NOT that he was ordered to return the funds.  It IS that he ended up paying the costs when the mistake was clearly (and admitted to be) someone else's.  If someone fucks up then THEY pay whatever costs are associated with rectifying the problem - NOT someone who was involved in the mistake without any desire, intent or action to cause the mistake.  I don't use MPEx but, from what I understand, the disclaimer that funds sent in error would be kept wasn't properly published - which is the only reason for the rota to order their return at all.

Very trivial glitch to fix.

My transactions list includes this:

2013-01-26 03:18:43    DIVIDEND: (CoinBr.MPBPT-O)
0 * ฿0.10999000

I have held these in the past but presently don't have any.  Looks like when you did the buy-back thing on it, you added transactions for everyone who was in the transaction table for it rather than just for those who currently held more than 0 shares.

No funds were added/subtracted and no harm done - other than a spammy message in my transaction list

Just to note further to the above that the Asks at .00114 has gone on S.BBET -as did an ask at .014 (which was the fund's own one trading some profit on a resell).  Right now the fund's Ask on LTC-Global is at .4821 (and will go higher if the small MPEx ask at .00175 - also mine - gets bought out).  All asks below that are investors who bought previously and relisted higher.  I'll clear the Asks on LTC-GLobal out if bids move up on MPEx to the point where I can do so.  Obviously my Ask will come down if new Asks show up lower on MPEx.

Exchange-rate : .0038
Adjusted NAV/U : 29.80277
Bid at : 29.5

With LTC regaining some ground against BTC NAV/U has fallen slightly since I last reported.  Trading profits have grown a tiny amount from ~16% to 18% for the week - pretty much guaranteeing our best percentage rise in NAV/U (after adjustment to remove exchange-rate effects) to date (would take either some heavy trading losses or a big drop in S.DICE/S.BBET to prevent us breaking our old record).

S.DICE price on MPEx has shot up, with lowest Ask now at .00745 (a few very small quantity ones down to .00733).  Highest Bid is at .00725 but although there's quite a few bids all the ones at highish prices are low volume.  My guess is that price will move around a bit in the .006 - .0075 range for a while before settling near the top of that range: there's just not many investments that can support large investments and give a fiat-proof return.  The price of this on LTC-Global hasn't risen to the same extent as on MPEx due to LTC regaining ground.

S.BBET is still trading in same range - but the Ask wall at .00114 has almost been eroded.  If that gos then there's only a few token Asks below .002.  On the bid side, highest bid is at .001 still with quite a few bids just below it but no decent sized ones until .0085.  So price could still move significantly in either direction on this one.  I have some reservations about the business model of S.BBET (specifically, that it's not really offering what the gambling market wants - which is fixed odds - so may struggle to attract any significant volume other than on BTC-related bets which can't be placed anywhere at fixed odds).  It'll be interesting to see what the site does to address this - it remains a risky investment but with a significant upside if they get it right.

Paying this week's bond dividend shortly - will do proper report for the fund itself tomorrow as usual.

Nope - as I'm not planning on selling more units there's no incentive for me to run a pass-through.  And there's basically never any units up for sale on market anyway (only ones up now are 10 of my own at very high prices) - so no way for anyone else to buy units to run a private pass-through.

If we need more capital it's likely to be to expand BTC operations - in which case we'd just sell more bonds rather than extra units.  Bonds cost less to service (0.6% per week rather than a fair share of profits) and can be denominated in BTC, keeping our BTC-exposure down.

EDIT: Just to clarify, the only circumstance in which the fund would currently be likely to issue new units would be if the ratio of Bond capital to Fund Net assets got too near to the 150% limit (at which stage we have to either issue new units or buy back bonds).  For that to occur would need some mix of the following three things to occur:

1.  Our need for BTC-denominated capital significantly grows.
2.  LTC weakens significantly further vs BTC (for this to cause a need to issue new units on its own the exchange-rate would need to fall to around .0015).
3.  We incur significant trading losses (for this to cause a need to issue new units on its own we'd need to lose around 40% of NAV).

I agree.  Not sure why the idea of shorting gets so much hate - at root it's a bet on whether or not a security will do well, with the person betting on it doing well getting paid for taking the bet.

If you want to short my asset (LTC-ATF - listed on LTC-Global) you're welcome to.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=112876.0

It doesn't pay dividends so whatever fee you paid would need to be determined in some other fashion than a markup to dividends.  Some percentage of NAV/U each month (paid in advance) would be ideal.

Current NAV/U is just under 30 (was just over until LTC started recovering).  You'd be able to sell any reasonable quantity at 35-40 no problem (I know of a few people looking to buy).

Could lend you up to 200 of my own (I own about 240).  Long-term is no problem (obviously you can return them any time you want after, say, a month).  As I've zero intention of selling my holdings blow 200 it's a good deal for me provided the fee you pay covers the risk to me of you being unable to hold up your end of the deal.

You're not missing anything.

Investments in PM are pretty much either a hedge against BTC falling or a short on BTC (and, at the same time, a bet that PM rises vs fiat - otherwise you'd do better just converting to fiat and holding it).  If BTC rises faster than PM then you make a loss.

Disagree on this - investors are buying shares with BTC so accounting should be in BTC.

I'm disappointed that you've gone ahead with this before closing your other companies down.

At present you have their assets up for auction - yet your comments on a LOT of those securities is just 'will contact asset issuer soon'.  There's assets there that I'd have bid on had I even been confident your claim was acknowledged by the issuer (without them being relisted anywhere yet).  It's unfortunate for investors in your previous companies that you're now going to focus on SILVER rather than giving them your full attention for the last week of your closing down process.

I'm no silver expert but I suspect silver would still exist in a week's time had you chosen to focus on closing down your other assets for the next week before starting this.

If you'd actually read the OP before posting a bunch of times you'd have noticed this is NOT an options contract.  It's essentially a bet on whether at a specific date the price of LTC will be above/or below a certain value.

There's no option to choose to buy or not.
There's no ability to purchase at point other than the fixed date.

So all your posts about how to calculate option pricing are entirely irrelevant.

Exchange-rate : .00336
Adjusted NAV/U : 30.194
Bid at : 29.5

The week of offering to buy back above NAV/U (because of contract change) has ended.  Noone sold any units back.

We had a very profitable trade last night which has boosted NAV/U very nicely.  We look set for a record week for us (trading profits are over 16% already - and can only drop if I make unprofitable trades, exchange-rate movement can't touch them).  We're still below last week's record of 22.6% on profits including exchange-rate movement - but with a few days to go we can hopefully pass that one too (we're at over 18% profit before exchange-rate effects are ignored).

S.BBET seems to be settling into its current range (bids at .009x, asks at .0011x).
S.DICE is back up to asks being at .0062 and lowest bid not too far below that (so no scope for getting cheap ones on the buy side).  This, with the low LTC/BTC exchange-rate means my Asks on LTC-Global are now over 1.9 - at present there's a few resellers/early purchasers with asks below the fund's own (the fund won't sell below the cost to us to replace - as that would make us a loss).

It's been approved for a few hours - I noticed it in trading list a fe hours back.  Dont know exactly when - probably just after you made this post.

Exchange-Rate : .0036
Adjusted NAV/U : 28.1709

LTC has been moving around a lot today.  It fell as low as .0031 then rapidly soared to over .004.  It then fell back down to .0035 very quickly before, for now, settling at the current price around .0036.

Despite LTC gaining over 10% on BTC since last update our NAV/U has grown slightly - we've made enouhg trading profit to more than compensate for LTC regaining ground (though when LTC was over .004 we were below yesterday's NAV/U briefly).  At present we're up a bit over 9% from trading so far this week.

S.BBET seems to be trading in the same range - but obviously price on the pass-through has fallen as LTC strengthened.

S.DICE has had a fair bit of activity today.  Earlier the lowest Ask was at .0052 - but then there was significant buying of it on MPEx and now the lowest Ask is .0062.  So, despite LTC rising, the price of this on the pass-through hasn't dropped.  It DID drop earlier - as LTC rose before S.DICE rose: so for a while cheap ones were being sold on LTC Global (think last buyer may have noticed the rise before I did and so got 300 of them cheap).

Looking like another decent week for us - though if LTC rises that may only end up reflected in trading profits rather than large growth.  WHETHER LTC will rise remains to be seen.

Bid up at 29 - though someone else (or more than 1 person) has higher bids up - so likely this is irrelevant.