Yeah, looks like someone bought out the last SDICE on sale then relisted at 10* price - so anyone not looking closely would think there were some pretty cheap on sale when in fact they were marked up by 900%.  Makes me wish I hadnt sold mine off a day or so back.

Can confirm that I've previously (intentionally) placed orders at prices above lowest ask and it correctly filled at price of lowest Ask.

Not sure if it would meet your criteria actually.  Although its contract says it's a mining company in fact its only asset (other than a few BTC) is a loan to BitBond.  So it doesn't own mining hardware - just passes through to an actual mining company.  If contract is being followed other than that (no idea if it is) then namworld will be taking a 10% cut for electricty/maintenance despite there not being any hardware needing electricity/maintenance.

Then go look at Bitbond and see that it stopped paying dividends against its contract and the issuer is now totally unresponsive and shortly to be reported for a scammer tag.

Pretty sure the BTC-Mining loan to it is part of the 85% that DID get old dividends (normal investors have had zero for the period since GLBSE went down).

But with the operator of the asset to which BTC-MINING is effectively a pass-through breaking his contract and BTC-MINING not being a mining company I don't think it fits the criteria of what you intend to invest in at all.

A 10% fee just to loan your money to someone else isn't exactly great value for money anyway.

Oh and Bitbond is a fixed-rate bond - so a pass-through to a fixed-rate bond (with a 10% haiir-cut on the way) is 100% not what you want to be investing in.

Not the case.

As an asset issuer on BTC.CO you're automatically sent an email every 12 hours containing a list of email addresses/number of shares for your asset.  You can also obtain that list via API any time you want. 

So there was no need for Ian to inform burnside ahead of time.  Any asset issuer can walk off any time they choose - they just have to lock trading (which an asset issuer can do), get an updated list via API and they're set.

Right now you could put Mickey Mouse as your name and Disneyland as your address, so long as you don't want to use fiat currencies on weex.  Of course problem comes down the line if they suddenly change their policy and you can't get your BTC out of BitFunder without verifying your ID.  I'd HOPE that if weex ever makes that policy change then BitFunder would provide a means to withdraw without having to use weex - maybe Ukyo can give some reassurance on that.

Yeah, at the moment BTC.CO has the only built-in system that allows moves quite so swiftly (asset issuer gets email address + number of shares).  But I'm sure BitFunder/Crypto would provide equivalent information if requested - purely because to refuse to do so would deter anyone else going there.  They both already have a means for identifying investors - just not quite so straight-forward to use.

Also not received an email confirming my shares  - but not worried as friedcat did say he'd not finished them due to the hardware arriving.

Will be interesting to see how many BFL pre-orders get cancelled soon as ASICMINER starts mining - as when the chance to be first mining vanishes there's no real reason to pay the heavily inflated prices first batches of ASICs are being sold for (to cover development costs).  Am hoping friedcat announces target price-points before long - so as to try to grab some of the orders currently sitting with BFL etc.  As the mining should get back development costs, BitFountain should be able to come in at prices around 1/3 the GH/s per $ cost BFL are trying to charge and still make a nice profit if my rough calculations are right.

Nefario still not returned your mining farm?

It's always confused me a bit as well - can only assume their main targets are:

People who can't afford enough to be able to buy it in the 'real' world (too little cash to buy minimum quantity on sale),
People who want to buy it bit by bit (again, in amounts too small to buy in the real world)
People who want to speculate on the price (but the spreads - where they even exist - on these assets tend to be too wide for that anyway).
In theory also people who want to buy at rates discounted by bulk-purchase by the fund operator (a lot of funds aren't exactly transparent on pricing however).

Most such funds have no recognisable liquidity (only way to withdraw is in physical metal - which defeats the object as you could just buy it locally and save postage/counter-party exposure).

Unsurprisingly there doesn't seem to be huge demand for using these funds - though plenty of people who want to run them.

On your first post, majority of mining companies will never make a profit for anyone other than the operator (there ARE exceptions - but they're definitely exceptions).  Mining is a marginally profitable activity (any time it's more profitable than just marginal, more people start to mine - as the barrier to entry is very low both in terms of capital and in terms of required expertise).  Take a marginally profitable activity then slap on that a fee for the operator that's typically a hefty percentage of turnover (NOT profit) and it becomes unprofitable.

Most investors think mining is more profitable than it actually is - so assume mining companies must be profitable.  Big mistake - but very wide-spread.  There's a reason most mining securities' prospectuses say a LOT about what hardware they're going to get, what MH/s they'll aim for etc but go very quiet when it comes to producing projections of profit.

Obviously long-term investing (either personally or via a fund) in such assets won't be profitable overall (investors with good timing CAN make a profit - but it's at the cost of bigger losses to those with worse timing).  Running a fund can, of course, be profitable for the operator - as, same as with mining companies, most tend to take their cut on dividends rather than on profit.  A poorly run fund will, of course, lose money faster than just investing in mining yourself - your money is still going in the same rubbish (again, there ARE exceptions) just now there's 2 operators taking a cut of gross instead of 1.

Add to that various scams, websites with just an idea and no business plan or even clear view of how to monetise etc and you have the vast bulk of what was listed on GLBSE.  Oh - and companies that lend to people investing in the above or in ponzis and pass-throughs to companies of the afore-mentioned types.

Where does he say this?  You're misreading what was said in the same way usagi is.

I see him say " I will be instructing him to finish the work and give it to you, as I recognize this as being a miscommunication."

But that's future tense that he WILL be instructing him.  Nowhere do I see any claim that Matthew ever gave such instructions - and unless I'm misreading the recent correspondence with Matthew, Matthew accepts he likely never did so.  Or are these instructions in some other thread?  Or is it your contention that saying you WILL do something is identical to actually doing it?

This is where you're doing your usual trick - saying what you WISH was said rather than what was actually said.

Matthew said he was GOING TO give instructions - there's no evidence he ever actually did so.

You seem to want to have it both ways - that Matthew is able to give instructions, but that if he hasn't you still can.  Did Matthew have the right to give instructions in respect of the artwork?  You argue NO - then argue that he gave instructions which should be followed.

Common-sense suggests he should give you the artwork.  But if you want the artwork and refused to pay for it then common-sense suggests you should get a scammer tag - as you're asking for something you had a contract to pay for, are accepting it's of value to you (by requesting it) yet have never paid for it and show no inclination to do so.

You told him at the time that you had no need for the artwork - so hard to see how he was ever expected to think you wanted it.

If you steal something from a shop and some other random customer pays for it you are still a thief - and it's dubious what title you have to the goods you took.
If you refuse to pay for something you were obliged to by contract and some other scammer pays it on your behalf you're still a scammer.

You have this strange idea that a scammer who gets caught and repays is no longer a scammer - hence your constant harping on about reparations removing scammer tags.  It's a horrible idea - as it basically says it's fine to scam so long as you pay up (or have someone else do so on your behalf) if you're caught.

Heh, sarcasm never comes across clearly on the internet - sorry.

Except Matthew never had the right to buy the files - as the work was done for usagi.

The correct way to resolve the situation would probably be (doesn't have to occur in this order):

Usagi pays TECSHARE
TECSHARE gives the files to usagi
TECHSHARE returns payment to Matthew.

Then everyone would have discharged their obligations under the contract.

Had Matthew simply said in his post that he was paying on behalf of usagi (and nothing more) then it would be slightly different.  But Matthew clearly laid claim to the images - by stating that he was going to give instruction about their disposition (which he apparently never did).  So either:

A.  He HAD the right to dispose of the images (I'd disagree with this - you can't buy the right to product already subject to a contract with someone else) in which case he had the right to change his mind and NOT send such instructions.
B.  He had NO right to dispose of the images - in which case, given his claim to HAVE such rights, his payment can reasonably be viewed as a gift/bribe to drop the scammer accusation.

What I'm not clear on is whether the payment made was equal to the entire payment that would be due under the contract.  If it was full payment then, despite the above, it would seem reasonable and fair (though not obligatory) to provide the files to usagi.  If, on the other hand, it was only a part payment (and there was more work and further payments involved) then the lack of instructions to proceed or further payment would indicate termination of the contract - and TECSHARE has absolutely no obligation or even moral duty to do anything at all.

Glad to hear there's solid reasons for the move - otherwise people may have suspected it was just to avoid having negative remarks showing up on the asset.

Could you expand a bit on how integration with weex is a benefit?  I trade on both Bitfunder and BTC.CO - and always viewed weex as just being an annoying extra step I had to go through whenever I want to deposit/withdraw funds.

Exchange-Rate : .00524

Adjusted NAV/U : 19.026466

Bid at : 18.6 (put it at 18.5999 as someone already had a bid at 18.6)

The week continues to be very profitable - only need a small bit more profit for a 10%+ trading on the week.  In fact we've already made over 10% profit trading as I wrote off rest of the ticker cost.

I don't expect a huge amount more profit this week - as we're currently back to a mainly cash position (all cash other than the ASICMINER and some assets of LTC-GLOBAL).

ASICMINER's chips arrived from the foundry, passed initial tests and are now being packaged ready to place on boards and start mining.  Unless something gos hugely wrong at that point, our tiny holding in ASICMINER is likely to increase greatly in value.  I still haven't received final confirmation of how many we hold (spreadsheet shows 10 - but it could be a bit more) and at present they're not tradable.  They should be available for trading shortly.

I wouldn't be surprised to see significant price drops on other mining securities once ASICMINER starts hashing - and have almost entirely cleared our positions in mining securities.  There's a few reasons why a drop is likely:

1.  A large chunk of new mining power obviously reduces the immediate output of all other mining companies.
2.  Companies with pre-orders in at BFL etc are going to have to have a serious rethink about their plans.  It's now extremely unlikely they'll gain an advantage from being first to mine with ASICs - so there's no longer any justification to pay premium prices for being in first batch of ordered ASICs.

Pretty obviously BFL hiked up the price of its first batch to recover development costs.  This is clear from them offering a full refund on their FPGA gear against the price of their ASICs.  That returned hardware will be of little value to them - and obviously reflects that the price they're quoting for ASICs has a huge enough markup to soak up that discount.  Anyone ordering ASICs who is NOT trading in should likely immediately request a refund - the mining revenue they'll miss out on by waiting for hardware is likely to be more than compensated for by significantly cheaper hardware.

With ASICMINER's development costs being recouped via mining, they'll be able to start selling hardware at far more competitive rates - though likely not for a few months.  Friedcat has given out some information on costs of chips - and it's pretty obvious they could sell at around 1/3 BFLs cost (in GH/s per $) and still make a very good margin.  So I'd expect ASIC prices to head in that direction fairly rapidly - once the other ASIC manufacturers have got back their development costs from the first batch of purchasers.  The issue thus becomes for miners upgrading whether buying at first-batch ASIC prices from BFL/etc is going to make back 2/3 of the cost in a few months from mining.  That seems VERY unlikely if ASICMINER will already be mining 0 along with all the other people with pre-orders.

My expectation is that most other mining companies will actually STICK to their current plans - even though doing so likely condemns them to loss (remember - in mining companies, the operators typically make THEIR profit on mining: so they make most profit by mining as much/as soon as possible even if doing so makes less profit/more loss for the investors).  That won't change unless/until mining companies beging paying operators based on profit rather than turnover - which is highly unlikely given how few mining companies actually make any profit at all.

Getting back to the point - at a minimum there's going to be uncertainty over the value of mining companies.  And that uncertainty can only be over whether/by how much the ASICMINER news devalues them - there's very few for whom it's good news (debatably ones with no commitments to pre-orders + MOORE).  So for now I'm not trading MOST mining companies unless I can buy at a much lower price than I'd previously have required.

None on Bitfunder that meet his criteria - if there's any on Crypto they aren't traded at all.  GMP is nearest thing there - but not seeing a whole ton of transparency from it and the dividends don't look particularly appealing.

Problem with investing in less than a half dozen or so is that there's simply no diversity, so investors aren't really getting anything out of it.

Which isn't to say the fund can't be approved now then start selling shares once there's more offerings around.  Now would be a terrible time to start it anyway - ASICMINER's ASIC chips passed their tests yesterday, shuld be packaged today and they'll be hitting the network within the week hopefully.  At which stage expect a lot of tanking of prices of BTC mining securities in general - especially those with no ASIC upgrade path who were gambling ASICs wouldn't arrive (it shouldn't hit others TOO hard - but it will mean no early-starter bonus for any of them for being in first batch of ASICs plus depressed dividends until they get their own ASICS, which should mean lowered prices).

One other request for clarification.  Contract says:

"A portion of the fund will be held in Bitcoins. Not more than 10% of the entire
fund?s value may be held in Bitcoins. Bitcoins will be used to balance the fund
and to offer share buybacks."

What's the fund's policy on liquidity/buying back shares?  Sounds like you have a policy (which is a big step up from many 'funds') - but at what % of current fund value do you do it?  Is it done via bids place by you, by filling asks placed by investors or on request?

Linked to this, contract says:

"Management Fees
Management will be compensated in with 5 shares of the fund being issued to the
manager?s personal account for every 100 shares sold. Shares issued as
compensation will be non voting shares (shares will abstain from all motions)."

If you buy back shares are a proportionate amount of management shares returned to the fund?  Sure you can see the problem if not - agressive rebuying and reselling could end up with management shares being a large chunk of equity.

Also on management shares, if the fund closes does management get to take a percentage of the proceeds?  If so, isn't that a little bit dubious given that management can close at any time for any reason - and could get 5% of fund value even if they'd never made a profit (or even got around to ever buying any investments).

On the other hand, if management can't vote with the shares and does NOT get assets on fund closing then why have management shares at all?  Why not just pay 5% of received dividends as a management fee - which manager can then use to buy shares that DO vote and own assets if he so chooses?

This giving shares that aren't actually shares thing seems to have got widespread without any real justification or purpose - and just opens up avenues of abuse and problems that don't need to be made possible.

Your post says :

""Usagi was also doing some interesting things with motions, like transferring shares to himself to vote with so the motions go his way, then sending the shares back to treasury.  eskimobob and/or puppet caught usagi in that scheme, with help from stochastic website. Usagi also ran a couple polls on the deleted wordpress site and called those "motions".  Any real motion was always burried by an additional 4 or 5 motions (enough to push the important one out of history) with things like 'do you feel Usagi is leading CPA in a strong noble manner' etc etc.""

Not sure who you're quoting.

It's certainly true that on at least one motion there were more votes in favour than the total outstanding shares - I (and others) commented on it at the time.

There was a bug in GLBSE where when you voted it added your votes to the running total - but then never removed those votes if the shares changed hands.  I PMed nefario about it ages ago (like maybe July) but he never even acknowledged the PM.

I'm not aware of any proof that it was usagi actually doing it.  He's the most obvious culprit but I can't see nefario cooperating so there's no way to prove it: and it wouldn't be fair to conclude it was definitely usagi without such evidence.

Got no info on motions on the wordpress site (didn't look around it much other than at contracts and asset lists).  I do recall a fluff motion on GLBSE along the lines of 'I'm happy with the way usagi is running the company.' (not actually sure which company it was for).  That passed with a majority large enough that either usagi must have voted and/or there must have been significant occurrences of multiple-voting by the same shares.  Clearly a motion like that where the subject of the motion controls most of the shares and votes yes would be entirely meaningless - as all it demonstrates is that they have a high opinion of themself (which we didn't need a motion for - we already knew that).  As there was no action as a result of the poll (it was just meant to prove some point - what point I have no clue: anyone still holding shares was by definition not upset enough to sell at market prices) I can't really see it as scamming of any kind.  Misleading - maybe (as if taken at face value it would suggest overwhelming support - which MAY not have been the case) - but not sufficiently so (imo) to be worth worrying about.

No. On that he's correct.  He'd only previously allocated shares for the first 2500 sold (1000 founder, 1500 growth).  Until now he'd only be doing it after 2500 were sold.  What he did here was buy back 200 then allocate based on the remaining 500 (previously 700) sold.  The contract never obliged him to allocate shares so far in arrears - so there's nothing wrong with that.  And it does make sense given that there'll likely be no new sales for a fair while.

That trade-in program got abandoned (and rightly so).  There was a huge issue with it that never even got raised - and which is now irrelevant (so no harm actually done).  As that issue was just one of incompetence (not properly understanding how his own nyan structure worked) not scamming I don't think there's any point dwelling on it here (in brief, deleting nyan.b would screw nyan.a investors - by removing assets that were supposedly backing them without giving them any extra benefit in return.  It's part of the general nyan malaise - where it was badly defined and run so that no potential investors could ever properly assess risk/reward).

I'd ignore that proposal as it wasn't (imo) an attempt to scam, just badly conceived and never carried out (so no actual damage done).