We all know that Luke is being biased towards Bitcoin. What he puts degrades alternate coins, and tries to glamorize Bitcoin like as if it's the best currency in the world with no flaws. Why doesn't he try to fix those problems before he gets more people to use Bitcoin? Because he doesn't know how! A neutral party? No such thing, most of the people here are strict Bitcoin fanatics, or a decent reasonable person from the alternate chains.
It looks more like Luke-jr is suggesting that BitCoin clones should try and achieve some useful purpose. He is not saying they should not be created. It's entirely false to state that his text 'degrades alternate coins' or that he 'tries to glamorize Bitcoin like as if it's the best currency in the world with no flaws'. He clearly states it has flaws when he says 'There are a number of flaws with Bitcoin that cannot be corrected without a "hard fork"'. You are arguing against the man ( luke-jr ) not the text he added to the wiki page. Gay marriage has nothing to do with this, I can't imagine why you mentioned it. The problem isn't with the argument that alt-chains are a valid way to improve Bitcoin - yes they are. The problem IS that he's arguing that's the ONLY valid reason for an alt-coin to exist. |
|
|
|
So if I go back and make reparations BMF would be forced to continue paying money to CPA and no one wants to extend this forever. Under the contract I HAVE to accelerate it at this point no matter what.
BMF already got way more out of this than it ended up paying. What do you suggest I offer to BMF investors? Everyone who bought in because of this gained money from it already. I even donated the assumed mining output of my single to BMF before it arrived out of my own pocket. I gave 100 BTC to bmf investors and something like 200 personal shares. I was desperate to make BMF work and make shareholders happy. Now all I get are accusations that I caused them damage. Ok, whatever! I admit there was a conflict of interest but what am I expected to do? You are making these claims and not suggesting any way they can be repaired. That paints me into a corner and makes me feel the situation hopeless.
You already won, I gave up a long time ago, what is it precisely that you want? I will not get a scammer tag if I make a settlement with my shareholders, right? So why push for it? Why not do the right thing and work on fixing the damage you say I caused? Doesn't that make sense?
Just to address the first point - no, BMF wouldn't be forced to continue paying money if the claim had been made and settled when it first should have. Reason is that after a few payments of 100 BTC from CPA, CPA would have gone broke. At that stage CPA would no longer be able to honour its end of the contract (providing cover) so no future premiums would be due. Moving to the issue of settlement this is where it all gets really silly. I raised this issue in the BMF thread NOT in the scammer forum. At that stage you stone-walled and insisted there was no conflict of interest and nothing had been done. I ONLY moved my complaint to this thread after you refused to address it and TOLD me to take it here - here being the place where you go (in my view) when there's no longer any chance of settlement. What makes it more irksome is that just before GLBSE died there was ongoing discussion about this (mainly between yourself and actual BMF investors if I recall correctly). You'd reached the point of agreeing that maybe in theory CPA owed BMF money and were asking what should be done. You even raised various possibilities - such as returning BMF shares from CPA to BMF etc (though noted that if you did so it could leave CPA with no assets). I was actually going to make a post in that thread the day GLBSE died - pointing out that any settlement would necessarily have to be for significantly lower than the 500 BTC cover. Then GLBSE happened and after you reappeared you were back to stone-walling and explicitly stating that the contract was always intended to be accelerated and never to have material value (a direct contradiction to the post I just quoted - which ackowledges that the contract hadn't been accelerated a few months after its start). Settlement should be discussed with BMF investors - not here really. Here's where it's determined whether someone scammed or not - not where it's determined what payment is necessary to make the person "a scammer who paid back" rather than "a scammer who didn't pay back". You defrauded BMF for the financial benefit of CPA (blatantly admitted). You then lied about it - and deleted the post which proved you were lieing. When confronted about it (by me) instead of settling you told me to take it to the scammers forum - as clear a statement of intent not to settle as could be made. But here's where it comes down to something I don't know for sure: what's the forum's policy on scammer tags? If pirate came back and settled with everyone would his tag be removed (not claiming your behaviour is on same scale as pirate's - just talking about the principle)? If forum policy is that tags are removed when settlement is made then I'd agree that if you settle no tag should be given for it. If, on the other hand, policy is that once it's proven someone scammed they keep the tag forever then a tag should be awarded irrespective of whether settlement occurs or not. Not my call - and I'm not convinced there's even a consistent policy on it. BCB: can you check edit history of the post I was referring to? WOuld like to know whether I somehow missed what usagi said at the time or whether it was edited out. Because I don't recall ever seeing it before (which basically means I didn't see it before) - which could just be my oversight, or could alternatively be usagi editing it out back then after realising it was effectively an admission of guilt. |
|
|
|
We couldn't pay it without destroying CPA, so I accelerated the contract.
That was my assertion all along. Your responsibility to BMF investors was to claim - irrespective of whether it destroyed CPA. This is the conflict of interest I kept harping on about that you denied existed. Your conflict of interest was simple: 1. You had a responsibility to BMF to claim - it was clearly in their interest to do. Doubly so, in fact, if it destroyed CPA - as then they'd be released from their obligation to continue paying premiums but would keep whatever payments they'd received. 2. You didn't want to cause CPA to collapse. That's as clear a conflict of interest as you can get - yet when I accused you of not claiming because of a conflict of interest you called me a liar and claimed there was NO conflict of interest. You defrauded BMF to protect CPA. And then lied claiming it was ALWAYS the intention to accelerate when clearly that intent never formed until it would have been painful to CPA to pay. |
|
|
|
Posting this here - but obviously it's for BCB, so no need for usagi to respond directly to me. Latest undeletes have got back the post needed to conclusively show usagi has been lieing about the BMF/CPA insurance issue. You will recall that usagi's recent claim has been that the contract was accelerated, had no material value and was just a test that was never intended to be honoured as an actual commitment to insurance/indemnification. Check bottom of this post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=133823.msg1431741#msg1431741Here's the key part (from very last paragraph) : "The reason why BMF has not requested any money is simply because I'm confident I can repair the value of BMF by itself within a few more months. Plus, CPA is having obvious financial problems, people have defaulted on us for over 1,500 (hashking alone was 527BTC)." That's clear acknowledgement that the contract was still at force at that point (and had NOT been accelerated). It also confirms what I've previosuly alleged: that the reason the contract wasn't paid out had nothing to do with acceleration etc, but was just because CPA was short of cash so usagi screwed BMF investors by not claiming to protect CPA. The explanation in that restored post very clearly puts the lie to usagi's recent explanations. It also puts the lie to usagi's claims in other restored posts that all insurance claims had been paid (usagi failing to make a claim on behalf of BMF is identical in all practical respects to usagi claiming it then CPA failing to honour it). The post also clearly demonstrates him acting against BMF investors' interests by not claiming when his post makes plain they were entitled to. Pretty clearly not in BMF's interest to take out insurance then not claim on it when entitled to just in case they can make back the loss - their interest is best served by making the claim then trying to make the same profit, leaving them ABOVE 1.0 NAV. Plainly BMF investors were defrauded at that point by the amount they were entitled to claim. Which is multiple blocks of 100 BTC up to the lower of (500 BTC and amount necessary to take NAV/U to 1.0). Although only 100 BTC could be claimed at a time there was no cool-down period specificed between claims - and by the time of that post BMF's NAV/U had been under 1.0 for a few months. Any settlement would obviously be for significantly LESS than that - as BMF would have to continue making 5 BTC/week payments. Do note that post's restored date/time is wrong - as is the case with many others (which explains vampire's confusion over puppet saying something before his account was registered - the undelete you're using is messing up some dates). The post was actually obviously made some time after Pirate defaulted - at the end of august/beginning of september. |
|
|
|
|
Are there 5 or more such companies on BTC.CO?
From BTC.CO Assets Issuers Terms of Service:
"Long-term investment securities are not to invest more than 20% of their portfolio into any other single security on BTC-TC. "
|
|
|
|
Umm...I'm a little slow, does this mean that Ian Bakewell just got 500 MORE votes? ...or 700 more votes?
One could make the case that you're intentionally tanking this security to buy cheaper shares.
500. What he did was that with some of the money that had been raised by selling shares he bought some back - then the difference between .15 and what he paid for them he added to G&M. It PROBABLY increases the value of the remaining shares - no way to tell without a valuation of the hardware's current value (as G&M/private shares werent taken for the 200 bought back there's been no undue dilution). It represents a change in his policy of when he allocates G&M/personal shares - but that was never in the contract anyway and I don't see it as unreasonable. It didn't buy them himself - so it's only helped him if he intends the company to keep running (if he were trying to collapse it then last thing he'd do is buy any back which raises price and reduces cash on hand). Obviously claiming the G&M shares belong to him rather than the company is still as delusional as ever: but I'm fairly optimstic he'll see sense on that as the buying back would make no sense otherwise. |
|
|
|
Shits getting real in here....
@ErebusBat -- indeed... wtf, I just got this message privately: Dude. Stay off the drugs. Talk about usagi's scams on his threads. I don't need NASTY's thread crapped up with this bullshit.
Lovely... (( noted sarcasm )) ... so I get further abuse, rather than clarification, and still not providing any further SPECIFIC information (helpful or otherwise) regarding the question I had.
What the hell is happening to the seat price  People know there's others trying to sell. For example, everyone who is paying attention knows BMF is trying to liquidate 110 shares. Rest assured, we've placed limit orders, and we'll just distribute the shares as value if they don't sell. I'm not so inexperienced a trader as to fall for the old "Oh, so you want to sell your shares" routine. It works like this: When a rich guy comes into the store, they rush out to meet him (to keep him busy) while the helpers in the back rush around changing all the price tags to more expensive ones ;-) In reverse, when you want to sell your shares and people know it, they suddenly don't feel like paying so much. It's supply and demand, baby. ^(re) Quoted for emphasis... @usagi -- I marked in bold the bit I'm confused about... Does anyone know why ognasty is (figuratively) flailing arms around screaming STFU!!! about this? I'm just asking for simple clarification by someone who knows what you (usagi) meant by the specific language in the quote / comment. I can explain what usagi means - and it has nothing to do with ognasty at all (i.e. he wasn't hiding anything, just didn't want usagi discussions in here). Usagi is shutting down his companies. What usagi's saying there is that if he can't sell the seats at what he thinks is a fair price he'll just give them to some of his investors as part of their final payment for their shares rather than sell them off cheap. So instead of getting all cash some investors would get a seat (or multiple seats) + cash. |
|
|
|
Hmm. If you are admitting you are pursuing a scammer tag against me because of my attitude, and ex. Your response - and the attitude you had - convinced me there was something very dubious going on.
...
So maybe next time you call someone a noob and tell them to get lost you may want to reflect on just how well that tactic worked on me.
...then you are admitting you have no evidence. Look, I'm sorry I called you a noob. But that does not make me a scammer. Right now I'm a little unsure of how I should proceed with this. BCB screwed this up very badly; I've asked some people I respect for some advice. I'll get back to you. Till then, what do you think of the settlement idea that has been discussed? First off I wasn't admitting I had no evidence - I was explaining what motivated me to put effort into looking for evidence in the first place. As far as getting the situation resolved here's my PERSONAL stance - some others may agree, others will likely disagree. 1. Scammer tag. I couldn't much care whether you get a scammer tag or not. It doesn't achieve anything, it doesn't get handed out to lots of people who deserve it, it's not particularly clear what it even means. 2. Reparations to investors. This is a trickier one - would assume most investors don't even have a clue what half the arguing is about or understand some of the things you've done that broke contracts or caused them loss (some of which haven't ever been mentioned yet). But right now main priority is to get funds back to investors which THEY believe are fair - personally I'd take the view that if you offer them some extra in full and final settlement of any errors/wrong-doing by you to date (i.e. NOT carte blanche to mess up during close down) then if they accept it that's issue ended as far as liability gos. 3. Going forward. If you attempt to run new businesses on here then I'd definitely point them to this thread. I wouldn't go out of my way to cause hassle for you - but if you attempted to misrepresent my position as being that I accepted you were innocent (when, to my mind, paying a settlement is tantamount to acceptance of some degree of guilt) or had no evidence (I have plenty of evidence) then I'd point that out. FWIW majority of things I've seen that I believe you did wrong (in the sense of morally/culpably wrong, rather than just inept) relate to dealings between your multiple companies - not to decisions made where you only had to consider the interests of one company (some of those were pretty bad - but in no way worthy of scammer accusations). Had you only been running one company it's unlikely I'd be making any scam accusations (other than, possibly, over the issue of one computer which appeared to be on BMF's asset list but is now claimed to be your own). |
|
|
|
My attitude: I have a right to be angry because for months I have had to put up with insults and derogatory comments from people like vampire, whose allegations have now been proven false. You think about that for a moment before you criticize me for my attitude. You need to understand that your attitude has a LOT to with where you are. It certainly has a LOT to do with how doggedly I've pursued the issue. Would suggest you go back to the CPA thread and find your response to the very first post I ever made about you. Back then I was looking into a load of companies as I'd retuend to being active after not posting here much (if at all) for the best part of year. I posted in your thread asking about the BMF contract and why it hadn't been paid out on. At that point I was a potential investor - with no prior interaction with you - and no preconceived ideas about you. Your response - and the attitude you had - convinced me there was something very dubious going on. As no way would someone accused of something who was innocent just call the accuser (and it wasn't actually an accusation - just a question of why it hadn't been paid out on) a noob and tell them to get lost. They'd explain WHY it hadn't been paid out on - so noone else reading the thread was left with questions over it. Noone had raised that issue back then - so it's not like I was repeating something you'd answered loads of times before: it had never been mentioned in any thread. So maybe next time you call someone a noob and tell them to get lost you may want to reflect on just how well that tactic worked on me. Some people WILL go away if you just insult them and tell them they're wrong (without explaining why). Others won't - and if you try it on them you're making a huge problem for yourself. If you can't explain why you're right (and they're wrong) then consider that maybe you're the one who's wrong. If you CAN explain why you're right (and they're wrong) then do so rather than insulting. Of course if you KNOW you're wrong then maybe the only option you have IS to insult - which was my immediate thought when you insulted me rather than showed how I was wrong (I WAS wrong on one specific detail - which you pointed out, but zero explanation of why there was no claim). So yeah - the time I've spent working out what you've done wrong wasn't because I'm a sock-puppet. It wasn't because someone paid me to do it. It wasn't because I was trying to manipulate your share prices. It WAS because your attitude stank - and made no sense unless there was something you were trying to cover up. And that attitude was BEFORE (as far as I'm aware) there were any allegations against you at all. So, as far as my participation is concerned at least, your attitude has a hell of a lot to do with where we are now. |
|
|
|
|
Exchange-rate : .00527
Adjusted NAV/U : 18.243257
Bid at : 18.0
Trade was almost non-existent News Year's Eve/New Year's day - but since then we've had a few very profitable trades meaning we're up a decent amount already this week. As majority of this was BTC denominated there's no longer any great need to sell all of the 400 bonds I'd planned to this week. Got 41 left on market at moment, which would take us to 1800 total - then won't btoher with other 200 this week unless some great deal shows up. No point raising capital just for the sake of it - even though the interest we pay IS pretty minimal compared to the profit we make using the capital (consider we pay just over .1 BTC to service our current bonds and have made over 2.5 BTC profit on bond-raised capital THIS week - i.e. half a year's interest on them) and made similar last week. Can definitely say the bonds are a great success for us so far (though a week of heavy losses and the bond-holders would be the ones with the smug grin on their faces as they got interest and we got losses).
Oh - and the increase in NAV/U doesn't tell the whole story. As we had a big jump in one go I went ahea and wrote off the remainder of the ticker cost (150 LTC). So we actually made nearly 2% more profit than this update reflects. So no more depreciation of ticker to do - that's reduced our apparent profits for the last month as we'd been gradually writing it off.
|
|
|
|
Please just agree that we'll do this thru BCB. Present your evidence to him and leave me alone. I need to go wind down my companies tonight and I am tired.
Are you saying you'll accept BCB's decision on this? If not, then it's pretty pointless everyone else doing so: as we risk him saying "usagi's innocent" whilst if he says "usagi's guilty" you'll promptly accuse him of bias and making the wrong decision and want someone else to deal with it. |
|
|
|
There is a reason why people in real life get to face their accusers, judged by a jury of their peers, and the prosecution has to pay heavy filing and court fees to initiate a suit. This is because anyone can make false or exaggerated claims without proof.
In response to the quoted paragraph there's a reason why people in real life have to jump through a bunch of hoops to manage investment funds: it's to stop incompetents losing the money of investors they sucked in with false claims of competence. If people don't want to demonstrate competence BEFORE asking for loads of money then it's unreasonable to impose an assumption of competence when there's complaints. IF competence had been proven in advance then yeah - it would be fair to ask for a fee from those registering complaints. But when competence hasn't ever been demonstrated then there should be no charge for asserting incompetence. And a fee for accusing of scamming means only those at risk of losing funds will usually complain. That's bad on two counts: 1. Those who can most clearly see the flaws in something (e.g. that Nyan never defined in advance fixed ratios for A/B/C so was impossible to determine risk/reward for) will NOT be investors - it'll be those who didn't spot the problems themself. 2. Investors often don't want to risk complaining themselves - for fear they'll piss off the asset issuer who will then deliberately screw them over. From my perspective when I raise issues with an ingoing business it's usually (but not always) NOT to protect existing investors - they're already at the mercy of the operator. It's to ensure potential future investors are aware of issues they need to consider before parting with their funds. Do also be aware that I raised my concerns about usagi in threads for the various businesses - NOT in scammers forum. I only raised them here after usagi repeatedly told me to do so. EDIT: To add there's also another huge difference between RL and here. When you pay all the fees etc to bring a case in RL the courts can actually order and (to an extent) enforce repayment/compensation. All they can give here is a tag. |
|
|
|
Usagi
Could you please confirm that you live in Japan.
Usagi doesn't live in Japan - he just likes to claim to be a Japanese female. He's in Republic of China (Taiwan). Is that in the same time zone as JST? Taiwan's an hour behind Japan/South Korea. |
|
|
|
Does anyone else find it highly unusual that none of usagi's shareholders have bothered to weigh in here?
Well they can't - as usagi has their assets. They're in the unfortunate position where they daren't criticise in case usagi runs off with whatever's left of their investment. That doesn't. of course, explain why any shareholders who believe usagi did a great job aren't posting. Obviously they'll be flattering in emails to usagi - they saw the way usagi threatened to not return EskimoBo's shares after he'd criticised usagi. When someone who seems unstable has your money you CAN'T go criticising them. Have to say the timing of usagi deciding to revive this thread is unfortunate - I'd have preferred it to stay dormant until usagi had paid out to investors: so there was no longer any (unstated) threat preventing investors from speaking up. |
|
|
|
Usgai
Why is it that you can sperg pages and pages of useless nonsense but you can not answer a simple question?
Try to stay focused and stop insulting me. Of the three charges in this thread: 1. falsifying NAVs, 2. manipulating share prices (and) 3. misleading investors You have admitted that #3, misleading investors, was an unjustified charge in at least one case. ... Both you and I and others now agree #3 is a false claim. How does agreeing the accusation was unjustified in ONE case suddenly mean ALL such claims are unjustified? If it was that easy then anyone could prove they were innocent by having someone make an unjust accusation against them, disproving that then saying it proved their innocence on everything. This sort of non-logic is one of the main reasons why this saga never ends - you jump from a conclusion on a specific to a conlusion on a generality in total defiance of logic and common-sense and expect people to swallow it. You misled investors when you told them BMF was indemnified against capital loss by CPA. You'd said yourself just recently that the contract (with acceleration) had no material value and that even IF there was no acceleration it wouldn't indemnify BMF (amusingly I don't agree with this - but will accept your word on it for the purpose this specific allegation). How is telling them something which isn't true (according to you) anything other than misleading? And where did BCB agree that charge had no merit? I agree that SOME of the accusations against you are unjustified and that others wouldn't deserve a scammer tag even if proven (as even if true they only amount to simple error and/or incompetence). The problem anyone investigating has is working out which claims have no merit and which need further examination. Which isn't helped when you usually focus on the unjustified ones then claim that somehow proves you're innocent on the others - and then we're back to square one except now you continue to insist your innocence has been proven on things that were never even discussed. |
|
|
|
47.5% of the profits made will be reinvested into buying more shares and increasing our market capitalisation as well as increasing dividends.
In my opinion, this is not a good idea. Funds should return all income as dividends. If you need to increase the size of the fund, you can always sell more shares at NAV. Or retain it ALL for growth. A mix of dividending some and retaining some pretty much offers the worst of both worlds. All dividends gives investors most control over their money. All growth means investors don't have to DO something with dividends all the time to avoid cash sitting idle - plus it allows them very clearly to see the overall performance of the fund (just look at how NAV/U as changed sinced investing). Personally I prefer growth - so long as the fund offers good liquidity (absolutely key). You can then sell units if you want cash with (effectively) automatic zero-fee reinvestment if you don't. If no operator-provided liquidity then divended probably better - as at least you get something back if you want out but there's no buyers. |
|
|
|
What puzzles me is how freicoin is ever expected to take off and gain a wide user-base.
You are 100% correct, they have a huge challenge in finding a use case. Honestly this is one reason I'm defending their decision to distribute a large number of coins through a grant system. I can think of several uses like rewards-points that work if you have a large initial supply to give out promotionally, and if they are never used the value will slowly seep back in. One key to long term success will be to either have the project mine themselves, or cater in some way to the mining community to get the mining proceeds back into the non-mining community. It's the same problem as coinage in England during the Industrial Revolution. Coins flowed to London and stayed there, and the country as a whole was suffering a lack of small change that resulted in private local currencies that pick up the slack. Currencies are mostly local in some way, I think FRC and other bitcoin forks are going to get drawn to a locality (either physical or online community type) or more and more localities will create their own cryptocurrancies. I don't think we are going to see a few BTC clones, I think we are going to see thousands of coins/notes/certificates/coupons/shares of every description. I tend to agree that the grant system makes some sense given the barriers they otherwise face in getting people to actually use the coins. But the grant system kind of makes using bitcoin a strange choice. The usability issues in bitcoin are largely due to requirements imposed by being decentralised (e.g. waiting for confirmations, when a centralised system can immediately confirm). By having a large number of coins centrally controlled there's no way some of the main benefits of decentralisation can be achieved - everyone HAS to trust the body controlling those coins. So that body may as well be an issuing authority as well. But I guess miners etc aren't willing to pay fiat to buy coins from a central body - but will happily pay fiat for electricity and hardware to mine them for 'free' whilst a central body owns and controls a large chunk of extant coins without having 'paid' for them. I do agree that we'll likely see thousands of different BTC-type block-chains for all manner of purposes. Well - we may not actually SEE them - as a lot will be for specific purposes only of interest to a very small group of people who want to track some specific right/ownership/entitlement in a semi-anonymous way without a central point of failure. |
|
|
|
https://btct.co/security/BTCIBitcoin Investments - Mining stocks Investment fund To use the proceeds of the IPO to buy shares in mainly in bitcoin based mining stocks with a strong organic growth plan. To focus on the soon to be five listed mining stocks on the exchange. We will also look into other bitcoin securities with a strong growth plan also on other exchanges. We will try to avoid bonds. 47.5% of the profits made will be reinvested into buying more shares and increasing our market capitalisation as well as increasing dividends. It could be decided by motion to increase this amount but not decrease it until our market capitalisation is too large or the fund staff can earn a full time living wage by working for the fund. Another 47.5% will be paid out in dividends. With 5% being paid to the fund operators. The funds operators will receive 1% of all shares created. 25,000 shares will be created and issued at 0.01BTC. Any future share issues will be decided by motion. Any major shareholder can ask for a motion and any group of small shareholders can ask for a motion. The only motions not allowed unless agreed to by the fund operators are on decreasing the growth fund, on closing the fund down or replacing the chief operator (Matthew Holt). Accounts Spreadsheet - https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ap02rO_j4NLvdGtoZlhpNHZiOXNIMldIU2xsUHkxLVE A few issues (mainly minor) that hopefully you can fix before unlocking the assets for mods to vote on : 1. You say you'll invest mainly in securities that have a "strong organic growth plan". Could you please explain the difference between this and a "strongth growth plan" and how your fund works out whether growth is organic rather than inorganic? i.e. is "organic" just a buzzword you threw in or does it have some significant meaning? 2. You say "The funds operators will receive 1% of all shares created". Do you actually mean this - or do you mean 1% of all shares sold? As written you'd start off with 250 shares - meaning you'd own 100% of the fund , 50% after 250 shares were sold etc. 3. You need a close-down plan. 4. As it claims to be a fund, how is liquidity being provided? Will some means be provided for investors to sell back their shares at near to NAV/U? This is of particular concern since the initial tranches of shares being sold is fairly large (more than your lTC fund has sold in the 3 months+ it has been running) so there'll be a price ceiling but no floor is being set. 5. Is the price of the first 25000 share going to stay fixed at 1.0 even if NAV/U significantly changes? If so then that prevents any growth in price if NAV/U rises - and means investors have no way to realise any value from increased NAV/U until the whole 25000 have sold out. It also means if NAV/U falls you have to continue selling units at 1.0 - even when it's become unrealistic/unattractive- making it very hard to sell any more (as happened with your LTC fund for a few months). 6. What is the policy on the price of extra shares issued after the first 25000? 7. What is the fund's policy on buying back shares on the market (linked a bit, but not entirely, to point 4)? Are managerial shares returned in ratio if this happens? Is there any restriction on whether the manager can sell the shares he is given (obviously relates to previous sentence)? 8. Do you have any policy on spreading risk / limiting risk per asset and /or per issuer (where one person issues multiple assets)? 9. Will you only invest in BTC-denominated assets or will you also invest in ones denominated in other crypto-currencies (presently that would be mainly LTC - but obviously that could change over time)? 9. There should be a statement in the contract that you won't invest in any other asset managed by yourself (it's banned under BTC.CO rules anyway - but should be explicitly stated).On point 8 you need to make sure you understand the (exchange's) restrictions on long-term investment companies -as your LTC fund is in breach of them. Main ones are no investing in other stuff you manage and no investing in other long-term investment funds (the 2nd one is what your LTC fund has broken - by holding DMF). To explain why that rule exists (from my recollection of discussion at the time) any investor in your fund is paying THREE management fees on dividends from assets invested in by DMF's - the asset's own fees, DMF's management fee and then yours on top. Plus you're charging a fee to manage the fund, then delegating responsibility for investment decisions on a portion of the fund to DMF's management but still taking a fee on the proceeds from that. Plus your fund's exposure to risk per asset/ asset issuer is no longer entirely in your hands (as you gain/lose exposure when DMF changes its investments). Plus if you can invest in DMF then DMF could invest in you - then we'd have a feedback situation where both of your prices could move together in an unrealistic manner due entirely to changes in one feeding back to the other and then repeatedly going through the same cycle. I'm not trying to put you off running the fund - just want to make sure everything's clear before you start. If this is the case can I cancel my request and get a refund please? I will build these features into RSM instead in the long term if I can as long as investors agree. Although I think its unlikely we'll invest in any other mining outfits apart from what we're doing with the RSM dividend investment fund via Pyraming. Thanks for the post I had answers for all the questions until I got to the last question. BTW by organic growth I meant using company profits to be reinvested to grow rather than stimulating growth through acquiring debts to seed the growth. Also the 1% share payment would have been based on issued shares sold from the original IPO lot. So as 1 share to be paid as every 100 shares were sold. Please pay refund to - 1KEvvdeY6GfPTTY8qVnqvo1fKjpTZPV8pJ - Thanks. Yes it is the case - from Asset Issuer terms of service ( https://btct.co/create): "Securities created by the same issuer or organization, in cooperation with the same issuer or organization, or in collusion with the issuer or organization are not to invest in each other on BTC-TC." Long-term investment securities are not to invest more than 20% of their portfolio into any other single security on BTC-TC. Long-term investment securities are not to own more than 20% of the outstanding shares of any other single security on BTC-TC." |
|
|
|
|
What puzzles me is how freicoin is ever expected to take off and gain a wide user-base.
It's intentionally designed to discourage hoarding/saving. But it's not as though there aren't other currencies which can be used to hoard/save. So it won't discourage hoarding/saving - it'll just force people to use a different currency (e.g. BTC) to do their hoarding/saving in.
Of itself that's not a problem - except WHAT is meant to encourage people to then convert back to FC to actually trade?
Is it cheaper to use for trading? Not very likely if you have to convert to and from it before and after trading.
Is it easier to use for trading? Doesn't seem likely - as it's pretty much (correct me if I'm wrong) based on BTC, so isn't going to be offering any great usabaility benefits. And it has an inherent disadvantage when it comes to ease of use - that if you want to buy something for 1000 FC you need to actually acquire slightly over 1000 FC.
Are there some really great things than can ONLY be bought with FC? Not that I've noticed.
So it seems to be that for the majority of people there's just going to be no incentive to ever use FC for transacting - and a big disincentive to use it for saving. What other use does it have?
It may be good for miners - until they find noone else uses it so they can't sell it. And true-believers will obviously stick with it to the bitter end. But that's likely not enough big enough base to build a thriving currency on long-term.
The only scenario in which I can see it doing well is if it manages to steadily gain in price vs BTC (through speculation(. And at that point it's failed as an experiment anyway - as it's turned into a good store of value and the whole demurrage experiment has failed to deliver its stated objective.
IF FC were the ONLY viable crypto-currency then maybe it could work - but with non-demurrage alternatives available it just hasn't got any way to make people spend rather than save. All it can do is force people not to use it (save in BTC or whatever) - and condemn itself to a slow death. If the only people with FC are ones who want to spend their FC (the ones who don't want to spend not using it) then there's noone buying them. If there weren't alternatives then some people would have to accept the price of demurrage to save - but as there ARE alternatives those people will just use the alternatives, leaving noone who wants to accept FC as they have noone they can reliably pass it on to (or echange it to fiat/BTC with to pay bills that can't be paid in FC).
|
|
|
|
Usagi
Could you please confirm that you live in Japan.
Usagi doesn't live in Japan - he just likes to claim to be a Japanese female. He's in Republic of China (Taiwan). |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
