Well, they say "buy on the rumor, sell on the news"
+1 One of the oldest trading mantras, out there. |
|
|
|
Oh, i see whats happened here now.  Academic theorizing vs Real world application. Being a practical man myself, im going with the latter. It's not that at all. It's really just basic mathematics. You are assuming that as a business we sell X BTC a day, when in fact if BTC value goes up we still sell around our daily USD average and the # of total BTC sold actually goes down.
I believe that is exactly what Deprived is pointing out. When the price of BTC goes up, you sell LESS BTC, even if your USD sales are the same or growing. Your profits may look the same (or better) in USD, but dividends (shareholder portion of profits) are paid out in BTC, so you will end up paying out less BTC to shareholders. In his post, Ascension seems to be looking at this only from the standpoint of profits in USD, but shareholders only care about the amount of profit once it's converted back to BTC and paid out. Therefore, as with all businesses earning USD and paying dividends in BTC, shareholders must weigh the potential returns against simply holding BTC. Once everyone is on board with this concept, it might be worthwhile to discuss possible ways to protect shareholders by hedging against the currency risk. Yes - a rise in price won't reduce profit in USD, but it will in BTC. Ascension proves my point when he says if BTC value rises they still sell same USD average - meaning BTC sales have dropped. If BTC price doubles then USD value of sales would need to double to keep BTC profits at same level. And that's not possible when sales are constrained by capital and the capital is in USD (with the exception noted in next paragraph). The exception is where capital is not already being fully utilised - in that situation a rise doesn't necessarily reduce BTC profits. That was likely the case during the previous bubble/crash of BTC. But we know it's no longer the case as Ascension has mentioned having to sell more shares to increase capital - which wouldn't make sense if there was already sufficient capital for a significant expansion in sales. Pretty sad if the issuer doesn't even realise that the asset is actually USD denominated in practice - guess it'll take BTC rising and divdends falling for him to work out that if BTC rises vs USD then the same amount of USD becomes worth less BTC (which is all you actually need to know to realise that any asset whose revenue is constrained by capital and where capital is in USD MUST be USD-denominated in practice). So you say Ascension proves your point, and then you end by saying he doesn't realise your point. Over-explanatory, inconsistent, and childish. Nice.  If you look back in the main thread youll find I raised this issue back when the security launched. If 6 months later he still hasnt understood it then maybe my position is a bit more undrstandable. Or maybe he does understand it and just doesnt want to confirm to investors that if btc rises a lot vs usd theyll end up a lot worse off than if they just held btc. Dont really understand what the agenda is Deprived. Its getting boring now. Accept my apologies then. It must be frustrating when you cant understand things and so have to waste time worrying about motives rather than just accepting free education. You apologise, and then attempt to belittle. Bit childish don't you think? Wait, you need to do that because of my lack of insight, intellect, and experience, right? Your over-consuming agenda has discombobulated your judgement/s, me ole fruit-cake.  Anyway, no more from me. |
|
|
|
Oh, i see whats happened here now. Academic theorizing vs Real world application. Being a practical man myself, im going with the latter. It's not that at all. It's really just basic mathematics. You are assuming that as a business we sell X BTC a day, when in fact if BTC value goes up we still sell around our daily USD average and the # of total BTC sold actually goes down.
I believe that is exactly what Deprived is pointing out. When the price of BTC goes up, you sell LESS BTC, even if your USD sales are the same or growing. Your profits may look the same (or better) in USD, but dividends (shareholder portion of profits) are paid out in BTC, so you will end up paying out less BTC to shareholders. In his post, Ascension seems to be looking at this only from the standpoint of profits in USD, but shareholders only care about the amount of profit once it's converted back to BTC and paid out. Therefore, as with all businesses earning USD and paying dividends in BTC, shareholders must weigh the potential returns against simply holding BTC. Once everyone is on board with this concept, it might be worthwhile to discuss possible ways to protect shareholders by hedging against the currency risk. Yes - a rise in price won't reduce profit in USD, but it will in BTC. Ascension proves my point when he says if BTC value rises they still sell same USD average - meaning BTC sales have dropped. If BTC price doubles then USD value of sales would need to double to keep BTC profits at same level. And that's not possible when sales are constrained by capital and the capital is in USD (with the exception noted in next paragraph). The exception is where capital is not already being fully utilised - in that situation a rise doesn't necessarily reduce BTC profits. That was likely the case during the previous bubble/crash of BTC. But we know it's no longer the case as Ascension has mentioned having to sell more shares to increase capital - which wouldn't make sense if there was already sufficient capital for a significant expansion in sales. Pretty sad if the issuer doesn't even realise that the asset is actually USD denominated in practice - guess it'll take BTC rising and divdends falling for him to work out that if BTC rises vs USD then the same amount of USD becomes worth less BTC (which is all you actually need to know to realise that any asset whose revenue is constrained by capital and where capital is in USD MUST be USD-denominated in practice). So you say Ascension proves your point, and then you end by saying he doesn't realise your point. Over-explanatory, inconsistent, and childish. Nice. If you look back in the main thread youll find I raised this issue back when the security launched. If 6 months later he still hasnt understood it then maybe my position is a bit more undrstandable. Or maybe he does understand it and just doesnt want to confirm to investors that if btc rises a lot vs usd theyll end up a lot worse off than if they just held btc. Dont really understand what the agenda is Deprived. Its getting boring now. |
|
|
|
Yes - a rise in price won't reduce profit in USD, but it will in BTC.
Ascension proves my point when he says if BTC value rises they still sell same USD average - meaning BTC sales have dropped. If BTC price doubles then USD value of sales would need to double to keep BTC profits at same level. And that's not possible when sales are constrained by capital and the capital is in USD (with the exception noted in next paragraph).
The exception is where capital is not already being fully utilised - in that situation a rise doesn't necessarily reduce BTC profits. That was likely the case during the previous bubble/crash of BTC. But we know it's no longer the case as Ascension has mentioned having to sell more shares to increase capital - which wouldn't make sense if there was already sufficient capital for a significant expansion in sales.
Pretty sad if the issuer doesn't even realise that the asset is actually USD denominated in practice - guess it'll take BTC rising and divdends falling for him to work out that if BTC rises vs USD then the same amount of USD becomes worth less BTC (which is all you actually need to know to realise that any asset whose revenue is constrained by capital and where capital is in USD MUST be USD-denominated in practice).
So you say Ascension proves your point, and then you end by saying he doesn't realise your point. Over-explanatory, inconsistent, and childish. Nice. Doesn't matter, he's still got a point. Rising BTC + Same sales volume in USD = Same dividends in USD but lower dividends in BTC. Not saying that btcQuick will pay lower dividends anytime soon, but it's something to be aware of. ....and those dividends will increase in value because BTC will be worth more.  Point is that if btc rises a lot vs usd then holding the shares will perform worse than just holding btc. Thats why this and all other usd denominated investments have to be considered as a short on btc. That doesnt mean theyre bad investments just that investors need to be aware that theyre betting against btc by investing in a manner that will perform worse than just holding btc if btc rises vs usd faster thsn the business grows profits. Apologies for miissing apostrophes am on phone and too lazy to swap to symbols. We get it. Thanks. |
|
|
|
Yes - a rise in price won't reduce profit in USD, but it will in BTC.
Ascension proves my point when he says if BTC value rises they still sell same USD average - meaning BTC sales have dropped. If BTC price doubles then USD value of sales would need to double to keep BTC profits at same level. And that's not possible when sales are constrained by capital and the capital is in USD (with the exception noted in next paragraph).
The exception is where capital is not already being fully utilised - in that situation a rise doesn't necessarily reduce BTC profits. That was likely the case during the previous bubble/crash of BTC. But we know it's no longer the case as Ascension has mentioned having to sell more shares to increase capital - which wouldn't make sense if there was already sufficient capital for a significant expansion in sales.
Pretty sad if the issuer doesn't even realise that the asset is actually USD denominated in practice - guess it'll take BTC rising and divdends falling for him to work out that if BTC rises vs USD then the same amount of USD becomes worth less BTC (which is all you actually need to know to realise that any asset whose revenue is constrained by capital and where capital is in USD MUST be USD-denominated in practice).
So you say Ascension proves your point, and then you end by saying he doesn't realise your point. Over-explanatory, inconsistent, and childish. Nice. Doesn't matter, he's still got a point. Rising BTC + Same sales volume in USD = Same dividends in USD but lower dividends in BTC. Not saying that btcQuick will pay lower dividends anytime soon, but it's something to be aware of. ....and those dividends will increase in value because BTC will be worth more. |
|
|
|
Oh, i see whats happened here now. Academic theorizing vs Real world application. Being a practical man myself, im going with the latter. It's not that at all. It's really just basic mathematics. You are assuming that as a business we sell X BTC a day, when in fact if BTC value goes up we still sell around our daily USD average and the # of total BTC sold actually goes down.
I believe that is exactly what Deprived is pointing out. When the price of BTC goes up, you sell LESS BTC, even if your USD sales are the same or growing. Your profits may look the same (or better) in USD, but dividends (shareholder portion of profits) are paid out in BTC, so you will end up paying out less BTC to shareholders. In his post, Ascension seems to be looking at this only from the standpoint of profits in USD, but shareholders only care about the amount of profit once it's converted back to BTC and paid out. Therefore, as with all businesses earning USD and paying dividends in BTC, shareholders must weigh the potential returns against simply holding BTC. Once everyone is on board with this concept, it might be worthwhile to discuss possible ways to protect shareholders by hedging against the currency risk. Yes - a rise in price won't reduce profit in USD, but it will in BTC. Ascension proves my point when he says if BTC value rises they still sell same USD average - meaning BTC sales have dropped. If BTC price doubles then USD value of sales would need to double to keep BTC profits at same level. And that's not possible when sales are constrained by capital and the capital is in USD (with the exception noted in next paragraph). The exception is where capital is not already being fully utilised - in that situation a rise doesn't necessarily reduce BTC profits. That was likely the case during the previous bubble/crash of BTC. But we know it's no longer the case as Ascension has mentioned having to sell more shares to increase capital - which wouldn't make sense if there was already sufficient capital for a significant expansion in sales. Pretty sad if the issuer doesn't even realise that the asset is actually USD denominated in practice - guess it'll take BTC rising and divdends falling for him to work out that if BTC rises vs USD then the same amount of USD becomes worth less BTC (which is all you actually need to know to realise that any asset whose revenue is constrained by capital and where capital is in USD MUST be USD-denominated in practice). So you say Ascension proves your point, and then you end by saying he doesn't realise your point. Over-explanatory, inconsistent, and childish. Nice. |
|
|
|
isup.me says down now. Just got 522 error meself.
Ditto. Litecoinglobal is playing up as well. |
|
|
|
Oh, i see whats happened here now. Academic theorizing vs Real world application. Being a practical man myself, im going with the latter. |
|
|
|
Wow.. Wonder what stripykitteh makes of this.. Anyways, it is not my intention to take time away from your fund management at all, especially since I invest in your fund as well and wish all the best for your fund. For some reason all my questions turn into conclusions and accusations once you quote them and the real questions remain unanswered to me so I'll just live with it ... I understand that since you are looking to launch a fund of your own, it would naturally be in your interest to occupy my time as much as possible with extended discussions about basic accounting and even your accusations that I am "making it very easy to run a Ponzi out of this". It was and never will be my intention to do such a thing. Nothing I can say against it though, so I will stop "wasting" your precious time. Lastly and for the record: I think you are running an honest fund here and I wish you all the best with it (and my btc ). This might come as a surprise but my questions all were meant to do good not harm. All the best, Nicely put, Sir. |
|
|
|
But surely, increased revenues from new users, which is what we are seeing, negates/off sets a possible rise in BTC. Together with the option to sell, means even more revenue. I get the conversion conundrum.....RentalStarter is another good example, but what am i over looking here, if the goal is to keep increasing revenues/dividends?....which is being achieved in style, btw.
Unfortunately not the case here. Revenue is limited by capital - increasing revenue means capital has to increase (either by retaining profits to expand or by issuing new shares). If revenue wasn't constrained by capital then a case could be made that the security wasn't USD-denominated (as although capital would still drop that wouldn't impact revenue). But that's not the case here - as revenue is very directly limited by capital (because of the delay in receiving payments in a usable form). And so a rise in BTC/USD rate doesn't just reduce capital (measured in BTC) but also reduces the amount of revenue that can be supported (again measured in BTC) and so the profits (in BTC). All of those things that reduce when measured in BTC stay the same when measured in USD - which is as clear a demonstration as you can get that the security is, in practice, USD-denominated. If BTC rises significantly vs USD what you'll see happen is one of two things - either: Profits will fall. or More shares will have to sold to get capital (in BTC) back to where it was - allowing profits to be the same but diluting them when measured in BTC/share terms. If accounts were being produced then this would be pretty obvious (and I could explain it with actual numbers) - but they aren't, so it isn't. Then its an issue of how you manage the capital, because as you rightly say, capital cannot be held as BTC anyway. I have no idea how Acsension manages and moves funds around, but im assuming held capital can be $-averaged or hedged in some way?? Again, i understand the valid explanation to a large degree, but when we have seen BTC crash, and then double again, against BTCQuick's consistent figures, we are not seeing the above being played out. Would/could the 'sell' facility negate this issue? |
|
|
|
Now trading over 0.00050 and rising. Still a company valued at around $3 million that is on track to 20% monthly dividends with 20%+ month over month growth. Should probably conservatively be valued at around 5x current share price.
Disclaimer: Obviously I am a share holder and still buying. More a guppy than a whale but this one is just printing money. If August finishes as it started we should see share price over 0.0001 within a week and a lot higher as reports come in weekly.
0.0001 OR 0.001 ? Fat fingered a zero, obviously I meant 0.001, though at the pace people are opening their eyes to the growth, dividend and future potential I don't think that is enough anymore. $20 million would be a "fair" valuation based on $400k sales @ 5% margin for August and I think we are about to see just that. Would mean around 0.004 for the stock from current 0.0007 The thing a lot of the optimists are forgetting is that this is a USD-denominated security not a BTC-denominated one. If BTC rises sharply vs USD then this ends up losing value fast (measured in BTC). That's because: 1. The assets of the company are held in USD - so drop in BTC value when BTC rises. 2. The capital needed to maintain same profitability rises when BTC rises - and either more capital has to be raised (by selling more shares) or profits (in BTC) fall (despite remaining same in USD). Both ways has the impact of reducing dividend/share. So whilst this security performs very well when BTC/USD rate is fairly stable that will cease to be the case if BTC rises significantly vs USD. And that reduces its value massively to anyone who believes BTC WILL rise vs USD - as profits have to outstrip the likely growth in price of BTC for it to even be worth considering. As a means of shorting BTC it's great though - decent income AND a very solid short on BTC (if BTC falls vs USD then the opposite to the above applies - and share value in BTC should go through the roof). Just be very careful not to make the mistake of believing this to be (in practice) a BTC-denominated investment. If you buy dollars with BTC your investment does NOT become BTC-denominated. This is not entirely true for btcquick as this is kinda unique kind a "USD/BTC-denominated" security. You always get your cut from the actual rate and not fixed one that you would have payed at the IPO and converted in into USD. Think about it as this if we would take our cut from BTC the same exact thing as you described would happen to USD-denominated security would happen to us. Because if price of BTC/USD rises naturally the amount of BTC bought/traded would go down. It has nothing to do with where the cut is taken from, but from which currency capital is held in. For this security that's USD not BTC (confirmed by the issuer not too many posts back) - BTC are only held briefly when needed to fill an order. So when the exchange-rate moves, the USD value of capital remains stable and the BTC value changes. I'm not criticising the decision to do that - in fact there's no way capital COULD be held as BTC (because when a purchaser places an order there's no way to immediately convert their USD into BTC - those funds are locked in USD for a while until received from the payment processor and moved to an exchange). If BTC were to double against USD then the effect would be to halve capital when measured in BTC (in USD it would be unchanged). That means that whilst the same trade volume could be supported in USD, only half the volume could be supported in BTC. Which means profit in BTC would be halved (though would be same in USD). Trade volume is constrained by capital due to payments from purchasers having a delay imposed on them before they're available for use - and we know volume is already near/at that limit. But surely, increased revenues from new users, which is what we are seeing, negates/off sets a possible rise in BTC. Together with the option to sell, means even more revenue. I get the conversion conundrum.....RentalStarter is another good example, but what am i over looking here, if the goal is to keep increasing revenues/dividends?....which is being achieved in style, btw. |
|
|
|
Now trading over 0.00050 and rising. Still a company valued at around $3 million that is on track to 20% monthly dividends with 20%+ month over month growth. Should probably conservatively be valued at around 5x current share price.
Disclaimer: Obviously I am a share holder and still buying. More a guppy than a whale but this one is just printing money. If August finishes as it started we should see share price over 0.0001 within a week and a lot higher as reports come in weekly.
Agreed Swede. We're just 25 btc from .0006 now! I am investing as my ASIC mine Long term Bull in Labcoin of course but outside of that project BTCQuick is one of the only really CLEAR possible 10x+ shares out there. 100% monthly growth for several months with increasing dividends, how do you beat that? I think a lot of people are so used to have to calculate in crazy risk in hardware projects and mining operations with dividends crashing cue to Diff increase etc. that they don't quite realize what the kind of growth that BTCQuick shows is worth. Edit: Maybe I should have kept my big mouth shut. Stock is taking off and I am not done buying yet Next block of 50k is at 0.0007 and 0.00075 though. Might be worth picking them off as well, if the previous 2 months pattern repeats we will see it passing 0.001 next dividend (unless dividend increases of course... hrm) My sentiments entirely. Looking further ahead, we would probably need to see the orders/revenue x10 from current levels, but BTCQuick is really starting to look attractive to existing bitcoin, and non-bitcoin outfits, who want to operate in this space. Just need that 'sell' button to work now. |
|
|
|
So, is there a problem with the certificate (and the security), or is it a problem with Firefox?
I'm not logging in unless I know I'm talking to bitfunder!
It's a problem with Bitfunder. Firefox seems to have more rigorous SSL certificate verification than chrome which you can disable, but then you may not know you're talking to Bitfunder. Got same error message again, using FF (v23.0.1) this morning. Had to revert to Safari again, to log in. |
|
|
|
I saw that earlier, and actually laughed out loud. |
|
|
|
Stuartuk Just cant help yourself can you?  I honestly don't know what you mean. I can't help from tackling micebeaker? Well I fully intend to tackle his every post but it's not a compulsion. How about respecting peoples right not to read nonsense, by not copying their nonsense on your reply? Double + 1 Is that a joke or are you a bit confused? Yes, confused by your inability to not be a hypocrite. Respectfully, me ole China, you are ignored. |
|
|
|
Stuartuk Just cant help yourself can you? I honestly don't know what you mean. I can't help from tackling micebeaker? Well I fully intend to tackle his every post but it's not a compulsion. How about respecting peoples right not to read nonsense, by not copying their nonsense on your reply? |
|
|
|
Stuartuk Just cant help yourself can you? |
|
|
|
Exiting, where?
There is not the corresponding selling pressure on bitstamp.
This. It's true that tens of k's are leaving Gox, but they are not showing up on Bitstamp at all. And this have been going on for months now. Just check the order books. serious question: any idea on where are they going ? Not to any exchange. Cold storage I'd say. LocalBitcoin |
|
|
|
One smacked hand smacks another's.
This is what I'm thinking. Gerald probably said too much and Ken doesn't want to get in trouble so he's denying it. Others may be skeptical, but I really don't see why VolcanicEruptor would make up a lie like that to "pump and dump" the stock -- if he wanted to dump he could have sold his shares at the top of the bubble when there was the controversy about his share transfer to BTC-TC. Just the mere fact that you could afford yourself the power to influence a price, is motive enough for some individuals. The fact you could financially benefit as well, could easily be secondary to a given ego, me thinks. |
|
|
|
|
zif33rs
That contract you have referred to, appeared to have a time-limit associated with it originally, and that other party/s were interested in it, as well as yourself/HM. Am i correct in assuming there has been an agreement to extend its offering (the mining contract)? If so, why do you think the contract is still available?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
