|
In view of the imminent closure of BTC-TC and LTC-Global, LTC-ATF will be closing its doors. In theory we could move to another exchange - but there's nowhere which supports securities denominated in LTC so a major restructure would be needed with a massive change to the contract.
The following will happen today, assuming the exchanges are up and the necessary functionality works:
1. All bonds will be recalled at face value. The contracts are explicit that redemption is at face value in the event that LTC-ATF closes.
2. I will buy out all LTC-ATF shares at the NAV/U as of yesterday. The adjusted NAV/U (i.e. post management fee) was 0.69148904 LTC per share.
This is an expedited version of the closure procedure defined in the contract. If I were to strictly follow the contract then bonds would be paid out now (once I was sure all funds were going to be accessible) then LTC-ATF investors would get back cash slowly as shares were sold. Some of the investments we hold are NOT going to sell for full value - e.g. the 500 LTCI we picked up a day or 2 ago to flip (which will lose a load of value because of holdings LTC-GLobal shares which obviously aren't going to be worth a lot). There would also be signficant delays realising some assets - e.g. the BMF shares where I can't sell them back for nearly 2 months.
As maximum losses are under 100 BTC I've decided I'll just eat whatever losses there are myself and save my self the hassle of sending small bits out as we sell stuff - and then having to send out to lots of people directly after October. I'd hope all investors would appreciate that this isn't something I was obliged to do, will definitely cost me some BTC (probably only 20-25 BTC unless usagi defaults on the BMF deal) and is better for investors than if I stuck rigidly to the contract.
Those of you who invested at the start will have made very slightly under 900% profit denominated in LTC, 5550% denominated in BTC and something with even more digits if you measure it in USD. Thanks for your support - and hope you're happy with the return you received for putting your trust in me. For those who invested more recently, buying at well above NAV/U, I can only apologise for your losses.
DMS will be dealt with seperately in its own thread.
For the BBET and MPOE pass-throughs, for now I'll fill any asks where I can sell at that price into orders on MPEx. Down the line I'd be aiming to do a forced buyback before LTC-Global gos offline at whatever price I can sell the underlying at. I'll address those in more detail once I've got the easy ones (bonds and LTC-ATF itself) out of the way.
|
|
|
|
|
In view of the imminent closure of BTC-TC and LTC-Global, LTC-ATF will be closing its doors. In theory we could move to another exchange - but there's nowhere which supports securities denominated in LTC so a major restructure would be needed with a massive change to the contract.
The following will happen today, assuming the exchanges are up and the necessary functionality works:
1. All bonds will be recalled at face value. The contracts are explicit that redemption is at face value in the event that LTC-ATF closes.
2. I will buy out all LTC-ATF shares at the NAV/U as of yesterday. The adjusted NAV/U (i.e. post management fee) was 0.69148904 LTC per share.
This is an expedited version of the closure procedure defined in the contract. If I were to strictly follow the contract then bonds would be paid out now (once I was sure all funds were going to be accessible) then LTC-ATF investors would get back cash slowly as shares were sold. Some of the investments we hold are NOT going to sell for full value - e.g. the 500 LTCI we picked up a day or 2 ago to flip (which will lose a load of value because of holdings LTC-GLobal shares which obviously aren't going to be worth a lot). There would also be signficant delays realising some assets - e.g. the BMF shares where I can't sell them back for nearly 2 months.
As maximum losses are under 100 BTC I've decided I'll just eat whatever losses there are myself and save my self the hassle of sending small bits out as we sell stuff - and then having to send out to lots of people directly after October. I'd hope all investors would appreciate that this isn't something I was obliged to do, will definitely cost me some BTC (probably only 20-25 BTC unless usagi defaults on the BMF deal) and is better for investors than if I stuck rigidly to the contract.
Those of you who invested at the start will have made very slightly under 900% profit denominated in LTC, 5550% denominated in BTC and something with even more digits if you measure it in USD. Thanks for your support - and hope you're happy with the return you received for putting your trust in me. For those who invested more recently, buying at well above NAV/U, I can only apologise for your losses.
DMS will be dealt with seperately in its own thread.
For the BBET and MPOE pass-throughs, for now I'll fill any asks where I can sell at that price into orders on MPEx. Down the line I'd be aiming to do a forced buyback before LTC-Global gos offline at whatever price I can sell the underlying at. I'll address those in more detail once I've got the easy ones (bonds and LTC-ATF itself) out of the way.
|
|
|
|
|
Will need to consider carefully how to proceed from here.
In principle the options are :
1. Move to another exchange,
2. Close down - and distribute funds approximately in ratio to what market prices were just before the announcement.
Problem with #2 is it's going to be hard to have any sort of rational discussion over how much should go to mining and selling as everyone with an opinion likely has a lot of one and not much of the other so isn't unbiased. Market prices is the only way to go - as those represent the prices people were happy to hold at (noone was trying hard to buy more of whichever they held or was desperate to sell into bids - or they'd have done so).
If problems arise with recovering investments then loss/delay from that MUST go to SELLING not MINING as SELLING were always getting the benefit from investment.
A few things seem pretty obvious immediately:
1. No new investments should be made.
2. Where investments can be cashed out they should be - so there's no further changes in NAV/U.
3. Debatably I should withdraw all funds to a BTC wallet under my control and only return them when distribution is to occur.
4. Trading will be disabled on PURCHASE - I won't sell more shares now obviously and also I can't redeem them until I'm sure all investments are safe and will be recoverable. It would be bad form if I allowed sale back of PURCHASE then found we couldn't get one investment back and so those who had sold back had received more than their fair share.
5. Similar to 4 I won't be redeeming pairs of MINING+SELLING.
This isn't a situation explicitly covered in the contract - but rest assured I'll resolve it in the fairest way I can.
|
|
|
|
To answer elm, given that dooglus should have site profits of ten million btc by now but is struggling to hold 2000, I think what I have to say is worthwhile to him.
Not sure where the 10 million btc expected profit comes from. That's got a few too many 0s in it. |
|
|
|
I think all the fancy math and assumptions unneeded. Variance is extreme due to a very small # of very large bets. The answer is to lessen the max bet size while still staying significantly bigger than competition so as not to lose players. Nearest competition is 20BTC max profit. We were as high as 550 BTC.
Max bet will sort itself out - as investors who can't take the variance withdraw. If max bet is lowered then less bank-roll is needed. There's a mechanism in place that already adjusts max bet down to whatever variance investors are willing to accept. And remember that loweing the max bet (unless done massively) doesn't actually change the range of likely outcomes all that much - it just means its done with smaller numbers. Most bets will still be tiny compared to the max and the outcome will still be determined by the few players betting near the new max. Just expected profit will be lower and actual profit/loss will be smaller. If you try to design something where there's low variance then you're explicitly trying to define parameters that make the site unattractive to gamblers. High variance is what they want - the chance that the house can lose - as without that they're just donating money. |
|
|
|
@usagi That being said my rates are exceedingly cheap.what is cheap? as I want to open an online casino I would be interested in Your opinion. I know what is wrong with JD. lets say I think I know and as I want to be sure I really would be interested in Your opinion. so how much  cheers I think the answer is to simply put in a hard cap for the max profit. So it can be 1% of the bankroll up until X. X can be 50 BTC or 100 BTC or whatever. This would decrease variance significantly. At the same time, Just-Dice would still have the highest max profit of any site. I mean, when put nearest competitors have a max profit of 20BTC and we were over 550 BTC, something is maybe wrong. Then simply multi-accounting would bypass the limit. I think the issues is the cap is so high that martingales are highly probably to work for those with extremely large bankrolls. A more sane limit would decrease the effectiveness of that strategy. We just need to be a better deal than the competition (which as I said has a max profit of 20 BTC per bet). Having a straight 1% max profit is extreme. I would also be interested in determining if the results we have seen are statisically probable but I do not have the statistics background to do so confidently. I do not think Dooglus is cheating or the server is compromised (meaning is playing under alt names are giving out server seed). In that case, if the results turn out to be statistically improbable, is there any explanation as to why beyond a compromised server seed? The results we've seen aren't statistically probable - in that they aren't a likely outcome. But what valid math I've seen indicates that they aren't so unlikely as to suggest a problem. If something has a 1 in 10 or 1 in 20 chance of happening then is there a problem if it happens? Is it (your phrase) "statistically probable"? If there is a problem then, ignoring server compromise/dooglus cheating, then the obvious issue would be if the RNG had a (even small) flaw in it. For example if the odds of a high number after 2 low rolls was different than the odds of a high number after 2 high rolls. Any flaw such as that could potentially make an otherwise normal (i.e. losing) strategy into a winning one (one with a positive expectation) - either through blind luck or as the result of careful analysis. |
|
|
|
The Kelly Criterion derives from a model that differs from JD's real situation in a couple of important ways.
First, in the Kelly model, the player with the edge controls the betting. Since he has an edge, he keeps on betting. In contrast, with JD the house has the edge but must wait passively for the whales to bet. Since the whales don't have an edge, they can and should stop when they're ahead.
Second, the Kelly model runs on "bet time", where the unit of time is one bet. The Kelly Criterion maximizes the return over the number of bets. In contrast, JD runs on "calendar time". Investors count their return in percent per day or month or year, and count their opportunity cost the same way.
Because of these differences, it does not follow that setting the maximum bet based on the Kelly Criterion will maximize JD's return in calendar time.
The maximum bet policy has been questioned before, and it's always been answered by an appeal to the Kelly Criterion, or to simulations based on the Kelly model. I'm suggesting that the model doesn't match the reality, so it's time for a fresh look.
You are correct. But the problem is much much deeper than this. Let me begin by asking the simple question; since the KC maximizes profit over number of bets, and since variance decreases with bet size, how many max bets would we need to make in order to decrease variance to get, say, 0.9% < profit < 1.1% assuming all bets were max bets? Going with a set max bet size, say 500 BTC, guarantees we will find a sample size more than sufficient to limit profit in this way. Let's further simplify by going after the RNG and not the house edge. So now we have simplified the problem into determining how many coin flips we need to make to show whether or not a coin is fair. Which is actually a well known problem. If we calculate this number, and determine that actually, just-dice has "flipped the coin" more times, we have then proven that just-dice is not a fair coin. It does not matter that we are not using the actual formulas for just-dice's statistics; our results are a superset of theirs. In short, if just-dice's numbers are within the sample size we require it may or may not be fair (we won't know) but if their numbers lie outside of ours we have proven that they are unfair. This proves using actual just-dice statistical formulas will merely create numbers x and y such that our figures bracket them as such; 0.9% < x < profit < y < 1.1%. I'll even draw a picture. We will end up with a number (sample size) which will appear in one of the following places: A, B or C: 0 ...======================================================================... infinity
(A) JUST-DICE-STATS (B) OUR-SIMPLE-STATS (C)
If our number shows up as A or B, we will not know which one it is (since we are calculating a simplified version of the statistics). In the case of A and B all we know is that just dice has not yet achieved the sample size we require to limit profit to 0.9% < profit < 1.1%. If, however, just dice has a sample size which falls at (C) -- which is greater than what we require -- we have guaranteed that profit should be limited to 0.9% < profit < 1.1%. The formula for required sample size is (Z*Z)/(4*E*E), where E is the desired error (ex. 0.01 for 1%) and Z is how many standard deviations you want. 3 standard deviations gives a 99.7% level of confidence, which is less frequently broken than 1/300. A quick glance at a chart which shows how likely you are to die from various causes shows that it is far more probable that you will die by falling down (1:246) if you don't first die from committing suicide (1:121). n = (3 * 3 ) / (4 * 0.01 * 0.01) n = 9 / 0.0004 n = 22,500 In short, as long as we bet 500 bitcoins 22,500 times, we are guaranteed that the error will be no more than 1%. But the house edge is 1%, so this just states profit will be between 0% and 2%. (house edge +/- 1% is 0% to 2%.). That doesn't help us. To get +/- 0.1% or 0.9% < profit < 1.1%, we need to set E to be 0.001 not 0.01: n = (3 * 3 ) / (4 * 0.001 * 0.001) n = 9 / 0.000004 n = 2,250,000 There we go. How convenient. As you can see, we have just rolled over 2.4 million bets at 500 max bet. Therefore we arrive at the following connundrum: 1. 2,250,000 bets at 500 BTC is enough to guarantee variance within 0.9% < profit < 1.1%. 2. Actual sample size is a minimum of 2,400,000 because not all bets were made at max kelly bet. 3. Actual site profit is less than 0.2%. 0.2% < 0.9% < profit < 1.1%This is a serious problem.I am not merely suggesting something is wrong, I am proving it. If Dooglus is interested in hiring me as a consultant I will help him fix this problem. Then again, the solution is obvious, but I think Dooglus needs someone to tell him. And no I will not advise anyone for free. You get what you pay for in life. That does not mean I am greedy it means I want Dooglus to listen to me, pay attention to what I say, and do it, or I will not waste my time. If he cannot value my advice then it has no value to him. It's that simple. That being said my rates are exceedingly cheap. Chat soon~ The math is all wrong - or, rather, irrelevant. The volume the site has had of large bets is nowhere near millions. The millions of tiny bets become pretty much irrevelant compared to the much smaller number of large bets when looking at variance. Try looking at what happens if you have 3 million bets at 1 satoshi and 1 bet at 500 BTC. How likely is it that profits would be anywhere near expectation? It's not just unlikely, it's impossible. The real scenario isn't quite so extreme - but that extreme example clearly shows the futility of trying to do math that would only be valid if all bets were of the same size when we KNOW all bets aren't anything like the same size. The site simply has to decide whether it's willing to take massive variance to maximise expected profits. As there's no way to get hundreds of people playing at high stakes then the choices are either: 1. Allow large max bets - getting the most possible expected profit but also taking on huge variance. 2. Don't allow large bets - the smaller you reduce the max bet the lower variance becomes (as the max bet becomes progressively nearer to the mean bet and the long-term arrives faster). I'm fine with #1 - as it currently is. If you reduce max bets not only do you lose the few players who use them but also those who come to the site to watch them and one of the biggest factors differentiating J-D from other sites. |
|
|
|
|
Sold 57
Swapped 0
Total 57
Price 0.009178
Total 0.523146
Less Fee 0.522099708
Man Fee 0.015662991
BTC Balance (BTC-TC) 1137.316759
9071 LTC-ATF.B1 90.71000000
CIPHERMINE Bonds 369.51000000
Coinlenders CD 27/9 203.0881027
Coinlenders Cash 0
Just-Dice Balance 167.00000000
TOTAL ASSETS 1,967.62486189
Outstanding MINING 210972
Outstanding SELLING 210972
Outstanding PURCHASE 14374
Effective Units 225346
Block reward 25
Difficulty 112,628,549
Hashes per MINING 5000000
Daily Dividend 0.00002233
50 days (Min Liquid) 0.00111629
100 days (Forced Close) 0.00223259
365 days (Buyback) 0.00814895
405 days (IPO) 0.00904199
400 days (Post SELLING div) 0.00893036
410 days (Pre SELLING div) 0.00915361
NAV Post MINING Div 1,962.59381190
NAV/U Post MINING Div 0.00870925
Days Dividend Post Div 390.10
SELLING Dividend -
NAV Post SELLING Div 1,962.59381190
NAV/U Post Selling Div 0.00870925
PURCHASE selling price 0.009145
PURCHASE buy-back price 0.008535
J-D House profit at report 1321
|
|
|
|
I see no mention of existing product. Typically, for something like S.DICE, some of the software development should be done before thinking about raising capital, right?
Depends a bit on the scale of development. For things where initial development is small (only weeks of work -e.g. S.DICE) then there's no excuse for not having it done. Where the development is larger - and the fund-raising is FOR the development (e.g. S.MG) then obviously the software development won't be done before raising funds. One type of 'investment' I won't touch is where the development is small AND there's no developer yet. There's no reason to waste my time on "I want to run a casino and I need $500 to pay someone to write it". If they can't develop AND they don't have $500 then they aren't bringing anything to the table. "I want to do the same as other people already do but don't have the ability to do it or the cash to pay someone else to do it" is not and never has been a plan. It's begging. |
|
|
|
Here's another approach, which I've sometimes used in various forms in the past (prior to launching the BTC Growth fund) and which is currently posted on the BTC Growth website: Are You Seeking Investment?The gist of it is that rather than asking people to interpret my guidelines in advance and to try and decide how they apply to their own cases -- and thereby inevitably creating debates about interpretations and exceptions -- I simply require an up-front fee to cover my time spent reading, evaluating, and providing meaningful feedback. Those who have received feedback from me know that I take the process seriously, and I give it to them straight and sometimes in great detail. Those who understand what I'm about, and who understand what their own business proposal is about, tend to value that kind of thing pretty highly. And those who either 1) don't understand what I'm about, 2) don't understand what their own business proposal is about, or 3) for any other reason just don't place a high value on the feedback shouldn't be asking for it in the first place. Call it a market-inspired approach to allocating the limited resource of time. It works. Certainly that's a valid approach - and squarely addresses the misconception some seem to have that advice is/should be free (your point 3). And I'd agree with your point that those willing to pay tend to be the more worthy ones anyway - nearly all the decent proposals I'm contacted about mention payment to me in their initial PM. The reason I haven't gone that route myself is because in some instances there actually can be benefit to me in giving free advice - even though that benefit isn't immediately visible or denominated in BTC. My hope with this thread was mainly to try to get people putting forward proposals to realise that anyone in a position to help them in any significant manner wants to see far more than a vague concept plus a target amount of BTC to raise. That hope may well be forlorn - as the worst cases likely don't read anything anyway. I'm also putting on record that requests that want me to do significant work without even raising the issue of payment are likely to be treated with the same amount of respect that making the request shows to me. i.e. none. I don't plan at present to try to charge for every comment I make or for quickly looking over a proposal for any gaping holes. But if someone wants serious work put into rewriting a prospectus, searching for holes in a plan/contract, verifying projections or whatever then that's rarely going to be free. And if someone wants my feedback then at least have the decency to have something at a stage where it's ready for feedback. |
|
|
|
Very interesting read. 3. If your 'investment' relies on customer volume then you need some evidence (e.g. surveys) to establish you'll get that trade volume. I have zero interest in yet another gambling site which will do well if it gets 50% market share but has no evidence to suggest it'll even get 1%.
How would you provide that kind of evidence? Any more insights on that matter? With any investment that involves customers (and competes with existing businesses providing the same/similar service) to get any significant volume requires some mix of two things to happen: - They increase the total pool of customers.
They take customers away from existing businesses.
It's for whoever is seeking investment to clearly show how they're going to achieve one or both of the above in some significant volume. If they haven't put serious effort into making their case for that then they're nowhere near ready to seek investment capital. Some investments which don't, on the face of it, appear to have customers actually DO. Examples being mining investments and gambling sites where investors get to be the bank - where the investors ARE the customers (this is distinct from my point 2 - of showing profit for investors - as something being profitable isn't sufficient on its own to get investment if similar but more profitable - or better in other ways - alternatives exist). Precisely how they make a persuasive case depends very much on the specific proposal. In my OP I gave the example of surveys - but i'm also amenable to cases which rely more on simple logic ("There's already a proven market and we offer clear advantages X, Y and X over those currently in the space without any significant disadvantages"). The important thing is that they DO make a case - and not just rely on some assumption that "if we build it, he will come". |
|
|
|
I can't explain because I don't see it. Are you still getting that message?
No. Now everything is OK. Most likely it was just some maintenance occurring on the site - when that happens trading gets briefly disabled on everything. Usually there's a box at the top which says Maintenance is occurring but if you're already on a security when it starts then you don't get to see that unless you refresh. |
|
|
|
Deprived - the wording of the account contracts is being prepared as part of our regulatory proposals.
I wasn't asking for them now - or suggesting they should be ready yet. I was just saying that I'll be interested to read them whenever they're done. I wouldn't expect them to be completed until a lot nearer launch. Sorry if my comment was read as though I believed they should have already been published - that wasn't my intent. |
|
|
|
I'm commenting here purely from the perspective of a BMF shareholder - not evaluating the bond itself. First, though, you need to fix the math here: - ex. If we sell all 1500 worth of bonds and repaid 500 BTC in weekly payments, we would calculate (1500 - (500/2)) * 10% as a penalty.
The total repurchase for the 150,000 bonds would be for 1750 + 175 BTC, or 1925 BTC.
Repurchase there should be 1250+125=1375 unless I've totally misunderstood something. From a BMF shareholder's perspective BMF would lend you 5 BTC then receive back at least 0.5 BTC/week from Jan next year until total payment of 100 BTC had been received. With the risk that if listing were denied or the offer was less than 50% subscribed the 5 BTC would be lost. The problem then is that we CAN'T put the property aside and just discuss whether it's good for BMF - as how good/bad it is for BMF depends very much on how likely it is to be listed and sell out. And that depends very much on the detail of the property. As a BMF shareholder I'd vote to approve the motion if you can convince me there's better than about a 20% chance that it would sell out. Which pretty much, ignoring detail, means convincing me that the property deal is real and profitable. More accurately, it means convincing me that you've convinced the forum in general that the property deal is real and profitable. |
|
|
|
If you deposited €100 into a pegged account this would display €100 on your statement. This does not mean we are holding Euro deposits but simply that the balance of btc in the account in denominated in Euros. As the btc/Euro rate rises and falls adjustments will be made to the underlying Btc balance to ensure its Worth is €100. It's expected that 98% of the accounts will be pegged accounts
The statment is in Euros, you are in effect holding Euros, nothing to do with Bitcoins whatsoever, as Bitcoins are not pegged to Euros. The regulators will see through that. Do you intend to actually give the customer access to Bitcoins or the details of the Bitcoins they own, or just suggest that somehow their Euros are invested in Bitcoins 'behind the scenes'? There is a big difference between holding bitcoins In a Euro denominated account and holding euros. Most wallet services such as Blockchain.info will allow you to see your balance as USD equivalent. This does not mean they are holding USD deposits. Not sure, but i might have just hit paydirt. I want to run a bank, but don't want to deal with the associated regulations. Here's my plan: 1. I open a storefront where people can buy tokens. 2. People are asked to start an account, with a wallet where their money is stored. 3. From the aforementioned wallet, the account holders may purchase my tokens. Or not. 4. Account holders may withdraw money from their account wallet at any time, and deposit money into the wallet at any time. 5. Similarly, they may invest in my tokens at any time, or divest from them at any time. 6. My tokens have but one quality -- their value, relative to fiat, goes up by ~5% a year. Can i do this Sorry if OT. That would be fine provided: 1. You aren't issuing the tokens yourself or in collusion with someone else. 2. You're actually buying tokens to hold on their behalf with the euros you receive. 3. You can get a ruling from relevant authorities that the tokens aren't currency. You need to be doing something with their euros other than just holding them. And whatever that something you do is, it has to actually be occurring - not just be a pretence of doing something. So long as you're doing that then you're fine - that's how things like holding companies for precious metals work. There's a few other things that I believe you have to do as well - which is why I'm looking forward to seeing the contracts for customers (for example I don't believe they could GUARANTEE to return same euro value - though I could be wrong on that). |
|
|
|
|
Big kicking for J-D today. It's a competitor betting big and (so far) winning on it. We're still well up on J-D investment overall - but this clearly shows why I wasn't willing to increase investment there above 10%.
Sold 182
Swapped 0
Total 182
Price 0.009251
Total 1.683682
Less Fee 1.680314636
Man Fee 0.050409439
BTC Balance (BTC-TC) 1135.022031
9071 LTC-ATF.B1 90.71000000
CIPHERMINE Bonds 375.45000000
Coinlenders CD 27/9 202.9673038
Coinlenders Cash 0
Just-Dice Balance 170.17200000
TOTAL ASSETS 1,974.32133521
Outstanding MINING 210972
Outstanding SELLING 210972
Outstanding PURCHASE 14317
Effective Units 225289
Block reward 25
Difficulty 112,628,549
Hashes per MINING 5000000
Daily Dividend 0.00002233
50 days (Min Liquid) 0.00111629
100 days (Forced Close) 0.00223259
365 days (Buyback) 0.00814895
405 days (IPO) 0.00904199
400 days (Post SELLING div) 0.00893036
410 days (Pre SELLING div) 0.00915361
NAV Post MINING Div 1,969.29155779
NAV/U Post MINING Div 0.00874118
Days Dividend Post Div 391.53
SELLING Dividend -
NAV Post SELLING Div 1,969.29155779
NAV/U Post Selling Div 0.00874118
PURCHASE selling price 0.009178
PURCHASE buy-back price 0.008566
J-D House profit at report 2220
|
|
|
|
If you deposited €100 into a pegged account this would display €100 on your statement. This does not mean we are holding Euro deposits but simply that the balance of btc in the account in denominated in Euros. As the btc/Euro rate rises and falls adjustments will be made to the underlying Btc balance to ensure its Worth is €100. It's expected that 98% of the accounts will be pegged accounts
The statment is in Euros, you are in effect holding Euros, nothing to do with Bitcoins whatsoever, as Bitcoins are not pegged to Euros. The regulators will see through that. Do you intend to actually give the customer access to Bitcoins or the details of the Bitcoins they own, or just suggest that somehow their Euros are invested in Bitcoins 'behind the scenes'? I thought the same as you - until I read the prospectus. When you 'deposit' euros with them what's actually happening is that: 1. They're selling you bitcoins - which are held in an address that is specifically yours. 2. If you choose to leave the bitcoins with them then thereafter the amount of bitcoins in that address are adjusted so as to always have a value equivalent to the euros you deposited. 3. They agree to buy the bitcoins back from you at their current value at any time. Because they immediately sell you bitcoins, for it to be a banking arrangement bitcoins would need to be considered currency. But at present Cyprus are explicit that bitcoins are NOT currency. So whilst they're holding SOMETHING on your behalf it isn't the type of something (currency) which requires a banking licence according to the relevant authorities. That's the theory anyway - and they've been told it's fine. Which I have no reason to disagree with. It may SEEM like it's a pretence to avoid admitting that they're running an unlicenced bank - however any such pretence is only occurring at the request of the authorities who would be the ones to complain if they believed it WAS an unlicensed bank. If the very people who are responsible for regulating banks say "That isn't a bank because bitcoins aren't money" then you have a pretty sound basis for believing you're fine with them. Doubly so if you're the ones saying "but we WANT bitcoins to be treated as currency and for us to be able to register as a deposit-receiving institution" - which IS what these guys are saying. It'll be interesting to see the contracts for customers. |
|
|
|
|
If you wouldn't PM me for advice/investment then ignore this as it isn't directed to you. This post is aimed at all the people who think "I want to be the next ASICMINER" or "I want to be the next S.DICE" but lack money and ability so think PMing people with both can somehow make them useful. People with a real plan already know what they're doing. Those running blatant ponzis/scams know better than to ask anyway. It's those in between that I'm addressing here.
I get a bunch of PMs that fall into one of the following categories:
1. What do you think of X?
2. I want to IPO X will you help write the prospectus and/or market it?
Here's the absolute basics you need to meet for me to answer "yes" or even "I want more details" to either:
1. If you're asking for X BTC then I want proof (NOT your word) that you already have X/4 BTC either as your own capital or as investment from private investors. If you want to raise 10k BTC that means you need 2.5k BTC yourself or from friends/family/acquaintances. This requirement is simply because if you don't already have (or have access to) capital then there's a reason for it - and normally that reason is that you should NOT have such access.
2. I want something pretty solid proving that anyone who invests will end up with more than they started with. That's in whatever currency you're listing in. If it's a USD investment then a profit in USD is fine. If it's a BTC denominated investment then that profit has to be in BTC. If you're mining BTC and selling shares priced in BTC then you fail this criteria - right now there's no hardware for sale that can safely be assumed to mine more BTC than it costs (if you're mining alt-coins then you CAN meet the criteria if your power costs are low enough).
3. If your 'investment' relies on customer volume then you need some evidence (e.g. surveys) to establish you'll get that trade volume. I have zero interest in yet another gambling site which will do well if it gets 50% market share but has no evidence to suggest it'll even get 1%.
Now that 99% of you have been excluded the other 1% can feel free to PM me. If you're in the 99% and PM me don't be offended if you don't receive a reply - I stopped replying to begging PMs a while back (and if you don't have any money or any plan you ARE begging as you're asking for my time which is worth something to reply to your 'IPO' which is worth nothing).
I have no interest whatsoever in your plan to borrow 5 BTC to list a security so you can raise 10K BTC to make ASICs. I have just as little interest in your plan to sell shares to buy 10K BTC worth of ASICs, give half the mined income to investors and keep the other half yourself. I have even less interest (were it possible) in the fact that you held some shares for a few weeks, made some profit so now want to run an investment fund worth 100 times your total worldly wealth.
I expect that most other people who actually HAVE BTC and knowledge/ability feel the same way. It's not our job to give you a chance. It's your job to prove you deserve one. Don't waste our time when you're just an unproven beggar.
|
|
|
|
|
J-D took some pretty heavy losses today.
Sold 5781
Swapped 0
Total 5781
Price 0.009291
Total 53.711271
Less Fee 53.60384846
Man Fee 1.608115454
BTC Balance (BTC-TC) 1133.781499
9071 LTC-ATF.B1 90.71000000
CIPHERMINE Bonds 379.86000000
Coinlenders CD 27/9 202.8462525
Coinlenders Cash 0
Just-Dice Balance 181.18000000
TOTAL ASSETS 1,988.37775163
Outstanding MINING 210972
Outstanding SELLING 210972
Outstanding PURCHASE 14135
Effective Units 225107
Block reward 25
Difficulty 112,628,549
Hashes per MINING 5000000
Daily Dividend 0.00002233
50 days (Min Liquid) 0.00111629
100 days (Forced Close) 0.00223259
365 days (Buyback) 0.00814895
405 days (IPO) 0.00904199
400 days (Post SELLING div) 0.00893036
410 days (Pre SELLING div) 0.00915361
NAV Post MINING Div 1,983.35203752
NAV/U Post MINING Div 0.00881071
Days Dividend Post Div 394.64
SELLING Dividend -
NAV Post SELLING Div 1,983.35203752
NAV/U Post Selling Div 0.00881071
PURCHASE selling price 0.009251
PURCHASE buy-back price 0.008634
J-D House profit at report 4675
|
|
|
|
What happened to PURHASE offer? Can see no Ask orders at the selling price.
Offer is always taken down each day at around the time of dividends/report. Once I've checked the accounting and that the new price is correct a new bid gos up. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
