Actually he's trying to make a solid point about FZB valuation which was an active discussion here already - there is significant risk involved with depending on twitter as a business model. This is just a good example of how your local rules are just causing you to make an ass of yourself at the expense of yourself and your investors.

That being said I'd agree with others that the whole reason to buy insurance from CPA - a distinct company on paper - is to provide an appropriate bidwall for NYAN.A. In now way is the market supposed to play into that. CPA is an insurance company who is now being asked, and required by contract, to provide their services. Is there a reason CPA cannot make good on it's contract?

Ian, where is all the different information so far? From my count there is asset creation fee, transfer fee on private sales, cash in from asset sales, cash out for asset redemption (at a lower price than sold), btc -> usd transfer, and rig purchase, cpa contract in and out. Anything else?

Well, let's start with the obvious, you want a Google docs spreadsheet. What info you do want in it?

It does mean that MH/$ goes down, and their units preform better against their rivals (Avalon and bASIC off the top of my head). And may result in a few extra preorders for them.

+1 for something a lot more solid than I have.

Even with the startup troubles going on, they are temporary and will pass. Bakewell is gathering steam and will be a hell of an asset to have soon.

Now if only I can find more coin to throw in...

Something like S.Dice would be the simplest and quickest to drop in and use. First x many shares (probably 2500 here) are sold for regular price, then there's a small bump up in price, then repeat. Add in a week between release of selling out of one block and starting the next and you may see the price rise more on it's own that it would with just staggered releases. Depending on rate and market of course this sort of plan could get the price up to 0.175-0.2 pretty easily by the time everything is sold out.

The biggest problem I see coming is that any change in sales may make it harder to finish the IPO quickly, and the end goal is to be able to buy a SC Rig (or comprable) sometime before the end of the year (is there any sort of established goal time yet?, maybe just before the GPUs are useless).

The other thing you might want to consider looking into is the release of further shares, as long as you can do it without stalling the growth of current shares it may be worth looking into, but that's probably something for another motion.

Through the mountain of bullshit and everything else there is this.

However funds have already been received on the address Ian provided from a vanity address belonging to usagi. blockchain.info.

Maybe an impending dividend will help sell some IPO shares then. Here's hoping.

Per: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=104489.msg1223276#msg1223276 you're perfectly willing to change the effective terms of the contract after establishment.

As per multiple interpretations of You agreed to refund Ian pending support by shareholders. Right now you look like you're just changing your mind because it didn't work out how you thought it would.

If you would like to argue the interpretation that's one thing, but some crazy and convoluted scheme to push a dividend just seems petty at best.

To do anything of the sort they would have to put the initial investment into the mix, even at the discounted IPO offering (10% bonus) money is still going towards the setup of BAKEWELL. It's just one way early investors can get out.

That being said, it wouldn't help things along any.

I know BFL quotes are currently in November, I want to say I saw November 20th somewhere, but not as often. So possibly 7 weeks from now?

My impression so far has also been that pyramining wants to develop its own ASIC chips similarly to how it worked out its own FPGA stuff. So when BFL or anyone else comes out with their chips isn't relevant to when Pyramining does. Besides, ordering from anyone at this point puts Pyramining closer to the back of the line, no point in getting stuck there.

My worry is mostly that the ASICs that trickle in during new deposits will keep hash rates lower while everything is on hold waiting for new deposits, which would then discourage new deposits since they'd be paying to help upgrade everyone else. Which sticks everyone in a lose-lose situation if I'm correct and pyramining hasn't already figured out how to deal with it.

Edit:
Haha, wouldn't that be awesome?

Some of Usagi's argument is that the hardware is (and same in your case) bought with fiat and stores a relative fiat value, funds raised and paid out however are in BTC, so when the exchange rate changes it can be rough when it's well above a 100% increase in exchange rate. Some of the point of doing the actual mining however is the long-term profit, not just the quick gains.

At first I figured this was just someone quoting something you said with relevant terms of the buyout (trying to keep edit accusations away and the like), but it's just the ... interesting ... press release.

I'm curious now too, as much as  I don't want to give it any attention.

So far ASIC deployment on pyramining sounds a little shaky; that you may be using FPGA during ASIC switchover (which might not even be a real problem anyway, we'll see, certainly fine long-term anyway), and waiting for new deposits to "buy" the new ASIC speeds.

Or is there currently another plan for the ASIC upgrade that avoids the latter point? and I assume getting the first ASICs just happens when it does, shouldn't really be a huge issue long-term.

Edit: To anyone who thinks I'm making this sound scary, I'm invested into pyramining with some of the few bitcoins I have, and I'm excited for the upgrade and probably will be buying more when I can. I believe this is a solid platform that will preform well in the end one way or another.

The asset still exists after a buyback if that's what you're asking. Something like how PPT.A-E operated? They would each sell a number of shares and then one month later buy all the shares back, then the asset would be recycled and used the same way next month (I think they actually reused them the next day in most cases).

If you're asking if you can buyback a portion of the outstanding shares: I'm not sure, but I believe it's possible. Hopefully someone who knows can clarify if this is what you're wondering.

Because I wasn't familiar with the acronym and I figure that may be the case for others.
From Wikipedia

Edit:That being said, I'd have to agree that this is probably a CDO

+1 Looking at this as a single portfolio makes a lot of sense, I've wondered why it isn't done this way before, the asset transfer and payments between current portfolios just make things messier and adds unnecessary complications.

That calculation for NAV values works for .A, but the NAV isn't what's important for returns in the case of .B, just the weekly returns (The NAV of .A doesn't matter either as it's insured). NAV could be 0.02 as long as it made 100% weekly (this doesn't even begin to approach reality, just some hyperbole). Usagi does currently use NAV during sales to determine price but they're slightly uncoupled from returns.

At current NYAN's site lists about 3678 BTC worth of assets for 6972 Total shares (A:1606 B:1983 C:3383). So the overall with the above method .A would be worth 1BTC@1%/wk, .B would be worth 1@2%/wk, and .C would be worth ~0.0263 according to their respective NAV's (again, all this based on the above calculation, valuations and share count based on http://www.tsukino.ca/cpa/nyan/).

For reference, prices are around (at time of writing of course) .A:0.938 .B:0.97 .C:0.09.

As for simply maximizing returns, well people that buy into .A want a low risk investment, .B cares less but doesn't expect their investment to go into anything that looks too sketchy, and .C just wants maximum return. But that just means keeping share counts in line with the relative risk that's desired overall.

(This post seems long and dense even after re-reading, sorry)

Well, prawda speaks with all the knowledge and authority of someone who's been here for 3 days, made 11 posts (which include mostly him selling his religion for 0.3 BTC and posting #2964 in the count to 21M thread). Combined with the strong loyalty and repeating points Usagi himself has made makes me think it's a possible sockpuppet. But no reason to discount new people purely on how easy it would be to make up said account.

Now that looks like aggressive buyback. Dropping lots of shares across the board.

The one exception is NYAN.A, but as that is guaranteed in terms of value and return AND feeds into the other NYAN operations, it makes a lot of sense not to buy back much of that.

I added a % Bought column with truncated percentages. (To be clear, these numbers are not rounded to the nearest 0.1) Just a bit easier to compare funds with over 50k shares issued like CPA against 5k shares like BMF; that order of magnitude makes the buy backs on CPA look bigger than that on BMF to me, but the reverse is true by percentage (as I don't know what current share price is, I can't comment).

What would you have us believe then? Is there a reason that the number of outstanding bonds wouldn't reflect an ongoing buy-back?