It's just a misunderstanding.  The message says that you've completed the claims procedure - not that your claim has been fully processed.  All the claims procedure comprises is entering an email address and a BTC address - and the message is just saying that you've already done that.

Exchange-rate : .00748
NAV/U : 8.707926

Exchange-rate feels like it's going to move soon - the walls either side of it have largely vanished.  I would tend to expect an upwards move given that next difficulty change is upwards - but in a purely speculative currency like LTC moves aren't always rational and are often just the herd stampeding in whichever direction somewhat started a move.  Hopefully I'll be around and watching when it happens to trade some profit from it.

For now putting Bid : 8.55 , Ask 8.85

That spread will widen later this afternoon whilst I'm out.

Exchange-rate 0.00747
NAV/U : 8.6410939

Bid at 8.5
Ask at 8.8

Exchange-rate has been stable for a few days now.  Will try to keep a tight spread as long as I can.

Exchange-rate 0.00748
NAV/U : 8.63078

Bid at 8.45
Ask at 8.85

Exchange-rate has stayed in the same band.  There's been little trading activity - and our ability to trade is slightly restricted as I can no longer comfortably trade esecurity.SA securities.  If those were a scam then now's whem it would become apparent (market price holding below cost meaning no likelihood of being able to sell more/an esecurity3).  Neither of them paid its dividend yesterday and neotrix' pool website is totally down without any explanation.  So I won't risk holding any unless they're picked up at a tiny percent of their theoretical value or some update is provided.  We haven't actually traded them much anyway - think last was a week back when we picked up a hundred or so and sold them back off same day for a 10-30% markup.

Exchange-rate 0.00747
Current NAV/U : 8.6147

Exchange-rate rose a fair bit yesterday evening, but now seems fairly solid in the .0072 - .0078 range.  Obviously NAV is down a bit - but has been offset a bit by trading profits.

FOr comparison, exchange-rate was the same 3 days ago:


You can see we're up about 4% from where we were the last time this was the exchange-rate (about 3.5% after taking into account that the old adjusted NAV/U was slightly undervalued).

Setting bid at 8.4, Ask at 8.9.  Will widen the spread before I log off for the night.

Annex A is pretty much the only relevant part of that for small claims court in the UK.  Small claims in the UK does NOT require attendance in person unless the claim is disputed.

Anyone claiming would NOT be stating that the lost money because of Nefario closing down an illegal business - as, to date, nefario has issued no statement saying that.  If nefario wanted to claim in his response that he had been running an illegal business then that would be up to him, however unless he could demonstrate that YOU knew it was illegal at the time you invested ot wouldn't exactly be much of a defence.  The actual procedure/form is pretty simple (unless it's changed massively since I last did one a few years back), however I wouldn't recommend anyone go this route for a few reasons:

1.  It's very likely nefario is going to pay everyone/give everyone details on their assets anyway.  He's just doing it in the slowest, most convoluted and error-prone manner he could devise.
2.  Forget small claims unless you live in the UK.
3.  I'm dubious whether, if disputed, it would get to remain a small-claims case - as issues like whether bitcoin have monetary value are likely to be considered too complex for the fast-track system.  So would claiming against a partnership where most partners arent known and aren't even UK citizens - trying to pin it all on nefario would likely be too complex an argument for the small-claims procedure.
4.  Even if you win it doesn't magically give you anything back.  All you get is a judgment saying you are owed a certain amount of money, then the hard part comes - actually getting it.  Bear in mind that any claim is against the company, not against nefario the individual (if his partners believe any loss is down to just him then that's a seperate case for them to resolve).

Frankly, #1 is the main issue.  Not sure why anyone's even considering legal action when all we've so far is total panic and oncompetence from nefario, nothing which suggests he actually intends to defraud anyone (other than, arguably, his fellow share-holders).  My main worry right now is that he'll do something dumb like overwrite his database by mistake - or send everyone someone else's list of assets.  If he's spewing bitcoins around at random I dread to imagine what lists asset issuers are going to get.

Yeah sounds about right.

EMIF - issuer got cold feet about doing what he originally intended to do after one week of trading.  He announced he would diverisy operations and give more details soon - but never did.  He's been paying dividends each week which suggests he hasn't made a loss (as, per his contract, he shouldn't pay dividends in a losing week) but the fear (to me) is that he's in over his head and paying out dividedns to keep people quiet while he tries to work out what to do next.

ESECURITIES - their income is in USD, so any rise in LTC (and there's been a big one) would tend to devalue them.

LTC-ATF.  I run this one.  The drop is entirely down to the exchange-rate rise - as initially we were mainly investing in BTC-denominated securities on GLBSE.  When the LTC price sky-rocketed, half our assets were frozen on GLBSE so there was no way I could do anything with them.  Whether it'll rise back up or fall down again depends to an extent on what happens with the exchange-rate - if it stays stable then I'd expect to make a profit from trading.  At the moment next difficulty change for LTC is projected to be downward - which SHOULD lead to a fall in LTC price.  But the real bugbear is what will happen when ASICs hit the BTC market and some GPU miners migrate to LTC - there's arguments that can be made for exchange-rate move in either direction then.

LTCI - the linked spreadsheet values everything based on bids.  I'd value its holdings in the .7-.85 range.  Certainly the .64 in the spreadsheet is the bottom of valuation range as thats pretty much what everything could be liquidated for now.  If you look at its investments it's clear a lot of the loss in value is caused directly by the exchange-rate change.  I'll tell you for free that the last transactions on that stock were me buying for my fund at 0.4 and .5 - as that was (and remains) very good value.  I'm not a huge fan of this type of passive investment (where you pay a management fee just for someone else to buy a few shares and then send you most of the dividends) but when it's that obviously underpriced compared to book value I'll happily buy some.

OPCU : still in IPO as mentioned.  It's not totally clear to me whether the asset issuer is selling his OWN shares in an existing enterprise or raising funds for a new one.  There's no list of current assets - but there IS a list of historical revenue.  Which leads to the fear (as a potential investor) that we may be being asked to provide 100% of the capital for a very small share of the profits.  Note that there's no mention anywhere of how any amount to be dividended would be calculated or what (if any) personal wages would be drawn prior to dividend.  One of the things I immediately look for in any asset is a clear definition of what part of profits go the asset owener and which to the shareholders - that's missing here.

The issue of returning extra coins sent in error isn't as black and white as either side seems to think.

The general principle (in the UK) is that if you know they aren't yours then you have to return them.  Where the problem arises here is that, so far, nefario hasn't released the information necessary for people to establish how many coins they were actually supposed to be sent.  Once he's provided .csv files of transaction histories then people can verify how much they should have received and return the extra.  Right now he hasn't even given a good explanation of why GLBSE had to close down in a rush - let alone given the information necessary for people to verify what funds they were due.

His primary (original) reason for shutting down was AML.  An entirely credible reasons - but undermined by his subsequent behaviour.  He initially insisted that his legal advice was that he had to obtain ID info for everyone - then retreated very quickly from that position without any explanation.  Was his original legal advice wrong?  Was he just making up that legal advice?  Who knows.

It is absolutely 100% certain that he misled or lied to his fellow shareholders in their irc discussion in respect of his legal advice.  There is NO WAY that a single solicitor could represent both GLBSE (collectively) and nefario (individually) when (as was made perfectly plain in the irc log) his personal objectives were definitely not fully aligned with those of all his fellow shareholders/officers (the officers is the key part).  There's also NO WAY a solicitor could give advice to the company as a whole whilst telling nefario he couldn't tell his fellow officers about it - if the information was only relevant to nefario then his PERSONAL solicitor should be dealing with it.  It's also standard practice in the UK that when advised by a solicitor on a significant business issue, you are then sent a written summary of their advice.  This should have been provided to (at least) the other officers, if not to all shareholders (there's a difference between passive shareholders and actual officers who participate in running the business).

I can understand nefario maybe not understanding what a conflict of interest is.  But I'd be shocked if a solicitor didn't - they tend to try desperately to avoid such conflicts as it leaves them open to liability and complaints of malpractice.  I've had a solicitor refuse to advise me on an issue that arose whilst I was working under instructions from them (and a barrister I was working with on the same matter also refused to give advice) even though the actual solution to the issue that had arisen (which was arrived at after taking independent legal advice) was fairly simple and not detrimental to any of us.  I can only surmise that nefario either consulted on an individual basis and/or played down the involvement of theymos etc such that the solicitor concluded they had no part in actually running GLBSE.

In short, nefario has been less than honest and open so far - both to users of GLBSE and to his own business partners.  There's, thus, no reason anyone should be willing to take his unsupported word on what they're owed.  And how much should be sent back anyway?  Has he even ever stated whether the whole 2nd payment was an error - or was it meant to be sending the last 10%?

Note: I received all (I believe - though can't confirm obviously) my tiny amount of funds back in the first batch of payments.  I haven't received any 2nd payment so have nothing personally to decide whether to return, how much to return or who to return it to.  If I HAD received an overpayment then I'd be putting the 2nd payment in cold storage then waiting until I had the information necessary to determine precisely what I WAS owed AND had either received back control of my assets OR received a good explanation of why they weren't being returned before sending any funds anywhere.

If he's spewing funds around at random then there's no guarantee returning them to him would get them to whoever their rightful owner is anyway.  He could have just disabled trading/transfers and left the site up so we could withdraw and verify our holdings now that he no longer required ID information.  And if there's specific accounts that he can't do that on (e.g. if he has been given specific instructions in respect of asset issuers) then the withdrawal functionality could have been removed from them.

There's another issue which may impact some of the securities you're invested in (don't know which you're in, so can't say for sure).

Some securities didn't sell out at IPO and still have an Ask-wall up of unsold shares.  When that happens the price MUST go down - as the unsold IPO shares form a ceiling on the price, so all trade has to occur below IPO price.

Also some of the assets on LTC-GLOBAL don't communicate at all with investors - so even if they're actually doing well it's hard for investors to have any confidence and the price will tend to fall.

UPDATE AND REPORT

Going to do a report now.  The fund has appreciated significantly - and without doing a report it's hard to set a tight spread.  The reason for that is because I report adjusted NAV/U (NAV/U less projected management fee) but I have to set Ask price based on unadjusted NAV/U - or anyone buying in would reduce the NAV/U (and also Adj NAV/U) for existing investors.  When the fund's up over 10% (as it is) that adds over 1% to the spread.  It's made worse this time, as the adjusted NAV/U is actually artifically low as a decent chunk of the "profits" are ones caused solely by the exchange-rate change, upon which no management fee is due.  So I end up pricing Asks too high.

SPREADSHEET



SUMMARY

The fund's grown back nicely over the 4 days or so since we received back our GLBSE funds and started trading again.  I'd guess about half the growth is down to the exchange-rate change and the other half actual trading profit (will calculate exact figures as I type this report).

Just to clarify about our GLBSE funds: we were in the first batch paid who received back 100% of BTC from GLBSE.  We weren't in the batch who received 90% (some got it twice).  So we don't have any over-payment to return or anything.

Exchange-Rate : .00685
NAV/U : 8.87679642
Adjusted NAV/U : 8.752765997

From the spreadsheet it can be seen that I'm enttled to 5.8 units as management fee, however (per contract) that needs to be adjusted down to address the fact that the exchange-rate dropped a lot, so a lot of the "profit" for this period isn't down to my trading and I shouldn't receive a management fee for that portion.  Here's the calculation for it:

Exchange-rate at last report was .0078
HWM at that point was set at 7.63649216 LTC
Converted into BTC (at the rate then) that is .0595646388

Current NAV/U in BTC if the exchange-rate still were .0078 is .06577216
So the gain per unit (in BTC) if exchange-rate hadn't changed is .00620752
Multiplied by 409 outstanding units that's 2.53887615 BTC
10% of that profit is .253887615 BTC - the actual management fee I'm due.
That's now converted back to LTC at the CURRENT exchange-rate (as the units are being paid now) and is 37.063885 LTC
That should actually be divided by a corrected adjusted NAV/U (which would lie between the reported NAV/U of 8.876 and the reported adjusted NAV/U of 8.75) but luckily it's pretty clear that rounded down it'll be 4 units (4*9 < 37 so we know it's 4+), so it saves a bit of nasty math.

Double-checking this, with the old exchange-rate plugged in, the spreadsheet shows a management fee of 3.9 units (based on valuation in LTC).  Why the difference?  Well, the precise calculation of what amount of profit is down to management fee (by the method I'm using) will vary depending on whether it's done in BTC or LTC.  BTC was chosen in the contract as, at that point, the bulk of our trading was done on GLBSE and so was denominated in BTC.  Thus using BTC as the base currency to revalue to exclude exchange-rate impact made sense.  Now the situation is less clear - as we have a small majority of our assets LTC-denominated, though at times (e.g. yesterday when exchange-rate hit a low) we still have a majority BTC denominated.

Any calculation will only be approximate.  We can do a simple check to see if it's in the right ball-park as follows:

NAV has increased by 16.24%
LTC has weakened by 12.1%, but under half our assets were in BTC at the time (and that valuedropped during the week) so very clearly this accounts for well under half the growth in the fund (the holdings denominated in LTC aren't impacted at all by the exchange-rate change).

I will therefore be taking 4 units as management fee as per the calculation done according to the contract.

With those units added into the spreadsheet we end up with a new NAV/U of 8.79082261.

That's slightly higher than the adjusted NAV/U at the beginning of this report due to me only taking 4 units instead of the 5.8 the spreadsheet was assuming.  HWM is now also adjusted to that value (and, of course, that is also the current Adjusted NAV/U).

Bidding at 8.45
Asking at 9.1

Fun day with the LTC/BTC exchange-rate.  It plummeted down to almost .005 then rebounded back up to over .007 before settling down in .0066 area.  Managed to trade a small profit on currency, which made up for LTC-GLOBAL being inaccessible for much of the evening so no trading profit on there.

Current exchange-rate : .00665
Current adjusted NAV/U : 8.8001129

Exchange-rate is far from solid - it could move significantly either way, so leaving a pretty wide spread up overnight.  Bid at 8.4, Ask at 9.6.

For the bid to be decent value you'd be wanting an exchange-rate of .0072 or higher.  For the ask to be a fair price you'd want the exchange-rate to be .0055 or lower.  As always I'm erring on the side of caution to protect existing investors.  Hopefully rate will be more stable tomorrow and I can set a tighter spread.

LTC/BTC exchange-rate currently in a bit of a free-fall: at about .0067 with no downward resistance left until .006 or lower.

Asks will be kept high (or removed totally) until price settles down - we don't desperately need new cash injections right this second so not going to risk someone buying in just before/as price of LTC tanks and devaluing the NAV/U for current investors.  Bid will move up if/when support solidifies at a new range.

Current Exchange-rate 0.0074
Current Adjusted NAV/U : 8.25757

Not much exchange-rate movement overnight.  We made a few profitable trades as well.  Unfortunately we're not gaining value as quickly when the exchange-rate falls as we lost value when it rose.  This is because most of the time whilst the rate was rising we had the majority of our holdings in BTC-denominated, now we have most (just over 60%) in LTC-denominated.

Bid at 8.0, Ask at 8.45

Would agree with this - and it's actually not an entirely irrational thing for investors to do (if LTC is rising then just holding LTC will usually outperform every security on LTC-GLOBAL).  Have definitely noticed an increase on the Bid side on LTC-GLOBAL now LTC has started falling against BTC.

Certainly LTC-ATF isn't a good investment any time you believe LTC is going to rise significantly vs BTC (unless you're using it as a hedge - when you get the benefits of a hedge + trading profits instead of actually having to pay to hedge).

Current exchange-rate 0.00747
Current adjusted NAV/U : 8.1796

Slight rise in unit value due mainly to the change in exchange-rate.  Bids/Asks have been adjusted accordingly (spread is slightly wider than earlier whilst I wait to see just where the exchange-rate settles down).

So we don't get any share of profits and we don't own any equity?  But we might get back the second-hand value of equipment IF it's sold?

Not quite seeing what the benefits of investing are - seems like we're being asked to donate money to help a "friend" of yours, without even being told where this art studio is so we can actually see the benefits our funding provides.  Is that a fair summary?

(Replying tyo both quoted posts)

Yeah the drop in mining-bonds was perfectly normal.  In part due to rising difficulty, in part due to the exchange-rate rise.  When buying a 1 Mhz bond one of the obvious comparisons is to the cost of mining hardware that would produce 1mhz of mining power.  The cost of mining hardware is denominated in fiat - so a steep rise in exchange-rate SHOULD be accompanied by a fall in mining-bond prices.

Yeah - a desire for liquidity (maybe in part to take advantage of the high LTC prices) could well have something to do with it too.

And totally agree about LTC-CHARTS/LTC-GAMING - an investment there is in the hopes that they'll successfully monetise somewhere down the line.  Plus, in the case of LTC-CHARTS, buying at IPO would have been a way to thank the site operator.

No real change in LTC-ATF overnight - exchange-rate dipped a tiny amount but seems to still be trading in the same small range its been in for a few days.  Have tightened my spread slightly as I'll be around for a fair while now to keep an eye open for any sudden currency movements.

Thanks for the info guruvan - will have another look at MPEx either tomorrow or Friday (either got a very busy day of work tomorrow or a very idle day - won't know until the morning).  And yeah - a narrow spread doesn't matter too much if the volume's there: but without an automated brokerage system it would be hard to trade just on volatility: so I'd need to be very confident about market trends/stability before getting involved too heavily.

I removed the liquidity from LTC-ATF as no way I could offer to buy people's units back at full value without being certain GLBSE would return our BTC (and of course I couldn't be sure of that).  Similarly I couldn't allow anyone to buy into LTC-ATF at just the value we held in LTC-denominated assets - as it would horribly dilute existing investors' funds when GLBSE returned our BTC.

I agree totally that I'd expect very few ex-GLBSE assets to go to MPEx - it wouldn't make sense (even if they were able to get listed there) when they already have a load of existing investors who wouldn't want to fork out the MPEx registration fee.  If they go anywhere I'd expect them right now to go to cryptostocks if anywhere - unless burnside gets a BTC-GLOBAl up.  I had another look at crypto-stocks today.  There's tiny volume there, with the highest volume being on a couple of securities I really wouldn't want to touch (think the obvious ponzi has highest volume).

BRIEF UPDATE

May as well give a brief update on LTC-ATF in this post:

LTC/BTC exchange-rate 0.0077
Adjusted NAV/U : 7.7505

Exchange-rate has been locked in the .007 - 0.0095 range for the last day or so.  There's pretty significant resistance against it rising out of that band (though some of that could be artifical) and a downward move seems more likely than an upward one.

Have made a small amount of profit trading on LTC-GLOBAL - at moment prices seem to have over-corrected for the currency-rate change so there's some (I believe) under-priced securities being sold. 

QUICK COMMENTS ON LTC-GLOBAL

I think there's a few fundamental issues with the LTC-GLOBAL market so far (not the platform, the players in the market).

1. Investors acting in an irrational manner.

As a simple example, consider LTCI - there's a full list of its holdings in a spreadsheet with them valued by the fund-manager at BID prices: i.e. the price those assets could immediately be sold for.  And we still picked up a bunch at below even that.  The out of date spreadsheet values assets based on bids at over 0.6 (including valuing our own units at 4.5 - the LTC-denominated-only value) and a more reasonable estimate of NAV/U for it is around .75.  So grabbing some units at .5 and under wasn't a hard choice, especially with my assessment that if anything the exchange-rate will fall rather than rise in the short-term.

2. Terrible reporting from some investments.

As an example consider EMIF.LTC-TRADING.  He's paid dividends the last few weeks without ever reporting what profits are or what current NAV/unit is or what (if any) managerial fees he's taken.  As he's actually paid dividends every week then, from his contract, it follows that he hasn't made a loss - so NAV/U must be over the original 0.5 per share.  Yet it's been trading significantly below that.  Can only believe it's down to the total lack of information coming from the asset owner - he got cold feet about his original plan after 1 week, promised information on what he was going to be doing in terms of change then went silent but continued paying small dividends.

It definitely seems like a lot of asset owners seem to think once they've sold as many shares as they can they can just stop posting and pay out the occasional dividend - and don't realise that their security price plumetting is a direct result of their silence.

Put together investors with a low level of knowledge, asset-owners with a lack of communication skill and the current situation of wide-spread uncertainty about crypto-investment in general and it's no real wonder the prices of nearly everything on LTC-GLOBAL is falling (this one's an exception - as the trading range for LTC-ATF is set by myself as an effective market-maker, so the fall in price is a direct measure of a loss in value rather than anything to do with the aforementioned factors).

UPDATE AND REPORT

I've now received back the BTC we had on GLBSE - though no email received at all (seems some people got emails, some didn't.  Some got all their BTC, others got 90%).

In fact I received back around 0.7 BTC more than we had on GLBSE.  Looking at the few securities we held just before GLBSE closed, the explanation would seem likely to be that 6 of our 16 ASICMINER shares sold.  10 of those shares were intended as long-term holdings so would not have been up for sale, the other 6 definitely would have been for sale.  So for now (until I receive an email confirming our holdings) I'm only listing 10 ASICMINER shares in our holdings.

SPREADSHEET



NAV/EXCHANGE RATE ETC

Current LTC/BTC exchange rate : 0.0078
Current NAV/U : 7.63649216

Placing bids up at 7.4 and asks at 7.9

SUMMARY OF RESULTS

Obviously we've lost around 25% of our NAV/Unit.  How?  Well there's actually two reasons:

1.  The obvious one - the exchange rate.  Since GLBSE closed down the exchnage-rate has moved from 0.0044 to 0.0078.  Over half our holdings were in BTC (and locked in GLBSE so no way for me to trade them) and those lost ~43% in value.  That pretty much accounts for the loss on its own.

2.  We took a further hit because of having to hold on to our 10 LTC-MINER.LTC shares until it was clear GLBSE wasn't going to be rolled back.  At the time of GLBSE closure those could have been sold on LTC-GLOBAL for 110-120 LTC each.  By time I was sure GLBSE wasn't being rolled back (and so could trade them) the price of them had fallen and we ended up selling at 80-90.  That cost us around a 5% loss in value.

The above 2 factors were mitigated to an extent by someone deciding to sell back LTC-ATF units at 4.5 - which essentially cancelled out the loss from point 2. above.

To put our performance in context (and show just how much the loss is down to exchange rate) consider the following two things:

1.  At fund start each unit was worth .0356 BTC.   Now each unit is worth .05956 BTC.  Expressed in BTC each unit has actually gained 67.3% in value.
2.  If the current exchange rate were .00356 (what it was when the fund started) then each unit would be worth 11.313 LTC.  So even after the losses incurred from GLBSE closing down (writing off OBSI, marking down BITBOND, losing ~300 LTC having to hold LTC-MINING) and despite being unable to trade much for 2 weeks we're still actually 13% up on trading.

My point is NOT to claim that we can value the fund a different way to pretend we've made a profit.  We haven't.  My point IS that my actual trading has been sound - just the (known from the start to be a risk) exchange-rate jump is the reason for our losses.

For now I'm holding 10 BTC on BTC-E.  I don't want to convert them to LTC at the current rate - as there's serious resistance to the rate rising higher and I expect some sort of downward correction within the next day or so (though it may well only be a temporary one).  Whilst I don't want to end up speculating on the exchange-rate, I definitely don't want us locking in our losses by converting everything to LTC at the peak of a bubble.

I still can't make a deicison on the log-term future for LTC-ATF until we see what ex-GLBSE asset holders do when nefario releases lists of their investors to them.  So for now I'll just be trading on LTC-GLOBAL then will review the situation when we see how things develop.  From now on I'll be maintaining bids and asks all the time - so anyone who wants to buy in/cash out can.  The spread of bid/ask will vary (as usual) depending on how volatile the exchange-rate seems.

One final note: the HWM is being reset (per contract) to the current NAV/U.  Please do appreciate that if the exchange-rate swings back in the other direction there IS provision in the contract to prevent me taking management fees on "profits" that are actually just the result of that currency movement rather than a trading profit.

You honestly think you can just ignore legitimate issues and that the mods will just lock the thread?

GL with that lol.