Even though you get less dividends you still have a share of the company so any retained earnings invested in expansion adds value for shareholders.
Dividends arent the main game.
I agree with this. This is the first company in Bitcoin history where it could have never issued dividends, and we'd be buying it based on earnings reports and asset valuations. This is a pretty big deal, imo. Yep, dividends are certainly nice but ASICMINER is a great investment even without it. Kinda like how Apple didn't initially issue dividends? Steve Jobs never believed in dividends and thought investors who chased those were idiots, and didn't want idiots investing in his company. Most of the best businessmen in history believe(d) only idiots chased dividends as well, including Warren Buffet, although its uniquely Steve Jobs that only wanted smart people investing in his company. |
|
|
|
Even though you get less dividends you still have a share of the company so any retained earnings invested in expansion adds value for shareholders.
Dividends arent the main game.
I agree with this. This is the first company in Bitcoin history where it could have never issued dividends, and we'd be buying it based on earnings reports and asset valuations. This is a pretty big deal, imo. |
|
|
|
Active shares: 11,393
Dividends paid out today: 23.63967749 BTC
Dividends per share paid out today: 0.00207493 BTC
Dividends paid out for all time: 114.02708295 BTC
Dividends paid out for all time per share: 0.0292967163171353 BTC
Assets held:
106 BTC-MINING
1000 BTCMC
1000 ASICMINER
Dividends:
15.00 BTC from BTCMC
23.54454 BTC from DMC's ASICMINER shares
8.73502434 BTC from my ASICMINER shares
Progress:
1691 to 1966 BTC paid into DMC
1015 BTC returned for 9,330 shares
8.95 BTC returned for 186 shares
114.02 BTC dividends paid
553.03 to 828.03 BTC still owed
What's the remaining wallet balance? I notice you've paid some of the received dividends out and bought back shares with some - but some is, as yet, unused/unaccounted for. Approximately 5.96 BTC is currently in reserve. |
|
|
|
|
Active shares: 11,393
Dividends paid out today: 23.63967749 BTC
Dividends per share paid out today: 0.00207493 BTC
Dividends paid out for all time: 114.02708295 BTC
Dividends paid out for all time per share: 0.0292967163171353 BTC
Assets held:
106 BTC-MINING
1000 BTCMC
1000 ASICMINER
Dividends:
15.00 BTC from BTCMC
23.54454 BTC from DMC's ASICMINER shares
8.73502434 BTC from my ASICMINER shares
Progress:
1691 to 1966 BTC paid into DMC
1015 BTC returned for 9,330 shares
8.95 BTC returned for 186 shares
114.02 BTC dividends paid
553.03 to 828.03 BTC still owed
|
|
|
|
|
I can confirm 32.279 BTC on 1371 shares
|
|
|
|
|
Confirmed (is there an echo in here?)
|
|
|
|
Maybe this is answered in previous 100 pages of posts... Why can't they use https://btct.co/ ? No one really trusts btct.co. I'd rather see it on BitFunder. |
|
|
|
...
0, 11579. Your original question implied you cared about actually getting it done.
So you have done exactly nothing!? Your "I am buying back shares blaa blaa blaa" is just "blaa blaa blaa" as expected. DiabloD3, you can stfu now. You do realize BTCMC and ASICMiner dividends are funding the buy back, right? BTCMC pays dividends once a month, ASICMiner has not paid its first dividend yet. |
|
|
|
How's the promised buy-back going?
ASICMiner should be issuing their first dividend soon. Can you answer the question? https://bitfunder.com/asset/DMCAsset Name DMC Asset Issuer Diablo-D3 Shares Total 11,579 Shares Issued 11,579 Pays Dividends Yes Issuer may Increase Shares: No I answered your question. Let me rephrase that: How many shares have been bought back after the DMC relisting on bitfunder? How many shares did you list on bitfunder to begin with? 0, 11579. Your original question implied you cared about actually getting it done. |
|
|
|
How's the promised buy-back going?
ASICMiner should be issuing their first dividend soon. Can you answer the question? https://bitfunder.com/asset/DMCAsset Name DMC Asset Issuer Diablo-D3 Shares Total 11,579 Shares Issued 11,579 Pays Dividends Yes Issuer may Increase Shares: No I answered your question. |
|
|
|
How's the promised buy-back going?
ASICMiner should be issuing their first dividend soon. |
|
|
|
Anyways, let's not talk about a problem we are not even close to have yet. Once we reach 15TH/s bring it up a 5th time.
The fact it's possible necessitates a solid plan. If you don't want to talk about it, that's fine, but I don't understand why others shouldn't be talking about it. Even if it never happens, at a future point I'd like to be able to say that we always had a plan. Also, it's an interesting problem. Most of the talk is about whether the talk about it makes sense, and it's unproductive. Some large stock holders are just using irc and e-mail. It is being talked about. It just wont be talked about here I guess to reduce people complaining/trolling. This. |
|
|
|
|
Which url is the correct url for git upstream?
|
|
|
|
I thought it's consequent to use Bitcoin address signing for this contract
Yes, but you have to use Bitcoin itself to sign it. No one agreed on the signature algo, so everyone else is doing it wrong and they need to switch to use Bitcoin's. If you would have signed it with bitcoin-qt or bitcoind, this wouldn't have been a problem. |
|
|
|
That fine till he trades away all the ASICMINER shares for worthless shares in other companies in the same way he gave away all the bitcoins he raised in the IPO to other companies .
If he still had the bitcoins hes supposed to have the shareholders would be on their way to having actual assets to show for the investment.
Read the mid-mortem report. Before nefario decided to shit all over the community, DMC was turning a profit before the mvp was completed. |
|
|
|
Lets say I have 3 shares. I sell 1 share for 10 lollipops. With permission of the first shareholder, I sell the next share for 5, and the next for 2. I have a total of 17. According to your math, I have instantly lost 13 lollipops, even though they never actually existed.
I then hand back 10, 5, and 2 lollipops to the original investors, respectively. I have handed back a total of 17 lollipops, the original number I was handed.
You're the guy with 6 who thinks he should get more than he originally put in, even though neither the guy with 10 or the guy with 2 are getting more than they put in.
Problem with that is that shares are fungible. So you can't give back based on what people put in. In your example all three of the guys would get 5.667 lollipops meaning the one who put in 10 lost out to the ones who put in 5 and 2. Everyone's meant to pay the same amount of lollipops - that's where you made a basic mistake. Some adjustment of the price is unavoidable - but to go from putting in 10 lollipops to putting in 0.2 is just silly. I haven't suffered any personal loss - the bunch of DMC I now hold were bought at just over 0.02 each on average. But my profit when I convert those to ASIC-MINER and sell them hasn't come (as it should have) from great management of the fund. It's come from massive dilution of share value, coupled with investors totally losing confidence - meaning my profit is really coming from other investors who invested earlier. And that's not a success for DMC, no matter how you spin it. I bought those shares when they were heavily undervalued. I'm puzzled why all these people you think want to invest in DMC 2 weren't snapping them up - just the ASICMINER were plainly worth more than the price I managed to buy at. Actually I lie - I'm not puzzled at all : you should figure out the reason for it and what it tells you. You're right, its a little messy because people aren't getting paid back what they originally put in because they want their money now instead of when they'd normally get it. That is their choice, however, I am not forcing them to sell their shares for less than they purchased them for. I never claimed DMC was a success. I should have accepted USD investments as well as BTC, except DMC just wasn't ready for that yet. It would have raised money much faster and we could be already on our way to accept customers. DMC 2.0 probably will accept USD investments as well. Also, I do agree that I shouldn't have listened to early shareholders and sold IPO shares at less than 1.0. At the time, their arguments sounded like a good idea, however none of them had any actual business expertise and I should have realized it was a bad idea. I want to believe they had their hearts in the right place, though. |
|
|
|
The main problem is you did a bait and switch during your IPO and instead of a mining company that would build its own datacentre and hold assets you turned it into an ETF which destroyed more value than a hooker getting AIDS.
There was no motion to change the original business plan into an ETF which you chose to do all by yourself.
Except I never changed it into an ETF. I was using mining bonds to fulfill the mining part of the plan until the datacenter was constructed and mining equipment could be placed into it. At no time was the datacenter taken off the table. DMC 2.0 is going to continue pursuing the original plan. |
|
|
|
So bottomline is that people who bought DMC shares with cash at IPO have lost the bulk of their investment, but those who got them from trading with you have broken even or made a profit?
IF the people who bought at 1.0 BTC agreed for you sell/trade more at far lower prices then they only have themselves to blame for having the value of their shares diluted down by over 90%. Agreeing to that was sheer lunacy on their part(if they did - I wasn't watching at the time so never checked for votes on GLBSE).
The people who bought at full price fit into two categories. 1) They believe the original plan is sound and want to invest in DMC 2.0, 2) They didn't agree with the discount plan and sold out early in the 0.90s. GLBSE motions didn't work right yet at that time, so this was an informal motion. Almost all the original shareholders I personally knew on IRC, so it was easy to get done. Ones who sold out at 0.9 are the smart lucky ones. Rest of them got fucked and lost over 98% share price. BTW, if I recall, DMC lost more of its value than defaulted scammer Trendon Shavers pass through crap (before GLBSE closed). Why don't you buy that crap back from me at price you sold it to me? You've refused to list a sell order on the exchange for that price, and you also have demanded to get ahead in line. Shares will be bought back according to what price they are being sold at. You threw a hissy fit on IRC because you think you should get preferential treatment over other shareholders. You have tried to claim that 1.00 (the IPO price) to 0.03 (the floor during the nefario incident) means I lost 97% of the money put into DMC. Since virtually all shares were never even sold at full IPO price due to trading, this claim is false. The mid-mortem I wrote up above details approximately how much was put in, how much was paid out, and approximately how much the assets are valued. When DMC finally buys back all the shares, we will most likely break even. If the minimum of 1691 BTC went in, 1105 + 90 BTC have been paid out, and our assets are at least worth 496 BTC, we break even. If the maximum of 1966 BTC went in, 1105 + 90 BTC have been paid out, and our assets are worth at least 771 BTC, we break even. I want to make sure the remaining shareholders get as much out of these assets as possible. Neither ASICMINER nor BTCMC can be sold yet, and Namworld is still fighting amazingrando on BTC-MINING so that might not be a complete loss. Let me make you a really simple "painting" of what has happened 100 shares, assets are 100 lollipops - NAV 1 lollipop per share so for this game, lets say the NAV is 1 lp Now, if you take 10 lollipops, and stick them up your arse, those lollipops are bad... not good now. Understand it? So you have 100 shares, 90 lollipops and your shares NAV is .. lets say it all together ... yes, wipe that drool off your chin... and lets say it together now: "0.9" . Good boy. Lets move on. Right. So you managed to waste 10 lollipops and your shareholders are not happy. No problem dear D3, you just take another 50 lollipops and flush those down the toilet. Do not worry, you can blame that on this Other Guy. And so on and on, until you have 0.03 fkn lollipops per share. If you sold shares later at 0.11 and bought that shit back.... SO FKN WHAT! You fucked everyone, who was supporting your from the day one. This is partly why no one takes you seriously. Lets say I have 3 shares. I sell 1 share for 10 lollipops. With permission of the first shareholder, I sell the next share for 5, and the next for 2. I have a total of 17. According to your math, I have instantly lost 13 lollipops, even though they never actually existed. I then hand back 10, 5, and 2 lollipops to the original investors, respectively. I have handed back a total of 17 lollipops, the original number I was handed. You're the guy with 6 who thinks he should get more than he originally put in, even though neither the guy with 10 or the guy with 2 are getting more than they put in. |
|
|
|
So bottomline is that people who bought DMC shares with cash at IPO have lost the bulk of their investment, but those who got them from trading with you have broken even or made a profit?
IF the people who bought at 1.0 BTC agreed for you sell/trade more at far lower prices then they only have themselves to blame for having the value of their shares diluted down by over 90%. Agreeing to that was sheer lunacy on their part(if they did - I wasn't watching at the time so never checked for votes on GLBSE).
The people who bought at full price fit into two categories. 1) They believe the original plan is sound and want to invest in DMC 2.0, 2) They didn't agree with the discount plan and sold out early in the 0.90s. GLBSE motions didn't work right yet at that time, so this was an informal motion. Almost all the original shareholders I personally knew on IRC, so it was easy to get done. Ones who sold out at 0.9 are the smart lucky ones. Rest of them got fucked and lost over 98% share price. BTW, if I recall, DMC lost more of its value than defaulted scammer Trendon Shavers pass through crap (before GLBSE closed). Why don't you buy that crap back from me at price you sold it to me? You've refused to list a sell order on the exchange for that price, and you also have demanded to get ahead in line. Shares will be bought back according to what price they are being sold at. You threw a hissy fit on IRC because you think you should get preferential treatment over other shareholders. You have tried to claim that 1.00 (the IPO price) to 0.03 (the floor during the nefario incident) means I lost 97% of the money put into DMC. Since virtually all shares were never even sold at full IPO price due to trading, this claim is false. The mid-mortem I wrote up above details approximately how much was put in, how much was paid out, and approximately how much the assets are valued. When DMC finally buys back all the shares, we will most likely break even. If the minimum of 1691 BTC went in, 1105 + 90 BTC have been paid out, and our assets are at least worth 496 BTC, we break even. If the maximum of 1966 BTC went in, 1105 + 90 BTC have been paid out, and our assets are worth at least 771 BTC, we break even. I want to make sure the remaining shareholders get as much out of these assets as possible. Neither ASICMINER nor BTCMC can be sold yet, and Namworld is still fighting amazingrando on BTC-MINING so that might not be a complete loss. |
|
|
|
So bottomline is that people who bought DMC shares with cash at IPO have lost the bulk of their investment, but those who got them from trading with you have broken even or made a profit?
IF the people who bought at 1.0 BTC agreed for you sell/trade more at far lower prices then they only have themselves to blame for having the value of their shares diluted down by over 90%. Agreeing to that was sheer lunacy on their part(if they did - I wasn't watching at the time so never checked for votes on GLBSE).
The people who bought at full price fit into two categories. 1) They believe the original plan is sound and want to invest in DMC 2.0, 2) They didn't agree with the discount plan and sold out early in the 0.90s. GLBSE motions didn't work right yet at that time, so this was an informal motion. Almost all the original shareholders I personally knew on IRC, so it was easy to get done. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
