Wow, these look nice. And I like that they're in 'Quarter' denominations, as opposed to the higher BTC0.5 and BTC1.0 I see around.

I'm assuming you're looking for the precise amounts generated (say at the current rate of ~7.16 blocks per hour) or other historical data?

Otherwise a quick calculation would be: 25 [BTC per block] x 6 [blocks per hour] x 24 [hours in a day] x 365.25 [days in a year] = BTC1,314,900
Change out parts in the equation to suit your mathematical needs.

Given the types of equipment that are scheduled to ship soon, I'd put the March 2014 difficulty at about 5B. But then again, that's only if just about all manufacturers ship on time and within spec (KnC, Hashfast, CoinTerra, BFL, Bitmine, and others), especially for December orders.
Call it 3-4B conservatively, 6-7B as a ceiling.

This will get you started: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=283820.0

Thanks for the feedback everyone, I always appreciate it.

Another brief update:
Tomorrow (December 11th, 2013) at 12:00pm EST, KCIM trading will be temporarily halted in order to implement the 100:1 share split. This usually doesn't take long, but I did want to make everyone aware.

Also, I've got a bit of a surprise for everyone. A few people mentioned to me that they'd like to see a monthly update in a similar fashion to Havelock's HMF.
With that, I present the first rendition of the KCIM Newsletter: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxnW49twNMNbNFdSZUFBaGdyb2M/edit?usp=sharing

The goal of the newsletter is to give an update as to where the fund stands, how operations went for the previous month, and a forecast for what's to come.

This will be going out through the Havelock 'Fund Reports' system soon, but I wanted to post it here first. Let me know what you think.

That's correct, a 100:1 split will be happening shortly. With the change in structure comes a change in the way investors are able to trade. The split allows for greater liquidity as investors are now able to work with smaller buy/sell quantities. I should note that splitting does NOT effect the underlying operations and payments to investors, and overall it is pretty common practice.

Splitting the previous Notes wasn't a viable option; though it wasn't against the agreements, it did create more complexity with buybacks and payments.

Transition update:


::: IMPORTANT NOTE :::
______________________________________________________________________________

As of December 8th, 2013, Korb and Co. Investments Mining Fund has been restructured as per popular vote.
This means KCIM is no longer based on Secured Promissory Notes, and instead has been switched to a Revenue Sharing model.

All previously agreed upon updates, contractual arrangements, and amendments (noted on HavelockInvestments.com, KorbInvestments.com, or on the BitcoinTalk.org forums), have been voided as they no longer apply to the current model of the fund.
______________________________________________________________________________


::: Korb and Co. Investments Revised Agreement :::

Summary:
The Korb and Co. Investments Mining Fund is a small Vermont based operation that provides bi-weekly dividends based on net income from ASIC mining.

Share Details:
There are currently 86900 units outstanding. To stave off dilution, this number will not increase unless a supermajority of votes (viewed as greater than two-thirds) agree to release additional shares. Each share represents a proportional amount of ownership of all mining equipment, granting a similar fraction of the mining net income for each two week period.

Dividends:
The current dividend model is set to distribute 75% of all net income with the remaining 25% set aside for hardware purchases.
Payments will be made every two weeks.
As the network difficulty increases, bi-weekly dividends are expected to decrease until new hardware comes online. The dividend, however, will always be a minimum 0.000025 BTC per two week period for as long as the fund is able to continue its operations.

Voting Rights:
Each share represents one vote.
For any proposed general motion, a minimum of 60% of all submitted votes must agree with the change.
For any proposed motion pertaining to an increase in fund units, a minimum of 67% of all submitted votes must agree with the change.

Changes:
Any changes to the fund and/or agreement will be voted on prior to going into effect.

Dissolution:
In the event the fund is required to cease operations, either through insolvency, legal force, or an extraordinary circumstance that leaves the operator unable to continue their duties, all mining equipment will be auctioned to the highest bidder(s). Proceeds from the sale, in conjunction with any remaining funds, will be distributed to all investors as a Final Dividend.

What does that have to do with anything?
I'm just pointing out that, in typical mining fund fashion, people consistently gloss over the heavy implications of USD/BTC variance. And given the sheer number of 'young' accounts in this thread, I have a feeling not all of them are familiar with how mining works...hence why you're able to get away with overcharging them. And they're none the wiser because you showed them that nice little table of revenue predictions with an expected high dividend.

It would be a shame if someone came along and offered BTC0.025 for 3GH/s...

Maybe I missed it...but are you guys currently mining in a pool or solo?

And I'm guessing no one else has noticed, but they're selling you shares at (currently) ~$17/GH/s...and buying up equipment at $3/GH/s. That made me 'lol' a bit.

Voting to restructure KCIM has closed this afternoon, and I've just finished compiling the results. As with all company voting, the amount of votes cast is proportional to how many units you hold. So, out of a possible 869 total votes, 720 votes were cast, which is quite impressive. 32 users cast their votes, though only 28 were able to be counted. 4 submissions used an email address not associated with Havelock (so I couldn't compare you to my current list of unit holders and tally your votes properly).

Do you approve of the proposed change to a Revenue Sharing model?:
600 [22 Unit Holders] -- Yes
120 [6 Unit Holders]  -- No
149                        -- Abstained

Here's a link to the results (email addresses are censored for privacy) :: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AhnW49twNMNbdG41VXBlRFFramxOdnJlb3JzNjhvVnc&usp=sharing

With these results, I will begin drafting up a summary and terms of the change. Thank you to all who voted, and also those of you who submitted comments/suggestions (on here, through email, and through voting). There are a few suggestions that have been seriously considered and will most likely be included in the change.

I'll have another update to all this coming between today and tomorrow, but I wanted to let everyone know where we stand first.

Let's focus on this for a moment.


How does this startup provide a more thorough service (in terms of speed, security, and reliability) compared to blockchain.info or Bitcoin-QT wallets? How large is the market for a Mac OSX wallet, as compared to Windows or Linux?


What sets this startup apart from BitPay.com? In other words, why should I consider using Cryptopay instead of the *very* well known (and reliable) BitPay?


This seems interesting, though I can't seem to find much information about them. Given an investment with you would partially be funding them, where I can I find a detailed prospectus for their company? Specifically, I'm looking for a business plan of sorts and at least some financials as to how they've done over the past month (it looks like they started early November).


I dug into this a bit (briefly), and as far as I can tell it's just a simple application / plugin that allows you to accept Bitcoin payments through various exchanges. What's the business model behind this, and how does this differ from setting up a typical "Bitcoin Accepted" Mt. Gox button for payments?


No qualms here; I think every country should have their own designated exchange to help facilitate local acceptance. What's the expected growth in the Mexican Bitcoin market?


I can't seem to find any information on this one. Is this sort of like a cold wallet, except stored on a SIM instead of, say, a USB drive?


This seems to tie into Hive as noted above...and how does this differ from BitPay?


Turning to your prospectus...
I see there are 3 entities associated with this project; SFI (the "Fund"), SHL (the "Issuer"), and SML (the "Management"). Am I to presume all 3 are the same company? I ask because the prospectus notes (under Offering Structure) that SHL is offering 10,000,000 units (20% on December 12th, 80% sometime within the next 365 days), but also that:

There's also a bit of a discrepency between your prospectus and website. On your website, you noted that BTC1,800 will be used for funding startups...but on the prospectus you noted only BTC1,780. I imagine this is just a miscalculated management fee.



All in all, it seems interesting...but I don't know what makes you stand out from the rest. Investing in your fund requires an understanding of all you invest in, since that's how I'm able to calculate my overall risk. If you're working with "Grade A" companies to help them get started, then I expect a detailed summary of each company you deal with since my investment will, in turn, be going to them in the end. Unfortunately in this case I don't see any of that. All I see is "hey, we've been helping this set of companies get started, but they need funding and we want our cut...want to invest?".

Excellent pics, and thank you for taking the time to visit them and post your experiences. It's nice to see things moving along, though hopefully the upcoming pics will be of the PCBs and ASICs

After reading through the the summaries (both here and on Havelock) as well as the prospectus, my best guess falls in line with others: It's an odd 'Second Life' sort of game, or at least the marketplace aspect. You register, pay a small fee to build up your fake company, make / produce products, sell / trade those products, profit.

The concept seems pretty cool, and it reminds me a bit of some of the Facebook games that came out ages ago...only difference here is you're hit with fees with just about anything you do in the game. This would be something I'd probably play from time to time...but not something I'd invest in, at least not until they're up and running, have a strong customer base, and some actual financials.

Also, not sure if anyone's noticed, but tomorrow signifies the first round of funding. There are 3,000,000 shares in total; 2M privately held, 1M to be offered in 250K increments. They're not valuing their company at BTC1,925, they're valuing it at BTC23,100.

Oh, and we can't forget the disclaimers near the end of the prospectus

I agree as well. One of the best pools I've had the pleasure of mining on, and I certainly hope it will continue at some point in the future, even if it is under different management.
Just requested my final payout.

It appears I'll be joining in with the common sentiment here as I will never purchase from BFL again (preorder or product in hand). Aside from the obvious reasons (consistent massive delays, overpriced inefficient hardware, and an unprofessional approach to PR), I'm not impressed with their overall customer service or the reliability of their products.

Currently operating 6 Singles (60GH/s models), I've had 3 of the provided power bricks die and 1 Single was DOA; 2 PSUs shorted out with a pop and puff of smoke, the other just sort of stopped working one day. The DOA Single and 1 PSU was shipped back for replacement (at my expense...apparently they don't cover that) and nearly two weeks go by before I have a working replacement. The other bricks haven't been replaced, and they probably won't be -- what's the point since they're cheaply made anyway? Might as well grab a decent $200 PSU off Newegg and save myself the headaches later on.

Anyway, there's competition in the marketplace now. We can finally let BFL die off as KnC, BitFury, and others take the reins.

The Notes are not numbered, prioritized, and holders aren’t in a queue, since this wasn’t something I was able to set up back in 2012. I’ve put more of a priority on repurchases for the longest holders (November / December 2012 for the most part…they’re the ones who literally got us started), but this was my own decision.


This is precisely what would have happened, and what I was originally prepared to do, though thankfully there was some agreement when it came to looking for an alternative solution.

Based on what I’ve read so far, there seems to be some agreement on what needs to be done next. I’ll write a formal update over the next few days and we can put it to a vote.

Here's how I see it, and *please* correct me if I'm wrong or if I missed anything, since most of what I know is based on U.S. regulations and I'm not sure how it translates to Panama.

Based on what I've read so far, there seems to be some confusion between the Havelock Exchange and the Havelock that we see now, since people are assuming they're the same thing.

The Havelock that acted as a securities exchange is technically no more. The business was sold to the Panama Fund, which took over all operational activities. Now, the legality of running an exchange is a bit murky for me, but I do know that in order to run it properly all securities hosted by the exchange must be abiding by rules and regulations of their jurisdictions, as well as where the exchange is located. In any case, achieving that is extremely hard to do as it is so complex and expensive, which I'm sure ties into why BitFunder and BTCT shut down.

To get around this, TPF restructured the operation as a Venture Capital Fund, which is much easier to set up to comply with regulations (at least here in the States). It allows them to work with a variety of businesses to raise capital, and they can open up investing to both accredited investors and "knowledgeable" investors.

In any case, the original owners we've grown accustomed to (Lightbox and his business partner) aren't the ones in charge anymore. HIF is playing out in somewhat the same way as CFIG, if anyone remembers how that went. If HIF is able to attract outside investors (outside of the Bitcoin community), then the fund may do well. Relying on raising capital from just the Bitcoin community requires quite a bit more transparency than what's been provided.

Debt restructuring is a good idea, though I don't have anything formally prepared to proceed with it. If the second phase of my company was implemented, a debt-equity swap would certainly be feasible since I'd have stock to offer up in replacement of the Notes.

The Notes themselves were technically taken off the market back in March, though I presume you mean halting trading as well. This was something I considered back in October prior to the first round of repurchasing, but I decided against it because I didn't want to limit anyone from selling their holdings if they needed money, just wanted to trade, or simply wanted out (and if there are sellers, there are buyers)...and with the current exchange turmoil and price volatility, a trading limitation may not be the fairest option.

In any case, you've got me thinking. There many be an option here we're not seeing, or at the very least I should be able to find some middle ground. Thanks!

I apologize for the delay as I was travelling yesterday.


You are 100% correct, which is why I've felt it to be unethical to repurchase directly off the market. Not to mention my purchase of Notes off the market doesn't really solve the problem, since technically the Notes are still outstanding (just changing holders), and that doesn't help the overall fund situation. It makes much more sense to focus on the underlying operations (mining, covering expenses, paying debts, etc) than to try and manipulate the market.