What's to rant about with ICE.Drill?  They're buying hashing power and selling it on to 'investors' with only a 30-40% fee which is favourable compared to what other companies want you to pay for you to get ownership of a portion of losses.  And as DeadTerra is administrating it you likely get the benefit of not actually getting your losses delivered until a few weeks after you PM asking for them.  Can't see anything to rant about there.

Disclaimer : I've flipped ICE.drill shares for a profit a few times and am currently stuck with some I tried to flip but got the timing wrong and missed the boat on.  if anyone's feeling charitable and wants to overpay for them feel free to PM me.  You may make a profit (if I sell them cheap enough) but it won't justify tieing the cash up.  You can, however, feel proud that you supported a legitimate large-scale mining endeavour where the issuers aren't obviously taking anything up front - which may be worth something to you (it isn't to me).

I'm a bit drunk but what significance does 3 BTC have here?

If you mine solo and find a block doesn't it still pay 25 BTC plus transactions?  If you mine in a pool then isn't what matters your rate of finding shares/hour?  I can't think of any reason why 3 BTC is relevant to anything - it's 100 GH/S mining for Y*X time or 1 GH/S mining for 100*Y*X time : it's exixtence says nothing about what X or Y is.

Don't think we "know" anything of the sort.  Care to explain how you actually "know" that?

Do you "know" what "know" even means?

Thanks for the clarification.  I hadn't actually considered selling them - though they definitely have value.  Any sales or exercising of them will, of course, be recorded here.

BMF shares will be valued in accounts at .032 unless/until they have a higher value AND there's significant bids at above that.  The warrants, as with all options we hold, will be value at zero.  Though options/warrants often have a clear value that value tends not to be immediately realisable so shouldn't be recognised in NAV/U.  If the situation arises where their value IS realisable then I'd value (and that report that value) appropriately.

I don't disagree with your response at all.  If ACTM had been a year earlier then it could have been a great investment - as it stands the only profit it will make is the (likely pretend) profit from idiots/sockpuppets who throw their cash way to them rather than other 'pre-order' blackholes.

On mining companies in current enironment if they haven't made back 90% of capital in first three months then you just spunked your investment away.  No new news there.

Point still stands that the bet was trying to hold them to a standard that very few (if any) companies ever met so can't be publicised as a measure of success/failure - as if taken at face value no business ever succeeded.  That the bet was made on a site that itself was IPOed and dismally failed as an investment is just the icing on the cake (yeah - some of you may claim a few % per year isn't a failure but I'd be slitting my wrists if I had to try to present that as success to my own investors).

At least 2 people run such bots on DMS - and I have no doubt they'll run them here if/when volume reaches a level justifying it.  On DMS the bots go further than that - with orders up on SELLING such that if they fill the bot can then sell MINING and make a small profit by buying PURCHASE then splitting it.

You're a few months behind what already happens where there's volume basically.

Let's not badmouth Firefly please.

I don't know or care who created it - just that MPOE-PR (the spokesperson for BBET) promoted the bet as though it actually proved something.  Very few (if any) companies have repaid initial investors within the period specified in the bet.  ASICMINER made that scale or repayments - though not sure if in the period.  My fund LTC-ATF did (though definitely NOT within the listed period - first dividend we paid was well after that but was 100% of initial investment).  

The bet is terrible - as even legitimate comapanies wouldn't "win" under its terms (prove me wrong by naming a few that would have won such a bet).  But it was promoted as somehow being proof of ACTM's shiteness : if you want to prove they're crap (which they are - in case anyone's confused) then at least have the sense to make a bet based on some criterion that companies which aren't shite actually pass.

If there's anyone I haven't offended please feel free to post (detailing why you aren't offended) and I'll make a genuine effort to offend you.  Wouldn't want anyone feeling left out.

I'm pretty drunk so take anything I say with a large pinch of salt.  I like the transparency on this fund (though it invests in mining so will make a loss anyway).  If the fund has ANY captal tied up in labcoin then get it out : it's not possible to distinguish between scammers/incompetents but they're definitely one or the other.

I had maybe 800 BTC of bids on Labcoin at IPO.  Not because I thought they were great or anything - but because I thought they'd sell out and I could sell at a profit.  I was correct - as were any number of other people doing the same thing.  Don't confuse that with them being worth leaving cash tied up in for any period of time.  They have an entirely uninformed shill/puppet account posting contentless posts to drive the market up.  There's absolutely no sensible reason why, if they were genuine, they'd have such a dick-head making posts in their name.  So we know they're either shit or bent.  It doesn't matter which they are - neither is worth tieing cash up in.

Labcoin was free cash if you flipped the IPO (doesn't matter if you sold to real idiots or pretend idiots played by the asset issuers - you made the same amount of BTC) and something to totally ignore thereafter.  Those with more courage than me may have made more thereafter - I'm a coward and tend to take free cash rather than cash with a risk attached : there's so much given away that there's no justification for taking on risk.

In case the previous is unclear let me make it plain.  If you have Labcoin shares (and don't have inside knowledge) you ARE a fucking idiot.  There's no grey area on that.  There's no wiggle-room of "well it seems better than other shite investments".  They have a total incompetent making posts on their behalf.  Can't speak for other business owners but if I hired a total incompetent it would be because I wanted misleading posts made (if I wanted accurate posts then I'd hire someone competent - not rocket science).  If a company wants misleading posts made then why, oh why, would you believe ANYTHING they say?

I have no idea at all whether swed099 (or whatever his name is) is a sock-puppet, a noob or just an idiot with no direct line to genuine information.  It doesn't matter WHICH it is - just that it's one of them.  Specifically he's supposedly the PR but has no information worth making posts about - which makes the role meaningless.  Now that's not a new development in BTC 'finance' - as I've had a few beers let's piss a lot off people off rather than just a few

MPEx also have a PR - who will happily make a thread about a BBET bet that AMC (Ken's company that wants to confuse itself with ASICMINER but is a year late to the party) not repaying investors within 6 months but fails to link to any bet that it won't, itself, repay IPO buyers within even a few years (I'd take the NO side on that bet if you can't guess).  There's something hilariously amusing about a company that is unlikely to ever return profit to investors bragging about hosting bets regarding another dismal attempt to be an 'investment'.  I don't have any great hopes of AMC ever making a profit but I'd rate the likelihood of them making a profit (defined as investors receiving back dividends exceeding the highest price paid for shares sold by the company) as higher than the same being the case for those who got caught out at the top of BBET bids (for which I'd assign a 0% chance).  Statistics can be used to try to make any point you want - but I'd be really cautious personally of accusing someone else of something (failing to return IPO price withing 6 months) that rather clearly applied to the entity from which the accusation was made.  No doubt I got that wrong and there'll be a slew of posts proving how MPEx investors make back 150% of share price PA.

The xbonds ones would have to be paid same as the rest - as those shares are being distributed at the start of next week so would be mixed in with the rest.

Sold   1097
Swapped   0
Total   1097
Price   0.009339
Total   10.244883
Less Fee   10.22439323
Man Fee   0.306731797

BTC Balance (BTC-TC)   1074.936339
9071 LTC-ATF.B1    90.71000000
CIPHERMINE Bonds    380.34000000
Coinlenders CD 27/9   202.6037698
Coinlenders Cash   0
Just-Dice Balance    187.72700000
TOTAL ASSETS    1,936.31710849
   
Outstanding MINING   206461
Outstanding SELLING   206461
Outstanding PURCHASE   11081
Effective Units   217542
   
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    1,931.46028974
NAV/U Post MINING Div    0.00887856
Days Dividend Post Div   397.68
SELLING Dividend    -         
NAV Post SELLING Div    1,931.46028974
NAV/U Post Selling Div    0.00887856
PURCHASE selling price    0.009322
PURCHASE buy-back price    0.008701
   
J-D House profit at report   6396

The miner protection plan offers no useful protection.  Not having it is pretty irrelevant.  It's just a way to get people who lost money buying rigs to spend more money buying unpopulated boards from the same people who just sold you loss-making boards with chips already installed.

Which isn't to say they'll definitely make a loss - just that if the rigs make a large loss then the MPP is worthless without a time machine to deliver the chips at the time you started mining rather than at an undefined point more than 90 days later.

It was nearly all PMBs - and did depreciate.  Now it's nearly all bonds with just a few PMBs left.  After taking a haircut on DMS.MINING he swapped to DMS.SELLING.

I addressed your question to an extent already in the second post.  Bottom line is I'm confident he'll make good on option exercises if he possibly can.  You need to look pretty carefully at his past behaviour to see why I believe that.  I'm not going to expand on that as it falls into the area where it isn't in the financial interest of LTC-ATF investors for me to do so.

Time to get into the meat of it - why is the investment +EV for LTC-ATF?  It's useful here to consider the worst and best cases to determine a range within which likely results will fall.

I won't, hereafter, be discussing default by issuer - which is always the worst case.  I explained in the first post why I don't believe default on the agreement by usagi is likely - but obviously it can't be totally discounted and is the true worst case.  That's always the worst case for all securities we hold - the only important point with it is that I don't believe the default risk is higher than usual here.  There's some mitigation as far as default is concerned as well - on most securities we're also exposed to some extent to exchange default.  Here we're largely immune to that - as the repurchase agreement means we're theoretically immune to losses to the security caused by the exchange failing.

So bear in mind the above when reading on - I'm not saying default risk doesn't exist just that, as always, there's no point dwelling on it : the key is determining that likely profit makes a small default risk acceptable.

For the remainder of this post when I refer to 'value' it is somewhat ambiguous : it could refer to NAV/U or it could refer to market price.  Which I refer to in practice is very situational - at times NAV/U will drive decisions I make and at other times market price matters more.  I'm making no effort to disambiguate such references.

Worst Case Scenarios

There are two different scenarios which are potentially the worst case ones - it's not immediately clear which is actually worst.

1.  Short-term heavy loss for BMF with no medium-term recovery.  In this scenario the value of BMF falls immediately and massively and hasn't made any significant recovery after 2 months.  We end up sitting on the shares for 2 months then selling them back at the purchase price.  The loss to LTC-ATF in this is the cost of 50 BTC for 2 months - which can be approximated as being 60 days of paying dividends on LTC-ATF.B2 on 50 BTC (as that's where we raise new capital now) or 1.5 BTC.  There's no larger opportunity cost as we could sell more LTC-ATF.B2 into the market without problem.

2.  Whilst the above is the obvious worst-case scenario there's actually another which potentially ends up worse.  That's where the value of BMF drops slightly then stays there.  And remains there for 6 months.  In that scenario we can never sell at or above .032 on the market - as the value is just too low - but because the fall is small there's a strong disincentive to sellback after 2 months as by doing so we would surrender our right to the 1 year warrants.  In that situation we end up selling back after 5 months or so - so it costs us a lot more in capital servicing.  Of course during that period we ARE receiving dividends - and as the value hasn't fallen a lot those are likely to cover a significant part of what would otherwise be our losses (if the value has fallen AND dividends were tiny then we'd be selling back earlier and the outcome would be roughly like 1.).  So it's a bit of a toss-up which is the worst.

Bottom line is that maximum expected losses to LTC-ATF on the 50 BTC investment, ignoring default, are around 2 BTC.

Best Case Scenario

For purely illustrative purposes let me give a humorous best case scenario.  I'm not intending to suggest that usagi WOULD gamble the funds on J-D - take it as analogy for investing in something high-risk and high-reward.

1.  We sell our shares on the market at around the price we paid for them.
2.  Usagi gambles the 150 BTC we paid for them (representing around half the NAV of BMF) on a single even-money roll on Just-Dice.

If Usagi wins the roll then NAV has increased by 50% - we can now start turning in warrants to get shares at .032 and selling them at a signficant profit on the market.

If Usagi loses the roll then NAV has halved.  We can now start buying shares on the market at around .016 and selling back per our right to do so.  And as we do this the NAV MAY fall even lower - as if BMF is paying for the redemptions then the NAV/U of all remaining shares is falling so we get the next batch cheaper.  And as this would end up with us having all the cash and the final NAV/U for everyone else being 0 there's pressure on the other investors to sell first (and get something) allowing us to buy even cheaper.  I say "NAV MAY fall" as it isn't at all clear to me whether if I sell back at .032 when NAV/U is lower BMF or usagi pays the difference - it's a point I deliberately didn't try to clarify as I didn't believe asking the question to be in my/LTC-ATF's interest.

Now ignore the J-D references above and consider what would happen to the share price of BMF if NAV/U either fell or rose significantly due to usagi's investment performance.  It's pretty safe to assume that if he makes heavy losses it won't trade at a premium, and if he makes large profits it likely WILL trade at a premium.  The extent to which that happens depends mainly on his willingness to issue or redeem paper - but the pressure is always going to be in the direction which maximises our profits.

In anything approaching a best-case scenario we can make a signficant profit if the value of BMF EITHER rises or falls by a lot.  That's because we have the ability to execute (what are effectively) options in either direction.  What we absolutely don't want is value stagnation.

More Realistic Scenarios

The best case, as described above, is pretty much guaranteed not to happen.  Whilst the value of BMF could conceivably go up or down a lot there's just no way to shift all BMF shares at near NAV/U in the first place.  That said if anyone wants them I'd sell them all right now at a 5% discount - but only if all sold in one block (there's good reasons why selling a small number at a discount is a bad move).

I'm going to have to be intentionally a bit vague from here on out - as if I were to describe precisely the strategies I plan to use it would make them less likely to succeed.  Some of you will be able to read between the lines or extrapolate from what I say - others won't.  If you're an investor in LTC-ATF and have some brilliant idea of how profit could be made DON'T post it in the thread because:

a) I almost certainly already plan on doing it.
b) Informing other market participants probably reduces either the probability of it working or the profitability of executing it.

For LTC-ATF to make a profit doesn't require that we sell all of our BMF shares - in fact we only need to sell a relatively small amount.  There are a few key factors that we require to occur for us to make a profit:

1.  That the value of BMF is above the price we paid for SOME period within the next few months and that we sell some shares near that price - freeing up options.
2.  That subsequently, but within the next 6 months, the value of BMF moves majorly in EITHER direction.

The best outcome for us is undoubtedly if, whatever it is usagi has planned, makes a significant profit - as we then get to make profit on selling existing shares AND double-dip with warrants.  But provided we free up a fairly small number of options we come out ahead if the value subsequently crashes.

It's important at this point to consider what the portfolio of BMF actually is.  Although it claims to be a mining investment fund at present the vast majority of its holdings are very safe things like bonds - many of which actually pay more than what we pay ourself on LTC-ATF.B2.  So whilst we would ideally like to sell shares quickly we don't face any massive cost if we fail to do so due to dividends reducing the effective cost of holding them (with no change in value) to next to nothing.

I don't know what usagi's planned big investment opportunity is - but it's a safe bet that he isn't just planning to buy more bonds as that wouldn't achieve anything for him other than a nasty cashflow problem in 2 months time when I asked for the 150 BTC back.  I believe it against the interest of LTC-ATF investors for me to speculate further on this.

There's two more things to consider when looking at why this is a decent thing for LTC-ATF:

1.  LTC-ATF can now trade BMF with impunity provided certain guidelines are adhered to.
2.  LTC-ATF can write options on BMF backed by the options we already hold (again subject to certain restrictions).

Hopefully this at least shows that the downside is small compared to the upside : if you do the math then with a downside of under 5% of invested capital usagi doesn't need THAT high a chance of making a profit for this to work out well for LTC-ATF on average.  And that's if we were to totally discard any possibility of profit if BMF were to fall in price.

The key, for me, in choosing to do this deal was that the most likely downside is very small compared to the upside.  It really IS that simple.  It's then just down to me to extract the most possible benefit from it - which I've hinted at above but can't describe in detail for (hopefully) obvious reasons.

The LOL Factor

I'd be remiss if I failed to mention that the humorous side of this DID occur to me when considering it.  I believe the deal is good for LTC-ATF on its merits - but that it was with usagi added an amusement factor which certainly added value for me personally.

Disclaimer

As with all investments I make on behalf of LTC-ATF no endorsement of securities we hold should be assumed.  LTC-ATF trades and holds securities because I believe the specific circumstances, terms and context of those holdings make the situation +EV for LTC-ATF.  That should never be extrapolated into a general recommendation to buy, hold, trade or otherwise interact with something.

The sort of points discussed above are things that I consider on most investments/trades we do - having seen how long it took me to type this up only reaffirms my decision not to, in general, discuss the detail of LTC-ATF's dealings.

As promised, here's a lot more detail/explanation on the BMF investment.

Why Invest in BMF/Usagi?

The short answer to this is that I believe making this deal has a positive expectation for LTC-ATF/myself.  There a few general points to consider - I'll get to explaining why it has a positive expectation in a seperate section of this post.

1.  Quality of an investment has never been something which has prevented me trading securities.  Examples where LTC-ATF have traded something that was completely horrible include trading the spread on Obsi's Ponzi AFTER it was known to be a scam and he'd stopped paying interest and holding DMC shares despite it being maybe the most mismanaged fund that wasn't an actual scam (we made 200%+ on our investment due to it being misvalued by the market as they hadn't appreciated the value/liquidity of its ASICMINER holdings).  In short, LTC-ATF holding/trading something has NEVER meant that I believe it to be intrinsically a good investment - just that the circumstances of our trading are such that I believe it to have a positive expectation for us.

That isn't to say that quality is something I ignore - far from it.  But it's important to remember that LTC-ATF's objective is to make profit for our unit-holders - and I always have done that regardless of my views of the actual securities traded.  The most recent such case being Labcoin - where LTC-ATF flipped shares for 150% profits despite there never being any convincing evidence that it was a profitable or sound venture.

In short, it doesn't matter whether I believe BMF is a good investment (or usagi a good manager) or not so long as I believe the deal is profitable (has a positive expectation - as actual profit is never guaranteed) for LTC-ATF.  In fact, as we'll see later, this deal doesn't need usagi to do well for LTC-ATF to make a profit (though the best possible outcome for us IS that he does well).

2.  Risk of issuer default is always an important factor.  I've been (and continue to be) critical of many of usagi's past dealings.  There are specific aspects of his behaviour I've been critical of - it's my belief that those don't present any great risk to us here.  The ONLY risk that matters here (in terms of default) is whether or not he adheres to the agreement.  And the agreement is specific on the most important points:

a) The price at which warrants can be exercised,
b) The right to sell back and the price at which this occurs,
c) The MAXIMUM time he has to perform buybacks in.  This is absolutely critical - as one of my main ongoing criticisms of him has been the ridiculous amount of time (it continues to take) to buyback his Nyan.A.  No explicit time-scale was defined for that - and so there's no date at which 'default' can be declared.  In our case the time-scale is "It may take up to seven days to liquidate your value for large or multiple simultaneous redemption orders (20btc+)."  There's an absolute maximum of seven days defined.

This moves things away from the grey areas - where I believe his judgment has been bad - into something very black and white where there's no way to delay or argue that it means something other than it evidently does.  I believe that usagi will try his hardest to avoid breaking the deal - as doing so would finish him here for good.

3.  It's important to understand what I did and what I didn't 'buy'.

The wrong view to take is that I bought shares in BMF that came with warrants/options as a bonus.
The correct view to take (from my perspective) is that I bought options that could be exercised as PUTs OR CALLs (at the same strike price) and that the premium I paid to get those options was that I had to buy some BMF shares at current NAV/U.

It's important for LTC-ATF investors to understand the distinction between the two - as my entire rationale for making the deal (and strategy going forward) rests upon me having made the decision with the second description reflecting my viewpoint.

So What Do The Warrants Mean?

There's an important point with these which must be considered when looking at my strategy going forward.  Each warrant we hold can ONLY be used in one direction or the other - not both.

LTC-ATF holds 1563 shares of BMF.  We are NOT entitled to do 1563 redemptions at .032 AND 1563 CALLs at.032.  Rather we're entitled to 1563 of any mix of the two.  That's because the terms for redemption at .032 are that a warrant has to be surrendered for each share redeemed.

That restriction is an entirely reasonable (in fact, essential) one for usagi to have imposed - as without it we could make the deal, immediately sellback all shares at the same price and be left with 1563 totally free 1-year CALLs at .032.

For the remainder of this post I'll describe them as options - as holding one warrant effectively gives the right to either PUT or CALL 1 share at .032.

There's no restriction on the size of each execution - and they don't have to all be in the same direction - but we can only execute 1563 options in total (warrants were issued per share, not per purchase, so can be considered as independent).

Potential Conflict of Interest

This point needs to be got out of the way.  As one third of the shares/options were purchased by LTC-ATF and 2/3 by myself personally there exists a potential conflict of interest when an opportunity to trade or exercise options comes around.

That's not an entirely new situation - a similar position occurred on the LABCOIN IPO where LTC-ATF bought a small amount to flip and I personally bought a much larger amount to flip.  As then (and on one other occasion I can think of) the simple rule I follow is that LTC-ATF gets to go in the most profitable position.  So on LABCOIN I dumped the LTC-ATF holdings right before dumping (the first half of) my own (had to let the market recover a bit before dumping 2nd half).  Here if it would be in the interest of both LTC-ATF and myself to sell/exercise an option then LTC-ATF gets to go in whichever position is the most profitable (be it first or second - in some scenarios going second is best value).

But it does raise the question of WHY I got into this potential conflict of interest in the first place.  The answer to that is very straightforward - that it is far better for LTC-ATF that I hold the rest of the warrants than that anyone else does.  I can avoid Prisoner's Dilemma-type scenarios where each holder does better not cooperating despite the best result for all being cooperation.  I can avoid races to execute options where delaying makes more sense but being second costs.  And I control sufficient votes (at least initially) to block any dumb moves.  Knowing what all other warrant/option holders will do is a massive edge when going from a general strategy into the specifics of tactics.

In short, LTC-ATF will definitely be no worse off - and almost certainly better off - from me holding the remaining warrants than from anyone else having them.

Have been typing a while now - and still probably at best halfway through making the post.  Will post this half now - then, after a quick break, type up a second half where I look at the real substance (why it's likely to be profitable and an overview of strategy).  It's amazing how long it takes to type up crap like this when it only took about 30 seconds to realise it all after reading the offer post.

LTC-ATF Buys shares + Options in BMF

I don't generally disclose investments/trades we make but am disclosing (and will discuss in some length) this one for a few reasons:

1.  It's a matter of public record anyway (which I'm fine with)
2.  It's in BMF (run by usagi) which definitely warrants an explanation from me
3.  It's likely we'll hold the shares for a while - so would be disclosed by me anyway (unless there was a material disadvantage in doing so)
4.  It isn't a straightforward purchase of equity - so is entirely capable of being misrepresented.

In this post I'm just going to quote the terms of the deal then I'll make a second, much longer, one and explain WHY I did it, how it's to the likely benefit of LTC-ATF etc.

The post by usagi offering the deal is here :

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=295356.msg3166233#msg3166233

As it's now locked I can't directly quote it, but here's the terms as stated:


Usagi has commented on the agreement here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=229036.msg3174029#msg3174029

There are two significant inaccuracies in that report:

1.  LTC-ATF has NOT bought a controlling interest in BMF for two reasons:
a) The shares purchased amount to (just) under 50% of outstanding shares.
b) Only 1/3 of the shares purchased were by LTC-ATF, the rest were by myself personally.

2.  Usagi states "As a vote of confidence, Deprived has committed to hold the fund for a minimum of two months.".  That is not accurate.  What I've committed to is not exercising the right to sell back at .032/share for 2 months.  Which is significantly different - as will become apparent in my next post.

I think the first inaccuracy was done for impact - and the second is just a poor choice of words on usagi's part.

I'll post this in both LTC-ATF threads then make a much more lengthy post going into a lot more detail - as there's quite a few points that I want to clarify/explain.

Actually it isn't a troll - though it isn't 100% accurate.  Will be making a post about it myself in about half an hour.

Sold   1975
Swapped   0
Total   1975
Price   0.009365
Total   18.495875
Less Fee   18.45888325
Man Fee   0.553766498

BTC Balance (BTC-TC)   1067.805146
9071 LTC-ATF.B1    90.71000000
CIPHERMINE Bonds    382.33000000
Coinlenders CD 27/9   202.4812502
Coinlenders Cash   0
Just-Dice Balance    186.68800000
TOTAL ASSETS    1,930.01439571
   
Outstanding MINING   205876
Outstanding SELLING   205876
Outstanding PURCHASE   10569
Effective Units   216445
   
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    1,925.18206846
NAV/U Post MINING Div    0.00889456
Days Dividend Post Div   398.40
SELLING Dividend    -         
NAV Post SELLING Div    1,925.18206846
NAV/U Post Selling Div    0.00889456
PURCHASE selling price    0.009339
PURCHASE buy-back price    0.008717
   
J-D House profit at report   6097

Bit of a drop in J-D today - though not until after I'd made the withdrawal yesterday.  If anyone's interested DMS is in profit by ~27 BTC from investing in J-D.

I'd assume starting difficulty is the difficulty at last change - i.e.112628548.7.

That's STILL the current difficulty - what you have on your graph is a guess of next difficulty (and there's various ways to do that - all inaccurate).