A share actively held by an a private individual are already issued. The representatives of SatoshiDice solemnly promise and warrant never to issue more shares on any other venue nor in any way to dilute existing shareholders at any point in the future. I take that statement as never issuing more shares elsewhere or diluting shares. Each share still own 1/100,000,000th of SatoshiDice and are thus not diluted at all. That is the distinction between share dilution, versus share devaluation caused by a large amount being put for sale at cheaper than market price. Now explain the second sentence. The private stakes in the company were NOT held as part of the issue made on MPEx. They can be privately traded however their owners want - it's totally irrelevant to those holding MPEx shares. The second ssentence referred to the means by which additional shares could be issued on MPEx - which is what happened here. You're about the third person to quote that sentence - which noones disputes the meaning of - whilst totally ignoring "All future share issuance will be made only a) subject to approval by MPEx and b) at a price no less than the higher of the 1 day average price and the 30 day average price then current on MPEx ; " which is the bit in question. That refers to issuance on MPEx (issuance on other exchanges is barred and the contract is silent on the private off-exchange ownership of the remaining 90% of the profit stream). 100 million shares were authorised. 10 million were issued on MPEx. The other 90 million couldn't be issued on an exchange other than MPEx, COULD be privately issued off-exchange and could only be issued on MPEx in compliance with the defined pricing policy. It's not THAT hard to understand. the contract states: "The representatives of SatoshiDice solemnly promise and warrant never to issue more shares on any other venue nor in any way to dilute existing shareholders at any point in the future. All future share issuance will be made only a) subject to approval by MPEx and b) at a price no less than the higher of the 1 day average price and the 30 day average price then current on MPEx ; " -no new shares were issued on another venue -shareholders were not diluted -no new shares were issued during the ipo, 100 million shares were issued, with 90% remaining among private investors and 10% being sold on mpex. now another 5% are being sold on mpex. no more than 50% of the total shares will ever be sold on mpex. that is how i understand the contract. 20% of the new offering has already been gobbled up, so I doubt the shares will be devalued for much longer... |
|
|
|
Definition of 'Issued Shares' The number of authorized shares that is sold to and held by the shareholders of a company, regardless of whether they are insiders, institutional investors or the general public. Also known as "issued stock." Investopedia Says Investopedia explains 'Issued Shares' Issued shares include the stock that a company sells publicly in order to generate capital and the stock given to insiders as part of their compensation packages. Unlike shares that are held as treasury stock, shares that have been retired are not included in this figure. The amount of issued shares can be all or part of the total amount of authorized shares of a corporation. The total number of issued shares outstanding in a company is most often shown in the annual report. Read more: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/i/issuedshares.asp#ixzz2K0OSUe4oso no new shares were issued, only put on the market by the current owner, evoorhees. If someone thinks the price should be higher, they should simply buy evoorhees's shares and put them back on the market at a higher price. Too bad mpex charges such a ridiculous fee to open an account... |
|
|
|
What puzzles me is this:
From the S.DICE prospectus (referring to issuance of further shares):
"and b) at a price no less than the higher of the 1 day average price and the 30 day average price then current on MPEx "
Was the 1 day average price on MPEX REALLY .0044 or less?
NO.
The prospectus contained a clause specifically to avoid this. I presume MPEx will now delist S.DICE for breaking its contract. GG all.
*rolls a 1 on SD* EDIT: but seriously this is a pretty obvious breach of contract in that case EDIT2: Actually it isn't, since no new shares were issued. Really all that happens is evoorhees is selling his own shares on the market which he is perfectly entitled to do. This part of the contract refers to *new* shares only. |
|
|
|
Considering that he's pulled in in like $350k a month, and owns 90% of the business, it's no skin off his back to sell a small % to shareholders.
I do hope he has expansion plans in mind though, marketing can go a long way for this business...
Water this plant and watch it grow.
the question is WHY what is the point of dumping shares 37% below market price, screwing over your shareholders, just to get 4400btc (chump change) when operating income is 5000btc per week drop the share price by 38% in exchange for 7 days operating profit? WTF? |
|
|
|
Any of the fundamentals change... or is someone just willing to give us a deal in order to move some volume? Far as I can tell, CHEAP SHARES  ! I don't see why it would be in SD's interest to auction off shares this much below the market price. Is there any immediate need for a cash infusion? Is some kind of expansion being funded? |
|
|
|
|
Are you charging the going rate of 10,000BTC/pizza?
|
|
|
|
great stuff... this is going to catch a lot of attention! (in a good way) |
|
|
|
Why is the Havelock Investments Passthrough priced at around 1000x the MPEx price even though each unit is only worth 100 shares? Am I missing something?
Yes. Your math is horribly wrong. MPEx price @ 0.00587453 x 100 = 0.58 BTC. Havelock's price is reasonable. sorry about that, thanks |
|
|
|
|
Why is the Havelock Investments Passthrough priced at around 1000x the MPEx price even though each unit is only worth 100 shares? Am I missing something?
|
|
|
|
|
interesting thread here but lots of misconceptions
magnets work because unmatched electron spins within the material are all lined up in the same direction. this can be stable if unperturbed, but any attempt to extract "work" or "useful energy" out of them results in those spins becoming less aligned, and the magnet eventually wearing out. in a sense, this is like the magnet acting as a battery.
similarly, with atoms and electrons. electrons orbit their nuclei, and do have momentum, but that momentum is inherent to the specific type of atom, and the current state of the electron. quantum mechanics says that electrons can only occupy certain quantized momentum "states", meaning the momentum can only have discrete values in the atom. by interacting with individual photons, electrons can interact with their environment. for example, an electron in a high-energy state can fall to a lower state, and release energy, but would have had to be excited in the first place (which required energy). if an electron is not excited, it can't release any more energy, even though it does have (angular) momentum. also, to release energy, an unoccupied, lower-energy state must be available for the electron to "fall" into. for this reason, electrons in the lowest, or "ground" state can't release any energy!
stirling engines work by exploiting a temperature difference between two thermally insulated reservoirs. a great example of this is geothermal energy (see Iceland). the hot reservoir is the hot magma, which functions as a source of energy, since the heat tends to flow towards a cold reservoir. in theory this is a great energy source, but the act of extracting it eventually will cool down the core of the planet (but this would take millennia to even be measurable.)
so yes, large temperature differences are a great source of energy, but it is still much easier to create a temperature difference by burning things or fissioning nuclei than by drilling gigantic 10-mile deep holes into the ground.
|
|
|
|
Wow, there are a lot of Bitcoin supporters in the comments.
I'm one of them tho Can you guess which one? Hint: The most smartest sounding. I go with maxalbritten. Right / Wrong. Correct, good sir! I'm trying my best to make you all proud. most smartest |
|
|
|
The closest I was able to find was the relatively disastrous imposition of unpopular free-market policies in Chile during the 80s by Pinochet and his successors. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_ChileThe policies caused a protracted depression and widespread poverty. Funny, since Chile now has the highest GDP/capita in all of South America. |
|
|
|
|
Has the adoption of capitalism ever resulted in a society becoming poorer or collapsing? I can't think of any examples.
There are plenty of examples of countries falling apart due to socialist/communist/fascist policies. Are there any such examples involving capitalism?
|
|
|
|
|
b-b-b-b-bitcoin
loving this
|
|
|
|
H O L Y S H I T that was in the 1.5-2.5% percentile shittiest pieces of sound I have ever heard |
|
|
|
|
Closed, due to lack of interest.
|
|
|
|
In response to this post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=81542.0 by PatrickHarnett which is was stickied in the "Long-term offers" section, a misnamed Ponzi-corner of this forum which contains nothing but scams. Well I was right about BCST and I'm going to be right about all these too. Here are a bunch of Ponzi Schemes, all are poorly executed and all follow the standard Ponzi 101 model of having a totally obscure business plan with a totally outrageous interest rate. I will be making spreadsheets for each scam showing why they cannot pay the outrageous rates. Ponzi Schemes & Similar ScamsHonorable Mention:Dank and his various, odd scams that even the guys that got rolled by Pirate wouldn't invest in updated to keep up with the new scams why no obsi.hrpt? 1% a day? No business model? |
|
|
|
That's possible, but iridium market is so small and the annual production is so tiny, for any mass production purpose, it would push iridium price sky high in a short time, plus it will will draw much suspicion to the big iridium buyer. Platinum is the best choice. Right, so when is someone going to IPO a fake gold-bars for bitcoins company? Looks like some fat profits to be had! |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
