|
Mitt Romney is actually Pirateat40, who is actually Satoshi Nakamoto?
|
|
|
|
 tinyurl links to this place in google maps: 815 Brazos St Ste 500 Austin, TX 78701 |
|
|
|
no longer exists I think the URL was truncated. Is there another QR code somewhere perhaps? |
|
|
|
If a bond is guaranteed at face value by the issuer, they are breaching their obligations by buying them back on the secondary market at a discount.
I don't understand how. If you mean the bond is due presently and they're not paying it, then they're in default. I agree that buying your own debt when you are in default is a problem. You should be using those funds to make proportional payments. But PPT operators are not in default and there is no actual conflict of interest. Well I think we largely agree. If Goat has some additional money of his own, sure he can buy back some bonds (and pocket their future payments). However, if he is receiving money from Pirate, then that should go through as a dividend, not as a buyback, in order to preserve the pass-through function of the bonds throughout the default process. Anyway, thanks for the interesting discussion! I think even though these are likely moot points it is good practice to discuss things constructively. |
|
|
|
And it helps the Greek government, because they pay out at a reduced rate. Sure it can be a win/win (especially in the case of greece), but it still counts as a default by the bond issuer, depending on the bond contract. If a bond is guaranteed at face value by the issuer, they are breaching their obligations by buying them back on the secondary market at a discount. I think everyone is making good points, but it might be that the contract on GLBSE of TBP is just too vague to determine whether or not the bond should be bought back. My gut feeling tells me that as a post-default pass-through the bond's face value should be zero, and the market value should be the diluted amount of whatever people think will be coming through the Pirate pipeline as dividends. |
|
|
|
Good find, but there is a difference between convertible bonds with a buyback clause (where the buyback conditions are explicitly described in the bond contract). Certain corporate bonds have conditions where the issuer can buy back on the secondary market, but I don't see TBP as one of these bonds as it is described in the contract. |
|
|
|
The problem is that if Goat buys back bonds, he still has the Pirate deposits that were backing them. If pirate pays out later, it will be impossible to pass-through those payouts to the bondholders. This would not be acting as a true pass-through. The pass-through operator should just be moving money from A to B, and buying back some bonds at a discount would be causing a distortion. Not at all. He just pays through precisely the same way and winds up paying some of the money to himself. It is no different from anyone else buying the bonds -- it just happens to be him. (Again, assuming he doesn't leverage information he gained as the operator. By the way, if it were me, and I had any good reason to believe a payout was imminent, I would freeze bond transfers to protect bond holders from others who might get word early.) Think about this: Imagine the Greek govt used their current funds to buy back their own bonds for pennies on the dollar. They would have much less debt outstanding, right? This is a breach of their bond contract because as the issuer of a bond you (and only you!) are obligated to pay back bonds at face value, and using funds to buy back at a discount is an improper use of available funds. Now, if you are saying that if Goat makes a distinction between his personal speculation on GLBSE and Tygrr operations, we run into the whole insider trading debate. Should the CEO of a company be allowed to short the company's shares in his own e-trade account? No. Shareholders should demand that their CEO does not create conflicts of interest via his personal trading/security positions. |
|
|
|
If it's not done on inside information, it's win/win for everyone. Just the fact that Goat receives a payment makes him privy to inside information! Don't get me wrong I think Goat is honest, it's just that the fair thing to do is not always obvious. The problem is that if Goat buys back bonds, he still has the Pirate deposits that were backing them. If pirate pays out later, it will be impossible to pass-through those payouts to the bondholders. This would not be acting as a true pass-through. The pass-through operator should just be moving money from A to B, and buying back some bonds at a discount would be causing a distortion. In order to act as an accurate pass-through Goat should simply funnel anything he gets from Pirate through as a dividend, and be open as he can about any communication with Pirate. Sorry for talking about you in third-person all the time Goat! I think you are doing as well as you can under the circumstances. |
|
|
|
If pirate pays out and Goat uses the money to buy back bonds, that is a breach of contract. The pass-through as described passes through as dividends.
All he would have to do is use some other money to buy back bonds slightly before passing through the payments as dividends. It's a pretty scummy thing to do, but it's not an explicit breach of the contract. It might be considered implicit breach, similar to constructive fraud. Again, if an issuer of a bond buys back bonds at a discount with "some other source of money" they are defaulting in breach of contract. This is because bondholders who don't happen to have asks up will get the shaft if the bond later becomes completely worthless. If pirate refunds all deposits and closes accounts, Goat should buy back at face value ( BTC1.00) using a bid wall. If pirate provides a partial refund, Goat should pay that out as an equally diluted dividend, and let everyone know under what conditions the payout was made, and whether he expects further payouts. The reason Goat can't buy back bonds is that the future payouts from Pirate are not certain and buying back would be deleting information. This is unfair if Pirate eventually pays sometime down the line. Basically, Goat does not have the freedom to speculate as to what should be the fair price at which to buy back the bonds. He can only retire them at face value or pay out dividends of whatever Pirate sends him. |
|
|
|
Why all this discussion?
Pirate has defaulted. Tygrr.bond-p is worthless, and holders take the loss, end of story.
An uninsured pass-through will pass through losses, just as it did dividends.
As you are well aware, there is still plenty of speculation that Pirate might pay, pay in part, or be successfully sued for part or all of his debts. "Default" does not mean the story ends. Yes, sure. The bonds have some speculative value and that's fine. If pirate makes a payout, or Pirate is successfully sued (lol), TBP holders will get some BTC. All Goat needs to do is continue acting as a pass-through of whatever comes through the Pirate pipeline. If pirate pays out and Goat uses the money to buy back bonds, that is a breach of contract. The pass-through as described passes through as dividends. |
|
|
|
It's too bad that the main events in Bitcoin right now are a giant Ponzi collapse and the largest US exchange being completely cleaned out
Casual visitors aren't even going to see that stuff if they visit here because it gets moved out of the general Discussion forum and into sub-fora with uninteresting titles. Sure, but I've seen many of the blogs discussing the ransom are dropping tidbits about these events, which is pretty bad in general for bitcoin's reputation. |
|
|
|
|
Why all this discussion?
Pirate has defaulted. Tygrr.bond-p is worthless, and holders take the loss, end of story.
An uninsured pass-through will pass through losses, just as it did dividends.
|
|
|
|
|
It's too bad that the main events in Bitcoin right now are a giant Ponzi collapse and the largest US exchange being completely cleaned out
|
|
|
|
WOW how did they get a picture of a real hacker on the front page of that article ?!!!111!??>////?  |
|
|
|
Net present value analyis relies on using a discount rate to model the present value of a flow of money. I was dicking around in excel to get some NPVs for an xMH/s perpetual (zero face value) mining bond. I am modeling these simply as a flow of ever-decreasing dividends. The difficulty increase rate (dividend decrease rate) is also an input. The mining rewards are modeled to halve after 18 weeks from today, and the NPV is then calculated at 1%, 2%, and 4% weekly discount rates over 2 years of projected dividends. Might be fun to play around with! http://www.filedropper.com/miningnpv |
|
|
|
|
I know... he has done some very good analysis, which is why this new type of security made me think of him.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
