not me, only 7 billion more people to cross off  Not me. 7 billion - 1. Good rate of progress so far. |
|
|
|
Effective interest rate affects how much PPT makes. So how is it "not really relevant in regards to PPT's profits"?
As for your second statement, I already showed that for this round of PPT.A even when pirate does not default, they effectively lose money. In other words, they don't make as much as they could have by not selling the bonds.
Not relevant to the existence of positive profits or negative profits. (Certainly relevant to the amount) As for your second paragraph, see my above post.  (We're leapfrogging a bit) |
|
|
|
Here's some more info for you guys:
I just put these numbers in the spread sheet and saw that, you made 3113.95 from your sale.
The average price is 3113.95 / 3000 = 1.038
At that price, you are losing money for this round of PPT.A.
Case 1 - Sell 3000 shares of PPT.A at 1.038 with 960 btc tied in insurance money (tied up earning 0 interest)
no default: PPT makes 113.95
default: PPT loses 960
Case 2 - Put 960 btc with pirate
no default: PPT makes 960 * .28 = 268.8
default: PPT loses 960
Difference is 268.8 - 113.95 = 154.85
So you are effectively losing 155 bitcoins for this round. Your loss for if pirate defaults is the same.
Like I said, you may need to rethink the lowest price that you will sell bonds at.
Perhaps I am missing something, but nowhere can I find the statement that they must actually hold .32 BTC per bond in a wallet instead of in investments or in Pirate himself. All that is stated is that they will pay 0.32 BTC per bond if Pirate defaults. |
|
|
|
That's wrong. If you paid 1.32 for a bond, PPT only puts 1 btc with pirate to make the 1.28 btc needed at the end of 4 weeks. They pocket the .32 if pirate doesn't default. If pirate does default, they don't lose money because they pay your the .32 they pocketed.
What? No one has paid 1.32, and we have 0.32BTC per bond in a secure wallet earning zero to cover the event of default. We "pocket" the difference between the 1.00 and average price and that compensates for having 4k BTC tied up and goes to the PPT.DIV payouts. I didn't say anyone paid 1.32. I was responding BinaryMage saying that no matter at what price the bond is sold, PPT will lose money if pirate defaults. I was just showing that if the bond was sold above 1.32, PPT makes money either way. No sane person would purchase a bond above 1.28, ergo I concluded it was unnecessary to include that possibility in my calculations. Technically you are certainly correct, but we could bring up any number of extremely improbable conditions and discuss this subject endlessly to no end whatsoever. However, for the sake of your appeasement, I have edited my post to reflect this extremely remote possibility. |
|
|
|
Wow, I overpayed. Looks like they went down to almost 1.0 with this issue. Someone got a good deal.
Yes, Did 3000 bonds sell or just everything above 1 BTC? Thanks Wow, at 1, the effective interest rate is 41.2% You guys are losing money this way. Even doing compounding, you can only make 31.1% interest from pirate. You may need to rethink how low you are willing to buy your bonds at. Effective interest rate is not really relevant in regards to PPT's profits. If Pirate doesn't default, they make money. If he does, they lose money. This is true regardless of whether the bonds are bought at 1.0 or 1.25; the amounts change but the fact of it does not. EDIT: This is assuming no one buys the bonds for above 1.28, which would be vastly improbable. |
|
|
|
Your point seems valid, but I'm not understanding your math. How does a payout of 128 coins from an investment of 110 coins generate 24 coins in profit? Unless standard base 10 notation has changed without me noticing, 128 - 110 = 18.
Damn starfish had a math fail - I was playing with the numbers and didn't update the words properly - gone back to edit the post. It should have been [(110 / 1.05) = 104.8] * 1.28 = 134, so profit is 134-110 = 24 And I read the numbers and apparently not the words. Thanks, that certainly makes more sense. |
|
|
|
The lazy Starfish likes the poll and has actually said interest rate is a bit high.
However, before someone shoots me, I'm thinking about the longer term and not the nice ride that the past six months has delivered. There are some structural things that can be done to improve the whole deposit/interest rate trade-off to promote the business, and while 7% is nice for another month, even if it was 5% for another six months that would be better.
Luckily for you, I seem to be out of ammunition. I certainly agree that a decrease in interest rates for the purpose of long-term sustainability is a good idea, but I'm not sure that's the case. (If that was explicitly stated and I missed it, my apologies.) I suspect lowering interest rates in an attempt to silence the doomsayers would prove fruitless; Pirate could pay 5% and people would still accuse him of money laundering, ponzi scheming, Silk Road business, governmental affiliation, and conspiring with aliens to travel back in time, convince Hitler not to invade Russia, and change the course of history. |
|
|
|
I would look for a Pirate Pass Through type scheme in the lending section; there are a number of people offering them.
Those have the advantage of liquidity and higher interest rates for smaller investments, though risk is increased due to an additional middleman. |
|
|
|
Interesting that people still seem to want to throw money at you - for 1.08 offers you only get ~18% per month, where other offers pay weekly and pay out over 28% compounded per month or 26% uncompounded. This would mean that everyone who bids more than 1.02 would be better off elsewhere. The only difference is the "insurance" - but this can basically be overcome by simply investing less in pirate and keeping some BTC for yourself.
Considering the competition, do you plan on changing your contracts soon (e.g. weekly payouts, no limit on share amount issued) or will you keep running like this?
You math and logic are flawed, but similar in tone to many of your other forum posts which I find generally negative. Therefore, to point out the situation a little more clearly, to reserve coins rather than investing them may lower your payout and your claim that anyone paying more than 1.02 would be better off else where is not true. Case 1, invest 110 coins in PPT at a buy in price of 1.05 Payout is either 128 coins for a profit of 24 coins, or in the event of a default, you receive 32 coins for a net loss of 88. Case 2, Also starting with 110 coins, reserve 32 coins as self insurance, and put 88 coins into an uninsured scheme. Position is either 32 + 78 * 1.28 = 134 (also a profit of 24) including weekly compounding, or you retain the 32 coins you started with. There is a cross-over point, but in case #2 you have two single person points of default (Pirate and whoever your middle-man is). In case #1, the PPT founders have more at stake than just the PPT business. People have chosen to value these factors. Also, in reference to Otoh's point, we have quite a lot of backup, hence Burt is off holidaying, and I'm doing the redemption (2560 coins shortly) and bond sale (3000) this week because it is not automatic. Your point seems valid, but I'm not understanding your math. How does a payout of 128 coins from an investment of 110 coins generate 24 coins in profit? Unless standard base 10 notation has changed without me noticing, 128 - 110 = 18. |
|
|
|
No. Phoenix is a mining program, similar but not identical to CGminer, that allows you to choose from a limited selection of kernels. I have also found it to be faster, but probably slightly harder to use, at least in the command line version.
If you feel adventurous, I'd suggest giving BAMT a try. It's a Linux distro (Debian 6) specially set up and optimized for mining. I've found it efficient and stable. Configuration is a little challenging if you have no Linux experience, but the advantages are well worth it.
Bamt seems to be down. Is there any mirrors or could someone link me the lastest version? . Any of those mirrors should do. |
|
|
|
Stocks are effectively an educated, complicated, and multifaceted way of gambling. Bonds are not. The article writer sadly fails to differentiate between the two.
If you think investing is gambling, which it is I suppose for those lacking financial intelligence, then bonds, just like equity, would be just as much an educated, complicated and multifaceted way of gambling due to the major issue of counter-party risk. Note the "effectively". There is a difference between gambling and effectively gambling. Perhaps gambling itself is a misnomer, as it has many negative connotations, but the principle remains the same. You are putting money into something with the hope that more will come out and the risk that it will not. Stocks are infinitely more complicated, and certainly more financially viable in most cases, but the principle remains the same. You can define bonds as gambling if you wish, but by that definition, counter-party risk would make any financial operation involving an investment into another person or corporation "gambling", which I think most people would disagree with. However, in this case, I think your point is perfectly valid, as counter-party risk is inherently significant in low-volume deals with oft-unknown quantities using a semi-anonymous currency. I stand corrected. Uh-uh. The problem is that people don't think before they invest. If you have a company that owns 10 aeroplanes, and each aeroplane is 100 million dollars new, then is the company worth 1 billion? Yes and no. You have to account for the fact that each aeroplane has a 15 year lifespan and will make 15 million dollars a year for that 15 years. So, is the company worth 6 billion!? No! You have to understand how these things work, and it's complicated, but it is NOT gambling. You have to understand counterparty risk as stated above, but also things like NPV. 20 aeroplanes making 15 million dollars each is 300 million a year. But this must be discounted. Use a NPV formula. The NPV of 300 million for 20 years, at a 10% discount, is over 1.8 billion. So, if you can buy 1.8 billion for 1 billion do you do it? The rate over 20 years will be about 3%. That is investing. You analyze, you decide to pull the trigger, and then you have to wait for 20 years. So you see the second problem, that people buy and sell stocks on the year, month, or even day (some traders buy and sell a stock within minutes or even seconds). This is good for liquidity but very bad for your profits. You CAN try to gamble on the stock market, but in the long run, remember this: investors always win. [edit: the problem is that they often don't win very much  ] Investing is very different from gambling. Again, effectively, given context and article target audience. My statement was perhaps too blanket, however. And, as for investors always winning, I'm afraid not everyone is as lucky, or as savvy, whichever way you'd prefer to put it, as you are. |
|
|
|
|
Sales seem to be nonexistent - sell orders @ 0.75 now on GLBSE. What do you intend to do if the IPO fails to attract any more attention? (And when do you intend to pay dividends on the mining company shares/bonds currently held by DMC?)
|
|
|
|
Hey anybody want to see a magic trick? I'll make shorty disappear!
brb, sending him 5 BTC.
I hope your Bitcoins aren't the thing that disappears. |
|
|
|
How is it not possible that pirate is Jesus? The burden is on the claimant to show possibility. But for one thing, Jesus died a long time ago. That's what they want you to believe. |
|
|
|
Why are you posting this in another bond's thread? No insult intended; it just seems a bit strange.
Because BIB is interested in buying FOO.PPPPT bonds for 0.95 BTC each. The seems like the logical place to post. Oh, you're buying these bonds. Sorry, my bad, I assumed you were discussing buying back your own bonds. I stand corrected. |
|
|
|
I agree with MrTeal. There is an inverse relationship between price and yield. The higher the price you pay, the lower your yield. It doesn't change with time. Also, if you pay 1.02 for a 1.00 face value bond, you may have to factor in a 0.02 capital loss to maturity as well, unless you can sell it to a greater fool.
I agree with him as well if you reinvest. However If you just buy 1 bond, the average weekly dividend for that bond after 10 years will be pretty close to 6.499999999% No, the average weekly dividend will be exactly 0.065BTC per share even without reinvesting. The average weekly dividend will be (0.065/X)*100% where X is the purchase price. If I buy 1 bond for 1.02, what is my dividend in the first week? 0.065BTC. My investment is 1.02BTC. ROI is 6.37% that week. The second week I earn another 0.065BTC. My investment is still the 1.02 BTC. Weekly ROI is 6.37%. My total dividends are 0.13BTC. Average dividend is 0.065BTC. Investment is as always 1.02BTC. Average weekly ROI is 6.37%...... The 520th week's dividend is 0.065BTC. My investment is still the 1.02 BTC. Weekly ROI is 6.37%. My total dividends are 33.8BTC. Average dividend is 0.065BTC. Investment is as always 1.02BTC. Average weekly ROI is 6.37%... Ad nauseam until Pirate defaults, bitcoin becomes worthless or 33.8BTC is enough for me to cash out and buy one of the Virgin Islands, complete with harem of virgins. Long-term yield predictions are really irrelevant anyway - 100 BTC invested now at BS&T and reinvested every week, at 7% interest, would exceed the entire available supply of Bitcoins in less than three and a half years. |
|
|
|
Yup, purely coincidence that the price per 20,000 shares has gone down 0.3 BTC since the last batch of invites and discussion of the PPS price started.  Nope, it couldn't have anything whatsoever to do with difficulty changes and backlog depletion. Must be those evil people revealing the closely-held secrets of GPUMAX. |
|
|
|
Will you buy back my bonds if I want out?
For the moment, no. Withdrawing money from the account would cause a drop in interest rates. If you PM me, I might be able to do it using my own BTC liquidity. However, this cannot be guaranteed, especially for large amounts. Buy this bond if you want to deposit some BTC and receive steady payments. Of course, the benefit of GLBSE is that you can put your bonds up for sale at any time, I'm sure people will grab them if the price is right.
Brendio's Bitcoin Investment Bank will buy back bonds at 0.95 BTC up to 100 BTC, subject to there being at the time no material change in BS&T terms, for anyone who wants out. PM me to take this up and then you can transfer or sell on market (seller to pay fees). Minimum of 20 bonds. Offer stands until I revoke it here. Why are you posting this in another bond's thread? No insult intended; it just seems a bit strange. |
|
|
|
CGMiner is better than GUIMiner
I use GUIMiner with phoenix dropped in as the OpenCL miner. I get better hash rates with this combo than both CGMiner and DiabloMiner. I also get a more responsive desktop. Using a saphire 5850@666/150/0.95v kind regards What is "Phoenix"? its the same as cgminer? .....
No. Phoenix is a mining program, similar but not identical to CGminer, that allows you to choose from a limited selection of kernels. I have also found it to be faster, but probably slightly harder to use, at least in the command line version. If you feel adventurous, I'd suggest giving BAMT a try. It's a Linux distro (Debian 6) specially set up and optimized for mining. I've found it efficient and stable. Configuration is a little challenging if you have no Linux experience, but the advantages are well worth it. |
|
|
|
Can someone please remove this thread? It reduces my profits... Seconded. Those numbers will not be working for much longer if you keep bragging to the whole world about it...
I personally think that providing information openly is far more important than someone's bottom line. Regardless, the GPUMAX PPS price is commonly known, and easily derivable - it isn't secret. This thread isn't going to crash the price, lower your profits, and ruin your life. Calm down. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
