I think that a 50x in difficulty is not probable before at least 8-10 months after the delivery of the first batch of ASIC.
I will take bets on that. Its rather simple, if we are over estimating the amount of ASICs preordered, then these devices will be insanely profitable when they do arrive, which will spur more sales until they no longer are. Once sales dry up, what do you think BFL will do? They will lower their prices and it starts all over. And again, and again. IN the end asic's will be priced close to marginal cost, which at least for the chip itself, is negligible (literally a few dollar per chip). It will take a while to get there, mostly due to manufacturing delay, but if you are counting on that to guarantee your profitability, it seems like a very dangerous gamble. BFL is no longer a tiny startup, IIRC they are employing 22 people now and they have the funds to outsource anything they want. They would be crazy not to buy external manufacturing capability for a device with an initial marginal profit of something like 100000%. Also keep in mind BFL isnt the only player, by early next year there will most likely be 5 asic vendors competing (BFL, bASIC, asicminer, Nzhang, Deepbit...). Buying an asic seems like an excellent bet if you know you will get yours early so you can recover your cost in at most a few months. Anything beyond that will look like a bloodbath IMO. |
|
|
|
Ya but you are a paid troll, so who cares what you think?
I wish someone would pay me for posting the truth. But you are right, you shouldnt care about what I think. What you should care about is what your customers and creditors think. This isnt about CPA shareholders, there probably is almost no one left at this point except you and your other scams. This is about stealing what little is left of the money that belongs to your customers and creditors.If you are going to pay yourself these funds owned by others as dividends, before making good on your debts, you will be looking at much more than just a scammer label, you will be looking at legal action and if nothing else, I will make damn sure the SEC hears about it. |
|
|
|
|
Oh I dont think you are fooling anyone anymore.
As for casting my vote, I did. I voted you can not pay a satoshi in dividends before you made whole all your creditors and customers. Anyone who paid you an insurance fee for an insurance that will no longer exist will have to be reimbursed first and my guess is you are utterly unable to do that, much less have anything left to pay your shareholders.
|
|
|
|
a. We invested a large chunk into BMF and NYAN, which have not defaulted. In fact, NYAN recently bought back almost all it's shares at 1.
b. We got ~75% of our money back from DeadTerra and
c. We got ~80% of our money back from Starfish Bank
d. We got ~25% of our money back from imsaguy
e. We got 0% of our money back from hashking
So you insured ponzi's and put the insurance premiums in other ponzi's and you are surprised that didnt work out? ROFL! |
|
|
|
He's European (like the French),
For the record, Assange isnt european, he is australian. Not sure how you could miss that accent. More importantly, he is a journalist. If assange can be accused of aiding the enemy for publishing news stories based on leaked information, then the same applies to the New York Times, The Guardian and basically all newspapers that published WL stories or use leaked documents, and thats all of them. I find this far more scary than the US government declaring some foreign nation or head of state an enemy. |
|
|
|
From shareholder perspective it might not be a scam, but at least a badly run business that would have had (and still has imho) much more potential. I mean, you KNOW that defaults might happen, you insured against them... and then you are surprised that they happen more frequently than you thought? Just increase prices for insurance contracts, do stricter contracts and don't pay out on every.single.instance (is there a list somewhere where people claimed to get money from you and if/how much they got?).
Insuring against default is a braindead idea with zero potential. It can not work, it doesnt make any sense. First of all you will just attract scams and ponzi's that will use it to buy themselves some credibility, and you are guaranteed to lose money on it. Secondly, even for legitimate companies its simply stupid. Example; usagi "insured" bakewell. What it effectively did was collect a % of bakewell's working capital to be paid out if bakewell defaulted. Think it through; that capital is unavailable to bakewell and is not producing any ROI. If shareholders would buy proportionally less shares in bakewell and keep the difference in their wallets, they would achieve the exact same thing, except they wouldnt be relying on usagi to pay it back (and be able to pay it back), and the funds would be available to them at any point. Why would you want usagi to keep your coins safe for you at zero % interest and with absolutely no guarantee you will ever see them back? |
|
|
|
Uhh, better check the date on those stats I posted.. it's august, not may lolz.. second point, we don't own gigamining.
Really? May 1st: Buy 10 singles for 120 BTC @ $5/BTC. Mining company market cap: 1,200 BTC.
October 1st: 10 singles are worth 55 BTC @ $12.30 each. Mining company market cap: 550 BTC.
Seems like cant even follow your own train of thoughts. Quite Understandable. As for not owning gigamining, had you bought gigamining in may at the original IPO price, you wouldnt be down 60%. You would have been slightly up. The above "argument" shows just how little you comprehend. |
|
|
|
Use your brain.
Why dont you borrow one? I used actual dividends that gigamining paid out since may. You think giga earned less? So whatever company started mining in may with singles would either have protected its shareholders from the losses you claimed through dividends or reinvestments. Your arguments is therefore null and void. Most mining bonds are priced at 200% hardware. Thats why only idiots bought them at that price and lost half their money. Idiots like you. And you are buying them even today at 600% of hardware costs. Words fail to describe that sort of stupidity. |
|
|
|
I hold 635 shares of FPGAMINING (15% or so). He appears to be buying back shares.
So you bought over 300 shares now after he stopped dividend payments. Thanks for confirming my earlier point. |
|
|
|
Reality check:
May 1st: Buy 10 singles for 120 BTC @ $5/BTC. Mining company market cap: 1,200 BTC.
October 1st: 10 singles are worth 55 BTC @ $12.30 each. Mining company market cap: 550 BTC.
So why do you keep valuing your undelivered single at 63 BTC and AMB's old single at >300 BTC? What's changed? Not your inability to reason. Those 10 singles would have earned you 733 BTC in mining dividends (calculated using gigamining divs 0.43 BTC per 2 MH). Oops. |
|
|
|
They important point is just that: I PAYED for a service which GLBSE no longer provides.
So Nefario, when you delisted my bonds you should PAY ME the trade fee, since i have to do it all by myself from now on.
Thats doesnt fly IMO. You paid fees to acquire (or sell) the assets. That service has been delivered. Now you want another service, ie, sell your assets again, and nefario is no longer offering that service, and so wont be charging you for it. I see no reason for nefario to reimburse you. (btw, not trying to be a spelling nazi, but its spelled "paid") |
|
|
|
|
Discussion is still lively in the german forum and a few members are preparing legal action.
|
|
|
|
It seems obvious why usagi is pushing for the dividend since they own shares in Bakewell  Yeah he owns out of 432 out of 5928 shares, so this dividend would earn him 0.29 BTC. Things must be dire  Also, for fun Voted Yea:4895 Voted Nay:433 so 1 share (other than usagi himself) voted for keeping the CPA contract. 99.97% voted against it. Fun stat. |
|
|
|
I think its up to nefario on this one. If he ends up just closing GLBSE and shafting asset creators and shareholders, then its game over.
Try not to forget you already shafted your shareholders for 95% of their investment. |
|
|
|
|
Also for usagi's benefit (and anyone still under contract with CPA); insurance contracts are unilateral. Only the insurer makes legally enforceable promises in the contract and only the insurer can be held liable for breach of contract.
|
|
|
|
|
You missed my sarcasm tags...
|
|
|
|
but so far, all that has happened is I've been proven right  Thats because you are really fucking dumb. And a troll. And someone is paying you to write stuff thats actually true. |
|
|
|
GIGAMINING: 5 day average 0.578 | 24h average 0.553 | 'real' value 0.63
JTME: 5 day average 0.725 | 24h average 0.703 | 'real' value 0.85
MOVETO.FUND: 5 day average 0.799 | 24h average 0.745 | 'real' value 1.08
TEEK.A 5 day average 0.874 | 24h average .......... | 'real' value 1.00
Dont forget to check FZB.A, ABM, obsi.hrpt, etc .... eg FZB.A 5 day average 0.02 'real value' 0.2 It also pays off to dig a little deeper and see if even the market price of for instance ABM is at all warranted, and not artificially inflated by someone, say Usagi, buying 5 shares at obscene prices, as he did. ABM mines with 3/4 of a BFL single, offers no ASIC upgrade and Usagi's valuation for that company is 350 BTC. Funny is, I was about to include a question about the value of mining gear, but writing question #2 I realized you are actually right about them The value should be counted as the price you would pay for them, shipping included; Ahm no. Unless usagi already owns all the extra shipping labels (and you think a potential future buyer would pay $150 for shipping), then shipping costs are not an asset. A future buyer would pay for them, but usagi would have to spend that money. Costs (past or future) are not assets. |
|
|
|
|
While no proof or even evidence of scamming, I did a quick back-of-envelope calculation to get an idea of the size of this unfolding trainwreck. Im ignoring YARR here, I havent read up on that yet.
IPO revenue:
CPA 46423 shares x 0.1 = 4642
BMF 5147 shares (x1)
Nyan.A 1606 bonds (x1)
Nyan.B 2263 bonds (x1)
Nyan.C 3565 bonds (x1)
Total collected from investors: 17,223 BTC
How much value of that is left?
Paid out in dividends
CPA 178
BMF 418
Nyan.A 112
Nyan.B 280
Nyan.C 302
Total dividends: 1,290
If we unrealistically assume all usagi's assets can actually be sold at current highest bids and multiply that by oustanding shares/bonds, I get the following remaining market cap:
CPA 1666
BMF 2511
Nyan.A 959
Nyan.B 1543
Nyan.C 399
Total market cap: 7,078
Total loss = 17,223 -(1,290+7,078) = 8,855 BTC.
Thats how much your "financial friend for life" has lost for its investors so far at the very minimum.
|
|
|
|
|
You can not pay your shareholders a satoshi before you settled with your creditors and customers who paid insurance fees and have unpaid claims. CPA is almost certainly bankrupt, who would have seen that coming, a business based on insuring ponzi's and scams; tough luck for your shareholders.
If you are going to close shop your creditors and insured customers will be first in line, shareholders are last. Of course with your obscure CPA bookkeeping no one will know for sure how much you put in your own pocket or diverted to your other companies.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
