| ---------HIGHEST--------- | --Amount-- | --Price/Share-- | | ineededausername | 100 | 0.35 | | Digigami | 50 | 0.35 | | Blazr | 25 | 0.31 | | Vezunchik | 232 | 0.31 | | Third Way | 289 | 0.30 | | ----------------------------- | ------------ | ---------------- | | ----OUTBID---- | | superbit | 100 | 0.27 | | SaintFlow | 100 | 0.27 | | iCEBREAKER | 25 | 0.26 | | BLFC Jordan | 671 | 0.25 | | HorseRider | 696 | 0.185 | | dadj | 696 | 0.15 | | arij | 50 | 0.11 | | mb300sd | 696 | 0.10 |
Prices are getting high, it's only been 3 days. People have that much faith in ASICMINER? I wasn't expecting more than .20-.25 |
|
|
|
|
I have now added a link to MPEx receipt in the pass-through details page, signed to the same key ID that signed the statement in the issuer's details, as well as in this thread's op.
|
|
|
|
What I don't understand in all this is...can the asset owner just create more shares?
On BTC.CO/LTC Global there's no way for an asset owner to create new shares - it currently has to be done manually by burnside. Personally as everything I run is either a bond or a fund (a pass-through is really a fund where the assets are 1 share of the underlieing per unit sold) I just created them with an arbitrary huge number of shares: the number authorised doesn't matter (much) practically for bonds/funds, just the number sold. For stocks obviously it's different - but a pass-through to a stock is NOT a stock (shares/units in it have no direct rights in respect of the underlieing asset). Having said that I listed the pass-throughs to BBET and DICE as stocks - because that's how most investors will think of them and their behaviour will seem as though they're stocks in nearly all circumstances. Looks like namworld follows a similar policy - with 1,000,000 shares created for each of his pass-throughs. Indeed, it is convenient to leave room to grow. Prevents Burnside from having to constantly update the amount available. And damn, I hadn't realized you were running the same on LTC-GLOBAL with the exact same names for BBET & DICE. |
|
|
|
|
Ah, thanks Deprived.
Brendio will indeed need to sign a statement with the key associated to his share. He will be given share on BTCT.co upon doing this. Until then, I can't currently know if he has any shares at all.
He may then transfer those to your BTCT.co account. We don't know of GLBSE accounts ourselves.
|
|
|
|
Thanks INAU for keepting track. | ---------HIGHEST--------- | --Amount-- | --Price/Share-- | | Third Way | 696 | 0.30 | | ----------------------------- | ------------ | ---------------- | | ----OUTBID---- | | Blazr | 25 | 0.27 | | Digigami | 50 | 0.27 | | superbit | 100 | 0.27 | | SaintFlow | 100 | 0.27 | | ineededausername | 421 | 0.26 | | iCEBREAKER | 25 | 0.26 | | BLFC Jordan | 671 | 0.25 | | HorseRider | 696 | 0.185 | | dadj | 696 | 0.15 | | arij | 50 | 0.11 | | mb300sd | 696 | 0.10 |
|
|
|
|
|
Updated op post.
We're now taking signed statements for BitVPS's transfer.
|
|
|
|
|
I have placed a block of 44k S.DICE-PT at their sale price in tomorrow's slice.
|
|
|
|
And mine. Although BitFunder is nice too. I downvote cryptostocks. |
|
|
|
|
I've added some details on the PTs pages as per suggestions/comments.
|
|
|
|
| ---------CURRENT HIGHEST BIDS--------- | --Amount-- | --Price/Share-- | | Blazr | 25 | 0.27 | | ineededausername | 671 | 0.26 | | ----------------------------- | ------------ | ---------------- | | ----OUTBID---- | | iCEBREAKER | 25 | 0.26 | | BLFC Jordan | 671 | 0.25 | | HorseRider | 696 | 0.185 | | dadj | 696 | 0.15 | | arij | 50 | 0.11 | | mb300sd | 696 | 0.10 |
Highest bid remains the same for the last 6 hours. Please stay on topic, I think there's enough ASIC threads already for discussion.  Regards. |
|
|
|
|
Yes, I'm applying the definition of issuance to the letter. The sale/attribution of authorized shares (new or pre-existing) to investors.
In this case it was not a funding IPO but a privately held "corporation" for which the owner had 100% of the shares issued to himself, from which he sold his stake.
That is the way I see it.
Seems like S.DICE is back to 0.007 already.
|
|
|
|
There's no such thing as being issued on MPEx or any exchange.
Really? SO why does the contract say : "The representatives of SatoshiDice solemnly promise and warrant never to issue more shares on any other venue" Clearly whoever wrote the the contract believes shares can be issued on an exchange or that sentence would make no sense (as the "any other venue" part would be meaningless). EDIT: To show the implications of your semi-interpretation, were you correct then evorhees could list S.DICE on a different exchange and sell more of the 90% there at .0001. That would be possible as you think issuing has already occurred in every possible sense for all 100 million - so none of the restrictions apply (The restriction on other exchanges only applies to "issue more"). Do you believe that's allowed? Does MPEx? And you still havent given any example of where the pricing restriction on sales applies ... I mean there is no such thing as being issued in this case, since the shares were already issued. If they were authorized shares being attributed, that would be issuance, for which the purchase by individuals, or issuance, can be done through any stock market or even out of stock markets. But this is not the case. All 100 million shares were already active shares held by individuals. Why cut my quote? It meant just that, it's not issuance wherever Evoorhees would decide to sell those shares as they are already issued shares. Evoorhees & Mircea both approved. MPEx believe it's allowed, I also believe so. As for pricing restriction, it could apply if the company would need to expand and the creation of more share was approved. If the expansion expectation of gains vs the amount of extra share created would balance each other, then it would be fair to assume issuing more shares at current market price would not dilute each share valuation and price would remain the same. Although I think these are more generic clauses simply for the form, rather than anything evoorhees ever planned to do, IMO. Plus would require approval of shareholders through a vote I believe. |
|
|
|
Well because evoorhees pays the dividend and only 10% need to go out? I see it more as a convenience, instead of having to deposit say 20k BTC, pay out 20k, withdraw 18k
Why he did it is neither here nor there - fact is only 10% of shares were issued on MPEx. He's confirmed there were other private owners of portions of the other 90% - so very clearly that 90% was unissued on MPEx. I repeat yet again: give an example of that pricing restriction applying without the contract otherwise being broken. If you believe my interpretation is wrong then give an example of YOUR interpretation being applied in practice. If you try it with a stock-spilt you'll immediately see it makes no sense - as the pricing would be wrong plus there'd be nothing being sold to HAVE a price anyway. There's no such thing as being issued on MPEx or any exchange. Shares already issued being added to a stock exchange does not constitute issuance. To be issued, new authorized shares or authorized share never held privately must be put in private hands/stock treasury. That's what share issuance is. |
|
|
|
|
Well because evoorhees pays the dividend and only 10% need to go out? I see it more as a convenience, instead of having to deposit say 20k BTC, pay out 20k, withdraw 18k
|
|
|
|
There's a difference between creating/issuing shares in a company in the abstract and actually issuing them on an exchange.
You need to look at the two sentences together:
"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 ; "
The first sentence explicitly prevents authorising or issuing more than 100 million shares (as, by definition that would dilute).
Are you seriously claiming that the second sentence then defines the price at which shares which have just been defined as impossible to create can be sold?
Yes - in theory more shares COULD be created by a split. But the pricing can't apply to that due to the very nature of a split.
Yes. I believe the statement refers to just that. And would be priced accordingly to the split and average price of the time. The first doesn't say issuance is impossible, just not in a way that would dilute existing shareholders. I don't see any statement that only 10 million are trading on MPEx. Plus shares can be delisted from an exchange or relisted. It does not constitute share issuance. To issue more shares, you have to authorize new ones and deliver them, or deliver authorized shares that were never given to the public. |
|
|
|
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. An authorized share is a share that does not get dividends as it is not held privately (funding shares). S.DICE shares cannot be issued again, they already were. If they were issued, it would dilute the others share out of dividends. There are more shares now trading on MPEx. That's it. I don't consider it share issuance/dilution. 100 million shares were issued of which 100 millions were issued to evoorhees. He then sold 10 million on MPEx. He's now selling 5 million more. I believe the issuance statement is meant to say than 100 million are to be issued on MPEx or on anywhere else, which would dilute the 100 million already being issued on MPEx. I don't even see any statement claiming there's only 10 millions shares trading on MPEx. Only that 10 million would be placed for sale out of 100 million being created. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
Hello,
S.BVPS is being moved to BTCT.co (Delisting from MPEx on the 15th)
People can sign with their MPEx gpg key a message containing only their BTCT.co username and send it to me as of now. Once we get the list of keys with associated holding, we'll begin transferring.
Regards.
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry icebreaker, I copied a line and forgot to change the amount to 25. But yeah, not being able to edit is a bit annoying. It's not in the current qualifying bids anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
