Bitcoins are great for money laundering, or so people keep claiming. So the obvious solution for the FBI is for those thousands of bitcoins to be laundered into the deputies personal wallets, right? even if the feds have a pretty good idea what they’d do with the bitcoins today, they can’t move until the Silk Road case is decided. That could take years, So those coins are in lockdown for a long time? That sounds bullish to me, it means those coins are not on the market. |
|
|
|
Why would people be selling this at under face value when then can simply be redeemed for face value. It makes no sense to me.
If you want the money now instead of waiting a couple hours for Ukyo to respond? |
|
|
|
Last official update has been over 2 months. I think we as a community should demand that Mt. Gox give us an update by 15 October or pull out of their exchange.
Goog luck with pulling your funds out now. Why is anybody still using MtGox? I pulled all my funds off them months ago, right when Dwolla announced they would no longer be servicing MtGox. |
|
|
|
Any changes for those of us with small amounts left on the site, less then minimum amount that is?
No, no changes anytime soon, sorry. Bottom line is that without a fixed withdrawal fee, we can't guarantee an account won't go negative any other way. There's no hook into bitcoind asking for what the client tx fee will be in advance. We thought people would appreciate this approach, since it's significantly cheaper than a withdrawal fee would have been. Instead people look at the fractions of a bitcent left behind and it drives 'em batty.  Nope, not acceptable, please send my bitcoin to my public address out of your own pocket. It seems that you can do a internal transfer to another account and zero out your balance? So you could transfer the remaining amount to another user and have them send you that amount. |
|
|
|
|
This just opens up a spot in the market, there will be other services which will replace Silk Road. The war on drugs will never be won.
|
|
|
|
I have a slightly more academic question for you Greg: Would the fund be breaking its fiduciary duty to a shareholder if the fund bought shares from said shareholder at prices SIGNIFICANTLY below NAV. I can see the fund buying back shares at a little below NAV to offer said shareholder liquidity. However I have some reservations about the fund using its knowledge of its own value to "take advantage" of a shareholder for the benefit of other shareholders. Just wanted to know your thoughts on this Greg.
I think there are two separate questions here: one is about market price vs. NAV, and one is about insider knowledge. Regarding the second, the listing documents specifically refer to aiming to "preclude any incentive for the issuer either to issue or to re-purchase on the basis of knowledge about the fund's NAV which has not yet been made public". Although doing so is widespread in Bitcoin-land, and although it provides a primary means by which many asset managers pad returns, I would prefer to avoid the practice. Regarding the second, prices for the fund are set by the market, not by the fund, and the market does not always pay particularly good attention to NAV -- particularly during occasions when individual participants prize liquidity over underlying value. (To my mind, this is exactly analogous to those change-counting machines where you can dump in a bucket of coins and get out notes, with a steep commission applied, often on the order of 10% or more. Why would anyone trade money in one form -- coins -- for money in a different form -- notes -- when the commission is so high? Maybe it's the perceived liquidity of a note vs. a pile of coins, maybe it's entertainment value, who knows?) In any case, I have no wish to interfere in market dynamics -- either to prop up the price by buying back shares at above-market prices or to drive down the price by selling at below-market prices. The provision of additional liquidity by the fund is and always has been entirely optional, but on those occasions when it is in operation, it will not be operated with the intention of introducing these types of artificialities into the market. So... what you are saying is that after you publish the NAV you will buy back shares at however low people are selling them without feeling bad, but you won't buy back a bunch of shares just before reporting a higher NAV? |
|
|
|
Please tell me this is a joke before I take the effort to write a whole post full of no.
+1 This looks like a scam attempt that needs more work. |
|
|
|
...Or is the yield calculator on Havelock Investments just fucking borked?
Remember: "past performance does not guarantee future results" |
|
|
|
|
Was there no payment for the 28th and 29th?
|
|
|
|
It keeps the loan requests out of the other sections.
+1 If we remove the lending section all these posts would just go other places. If you do not like the lending section you can ignore it in your preferences. This thread should be moved to Meta. |
|
|
|
Is there anybody not invested in Labcoin that actually believes it's a good idea that they be allowed on BF?
If so, what is your reasoning?
I am not invested in Labcon, I glanced at it some time back and was never impressed enough to pursue it further. Maybe I missed out on riding the bubble up, but I find it is safer to avoid bubbles entirely. About them listing on BitFunder: I see no more reason to exclude them than any of the other shady investment schemes. We are all grown ups, just because something is listed on BitFunder does not mean you have to buy it. |
|
|
|
Burnside, I don't think it's a good idea to give discount for shareholders because lots of them may not involved in purchasing the code. But I think you can distribute the sold money to all shareholders proportionally. This is more fair and reasonable.
It should work out the same either way, one way the buyer pays a larger amount but gets some of it back, the other way the buyer pays less but does not get any of the distribution, which goes to the other shareholders. |
|
|
|
After the btct.co announcement, Sandstorms NAV took a significant hit. It would be very difficult to recover the fund to anything close to IPO value whilst maintaining 1% dividends. The fund was turning into a value destroying operation. It is fair to say at this stage that the fund was a failure.
This statement makes no sense to me. How did the NAV take such a big hit? Everything was suddenly priced for a discount, you should have taken the opportunity to buy the shares cheap, you could have made a huge profit off all the panic. Or maybe you did make a huge profit off the panic and you don't want to tell your shareholders, you are just taking all that profit for yourself? |
|
|
|
Hi Ukyo,
Weexchange worked well but is not censured in China. Is there any idea on how to get funds out of BF for people living in China or is it a lost cause ?
If it is not censured then what is the problem? Or are you saying that it is censured? |
|
|
|
+1 to our moderators for diligently cleaning the forum. Does moderators has salaries?
Does this count as off-topic? What is considered a bump for the 24h per bump rule? I understand just saying "bump" would count, but if you post something like "I am lowering the price to x btc" twelve hours after your OP, does that break the rule? |
|
|
|
Having a percentage pegged account is silly. Just have two options, a EUR account or a BTC account. If the customer wants to have a mid-level exposure to the bitcoin price fluctuations, they can just have one account in BTC and one account in EUR, and put 50% of their money in each.
You didn't get the point. Clearly. Can you explain more what the point is then? |
|
|
|
|
Having a percentage pegged account is silly. Just have two options, a EUR account or a BTC account. If the customer wants to have a mid-level exposure to the bitcoin price fluctuations, they can just have one account in BTC and one account in EUR, and put 50% of their money in each.
|
|
|
|
SK
p.s. In addition, to quote Danny,
"If you can buy €10m worth of Bitcoin without generating a cent of upwards movement, do you want a job?"
In addition, I think that envisioning more banks/institutions following in the footsteps of Neo would be entirely reasonable. This would further drive the price up. If more banks are going to follow in their footsteps, it will take them a while to get up and running, so you cannot assume they will start increasing the price within the first month that NEO is open. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
