If there's any significant number of bids that would be above new PURCHASE price, yes (and I expect there will be).

Well here's today's report - though BTC-TC is only working sporadically at present, so it may be a while before the divdends actually get processed.  I've yet to transfer today's management fee (can't due to the site failing) but this report represents what things will look like once everything's caught up.

I'll put PURCHASE back up at the new price as soon as I notice everything has been sorted (which may take a while as the dividends will likely fail to process so will have to be redone later).

Sold   326
Swapped   0
Total   326
Price   0.02061
Total   6.71886
Less Fee   6.70542228
Man Fee   0.201162668

BTC Balance (BTC-TC)    2,147.29407795
9071 LTC-ATF.B1    90.71000000
Coinlenders CD 28/8   203.3380138
Coinlenders CD 12/9    100.67767777
Just-Dice Balance    244.70000000
TOTAL ASSETS    2,786.71976952
   
Outstanding MINING   131821
Outstanding SELLING   131821
Outstanding PURCHASE   10407
Effective Units   142228
   
Block reward   25
Difficulty   50810339
Hashes per MINING   5000000
   
Daily Dividend    0.00004949
50 days (Min Liquid)    0.00247443
100 days (Forced Close)    0.00494886
365 days (Buyback)    0.01806334
405 days (IPO)    0.02004288
400 days (Post SELLING div)    0.01979544
410 days (Pre SELLING div)    0.02029033
   
NAV Post MINING Div    2,779.68110481
NAV/U Post MINING Div    0.01954384
Days Dividend Post Div   394.92
SELLING Dividend    -         
NAV Post SELLING Div    2,779.68110481
NAV/U Post Selling Div    0.01954384
PURCHASE selling price    0.02052
PURCHASE buy-back price    0.01915
   
J-D House profit at report   5683

Unfortunately not the case here.  Revenue is limited by capital - increasing revenue means capital has to increase (either by retaining profits to expand or by issuing new shares).

If revenue wasn't constrained by capital then a case could be made that the security wasn't USD-denominated (as although capital would still drop that wouldn't impact revenue).  But that's not the case here - as revenue is very directly limited by capital (because of the delay in receiving payments in a usable form).  And so a rise in BTC/USD rate doesn't just reduce capital (measured in BTC) but also reduces the amount of revenue that can be supported (again measured in BTC) and so the profits (in BTC).  All of those things that reduce when measured in BTC stay the same when measured in USD - which is as clear a demonstration as you can get that the security is, in practice, USD-denominated.

If BTC rises significantly vs USD what you'll see happen is one of two things - either:

Profits will fall.
or
More shares will have to sold to get capital (in BTC) back to where it was - allowing profits to be the same but diluting them when measured in BTC/share terms.

If accounts were being produced then this would be pretty obvious (and I could explain it with actual numbers) - but they aren't, so it isn't.

It has nothing to do with where the cut is taken from, but from which currency capital is held in.  For this security that's USD not BTC (confirmed by the issuer not too many posts back) - BTC are only held briefly when needed to fill an order.  So when the exchange-rate moves, the USD value of capital remains stable and the BTC value changes.

I'm not criticising the decision to do that - in fact there's no way capital COULD be held as BTC (because when a purchaser places an order there's no way to immediately convert their USD into BTC - those funds are locked in USD for a while until received from the payment processor and moved to an exchange).

If BTC were to double against USD then the effect would be to halve capital when measured in BTC (in USD it would be unchanged).  That means that whilst the same trade volume could be supported in USD, only half the volume could be supported in BTC.  Which means profit in BTC would be halved (though would be same in USD).  Trade volume is constrained by capital due to payments from purchasers having a delay imposed on them before they're available for use - and we know volume is already near/at that limit.

The thing a lot of the optimists are forgetting is that this is a USD-denominated security not a BTC-denominated one.  If BTC rises sharply vs USD then this ends up losing value fast (measured in BTC).  That's because:

1.  The assets of the company are held in USD - so drop in BTC value when BTC rises.
2.  The capital needed to maintain same profitability rises when BTC rises - and either more capital has to be raised (by selling more shares) or profits (in BTC) fall (despite remaining same in USD).  Both ways has the impact of reducing dividend/share.

So whilst this security performs very well when BTC/USD rate is fairly stable that will cease to be the case if BTC rises significantly vs USD.  And that reduces its value massively to anyone who believes BTC WILL rise vs USD - as profits have to outstrip the likely growth in price of BTC for it to even be worth considering.

As a means of shorting BTC it's great though - decent income AND a very solid short on BTC (if BTC falls vs USD then the opposite to the above applies - and share value in BTC should go through the roof).

Just be very careful not to make the mistake of believing this to be (in practice) a BTC-denominated investment.  If you buy dollars with BTC your investment does NOT become BTC-denominated.

Same problem occurred a few days ago.

Then the problem only occurred if you were using Firefox - looks like same thing now.  I get the error if I try to connect using Firefox but access the site fine with Chrome.  So, for now, just use a browser other than Firefox is the easiest solution.

Or are some of you having the problem but NOT using Firefox?

Have you PMed TradeFortress?  Would have thought he'd jump at the offer as he holds more funds of yours than you need.

If, for some reason (e.g. all his funds tied up) he can't/won't give you the loan but is willing to lock one of your large CDs as collateral then I could do the loan.  I wouldn't need to see documents (as there'd be collateral) and I assume you don't need proof I have 150 BTC.

EDIT: To be clear I have zero interest in (or intention of) lending without locked-down collateral.

Sold   12292
Swapped   0
Total   12292
Price   0.02061
Total   253.33812
Less Fee   252.8314438
Man Fee   7.584943313

BTC Balance (BTC-TC)    2,147.82549957
9071 LTC-ATF.B1    90.71000000
Coinlenders CD 28/8   203.2055082
Coinlenders CD 12/9    100.61231872
Just-Dice Balance    244.50000000
TOTAL ASSETS    2,786.85332646
   
Outstanding MINING   129354
Outstanding SELLING   129354
Outstanding PURCHASE   12548
Effective Units   141902
   
Block reward   25
Difficulty   50810339
Hashes per MINING   5000000
   
Daily Dividend    0.00004949
50 days (Min Liquid)    0.00247443
100 days (Forced Close)    0.00494886
365 days (Buyback)    0.01806334
405 days (IPO)    0.02004288
400 days (Post SELLING div)    0.01979544
410 days (Pre SELLING div)    0.02029033
   
NAV Post MINING Div    2,779.83079503
NAV/U Post MINING Div    0.01958979
Days Dividend Post Div   395.84
SELLING Dividend    -         
NAV Post SELLING Div    2,779.83079503
NAV/U Post Selling Div    0.01958979
PURCHASE selling price    0.02057
PURCHASE buy-back price    0.01920
   
J-D House profit at report   5607

That's just not true - and that you believe it so is disturbing.

If you start mining today with X hashes (doesn't matter what X is) bought for 10 BTC
And I start mining next month with 2X hashes bought for  10 BTC

Then unless you mine at least ~5 BTC in the next month, you have NOT made a higher ROI than me (exception to that being when both make a loss).  The actual amount extra you need to mine to make a better ROI depends on future earnings as well - as long-term profits increase the amount extra you need to mine to achieve same ROI increases above 5 (though can be reduced by reinvestment).

Which of two mining investments gives the better ROI is NOT solely determined by when they start mining - the price paid per hash is also a critical thing which has to be included in the calculation.  Your assertion is only correct if the same price per hash is paid - when a different price is paid then to estimate which gives the better ROI you also need to be able to predict long-term income.

Not seeing the votes up yet - if it's because you haven't yet put them up no problem.

I hold some shares of this pass-through (held personally, not for LTC-ATF) and intend to vote on motions whilst I hold them.  I'll post a brief summary of why I'm voting the way I am (or not bother if you'd prefer I don't).

When I see the motions I'd vote :

YES for CB.Diff - it's a useful option to have and has been run well in the past.  Issuer is reliable.
NO for COG.F3 - it's a rushed job (still a reference to COG.F2 in it) and he hasn't yet even raised a motion with Cognitive shareholders to approve it.   Vote would change to YES if/when those issues are fixed (whilst I intensely dislike his past use of sock-puppets it's not QUITE enough for me to outright vote NO on everything he does given he's been reliable otherwise).

That's not true - or even especially important anyway.  It doesn't benefit (and potentially harms) them to have a pump and dump run on their shares prior to operation even starting.

Short-termers can only make profit anyway if there's long-termers willing to end up holding the shares.

Making the wall invisible wouldn't substantially change anything - and changing the selling price wouldn't make sense after they'd added a commitment to repay .016/share before taking any management cut.  If they sold cheaper they'd be cutting their own throats, if they tried to sell higher they'd make that clause worthless.

If they don't need and can't use the funds now then there's no reason at all why they should risk a pump and dump being run on their IPO by trying to pretend there weren't another 7 million shares available at .016.  Their commitment has to be to the long-term investors not the short-term ones.  And I say that as someone who IS a short-term trader myself (I've bought and sold these shares and had no problem making a profit from it).

Much as I love making a profit buying at IPO then flipping at 2-10 times the price leaving the new purchasers with massively over-valued junk it's entirely unhealthy and bad for the companies involved plus the market in general (the market can't flourish if actual investors rather than speculators/traders can never buy anything at a reasonable price).

On the first point you're confusing two things being linked with cause and effect.  Sales of ice-cream rise on sunny days.  That doesn't mean selling ice-cream makes it more likely to be sunny.  Similarly, more people mining doesn't make BTC rise (though, as mentioned earlier, it indirectly DOES put small pressure on it to rise - though not because of the mining itself) even though more people DO mine when BTC rises.  If two things tend to occur together you need to make sure you understand which one is the cause and which the effect.

On the second point you're missing it entirely.  I was talking about value "(measured in BTC)".  The value of earlier mined coins does NOT rise when measured in BTC : 1 BTC still is worth exactly 1 BTC.

If I spend 100 BTC on mining gear then, no matter what happens with the exchange-rate, I've only made a profit (in BTC) if I end up with more than 100 BTC when the gear finally dies or is sold off.  BTC rising vs USD makes it less likely that will be the case (because difficulty will rise faster so I'll end up with less BTC than if BTC and difficulty had not risen).  I may well end up with more USD - but that's neither here nor there if I'm measuring in BTC (and so, in effect, comparing to if I'd just kept the 100 BTC in my wallet in the first place).

Sorry for no report today - was out this afternoon, expected to be back in time to do it (or I'd have posted in advance that there wasn't going to be a report) but my plans changed.

I'm not going to try to produce a back-dated one as there have been significant sales of PURCHASE (and transfers) since so it would be messy.  As there were significant sales of PURCHASE and J-D did decently there will have been little change in the NAV/U anyway - would guesstimate that had I done a report selling price of PURCHASE would have dropped by maybe 0.1% (I can't change it now or that would really mess up calculation of management fee tomorrow).

I should be around to produce one as usual tomorrow - and will continue to try to provide them daily (and make sure I do so on days where SELLING gets a dividend).

EDIT:  Because we made over 2 BTC from sales of LTC-ATF.B1 it's actually the case that PURCHASE selling price would likely not have changed at all anyway.  Had forgotten that was done after the last report.

It doesn't have to be either.

There's general reasons why sometimes people have to sell securities that have nothing to do with the securities at all - emergencies happen or very profitable short-term opportunities become available as two simple examples.  The structure of this IPO adds additional reasons why it will happen in this case.

First thing you have to realise is that unless it becomes obvious that this will definitely make a large profit then there's no reason why anyone would rationally buy at .016 YET.  As there's no panic buying of the wall there's no urgency for anyone who WANTS to invest to do so right now - they can invest in a fixed-rate bond, Just-Dice, Coinlenders or whatever for a few months, keep the profits and THEN buy their shares at .016.  Or they can try to buy them cheaper in the interim.

That means there's an effective ceiling on price of .016 at present.  Which, in turn means that even if someone wants to invest in this it makes sense for them to sell now if (and only if) they can make more profit between now and the expiry date of the wall than the difference between the price they sell at and .016.

So right now there should be (and probably are) people acting entirely rationally who LIKE this investment but are still entirely correct to sell their shares now with the plan of buying back later.  And they'll be selling to the ones who want to invest in this and DON'T have other options that can make them more profit than the difference between current price and .016.

Assuming there's interest in this exceeding the volume of shares sold at .015 and lower then I'd STILL not expect the price to hit .016 until a few weeks before the cut-off date on them - but in that case I'd expect the price to gradually get back up nearer to .016 as the deadline approaches.

Information will, of course, change that.  If good news emerges then the .016 wall would start getting eaten quicker.  If bad news emerges then then it may never get reached at all.  But there's zero reason to buy from that wall right now and give up all profit for a few months AND gamble on all news being good.

In short what's happening now is people are selling who either have options to make profit short-term and/or believe the risk-weighted value of waiting for more news exceeds the difference between current price and .016.  Plus there'll be some who got cold feet plus some who sell anything they buy if they haven't had a dividend in a week.

As soon as the final batch of shares was announced to be a) large,  b) at a higher price and c) up for sale for ages it was a near certainty that it would just sit there for ages (only other option was that it would sell out fast - which seemed unlikely).  That's not a problem for the IPO - as they don't need (and likely can't even use) the funds right now anyway.  And that it's not being touched now says nothing about what will happen when the date gets nearer.

When there's no sensible reason for someone to do something (in this case buy at .016 NOW rather than later) then it's dumb to try to draw conclusions from the fact that they aren't doing it.  If the wall's still untouched a few days before the end date then it becomes a problem.

EDIT:  There's one more factor which could cause the .016 wall to start selling sooner - if the pass-through on BTC-TC gets approved (as there's a fair number of people who invest there and won't trade on Bitfunder).  At present that seems highly unlikely as the contract there hasn't been updated (It starts with "Each share represents 1/50,000,000 of the profit of DigiMex" which is no longer the case as the number of shares is no longer fixed).  But if it ever starts trading there then that could spur sales on Bitfunder as suddenly it may no longer be safe to assume you can wait until late October and still buy then at .016.

You're putting the cart before the horse.

There's no reason whatsoever why  Bitcoin mining MUST be profitable - nothing breaks if it makes a loss.

Increase in difficulty does NOT cause the value of Bitcoins to rise - rather an increase in the value of Bitcoins causes difficulty to rise (by making mining more profitable and thus encouraging more expansion of mining).  At present that's largely irrelevant due to the shortage of (immediately available) supply being the limiting factor on difficulty increase.

The cause for the rise in value of Bitcoin has little to do directly with mining (mining indirectly DOES have impact on it).

I broadly agree with your view that the price of Bitcoin will likely rise - and also that that has an impact on the profitability (measured in BTC) of mining.  But in no way is such a rise "to maintain profitability for miners" and in fact it doesn't do that.  A rise in the price of BTC REDUCES profitability for existing miners (measured in BTC) by making it more profitable for NEW miners (as they can buy same hardware for less BTC than existing ones paid) and so encouraging an increase in difficulty beyond that which would otherwise occur.  Such a rise does, of course, increase profitability in USD for existing miners as well - but at the same time tends towards making their USD profits less than would have occurred had they just sat on BTC (i.e. a loss in BTC terms).

There's no rule saying "mining must make a profit" and any arguments using that as an assumption are fatally flawed.

Just a note that we sold a further 1008 of our LTC-ATF.B1.

Their face-value was 10.08 BTC and after conversion from LTC, DMS received 12.33135187 BTC.

Whilst I don't really want to decrease investment, selling them at over a 20% markup is clearly a good move.  Seems like I gave DMS a nice bonus when I traded in 12.5k of these at face-value in return for PURCHASE.

I haven't always been reporting sales of these - usually I sweep across any sales when I move the weekly B1 dividend over - but as this was a larger sale and mid-week I'm reporting it now.

He'd pretty much have to, as there's a minimum period of 1 week for votes on changes to contract per the asset issuers TOS.

Sold   400
Swapped   0
Total   400
Price   0.02066
Total   8.264
Less Fee   8.247472
Man Fee   0.24742416

BTC Balance (BTC-TC)    1,903.24357896
10079 LTC-ATF.B1    100.79000000
Coinlenders CD 28/8   202.9453678
Coinlenders CD 12/9    100.48400322
Just-Dice Balance    243.50000000
TOTAL ASSETS    2,550.96294999
   
Outstanding MINING   116440
Outstanding SELLING   116440
Outstanding PURCHASE   13170
Effective Units   129610
   
Block reward   25
Difficulty   50810339
Hashes per MINING   5000000
   
Daily Dividend    0.00004949
50 days (Min Liquid)    0.00247443
100 days (Forced Close)    0.00494886
365 days (Buyback)    0.01806334
405 days (IPO)    0.02004288
400 days (Post SELLING div)    0.01979544
410 days (Pre SELLING div)    0.02029033
   
NAV Post MINING Div    2,544.54873244
NAV/U Post MINING Div    0.01963235
Days Dividend Post Div   396.70
SELLING Dividend    -         
NAV Post SELLING Div    2,544.54873244
NAV/U Post Selling Div    0.01963235
PURCHASE selling price    0.02061
PURCHASE buy-back price    0.01924
   
J-D House profit at report   5372

Sold   2170
Swapped   0
Total   2170
Price   0.0207
Total   44.919
Less Fee   44.829162
Man Fee   1.34487486

BTC Balance (BTC-TC)    1,901.63810986
10079 LTC-ATF.B1    100.79000000
Coinlenders CD 28/8    202.81398367
Coinlenders CD 12/9    100.41919736
Just-Dice Balance    243.40000000
TOTAL ASSETS    2,549.06129089
   
Outstanding MINING   116045
Outstanding SELLING   116045
Outstanding PURCHASE   13165
Effective Units   129210
   
Block reward   25
Difficulty   50810339
Hashes per MINING   5000000
   
Daily Dividend    0.00004949
50 days (Min Liquid)    0.00247443
100 days (Forced Close)    0.00494886
365 days (Buyback)    0.01806334
405 days (IPO)    0.02004288
400 days (Post SELLING div)    0.01979544
410 days (Pre SELLING div)    0.02029033
   
NAV Post MINING Div    2,542.66686878
NAV/U Post MINING Div    0.01967856
Days Dividend Post Div   397.64
SELLING Dividend    -         
NAV Post SELLING Div    2,542.66686878
NAV/U Post Selling Div    0.01967856
PURCHASE selling price    0.02066
PURCHASE buy-back price    0.01928
   
J-D House profit at report   5337

Would help if you told us what the concept is that you want feedback on.

I'm struggling to find any purpose behind an index of various securities - some of which are denominated in BTC, others in LTC, others in USD and one in EUR.  Unless you take steps to remove the impact of exchange-rate movements such an average would in no way reflect anything to do with the behaviour of securities.

And why include pass-throughs to securities listed on MPEX?  If you include those then include the real securities themselves (i.e. MPEx prices).

You need to explain what the index is intended to mean/represent before anyone can usefully comment how it does/doesn't achieve that.