I'd support redirecting 50% (or more) of revenue toward growth. I believe that is the only way to stay on top of the curve and keep the dividend steady. As long as difficulty is going up there are only two paths Cognitive can take:
A) Spend a chunk on growth, pay the remainder as a (steady and reliable) dividend.
B) Spend nothing on growth, pay a diminishing dividend until there's not enough coming in to keep the lights on.
I agree. This and utilizing a futures fund when and if we want to issue more shares to expand. I will raise a motion for this after the current one ends. As an aside, I've noticed that I agree with nearly all suggestions made on this thread. This just goes to show that intelligent people invest in Cognitive  Edit: Now we just have to decide the percentage of the revenue to be dedicated to growth. I suppose this could be done by using multiple motions. One (that needs 70%) to determine whether we dedicate x% of revenue to growth, and the others (that need best yes:no ratio) to decide the percentage to be reinvested in growth. I think 50% would be optimal. We will likely be able to keep up with the latest in mining technology without temporarily diluting current shares before new hardware arrives. I think 50% to 75% is good, but you also need to think about limiting currency exchange risk while you hold the bitcoins. Also, I would avoid putting any coins in a high interest yielding bitcoin "bank" like was passed in a previous motion. The recent past events show that many of these were exposed to HIYP scams. |
|
|
|
As per the contract The issuer reserves the right purchase back the security at 1.1 times the highest price the asset was traded on GLBSE over the previous month. To me this means that if the issuer is going to buy the security then it must be done at 1.1 times the highest price, otherwise the issuer cannot purchase the shares back. As the issuer is usagi then usagi must pay at least 1.1 times the highest price over the last month. I would interpret the contract differently. That is, if the issuer wishes forcibly to buy back shares, it must be at 1.1 times the highest traded price. This right is reserved. It does not say that this is the only situation in which the issuer may buy back shares if sellers are selling voluntarily for a lower price. I agree and think this is standard. So contracts should be interpreted by things not written in the contract like the intent of the security/operation? |
|
|
|
As per the contract The issuer reserves the right purchase back the security at 1.1 times the highest price the asset was traded on GLBSE over the previous month. To me this means that if the issuer is going to buy the security then it must be done at 1.1 times the highest price, otherwise the issuer cannot purchase the shares back. As the issuer is usagi then usagi must pay at least 1.1 times the highest price over the last month. I would interpret the contract differently. That is, if the issuer wishes forcibly to buy back shares, it must be at 1.1 times the highest traded price. This right is reserved. It does not say that this is the only situation in which the issuer may buy back shares if sellers are selling voluntarily for a lower price. I guess I am a strict constructionist, as I don't think an operator or issuer can or should do things not spelled out in the contract. |
|
|
|
|
There are a lot of scam accusations in the scammer subforum that have to do with contracts. People claim scam if one party of the contract is not fulfilling their obligations. This might not be a scam but instead some kind of disagreement about how a contract is interpreted. Users that have defaulted on loans would also go in this section unless they can show they are specifically scamming someone.
|
|
|
|
I am a little confused. How many shares are currently outstanding? How many are held by other funds operated by usgai and how many are held by usagi? As per the contract The issuer reserves the right purchase back the security at 1.1 times the highest price the asset was traded on GLBSE over the previous month. To me this means that if the issuer is going to buy the security then it must be done at 1.1 times the highest price, otherwise the issuer cannot purchase the shares back. As the issuer is usagi then usagi must pay at least 1.1 times the highest price over the last month. Also, per the contract, any purchases must by the issuer must go back to BMF and not in the outstanding shares, otherwise it is not being 'purchased back'. Is it possible to get a list of those trades? |
|
|
|
Motion passed by 100%. All of my shareholders are happy. Motion ID:148 Ticker symbol: BMF Expires:2012-09-28 Required to pass motion:0% Motion text This is an opinion poll with no actionable result. As a shareholder, are you satisfied with BMF's management style? Please carefully consider the performance of the fund, and the actions I have taken to protect shareholders including weekly letters to shareholders, full disclosure of assets and trading, motions 80 and 124, and the current daily dividends policy before answering. Thank you and have a nice day. Note: If you are at all unsatisfied with the performance of this fund, as a shareholder, please do not hesitate to contact us at bmf@tsukino.ca and maybe we can work together to resolve any problems you are experiencing. Thank you! Voting result % to pass motion: 0 Voted Yea:8148 Voted Nay:0 I thought there was only 4652 shares outstanding as of today? |
|
|
|
I think a scammer tag should be applied in this case, or until asset issuer conforms to his or her GLBSE contract. A contract should say what a issuer can do. Anything not on there should be assumed to be breaking the contract. The only reason as stated in the contract for no dividends is that the administrative and energy costs are the same amount or more than what was mined in bitcoins. Another way that no dividends may not be paid is that no mining occurred. Although, in the contract it never states in that the issuer can stop mining. Thus the mining should continue to the best of the issuers ability. It states a way to purchase back shares from the secondary market. This is 1.05 times the average price the asset was traded for the previous 7 days. I would advise people to make sure they put their shares for sale no less than 1.05 times the 7-day average. This is a really bad contract. These kinds of things should go to GLBSE though so the trading can be halted until the issuer stops breaking the contract. There really should be some kind of bond that the issuer would lose in case they break their contract. Some questions to ask to determine a good contract or not. 1. Is it a loan or a percentage of ownership? 2. If the operation will be shut down, how will it be done, what time frame, and at what cost? 3. What will the capital raised by selling shares be used for? If there is excess or unused capital, can those go to purchase back the asset shares or be paid back in dividends? 4. Who is responsible if operations stop due to unforeseen circumstances. Is there insurance? 5. When are dividends and financial reports made? If they are not made on time what kind of penalty does the operator face? 6. How can motions be raised? 7. How can investors see the financials? 8. How can management be removed? 9. How will dividends be distributed to shareholders? https://glbse.com/asset/view/FPGAMININGThis bond is a for share in a very large FPGA (high efficiency) mining operation. Bond holders will receive weekly coupon payments of the total BTCs mined by the pool less energy and administrative costs (both minimal due to using ONLY low energy use FPGAs procured in bulk at significant discount). Coupon payments will be made Monday for the previous 7 days of mining activity. The coupons will grow as the FPGA cluster is increased in size. The initial clusters are running and significant size/space improvements will occur concurrently. The issuer can buy back the bond at any time at a price equal to 1.05 times the average price the asset was traded on GLBSE over the previous 1 week.
Issuer reserves the right to upgrade to ASICs in lieu of FPGA clusters as economics warrant. |
|
|
|
Did'ja read the sign?
I must've missed the awesome revelation. Governments commission private contractors to build roads all the time. Even France, a poster-child of modern-day Socialism, has toll roads all over the place. Yes, I'd say you did... still have, apparently. The "awesome revelation" is that government didn't commission this road. It was set up 100% private, start to finish. Oh right, so they were basically pirates? Did they own the land that the roads were built on? Was there some kind of community consensus on what to do with "unowned" land? What about environmental considerations such as the effect of splitting forests in two? If there was farm land in the way, how that issue dealt with? And presumably the Indians were kicked out long before then, too? Here, this should help: www.google.com/search?q=first+new+hampshire+turnpike<sarcasm>Oh hahaa. Very funny. </sarcasm> They were still pirates. Providing a patronising google link doesn't change anything. It's basically the same attitude that the US government has today with their foreign policy -- "f**k the rest of the world because we've got the biggest guns". I don't think "pirate" means what you think it means. Pirate is not the word you're looking for. Probably " highwayman" is a better fit. But even that doesn't work. After all, these roads started out as toll roads. The land was either unowned or legitimately bought. The money to build it was raised voluntarily. So where's the "piracy"? Let's compare, shall we? When a government wants to build a road, they use " Eminent domain" or similar methods of expropriation to get the land. And they don't take no for an answer. And the money to build it? Yeah... they don't take no for an answer on that one, either. Now that's highway robbery. Those Native Americans could not show title to the property, so why not take just take the land? |
|
|
|
The question really isn't one of belief - it must be one of evolution. Religion must have provided a substantial evolutionary advantage otherwise it couldn't have existed at all.
That is not true, there are a lot of things that evolved that have absolutely no beneficial function. Religion is more likely a symptom of a emotion brain along with a cognitive brain. |
|
|
|
|
This is nothing, not only do I have a Chinese wife, but I also have a Chinese mom and sister.
|
|
|
|
When someone believes something stupid (alien anal probes, bigfoot, communism as viable economic policy), you should at most point and laugh, but at the least explain to them why their beliefs are misguided, ridiculous, and stupid. Why should religion be exempt???
People are just afraid to die. They don't want to be insignificant things in the universe so they have hope for some believe that they are not insignificant. Will you laugh at a mother who says about her dead child, "My baby is in heaven now"? |
|
|
|
Cognitive should be doing excellently.
What's the plan B in case someone else beats BFL? The only option that I see currently is to diversify the current ASIC preorders. Currently nobody publicly plans to beat BFL, but many people are accepting the wait and going with other producers. This is another reason why we should invest in some ngzhang Avalon ASICs. What about having a futures asset like BFLS does. That way COGNITIVE can fund its current expansion plan but not reduce the dividend return while shareholders wait for the delivery of the ASICs. |
|
|
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5puAN1PGQwsomeone's making money on the intertubes, we can't have that ... send lawyers, guns and money! Thank god GLBSE can always come back as an Open Transactions server and all these parasites will have to find real jobs. If all else fails run it behind tor like silk road. Although that reduces the useability a lot. I don't think any companies should be listed with government agencies. Staying fluid is the best option. |
|
|
|
Yes I will need all of their BTC addresses to send them coins. I'm sure Nefario will send this soon enough.
Maybe we could avoid that and just set up a new exchange where people can just put in their "secret code" and make a claim.
Might be the way to do it.
The way Nefario wants to do this is there is no longer liquidity. No way I can see peoples bids if they want to sell out.
Making dividend payments should be easy enough once a system is in place.
A simple claim form would be enough. People input their code and give you an address to send the coins too. How many coins? And what if they don't want to sell? I would need to make dividend payments. Some bonds I can't even buy back or know the fair value to. It is not workable like this. An argument could be made that since the contracts were only available through GLBSE and GLBSE de-listed the contracts, that they are now voided. Actually no, Goat had his contracts on the forums, and anything thats not there I can put on the forum. He marketed on the forum, he did not sell them through the forum and used GLBSE as the mechanism for the sales. As the mechanism for the sale and transfer of shares it not available to him anymore, his contracts that relied upon that mechanism is void. Why do you keep opening up GLBSE to such liability and bad publicity? |
|
|
|
Yes I will need all of their BTC addresses to send them coins. I'm sure Nefario will send this soon enough.
Maybe we could avoid that and just set up a new exchange where people can just put in their "secret code" and make a claim.
Might be the way to do it.
The way Nefario wants to do this is there is no longer liquidity. No way I can see peoples bids if they want to sell out.
Making dividend payments should be easy enough once a system is in place.
A simple claim form would be enough. People input their code and give you an address to send the coins too. How many coins? And what if they don't want to sell? I would need to make dividend payments. Some bonds I can't even buy back or know the fair value to. It is not workable like this. An argument could be made that since the contracts were only available through GLBSE and GLBSE de-listed the contracts, that they are now voided. |
|
|
|
Exactly. I was so worried about ponzies at the time that, being clear this couldn't be one, I happily invested without almost considering it could be a different scam... luckily I then woke up and sold early enough!
The problems about BDT were clearer than everyone thinks from the beginning, but the once convincing arguments became foggier and then completely drowned as BitDayTrade started being accused of being a Ponzi scheme to no end, together with the avoidance of the subject of its business aspect. In reality, everything about BDT that points to a scam is directly related to its business model and Alberto's competence. The lesson here is, tune out the naysayers together with the promoters and focus on what people who have real information say. Anyone that needs to go to GLBSE to get a site like bitdaytrade.com off the ground is hustling. If a person can't go out and get a traditional loan then why would anyone want to lend them money? Was a credit report of this person every pulled? |
|
|
|
We've provided goat everything he needs to continue his relationship with his asset holders.
We can't be forced to do business with someone who is a liability.
If he believes that we've breached contract, he can take legal action against us.
Yesterday was a sink of shares (not associated to the pirate), at a low price. Goats under contract, he can give me back my value of these shares, but at a low price. he will be right. and who provoked the situation when I lost money, I think is clear. you had to solve the problem together and find a way out. Goat has been provided everything he needs to fulfill his contractual obligations without GLBSE. This is not even close to being true. Why not? Because I would need a second stock exchange and as you know we made a deal that I would not make one if you would give me real GLBSE stock. And now I have neither a second stock exchange or GLBSE stock. How can I operated an exchange with software you had me not develop? What a nefarious guy you are... Try giving the cryptostock people a call. They might be willing to set something up. |
|
|
|
We've provided goat everything he needs to continue his relationship with his asset holders.
We can't be forced to do business with someone who is a liability.
If he believes that we've breached contract, he can take legal action against us.
Yesterday was a sink of shares (not associated to the pirate), at a low price. Goats under contract, he can give me back my value of these shares, but at a low price. he will be right. and who provoked the situation when I lost money, I think is clear. you had to solve the problem together and find a way out. Goat has been provided everything he needs to fulfill his contractual obligations without GLBSE. This is not even close to being true. Maybe it is expected that you do a forced buy back. |
|
|
|
|
I am starting to understand why exchanges and brokerages are two separate entities. Lot less drama.
|
|
|
|
I hope this doesn't bring down GLBSE...
...GLBSE would fall under the new croudsourcing legislation that's come out. ... The JOBS act is not effective until January 1, 2013. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
