|
Sold 8832
Swapped 0
Total 8832
Price 0.02801
Total 247.38432
Less Fee 246.8895514
Man Fee 7.406686541
BTC Balance (BTC-TC) 1,663.14718263
10164 LTC-ATF.B1 101.64000000
Coinlenders CD 28/8 202.02801424
Coinlenders CD 13/8 101.93762759
Just-Dice Balance 160.60000000
TOTAL ASSETS 2,229.35282446
Outstanding MINING 78524
Outstanding SELLING 78524
Outstanding PURCHASE 4879
Effective Units 83403
Block reward 25
Difficulty 37,392,766
Hashes per MINING 5000000
Daily Dividend 0.00006725
50 days (Min Liquid) 0.00336232
100 days (Forced Close) 0.00672465
365 days (Buyback) 0.02454497
405 days (IPO) 0.02723483
400 days (Post SELLING div) 0.02689860
410 days (Pre SELLING div) 0.02757106
NAV Post MINING Div 2,223.74426475
NAV/U Post MINING Div 0.02666264
Days Dividend Post Div 396.49
SELLING Dividend -
NAV Post SELLING Div 2,223.74426475
NAV/U Post Selling Div 0.02666264
PURCHASE selling price 0.02800
PURCHASE buy-back price 0.02613
J-D House profit at report 4526
|
|
|
|
Right now though, MINING has fallen in price so much that it would be better to quadruple the hashrate to 20. Rename the old PURCHASE to PURCHASE5 and issue a new instrument PURCHASE20 (=MINING20 + SELLING20) which is exactly like the old with one difference. The MINING part is a 20MH/s bond instead of 5MH/s. This will in theory quadruple the price of MINING to about 0.014 and lower the price of SELLING to about 0.014. Mission accomplished.
It doesn't work like that. For MINING to be worth the same and SELLING to be worth less the number of days dividend held in reserve would have to drop a lot, so would the buy-back terms for MINING etc. If that happened then the value of MINING would drop a lot and no longer be 4 times current price - plus the whole nature of DMS would be changed. The relative percentages of the prices wouldn't change at all without terms also changing. If you can't see this clearly then consider doing what you propose in 2 stages and it shold become obvious: 1. Multiply everything by 4 - so MINING is worth 4 times as much and PURCHASE costs 4 times as much. Hopefully you can see how if this were done then SELLING would also be 4 times the price - and 1 'new' share would be identical to 4 'old' ones with exactly same ratio of MINING:SELLING prices and so precisely same % profit potential on each. 2.  ? What is it you think you can do in 2 that suddenly removes 75% of SELLING's value whilst leaving MINING unchanged? |
|
|
|
You're talking about what happens with mining revenue - and payments to shareholders from profits. I'm talking about what happens with funds raised from IPO.
Your intended meaning must have been lost in the walls of text. Confirmed. All funds raised during IPO will go directly toward hardware purchases and economy of scale execution of mine setup. Just a note: If you want your questions to be answered quickly, please state the context in a quote, remove all the irrelevant text and ask the question directly. My justification for this request is that some entities involved with providing answers here are necessarily spending time away from activities that directly benefit investors (e.g. mine execution) to do so. We're not saying you shouldn't ask questions, just imploring you to shorten the posts and get to the punchline. Please? I tried that originally - here's the post where I asked a series of pretty simple questions. Your above response already answers the first of them. The walls of text were only necessary because when I asked the questions directly there was no answer - so I ended up having to explain why the questions were actually important. I think some people are too concerned with who the private investors and why some shares were sold off the exchange - there's entirely valid reasons for the latter. But there ARE legitimate questions that should be addressed, especially if the deal is going to be somehow changed mid-flight.
1. Are all funds raised from IPO going to the company and being used to the benefit of investors? i.e. if there's surplus after purchasing the hardware etc does that extra get used to expand the hashing power or disappear into someone's back pocket?
2. Whilst the number of shares and timing of each batch can be changed there's no entitlement to change the TOTAL shares that will be sold to the public (or the private shares would end up not just owning a disproportionate amount of initial hashing power - but also of reinvested capital). Can reassurance be given that:
a) All shares stated to be sold to the public WILL be sold - even if the exact dates/batches on which they're sold changes.
b) No shares will be sold at below the initial price for the shares already sold.
3. Can reassurance be given that no management fees, consultancy fees or similar will be paid to the managers, private investors or their friends/family to dilute earnings.
4. Some of the documentation reads as though a new data centre is being constructed for this project. If this is the case can assurances be provided that any other income from a data-centre/infrastructure funded by investors in this IPO will also be treated as revenue to be distributed after costs to investors. We wouldn't want other people's mining gear free-loading off investors there without benefit to investors.
5. Whilst transparency of costs has been promised, no comment has been made about transparency of handling of IPO funds. Is it the intention to provide accounts properly documenting the use of funds raised in IPO and from private investors?
6. Is the initial hashing power per share a minimum, an estimate or a maximum? i.e. what happens if actual hashing pwoer received varies due to circumstances beyond the issuer's control?
7. What guarantees have been provided by the hardware supplier in terms of delivery date? We may not know exactly WHAT the date is, but there's a date after which a refund would be preferable to delivery (as the hardware would never pay for itself from mining). At what date is a full refund of all funds paid to them allowed to be requested? Have they provided sufficient financial disclosure that issuer is confident such a refund could and would be honoured in the event they were unable to deliver the hardware by such a deadline? Estimates of delivery are fine for planning purposes - but a hard deadline beyond which they are in default and must refund (and/or pay penalties) is essential when signing a contract.
I didn't bother asking questions whilst this was only on Bitfunder - as contracts can be edited by issuers there at will. But now it's showing for approval on BTC-TC some due diligence is appropriate as contracts there are intended to be final and certainly can't just be arbitrarily changed by an issuer.
#1 you already answered. #2 has since been addressed by DT so can be ignored. Answers to 3-6 may seem obvious given your answer to #1 - but I always hesitate to conclude something is the case just because it's obvious. #7 is a critical one. If you need an explanation of why any of them matter let me know. |
|
|
|
So HashFast is only the true winner in this game and not IceDrill.
People need to stop thinking of business as if one person wins, and everyone else loses. I see it all the time on this forum. With that mindset, observers try to figure out "who profits the most" and then label everyone else a loser or victim of a scam. In reality, there can be multiple winners, and in any good business deal, there is. HashFast is the firm inventing the new chips. So yes, they probably will make the most money from sale of chips, as everything else is derivative and not as value-adding as the creation of those chips. But that doesn't mean other steps in the supply chain don't also profit. And it doesn't mean that other steps in the supply chain aren't valid business propositions (such as IceDrill). Carve away all the puffery that's gone on in this thread, and look at the numbers. Investors are paying about $14-$15 for ghs to be delivered in late oct/early nov. Estimate the difficulty at that point, and then decide if it's a reasonable risk/return ratio. Consider then that the entire mine is going to pay .0016 per public share before the subsequent revenue is split equitably, meaning the mine will pay off for public holders before it pays of for the operators. This makes it additionally attractive... in reality the investors are, at launch, getting more than a ghs for their $14 (they're also getting the operators' share of the mine proceeds until 0.0016 btc per share in dividends is paid!). Further, whether the operators are getting some of the IPO money is absolutely irrelevant. Let's assume they are getting 99% of the IPO money and will spend it on hookers and blow, does that make the deal worse? No, because the promise is to deliver X ghs per $ invested by Y time. Unless they break that promise, it matters not at all where the IPO money goes. Maybe IceDrill got the entire mine from HashFast for $100... and thus they'll keep all the IPO money for themselves. So what? Or, maybe IceDrill is paying $14 per ghs from HashFash, and thus not earning a penny from the IPO money. So what? All that matters is the ghs delivered to shareholders, by what date, and at what price. How much hashfast and the operators of icedrill make, and whether one gets kickbacks from another, or whether they're the same person, and what kind of clothes they're wearing or car they're driving is completely irrelevant. They are offering a price, for a product. If you trust them to deliver, then buy shares, otherwise ignore. You're right in theory but horribly wrong in practice. I'll ignore the issue of principle - that issuers should honestly represent what they're doing and clearly disclose what happens with funds and focus on the practical points. Firstly, you're correct that what investors receive intially isn't impacted by the price paid for it by the issuers. But remember that a chunk of what is mined is reinvested. If that reinvested portion also suffers from being used to purchase at inflated prices then that directly reduces potential to investors. Secondly, if the relationship between Ice-Drill and the suppliers isn't a simple buyer/seller one then it's hard for investors to rely on management having interests totally aligned with theirs. That's why I asked questions about the terms of the supply deal - what guarantees had been obtained and what due diligence conducted to ensure the suppliers would and could refund if they failed to meet defined delivery dates. And this has a double-whammy impact - as if the relationship isn't a straight-forward one then not only is there increased risk (that proper commitments in respect of delivery dates and refunds/penalties in the case of failure have not been obtained) but of course there's then the problem that a refund of what was on the contract may not return the funds the investors actually committed. In an ideal world where everyone delivers on time always #2 wouldn't matter - but #1 STILL would remain an issue if prices used for reinvestment may not reflect the best price an unconflicted negotiator with the same purchasing power could achieve. Note that is NOT the case if it's simply a matter of some of IPO funds just being moved into various back-pockets - but IS the case if the relationship between IPO and supplier is closer than it should be for investors to rely on issuer having no conflict of interest when negotiating with supplier on behalf of investors. |
|
|
|
Would suggest you get DT or someone to confirm that issuers don't keep (or receive as 'management fees') any IPO funds (they're all used to grow the mine)
Confirmed (see FAQ 2, Q4). before repeating again that they don't receive anything until investors have recouped their investment.
See IPO wording @ bottom: Clause added in benefit of public shareholdersNo dividends will be paid to the holders of private shares until holders of public shares have received an accumulated dividend of 0.0016 BitCoin per share. As the issuers have never claimed or committed to that...
This statement is factually incorrect. Think we're talking at cross-purposes. You're talking about what happens with mining revenue - and payments to shareholders from profits. I'm talking about what happens with funds raised from IPO. It has nothing at all to do with dividends. What happens with funds raised from IPO varies (especially around here): Sometimes the shares are sold directly by the company - and funds raised become the property of the company (and thus used to the benefit of teh company). Sometimes the shares are treated as being sold by a previous owner - and so go the that owner (the issuer). Other times it's a mix of the two. My concern was (and remains) that the last is the case - that investors don't actually get the benefit of all funds raised from IPO. I asked a few questions about this pages back but received no reply. There's more to it than just whether immediate cash benefit is taken - such as whether other revenue from secondary usage of facilities is also treated as profit for investors. One of the reason I had the concern was because no disclosure was being made of how much was raised from sale of private shares. That lack of disclosure made no sense IF all funds raised were being used for the company - as the amount raised from sale of private shares would HAVE to end up being made public whenever first accounts were produced (even if not disclosed as a liine item it could be worked out by subtracting the value of public sales from the total listed IPO revenue). Another reason is simply that other IPOs have gone that route - raising $X then giving investors $X/Y (Y being >1) worth of assets in return. A final reason was the repeated reference to fixed number of hashes per share - which makes no sense when the final performance of the hardware isn't known. But I asked my questions before so don't really want to keep repeating them if they aren't going to be answered - there were other issues I raised such as the degree of care that had been taken when agreeing contracts for delivery of hardware. |
|
|
|
Best as I can tell, this investment will only make money for the issuers, their hardware suppliers, and perhaps a few flippers
How do you square this with the fact that these shares pay out .0016 btc before the issuers get any money from the mine? All of the profits are front loaded to the public investors. I already explained one way that could be the case earlier - if some of the funds raised in IPO were just pocketed by issuers rather than being used to maximise amount of mining capacity purchased. Another means would be if the issuers were linked to the hardware vendors and so received profit either from investment in there or from kick-backs. The first one can be easily denied - and would be demonstrably not the case if accounts were produced later. The latter has to be taken more on trust. But first a denial that the first is the case would be appropriate - as rather obviously if issuers keep some of the IPO funds they'd be making profit before investors had broken even. The reason I've raised the first possibility is simply that the tone of the contract is that investors are buying into a mining company - but the letter of the contract reads more like it's a PMB with an undisclosed markup potentially being raked off immediately. Would suggest you get DT or someone to confirm that issuers don't keep (or receive as 'management fees') any IPO funds (they're all used to grow the mine) before repeating again that they don't receive anything until investors have recouped their investment. As the issuers have never claimed or committed to that - so don't see how you can be in a position to give assurances that they've refused to. |
|
|
|
|
Sold 755
Swapped 0
Total 755
Price 0.02806
Total 21.1853
Less Fee 21.1429294
Man Fee 0.634287882
BTC Balance (BTC-TC) 1,428.67935581
10164 LTC-ATF.B1 101.64000000
Coinlenders CD 28/8 201.89526460
Coinlenders CD 13/8 101.90366229
Just-Dice Balance 160.32389937
TOTAL ASSETS 1,994.44218207
Outstanding MINING 68505
Outstanding SELLING 68505
Outstanding PURCHASE 6066
Effective Units 74571
Block reward 25
Difficulty 37,392,766
Hashes per MINING 5000000
Daily Dividend 0.00006725
50 days (Min Liquid) 0.00336232
100 days (Forced Close) 0.00672465
365 days (Buyback) 0.02454497
405 days (IPO) 0.02723483
400 days (Post SELLING div) 0.02689860
410 days (Pre SELLING div) 0.02757106
NAV Post MINING Div 1,989.42754343
NAV/U Post MINING Div 0.02667830
Days Dividend Post Div 396.72
SELLING Dividend -
NAV Post SELLING Div 1,989.42754343
NAV/U Post Selling Div 0.02667830
PURCHASE selling price 0.02801
PURCHASE buy-back price 0.02614
J-D House profit at report 4433
|
|
|
|
I agree, so far DeaDTerra was very responsive and supportive. People not happy with this IPO can leave freely without losses.
Of course he will be responsive and supportive. He's asking for millions of dollars without a plan that benefits himself and his partners so much. The doubts and criticism have nothing to do with how nice he might be. IceDrill is paying out .0016 to bitfunder shareholders before a single dime goes to DeadTerra. Is that true? So far he hasn't confirmed that all funds raised from IPO are being used to the benefit of investors - so it's not clear yet whether some of the IPO funds ARE going to DeadTerra. I'm not claiming that he IS going to pocket some of the IPO funds - just pointing out that he hasn't yet clarified that detail. EDIT: There wouldn't be anything 'wrong' with a cut of IPO funds being taken - but it would mean your statement was wrong. The impression a quick read of the contract gives is that it's shares/revenue share in a company being sold. But closer examination suggests it may actually be a PMB that charges expenses and reinvests (compounding profit OR loss) - with any benefit of cheaper prices from large-scale purchase not actually being passed through to investors. If ALL funds raised from IPO are staying in the company and being used for the benefit of investors then your comment is true - and it's a decent offering. I'm not convinced that's the case - but obviously DT can clarify if he chooses to and hopefully I'm just reading too much into what wasn't stated. |
|
|
|
I'm a little confused how this BTCgarden buyback works. I go to my portfolio and I see an internal transfer box with BTCgarden in it. Okay, now what?
You won't need to do anything. Just wait - and when they do the buyback your shares will go and the BTC from the buyback will arrive in your account. |
|
|
|
WEEKLY REPORT  Much weaker results this week : 2.45% growth but under 1% came from trading with the rest from LTC falling vs BTC. There's a specific reason for the poor performance. One of the things I do is trade the spread on a few securities that have a very wide spread. One of these for quite a while has been Bitpride on Bitfunder (a horrible investment that's a t-shirt seller that raised thousands of BTC at IPO but has had declining sales). We've done well on it - often flipping shares for 50%+ markups but the price of it finally collapsed after even worse results than usual. When the price collapsed not only did our existing holdings lose value, but we got more shares dumped into a bid. I made the call to liquidate our position totally and got rid of the lot at a loss. We definitely made decent profits overall on it - but when tarding junk securities there's always going to be a risk of taking a hit when confidence in it finally collapses. That proved to be the case here - not the first time it's happened to us and it definitely won't be the last. It's a risk we take/price we pay for that particular strategy - which only works on shares which are pretty shit as they tend to be only ones with very wide spreads. I'm satisfied I made no errors on it - just this week happened to be the one where we gave back a bit of what we'd made on it to get out of it at the end of its useful (to us) life-span )it isn't impossible it'll be worth trading again later - but if so it won't be in the range we were previously trading it in. We're back above the NAV/U at which I last issued a dividend, however one will NOT be made at present. Two reasons for this: 1. We have some new securities coming out that can use more capital. 2. LTC has fallen vs BTC increasing the percentage of NAV/U that bond-debt represents. It's in our comfortable zone at present but would rise above my desired target range if we paid a dividend right now. So there won't be a dividend until we've made a fair bit more growth and/or LTC has risen back a bit vs BTC. Unfortunately I failed to get our ASICMiner pass-through out to date - I got side-tracked on other things (some RL work then bot testing for DMS). That security and 4 more new ones (all run by LTC-ATF) will be my main focus in the next few days. The other 4 in particular are, in my view, likely to attract decent volume and potentially bring in significant new profit for LTC-ATF. The transfer bot for DMS is now functional - automatically handling transfers of shares for DMS. It will be updated to also do some work for LTC-ATF - allowing trades of our ASICM passthrough shares for ones on BTC-TC and also, later, allowing trades on the other 4 new assets we'll be running. Unfortunately the developer won't be able to work on it next week so it'll be a few weeks before it'll do the work for LTC-ATF. All costs/payments to the developer for his work are being paid by me personally, no fee will be charged to LTC-ATF (or DMS for that matter). Management fee for this week is a paltry 70 units The fund's own bid is at .607
|
|
|
|
|
Just a note on a small error in the above spreadsheet (it has no impact on results) - the LTC value of Havelock holdings is calculated incorrectly (BTC one which is the one that matters was correct). The error was noticed and fixed but appears I used an old copy of the report. Difference is tiny and the value isn't used in any totals - so I'm not going to redo the reports just to correct it (it's fixed in the current week's report which is coming shortly - was just doing last minute double-checking that it was correct and noticed I'd used uncorrected version of last week's).
|
|
|
|
WEEKLY REPORT 4/8/13 This is the rather late report for the status of the fund as at last weekend. Will be posting this week's immediately afterwards. it may seem silly me posting two - especially as the contract allows me to post every other week anyway. However I'm trying to keep weekly snapshots on record for the purpose of tracking past performance.   Growth of 5.7% this week - most of which came from trading (4.88% estimated). The NAV was higher for part of the week but dropped slightly at the end when LTC recovered some of the ground it had lost vs BTC. Management fee of 158 units will be transferred. |
|
|
|
Price adjusted fast. We've had a nice run for Dms.Selling. Any plans to issue a renewed version of these securities?
No plan at all. Not quite sure what you're even suggesting really. This one only ends if/when SELLING vote to close it (barring unforeseen circumstances where there couldn't be a replacement anyway - as if I could run a replacement I could continue running this one). And I don't see any way SELLING would vote right now to close and give MINING 90% of all the money. Until/unless difficulty increases drop until they're barely moving at all I can't see SELLING wanting to close - and that seems very unlikely to happen in the near future. |
|
|
|
Something that doesn't involve dollars.
Something where you can buy/sell bitcoins/litecoins/other.
I would imagine that this would be bureaucratically easier to set up than other exchanges since it isn't dealing with recognized money (it would be the equivalent of trading stuff in WoW).
There's MtGox - you can't move USD in or out of there. |
|
|
|
I own some SELLING and I would like to see another investment with DMS balance, if it is possible.
I have already send PM to Ukyo asking about backing of his Ukyo.Loan, but he didn't replied yet.
What other investment options suitable for DMS are there?
Also whenever will LTC.ATF be selling new bonds we should be buying as many of those as possible.
What about your new security, Deprived, is it suitable for DMS investment?
I'm hesitant to invest more right now (especially into current investments) - as the next difficulty change looks to be large which means a large chunk of capital is likely to be returned to SELLING. It's still too early to give any sort of accurate guesses for the change and size of dividends - but percentage-wise (if not in absolute terms) it looks likely to be largest yet. Other fixed-rate options are: BTC-Bond - buyback is at full face-value, so good liquidity for us there. But dividends are pretty tiny and no detail of backing seems to be provided any more. Graet.Loan - A loan apparently largely to repay funds stolen from his mining pool. Meaning no disclosed backing for capital. FIMB - issuer buy-back is only at 95% of face-value which is a bigger hair-cut then I'm comfortable taking. LTC-ATF.B2 - Unfortunately we can't invest in that as it would be against BTC-TC asset-issuer TOS (have mentioned that before). LTC-ATF.B1 is fine by the asset issuer TOS as the restriction only applies to assets with the same issuer that are listed on BTC-TC. Investment in LTC-ATF.B2 would be fine by the spirit of the rule - which was to prevent cross-security equity ownership (not debt) - but the letter of the TOS rules it out so I've avoided it. The next new security for LTC-ATF is just a fractional ASIC-MINER pass-through on LTC-Global - so of no interest/relevance to DMS. Whilst it would definitely be in SELLING holders' interests to invest more widely it can't be done as MINING don't gain from it and their backing has to be preserved. The securities after that to be launched by LTC-ATF MAY be of interest, but due to an interesting situation (which will be obvious when they're launcehd) they wouldn't allow DMS to substantially increase invested capital (maybe an extra 10-15%). As one pair of those will be on LTC-Global they COULD be invested in without breaking the letter of the TOS. Not sure just when those will be out - could be as soon as tomorrow, might be another week - I have some more work to do checking the math before I can list them. I'm fine with putting Ukyo.Loan up for vote as soon as some evidence is presented of liquid BTC-denominated assets backing them. Ability to redeem such instruments is one of the key considerations when investing DMS funds - that he can definitely service them and repay them eventually isn't too useful if and when DMS eventually closes and we want cash back ASAP. |
|
|
|
I'm assuming your bot is still running so I will be sending in lots of 25 shares (I have over 300 to trade) for DMS.MINING/SELLING.
Yeah it's running fine - have seen various of your batches go through. |
|
|
|
Haven't you got better things to be doing? Like:
Continuing your 'buy-back' offer on BMF which strangely results in outstanding shares count increasing. As with previous buy-backs seems it's just a feeble attempt to pump the price for you to sell into.
As usual you screw up simple facts and figures. Here's a complete record of all buys and sells done on the BMF account since the repurchase plan was announced: 8/8/2013 3:12:19 BMF buy 8 0.04299 0.00068784 0.34460784
8/7/2013 2:14:11 BMF buy 5 0.042 0.00042 0.21042
8/6/2013 1:26:39 BMF buy 1 0.0447 0.0000894 0.0447894
8/5/2013 16:01:13 BMF buy 5 0.0447 0.000447 0.223947
8/3/2013 6:33:22 BMF buy 1 0.041 0.000082 0.041082
8/2/2013 9:14:20 BMF buy 10 0.038 0.00076 0.38076
7/27/2013 15:24:15 BMF buy 10 0.039 0.00078 0.39078
7/27/2013 0:16:39 BMF buy 1 0.04 0.00008 0.04008
7/26/2013 22:26:34 BMF buy 100 0.04 0.008 4.008
7/26/2013 20:05:01 BMF buy 50 0.0399 0.00399 1.99899
7/26/2013 19:45:21 BMF buy 20 0.0399 0.001596 0.799596
7/26/2013 19:45:10 BMF buy 4 0.03632 0.00029056 0.14557056
7/26/2013 19:45:08 BMF buy 1 0.036 0.000072 0.036072
7/26/2013 13:06:17 BMF buy 5 0.0399 0.000399 0.199899
7/24/2013 0:08:56 BMF buy 1 0.032989 0.00006597 0.03305497
Notice that all buybacks were done above NAV. Notice that no action that BMF took in any way increased the number of outstanding shares. In fact, the number of outstanding shares has fallen by 222 shares from 4,687 to 4,465 as a result of these buybacks. You can see that on our disclosure page. And if my investmetns are so dodgy why is it you always seem to end up holding them?
Seriously dude? Just shut the fuck up and have another beer. Mistake I made was thinking you'd finally seen sense and had shares on the exchange matching yoru spreadsheet. 2013-08-06 16:00 ฿ 0.07540800 4713 0.00001600 COMPLETE 2013-08-06 16:00 ฿ 0.03804800 -- -- CANCELED 2013-08-05 17:10 ฿ 0.03682373 4679 0.00000787 COMPLETE 2013-08-05 16:00 ฿ 0.03804800 4679 0.00000813 COMPLETE 2013-08-04 16:01 ฿ 0.03804800 2375 0.00001602 COMPLETE Dividend record shows that (when I made my post) outstanding shares recorded on the exchange rose from 4679 to 4713 on 6th August (the large rise prior to that was the disclosed movement of Nyan's holdings from the wrong account to the right one). Easy to make mistakes when the outstanding shares are being fiddled with by holdings that aren't reflected on the exchange. Have you calculated (and published) how much NAV/U remaining investors lost from you buying back at over current NAV/U? |
|
|
|
|
Sold 1819
Swapped 0
Total 1819
Price 0.02811
Total 51.13209
Less Fee 51.02982582
Man Fee 1.530894775
BTC Balance (BTC-TC) 1,413.13475241
10164 LTC-ATF.B1 101.64000000
Coinlenders CD 28/8 201.76430784
Coinlenders CD 13/8 101.83906723
Just-Dice Balance 159.50000000
TOTAL ASSETS 1,977.87812748
Outstanding MINING 67612
Outstanding SELLING 67612
Outstanding PURCHASE 6204
Effective Units 73816
Block reward 25
Difficulty 37,392,766
Hashes per MINING 5000000
Daily Dividend 0.00006725
50 days (Min Liquid) 0.00336232
100 days (Forced Close) 0.00672465
365 days (Buyback) 0.02454497
405 days (IPO) 0.02723483
400 days (Post SELLING div) 0.02689860
410 days (Pre SELLING div) 0.02757106
NAV Post MINING Div 1,972.91425995
NAV/U Post MINING Div 0.02672746
Days Dividend Post Div 397.46
SELLING Dividend -
NAV Post SELLING Div 1,972.91425995
NAV/U Post Selling Div 0.02672746
PURCHASE selling price 0.02806
PURCHASE buy-back price 0.02619
J-D House profit at report 4215
0.63347130 BTC was received as this week's LTC-ATF.B1 dividend.
|
|
|
|
|
I think some people are too concerned with who the private investors and why some shares were sold off the exchange - there's entirely valid reasons for the latter. But there ARE legitimate questions that should be addressed, especially if the deal is going to be somehow changed mid-flight.
1. Are all funds raised from IPO going to the company and being used to the benefit of investors? i.e. if there's surplus after purchasing the hardware etc does that extra get used to expand the hashing power or disappear into someone's back pocket?
2. Whilst the number of shares and timing of each batch can be changed there's no entitlement to change the TOTAL shares that will be sold to the public (or the private shares would end up not just owning a disproportionate amount of initial hashing power - but also of reinvested capital). Can reassurance be given that:
a) All shares stated to be sold to the public WILL be sold - even if the exact dates/batches on which they're sold changes.
b) No shares will be sold at below the initial price for the shares already sold.
3. Can reassurance be given that no management fees, consultancy fees or similar will be paid to the managers, private investors or their friends/family to dilute earnings.
4. Some of the documentation reads as though a new data centre is being constructed for this project. If this is the case can assurances be provided that any other income from a data-centre/infrastructure funded by investors in this IPO will also be treated as revenue to be distributed after costs to investors. We wouldn't want other people's mining gear free-loading off investors there without benefit to investors.
5. Whilst transparency of costs has been promised, no comment has been made about transparency of handling of IPO funds. Is it the intention to provide accounts properly documenting the use of funds raised in IPO and from private investors?
6. Is the initial hashing power per share a minimum, an estimate or a maximum? i.e. what happens if actual hashing pwoer received varies due to circumstances beyond the issuer's control?
7. What guarantees have been provided by the hardware supplier in terms of delivery date? We may not know exactly WHAT the date is, but there's a date after which a refund would be preferable to delivery (as the hardware would never pay for itself from mining). At what date is a full refund of all funds paid to them allowed to be requested? Have they provided sufficient financial disclosure that issuer is confident such a refund could and would be honoured in the event they were unable to deliver the hardware by such a deadline? Estimates of delivery are fine for planning purposes - but a hard deadline beyond which they are in default and must refund (and/or pay penalties) is essential when signing a contract.
I didn't bother asking questions whilst this was only on Bitfunder - as contracts can be edited by issuers there at will. But now it's showing for approval on BTC-TC some due diligence is appropriate as contracts there are intended to be final and certainly can't just be arbitrarily changed by an issuer.
|
|
|
|
Please take a look at other operations, which sometimes own much larger parts or a majority portion of the shares issued.
Zero share holding means zero responsibility to shareholder's profits.
Would like to point to another investment fund where the managers take shares for free? All other investment/trading funds the managers only get shares either: a) From putting in cash/assets equal to the price of the shares. b) As payment of their management fee (the fee being paid in shares given at current NAV/U) You don't need to use 135k shares to represent 30k shares sold pre-IPO - just hold back 30k from sale. And you haven't at all addressed the disproportionate impact they have if the IPO doesn't sell out. If you only sell, say, 10k shares at IPO you end up owning majority of equity whilst having put in a tiny part of the actual value. Shares represent equity - they aren't something that should be used to fudge things like management fees. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
