Ukyo.Loan seems interesting - 18.25% (currently paying bonus +50% ~ 27.375%), maybe we could invest 10-20% NAV there.
Due to the incredibly naive security flaws, I wouldn't touch Bitfunder nor its relatives with a 10-inch pole. What security flaws? Should I be worried? As far as I know Deprived/LTC.ATF is trading there for quite a long time... There was a cross-session exploit which caused some people to have shares transferred out of their accounts. That was fixed a while back. Victims were people who did dumb things like clicking links from reddit whilst logged into exchanges etc. Afaik the problem is solved or at least heavily mitigated. Although transfers were what the exploit was used on, there were other ways damage could have been done. There were a bunch of unrelated account breaches at the same time - those seem to have been not the fault of the exchange, rather people who didn't use 2FA and got their passwords key-logged/phished. I use 2FA everywhere I can if I hadn't made that plain before. All DMS funds (including on Coinlenders and in J-D) need 2FA to access. |
|
|
|
“Outstanding 0 / 1000000 Issued” @0.1
How many shares are you going to release? Round 1? 2?
The asset is now awaiting unlocking by the operators of the exchange, in preparation for attention from the moderators who serve as gatekeepers between submissions and listings. Please see the section of the document headed "Initial Offering, Minimum Participation Level, and Fund Closure" and "Subscriptions and Redemptions" for more details on the release of shares. Nowhere in that can I see details of how many shares you'd be selling at IPO - or what your plans are in terms of time-scale for releasing all of them. I'd assume you aren't going to sell all at once (even if there was demand) as it wouldn't be practical to deploy that much capital at once. I note that you only intend to publish NAV/U monthly - is it your intention only to sell and redeem once per month? Or will you be maintaining bids/asks based on a current (but unpublished) NAV/U? Either way can work of course. I'm glad you're avoiding the cancer that is dividends for the sake of dividends btw. |
|
|
|
And yeah - I've been drinking or I'd just keep my mouth shut  Not sure that's an excuse. .b It wasn't intended as an excuse - but as an explanation. Potentially what I said costs me BTC - as it encourages people think about how horrible PMBs/Mining investments in general are as investment - and so may reduce my sales of MINING and hence PURCHASE. I neither seek nor need an excuse - as all I've done is told an uncomfortable truth. If it costs me a few BTC in management fees I'm sure I'll live with it. Fact is I've bitten my tongue a fair few times to avoid pointing out just how stupid people buying PMBs were - I have no regrets that a few beers made me (more accurately encouraged me to - as it in no way compelled me to do something I had no desire to do) say things the way they are. Only apology I owe is to those of my investors selling DMS.SELLING who may find it harder to find a market now - but in truth the price of DMS.MINING has finally dropped to a point where it's no longer certain DMS.SELLING is the better bet anyway. |
|
|
|
Indeed, both are worth less than PMBs that are actually mining. DMS.MINING by an amount depending on when you think difficulty rises will level out (5-20%), BFMINES based on when you think they'll receive delivery (if you think tomorrow then it's worth maybe 10-20% more than a PMB, if you think not until after next difficulty change then less than a PMB). Which isn't to say that any PMBs or mining investments are worthwhile at current prices - I wouldn't want anyone to think I recommended throwing money away buying any of them. My personal advice is that just about everyone is better off NOT buying anything which is MINING or virtual mining or investing in Mining ot anything at all to do with mining. On average you'll end up far better off just holding Bitcoins. I remain convinced that Bitcoin investors have lost more coins investing in mining than being scammed - just it isn't so obvious (and the boundary between the two is a bit blurred - many mining 'investments' have given totally shit projections that are tantamount to scamming due to having no basis in reality). Getting back to the topic, if you invest in BFMINEs at current price you WILL make a loss. If you invest in DMS.Mining at current price you MAY make a loss (it's priced in the area where it could go either way). If you hold the bitcoins you WON'T make a loss. Now run along and buy your PMBs like a bunch of retards. And yeah - I've been drinking or I'd just keep my mouth shut I'm actually just going to quote the whole thing for the record. I'm frankly a bit shocked at what you just wrote; not about BFMines but about your own investors. .b Think you're getting confused here. MY investors are people who bought DMS.PURCHASE - the only DMS security I sell or set the price for. How they then bet amonst themselves on MINING/SELLING is out of my control. The ones who bought MINING early on were fucking stupid. I could be polite about it and say they misjudged the situation but fact is they behaved liked retards. However they did so in their dealings with other people - not as investors of mine. If they'd just kept the PURCHASE they bought from me they'd have made a profit (that's a concept your own 'investors' will only have theoretical familiarity with). I can't help that they were stupid enough to think that a PMB was worth whatever they paid (to a fellow investor) for similar output from DMS.MINING - not would/should I WANT to help/stop it. They lost less than if they'd bought actual PMBs - so hopefully learned their lession (more) cheaply. One of the main objectives of DMS was (and it was openly stated) to try to determine what the market thought true value was for PMBs (by allowing trade on something similar to one). That was always going to result in some fools losing money (some of whom run investment funds selling to bigger fools). But overall I'm certain it reduced the cash lost in PMB-like investment. I make no apologies at all for idiots losing money on DMS.MINING to less stupid people. Those idiots were going to lose that (or more) anyway - all I changed is who they lost it to (whoever happened to sell them the DMS.MINING rather than some near-scammer pretending selling a PMB or similar was an investment) and the degree to which is was obvious the loss was through stupidity not bad luck. It may shock you but I'm actually not that bothered if my post -and you quoting it - deters idiots from investing in me in the future. Idiots generally don't get to keep their money. If I need/ask for funds where the return depends on my judgement (which isn't the case for DMS MINING/SELLING) then I'm totally confident the non-idiots will provide what I want/need. The idiots can buy YOUR shares. |
|
|
|
Now run along and buy your PMBs like a bunch of retards.
Wow. You're operating an asset you want to be perceived as a PMB and refuse any argument that it isn't a PMB. Its output is comparable to that of a PMB. It isn't actually a PMB. It's a way to bet on the value of something that's PMB-like - giving similar returns to a PMB without actually being one (the end-conditions stop it being a PMB as you've correctly pointed out yourself). Originally it sold at price where anyone investing was thrwoing away money (same as with actucal PMBs). Now it's trading in a range where the outcome isn't so certain. Most actual PMBs/minign contracts are still trading at prices where it's a guaranteed loss for retards investors. I don't (and never have) set the price for DMS.MINING - the market sets that. That the price happens to show how badly overpriced PMBs/contracts are is amusing but not under my control. I want it to be considered as comparable in value (potential dividends paid) to a PMB but don't want it to be considered to BE a PMB : I've argued why it can be considered similar to a PMB on value but never argued that it should be considered to actually BE one. If you fancy arguing there's any chance that your 'investment' will ever make a profit for investors then all I need are three things: 1. The amount you want to bet 2. The odds you want 3. The escrow you want to use There's no "4. rhetoric". I may well refuse based on 2 (as the return wouldn't justify tieing up the capital) but if you feel the need to ask for odds then that tells its own story anyway. |
|
|
|
Today's update.
DMS.MINING is cheaper than running the ASICMINER USB...
So are scraps of paper, but neither that nor DMS.Mining is a PMB or even a mining operation. Neither is BFMines a PMB. .b Indeed, both are worth less than PMBs that are actually mining. DMS.MINING by an amount depending on when you think difficulty rises will level out (5-20%), BFMINES based on when you think they'll receive delivery (if you think tomorrow then it's worth maybe 10-20% more than a PMB, if you think not until after next difficulty change then less than a PMB). Which isn't to say that any PMBs or mining investments are worthwhile at current prices - I wouldn't want anyone to think I recommended throwing money away buying any of them. My personal advice is that just about everyone is better off NOT buying anything which is MINING or virtual mining or investing in Mining ot anything at all to do with mining. On average you'll end up far better off just holding Bitcoins. I remain convinced that Bitcoin investors have lost more coins investing in mining than being scammed - just it isn't so obvious (and the boundary between the two is a bit blurred - many mining 'investments' have given totally shit projections that are tantamount to scamming due to having no basis in reality). Getting back to the topic, if you invest in BFMINEs at current price you WILL make a loss. If you invest in DMS.Mining at current price you MAY make a loss (it's priced in the area where it could go either way). If you hold the bitcoins you WON'T make a loss. Now run along and buy your PMBs like a bunch of retards. And yeah - I've been drinking or I'd just keep my mouth shut |
|
|
|
|
Sold 2486
Swapped 0
Total 2486
Price 0.02832
Total 70.40352
Less Fee 70.26271296
Man Fee 2.107881389
BTC Balance (BTC-TC) 1,243.55159603
10164 LTC-ATF.B1 101.64000000
Coinlenders CD 28/8 201.23747398
Coinlenders CD 13/8 101.57920386
Just-Dice Balance 159.20000000
TOTAL ASSETS 1,807.20827387
Outstanding MINING 60294
Outstanding SELLING 60294
Outstanding PURCHASE 6647
Effective Units 66941
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 1,802.70672601
NAV/U Post MINING Div 0.02692978
Days Dividend Post Div 400.46
SELLING Dividend -
NAV Post SELLING Div 1,802.70672601
NAV/U Post Selling Div 0.02692978
PURCHASE selling price 0.02828
PURCHASE buy-back price 0.02639
J-D House profit at report 4120
|
|
|
|
What about investing some more of the balance?
What is the minimal % of NAV that we need to keep in "cash" at BTC-TC?
Ukyo.Loan seems interesting - 18.25% (currently paying bonus +50% ~ 27.375%), maybe we could invest 10-20% NAV there.
Just-Dice is doing great, maybe we could raise our investment to 15% NAV (currently cca 9.1% NAV), the house profit is around 0.52%, in theory it should be 1%, but we should be careful with this due to the variance.
According to the contract on BTCT, at least 50 days of MINING dividends need to be held in cash. Currently, that's roughly 12.5% of NAV. I (as holder of a small number of SELLING), would also favour additional investments, if sufficiently secure ones can be found. I have to be careful as manager to ensure we stay above that 50 days. In practice that means keeping significantly more as cash to cover the next SELLING dividend and also to allow for significant MINING+SELLING redemptions. With current likely high rises in difficulty that means I'm aiming to keep around 50% cash - so from my perspective I feel we could safely invest another 200-300 BTC without any cash-flow issues. |
|
|
|
What about investing some more of the balance?
What is the minimal % of NAV that we need to keep in "cash" at BTC-TC?
Ukyo.Loan seems interesting - 18.25% (currently paying bonus +50% ~ 27.375%), maybe we could invest 10-20% NAV there.
Just-Dice is doing great, maybe we could raise our investment to 15% NAV (currently cca 9.1% NAV), the house profit is around 0.52%, in theory it should be 1%, but we should be careful with this due to the variance.
I'm reluctant to raise our investment in J-D as returns from that aren't guaranteed. We fairly briefly went into the negative there ourselves - though we're now strongly back in the positive. Ukyo.Loan is definitely a candidate - my concern with that is that when asked what backed the loans his answer was pretty much that the revenue from Bitfunder ensured he could pay the loans. Problem is that a revenue stream only really backs servicing bonds not guaranteeing their face valuation - I like to see some evidence of liquid assets from anyone offering a bond that can be redeemed on request. I'm fine with putting it up for a vote if there are more interested in it. |
|
|
|
The spreadsheet doesn't seem to make sense.
Delivery is in Q4 - so 2-4 months from now.
Despite that, the worst-case scenario which has 25% growth per difficulty change only estimates a starting difficulty of 60 million which is less than double present difficulty. 4 difficulty changes of 25% is more than that - even if you forget to do compounding. And that's if the "worst-case" is delivery right at the start of october.
Not only does the math not work on compounding and the worst-case assume best-case scenario but the worst-case scenario is that hashing power at the start of October WITH your 500 TH/s delivered is LESS than current hashing power + your 500. i.e. your worst-case is that not only does noone else add any hashing between now and october but that 100+ TH/s currently mining switches off. That doesn't seem like a worst-case to me.
The models need to be adjusted to add your 500 TH/S onto hashing power when delivered - not assume everyone else will scale back out of sympathy and turn off some of their hardware to help your investors.
That's the worst-case. Your best-case is that someone not only does EVERYONE else stop hashing but that difficulty represents less than 500 TH/s with your 500 TH/S mining. i.e. the same error Ken made of assuming you can mine more than 100% of all coins mined.
Hm, your right. As said the document was more made as a proof of concept. its not meant to project anyone's specific returns but a model designed for investors to plug and play scenarios. You may take it and plug in the numbers you think seem reasonable. To make a estimate which you think seem likely. It is impossible to make a exact estimate hence we do not state that we can. We simply offer a platform where you can make your own estimates. //DeaDTerra Actually it looks like you're estimating profits as though you started hashing at next difficulty change. Which makes it all meaningless - and it can't be fixed just by editing a few cells : that would just give a different, totally implausible, set of results. You've produced a platform that allows people to produce meaningless output. Which is worse than providing nothing - as it can make people believe (incorrectly) that they have some idea of what to expect and that YOU have some idea of what the liekly range of outcomes are. Good job it's only a mining investment - where the operators make a profit whether or not investors do. In most other areas of business you'd have needed to produce some sort of functional projections to satisfy yourself it was worth doing - but when you get a chunk of revenue even if investors make a loss I guess that isn't needed. |
|
|
|
|
The spreadsheet doesn't seem to make sense.
Delivery is in Q4 - so 2-4 months from now.
Despite that, the worst-case scenario which has 25% growth per difficulty change only estimates a starting difficulty of 60 million which is less than double present difficulty. 4 difficulty changes of 25% is more than that - even if you forget to do compounding. And that's if the "worst-case" is delivery right at the start of october.
Not only does the math not work on compounding and the worst-case assume best-case scenario but the worst-case scenario is that hashing power at the start of October WITH your 500 TH/s delivered is LESS than current hashing power + your 500. i.e. your worst-case is that not only does noone else add any hashing between now and october but that 100+ TH/s currently mining switches off. That doesn't seem like a worst-case to me.
The models need to be adjusted to add your 500 TH/S onto hashing power when delivered - not assume everyone else will scale back out of sympathy and turn off some of their hardware to help your investors.
That's the worst-case. Your best-case is that someone not only does EVERYONE else stop hashing but that difficulty represents less than 500 TH/s with your 500 TH/S mining. i.e. the same error Ken made of assuming you can mine more than 100% of all coins mined.
|
|
|
|
|
A big jump in J-D profit today (plus continued strong buying of PURCHASE) mean the NAV/U has grown again today even after paying out dividends.
Sold 6390
Swapped 0
Total 6390
Price 0.02827
Total 180.6453
Less Fee 180.2840094
Man Fee 5.408520282
BTC Balance (BTC-TC) 1,179.73128182
10164 LTC-ATF.B1 101.64000000
Coinlenders CD 28/8 201.10983016
Coinlenders CD 13/8 101.51624293
Just-Dice Balance 158.50000000
TOTAL ASSETS 1,742.49735491
Outstanding MINING 59107
Outstanding SELLING 59107
Outstanding PURCHASE 5348
Effective Units 64455
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 1,738.16298185
NAV/U Post MINING Div 0.02696708
Days Dividend Post Div 401.02
SELLING Dividend -
NAV Post SELLING Div 1,738.16298185
NAV/U Post Selling Div 0.02696708
PURCHASE selling price 0.02832
PURCHASE buy-back price 0.02643
J-D House profit at report 3990
|
|
|
|
|
Quite a few different people buying decent chunks of PURCHASE today - so NAV/U actually rose (very) slightly.
Sold 11033
Swapped 0
Total 11033
Price 0.02824
Total 311.57192
Less Fee 310.9487762
Man Fee 9.328463285
BTC Balance (BTC-TC) 1,008.76064367
10164 LTC-ATF.B1 101.64000000
Coinlenders CD 28/8 200.97761399
Coinlenders CD 13/8 101.45102666
Just-Dice Balance 154.63079193
TOTAL ASSETS 1,567.46007625
Outstanding MINING 54485
Outstanding SELLING 54485
Outstanding PURCHASE 3580
Effective Units 58065
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 1,563.55540832
NAV/U Post MINING Div 0.02692767
Days Dividend Post Div 400.43
SELLING Dividend -
NAV Post SELLING Div 1,563.55540832
NAV/U Post Selling Div 0.02692767
PURCHASE selling price 0.02827
PURCHASE buy-back price 0.02639
J-D House profit at report 2896
|
|
|
|
Third, and most importantly, headline growth numbers obscure underlying risk. As the original post indicates, that's why an entire cottage industry has put analysts to work evaluating skewness, kurtosis, Sharpe ratios and other measures to distinguish good investment management from bad. Three extremely different portfolios might all generate the same returns over a given period of time, but they might do so with entirely different risk profiles. Would you rather have 10% per annum while risking a 50% chance of a 50% loss per annum, or 8% per annum with the same level of risk of a 20% loss; how about 12% per annum with the same level of risk of an 80% loss? If you're merely 'benchmarking' you would probably go for the 12% and be happy; for my part, I'd take the 8% without a second thought.
Think I'd dodge all of them. An 8% return with a 50% chance of a 20% loss still has a negative expectation (of around 2% - depending on what the 20% is of). Or by 'same level of risk' did you mean 8% not 50%? There's another issue with compiling an index and comparing to it as well. There's a large difference in the way various securities determine what profits are and decide on the size of dividends. So some pay high dividends but have little (or negative) growth whilst others retain most/all profit and pay small dividends. These different strategies obviously impact market price - making an index created purely on market price not particularly meaningful. Your fund looks a lot better considered than most - I do have a few questions. 1. How large do you believe the fund could grow considering the general lack of liquidity in BTC-denominated securities? There's effectively a maximum amount you can invest in any single security whilst maintaining any degree of liqudiity - it varies widely from security to security and can in theory (but not yet in practice) be extended via use of options. Once you get over that limit you end up, in practice, with funds committed to the security even if the price moves significantly. This imposes a practical limit on how large a fund can grow whilst remaining agile (and that limit drops if other funds are following similar general strategies and hence will also want to be using up liquidity at the same time). 2. If you want to make fees behave similar to a 2/20 model with annual fees then shouldn't your trailing HWM cover at least 12 months? 3. Do you view mining operations in general as being BTC denominated, fiat denominated or a mix of the two? 4. You say you won't disclose your personal finances - which is fine. But will you commit to your own shares in the fund also being included in those listed on the exchange - so investors can readily see total outstanding units and market cap? 5. Can you confirm that you won't invest (as opposed to trade) significantly in other investment/hedge funds? Have seen a few cases before of circle-jerking whereby funds invest in other funds - delegating their management responsibility whilst making investors liable to taxation (in the form of management fees) by multiple fund managers (or even the same fund manager twice). |
|
|
|
Quoted for posterity....
You edited your previous post. You had promised your readers you would shortly return to deal with the quoted post. That was one month ago. You have failed to deal with what I have said and now you've gone back and removed the statement you made promising to make a response. Curious. Here's another one of your screw-ups: In your recent post, you blame me for attempting to discuss a proposal which is intended to increase value for my shareholders. My proposal hasn't even gone to vote yet and you're claiming it's stupid and that it is beneath you to even point out why. The icing on the cake is you mentioning the "poor" NYAN.A investors and their BITVPS shares despite being in full knowledge of the NYAN buyout policy as stated in the NYAN final claims thread, and that taking advantage of such an offer would in essence recapitalize NYAN and allow it to pay it's debt. Above is a partial quote of a post by usagi - rest was off-topic (uninformed comment about my own securities which aren't just inaccurate but are in the wrong place) so will have to delete whole post. My previous post was not edited (not by me anyway - and I doubt mods would have) - I'm fine with admins/mods confirming that if you trust your memory. Not sure why you think Nyan.A investors would want to write off their own debt so others could be paid off. You promised to pay them back in full (back in about Feb/Mar) so unless you're saying your word is worthless surely they should be anticipating full repayment from you soon? At the time you talked about a time-scale of months - guess you just weren't specific enough on which months (some may have thought you meant the months just coming - when maybe you meant some months in 2020, 2025 or 2030 or whatever). |
|
|
|
I am looking for additional suggestions. We would like to encourage investors to sell their shares back to the company however there seems to be no way to encourage investors to do this. What ideas do you have for an incentive or bonus we can offer to investors choosing to sell shares back to the company? Do you feel a 5% bonus is justified? If not, what other deals or offers could we propose?
Ok, after discussions with a few other investors/asset issuers on IRC I think I have a solution which is fair to all. Proposal: BMF offers investors a chance to participate in a purchase warrant program. For each share sold back to the company at fair market value, the investor will receive two purchase warrants with a strike price equal to the fair market value of the company at the time of sale. These warrants operate like calls. It would be done manually so investors would have to contact me manually, either in email or here (via PM). What this does is allow investors a very special, unique opportunity which provides: i) a financial incentive to sell; ii) without damaging the financial position of BMF. What's the incentive? Simple. Should the price of BMF fall, investors will have made the right decision to sell and can walk away with more money than they would have had if they held on. Yet should the price of BMF rise, investors will have the ability to leverage back into BMF using their purchase warrants. In short, the purchase warrants allow the investor the option to reverse their sale at any time, but, should it be to their advantage, buy more shares of the company at that price. From the standpoint of BMF this is also a good thing. One, there's no harm in buying or selling shares at NAV. If we sell 100 shares at NAV, buy 100 shares at NAV, or whatever, it does not affect the NAV and won't affect existing investors. Secondly, because we issue two purchase warrants per share, we have the prospect of raising capital for the come this is done at NAV, it won't affect the value of the shares, but it will intangibly increase the value of BMF as a whole because the total net cashflow will have been increased. This makes managing the fund easier because we will have more purchase options. A stronger cashflow makes repurchasing shares out of income even more attractive for the company as well. In short this looks like a win-win proposition. And the best part is, investors can choose whether or not they want to participate. If someone feels it's not to their advantage, they can choose not to sell their shares back to the company and the value of their shares and the income they receive will not be affected. If there are no objections I am considering posting an official announcement mid next-week. I will run a motion if anyone (shareholder or not) thinks this could be a bad idea for the company. This discussion time and question and answer period is the time to raise your voice if you feel this is a bad idea, it will be too late after I post the announcement. Do the numbers sound right? I was also considering doing one and one-half purchase warrants per share, but 2 seems like a better number. I might go as high as three depending on any comments I receive. Quoted for posterity as I assume usagi will realise just how stupid this is before actually doing it. One of these days he'll work out that if you just regularly make a profit the market takes care of itself (a profit means your NAV doesn't fall faster than you pay out dividends) - until then we'll have dumb and dumber attempts at fixing the market price and screwing over investors. Someone else can point out WHY it's a stupid idea. At least BMF investors have the choice to sell though - unlike the poor Nyan.A ones. Though I see there was a token payment there - guess the hope is it's enough for investors not to ask what happened with the BitVPS shares which could have been sold by now to pay off a decent chunk of what they're owed. |
|
|
|
|
Sold 822
Swapped 0
Total 822
Price 0.03387
Total 27.84114
Less Fee 27.78545772
Man Fee 0.833563732
BTC Balance (BTC-TC) 960.34604591
10164 LTC-ATF.B1 101.64000000
Coinlenders CD 28/8 200.84709370
Coinlenders CD 13/8 101.38664689
Just-Dice Balance 154.08127085
TOTAL ASSETS 1,518.30105735
Outstanding MINING 44797
Outstanding SELLING 44797
Outstanding PURCHASE 2235
Effective Units 47032
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 1,515.13832003
NAV/U Post MINING Div 0.03221505
Days Dividend Post Div 479.06
SELLING Dividend 0.00531645
NAV Post SELLING Div 1,265.09492669
NAV/U Post Selling Div 0.02689860
PURCHASE selling price 0.02824
PURCHASE buy-back price 0.02636
J-D House profit at report 2756
|
|
|
|
|
Sold 548
Swapped 0
Total 548
Price 0.03394
Total 18.59912
Less Fee 18.56192176
Man Fee 0.556857653
BTC Balance (BTC-TC) 925.03698651
11285 LTC-ATF.B1 112.85000000
Coinlenders CD 28/8 200.71894672
Coinlenders CD 13/8 101.32343777
Just-Dice Balance 154.25852836
TOTAL ASSETS 1,494.18789936
Outstanding MINING 43475
Outstanding SELLING 43475
Outstanding PURCHASE 2735
Effective Units 46210
Block reward 25
Difficulty 31,256,961
Hashes per MINING 5000000
Daily Dividend 0.00008045
50 days (Min Liquid) 0.00402236
100 days (Forced Close) 0.00804471
365 days (Buyback) 0.02936320
405 days (IPO) 0.03258108
400 days (Post SELLING div) 0.03217885
410 days (Pre SELLING div) 0.03298332
NAV Post MINING Div 1,490.47043781
NAV/U Post MINING Div 0.03225428
Days Dividend Post Div 400.94
SELLING Dividend -
NAV Post SELLING Div 1,490.47043781
NAV/U Post Selling Div 0.03225428
PURCHASE selling price 0.03387
PURCHASE buy-back price 0.03161
J-D House profit at report 2805
|
|
|
|
MPEX withdrawals are processed manually. They can take a couple of days.
Indeed, I am currently waiting for the withdraw from MPEX. I will add a bit of extra BTC as compensation for good manners. //DeaDTerra Bitfunder holders got only 0.0035 per share? I think Erik paid a little bit more than that + you promissed to add a bit extra. Whoever bought thse share for 0.0035 from me about 2 weeks ago was calculating with this. Poor fellows got scammed twice. Erik paid exactly 0.0035 to shareholders of sdice. You already got the extra promised, since he did the dividend for free, not taking any cuts. You're actually wrong - erik paid .0035 + some extra that had been reserved for development. The extra wad trivial - like 8 satoshis per share from memory. Nonetheless its not accurate to say the final payment was.0035 as it was a bit more. I know that for sure as I ran a pass-through myself and paid out what was received rather than rounding it dowb. |
|
|
|
Oh ok your right i see that 2013-07-25 19:00 0,05 LTC per share, that explains it.
Assume that explains it - after I pay a divend the hwm is reduced by the amount of the dividend. If it's still unclear let me know. Can't give an accurate update as not at a computer (on mobile at the pub) but we're up 6 or 7 percent so far this week mainly from flipping the labcoin ipo. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
