I do not, but I will usually buy back bonds put on market for face value minus GLBSE fee of 0.5% when I see any.  (0.00995 BTC and under)

Hello,

I suppose I should make a thread in long term offers too as it is more like a deposit than a stake in a company.

Tired of deposit takers:
- not disclosing what they invest in?
- invested in complex schemes of lending to others where the actual risk and trust is put among a chain of loans and individuals? (Although it's usually re-loaned only once)
- invested in undisclosed businesses for which they offer no guarantee or recourse and are only re-lending to?
- backing their claims with small transactions ratings since their business is not disclosed?
- that ends up having a bad business plan when it is disclosed?
- Not giving personal information?

Well how about loaning it through guaranteed loan bonds, where the terms are that the funds are loaned to the issuer, with fully disclosed investments and good contractual terms?

I take deposits in the form of loans extended to my business. BTC-BOND offers:
- 0.03% daily fixed interest
- Fully disclosed investments and statistics
- Extra guarantees (In case of Bitcoin price crash/Bitcoin going bust for any reason, 1 USD per 100 BTC-BOND lot is guaranteed, if you wish to make use of that provision.)

Since investments are disclosed, feel free to try and imitate the portfolio placements instead of lending or whatever else you wish to do with your bitcoins.

For full contract and information:
BTCT.co page: https://btct.co/security/BTC-BOND
Current Loan & Holdings state: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0AvwwyRGyc1WgdGFKVlAtZVAzOGNqS1Brd05MUlFlT2c

As bugpowder said, product is still vaporware. Beside, the waiting time for FPGA started getting shorter later on.

I'm unsure were people get the idea the list only gets longer and longer or that it's even getting extremely long. The list is not disclosed. They'll increase production capacity if there's more orders than they can produce coming in.

We're looking at getting a new mhash rate on our loan to BITBOND when they upgrade to ASIC, assuming we do not reach enough for the first rig by then.

Because while the upgrade is not THAT BAD, gigavps goes around making false statements embellishing the price upgrade and what he gives.


Because it's an upgrade on the old equipment investors purchased (FPGA rigs) being traded in. We should pay the difference to upgrade them to ASIC rigs (+ cut for gigavps), not pay the full ASICs + a cut. It may look like it's a lot offered and it may look like the free upgrade option costs gigavps more but actually the free upgrade path is strongly in favor of gigavps

You look at my previous numbers published and tell me they're off.

The FPGA to ASIC trade in offers 20x the hashing free on the free half of the ASIC rig it pays and gigavps offers 5x the hashing on the free upgrade. Costs him less to do the free upgrade path. Also the cut he takes is around 60% - 70% in most scenarios. It's by far one of the largest cut taken by an operator.


It's statements like this which makes me say to gigavps: Take a fixed profit cuts, deduct the expenses and distribute the rest. Let the investors get as much as possible and stop worrying risks with your guaranteed management fee.

Because he says 50% will barely go through (if it does) the next 4 years (we could expect decreasing revenue over time). And he wants a profit. But does planning the risks justifies the 60%-70% cut, just in case? It MIGHT eventually be needed, but in the beginning and foreseeable future, he will not need such a large cut. It's excessive. It would be better to reduce payment rates when required, not take today the cut that will be needed 2 years downward or whenever it happens.

And yes while Smoothie and Eskimobob are not false, they're not entirely true. The large cut gigavps wants to take will certainly become justified later on as mining value decreases. It just doesn't fit now. To be sure to be able to honor the fixed rate years downward, he'll take a massive profit cut in the beginning with a cut tailored for a hypothetical future scenario?

Dropping the fixed mhash would be the way to go in my opinion.

He still has to pay for new equipment and pay the hashing forever.

6 month? I disagree, I think the hashing will be worth something for longer than that.

Those risks indeed do not cost much, but 30-50% cut is to be expect to cover those fees, because the large part of this cut would be to replace equipment past it's guarantee (it's fixed hashing forever, not until equipment breaks down).

The issue is depending on how the upgrade goes, he's likely to get a 60% + cut.

Hmm, so assuming everyone would have to pay instead to upgrade like any FPGA miner, less might be required. It's true I was not thinking about the free option. However less mhash means a larger proportion of equipment the FPGA trade in can be applied on. Free upgrade is all in your benefit:

So let's recap assuming let's say 100% upgrade with only 50% paid (not a very good scenario with):

20000 x 90 mhash/s + 20000 x 22.5 mhash/s = 2.25 Terahash/s to buy.

20000 x 0.30 BTC upgrade = 6000 BTC

You have 3 FPGA to trade in (15 000$ discount each) which leaves 45000$ to pay the second half on 3 ASIC rigs. 45000$ / 11$/BTC = 4090 BTC to pay

You have 1890 BTC extra + 0.75 Terahash left for you (0.75 rig x 30000$ = 22500$, 21000$ /11$/BTC = 2045 BTC) = 3935 BTC value

3935 BTC value left / 6000 paid = 65% cut for you

I think you're underweighting the value of the trade in. The more free upgrade, the more the trade in start to weight in.
With more free upgrade:
- you need to give only 1/4th of the paid upgrade (5 mhash -> 22.5 mhash)
- The FPGA trade-in pays for half a ASIC rig (25 000 mhash -> 500 000 mhash). That's a 20x increase (5 mhash -> 100 mhash free)

The more FREE upgrade, the better it is for you. If there was a full paid upgrade (100% paid upgrade), that's the worst scenario for you because of the lesser proportion that is free with the FPGA trade-in.

It's not that we do not understand the risks, the need to replace equipment, to cover power failures, to get up in the middle of the night to fix issues, etc. etc. etc.

It's that the terms are fixed regardless of what the upgrade scenario ends up being. It's not flexible enough.

Depending on how the upgrade goes, you could indeed have barely enough, but it seems more likely you will have a very large margin, especially with less people upgrading/more people taking the free upgrade path. I think your estimates are not accurate.

It's very hard to gauge however.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~


TERAMINING upgrade is another offer. It doesn't have to be fixed mhash for those who trade in, you could have a different contract. You could for example take a cut for management (5 - 10%) for guaranteed profit. Then deduct expenses from what's left. Then distribute the remaining. We would get more in the beggining, less once difficulty goes past it and it offloads your risks and guarantees you a profit. We could poll current holders if they'd prefer that scenario and then motion on it so holders can vote if they'd prefer that route. How would that sound to you?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

That's basically my feedback, I'd expect you to most likely end up with a very large margin (probably more than you might be expecting right now it seems), although the opposite might still happen. I wouldn't mind risking to have less with a flexible rate if that means I can have more when it's a possibility. I suppose you could consider me along the crowd that is against fixed mhash rates and prefer to get a % and accept the risk with that.

Thank you for publishing the costs.

I do not feel as strongly as smoothie, but indeed, calculating the 3 FPGA minirig trade in (paid by investors who paid extra for you to have a cut), you're left with 2.5 ASIC rigs to pay to get the full 4 terahash needed to cover 100 mhash per bond (1.5 rig paid by 3 x 15000$ trade in). 30000 USD/ 11 USD per BTC = about 2725 BTC per rig. 2725 BTC per rig x 2.5 = 6812 BTC upgrade costs.

40000 x 0.25 upgrade for 100 mhash each = 10000 BTC versus 6812 BTC upgrade costs. That's a 32% apparent margin, not counting the part paid by investors for the GPU to support all the previous hashing. With .30 to .40 upgrade and 90 mhash per upgrade, we're getting closer to an apparent 50-60% margin.

I'm not making accusation and I'm fully aware you're going past the contract to offer which holds you to pay 5 mhash/s only per bond forever.

I'm saying by just looking at what you're asking versus what you give, this does not seem like a good deal with you having a very, very large margin. (and by what others seems to be saying, some may get the idea you've been put in the red by pirate investments and are passing the bill to the upgrade. With the pirate fiasco, I suppose it's expectable that people will ask for a lot more transparency.)

I suppose most are angry by such claims:
Which doesn't account for the FPGA rigs already paid for that can be traded in and reduce the upgrade price almost in half, and that price increase coincides with pirate's default.

Because one could calculate that trading in the rig paid by investors and paying 0.25 BTC for 100 mhash, Assuming 200 Terahash network (yet to reach), you'd get about 30% cut or $6500/month, more than double the current costs expected. You'd get even much more until the network reach such a point. Adding 0.05 BTC per upgrade and reducing the PPS by 10% is much more than a 10% fee, being added to a already large cut which seems to more than cover the costs of running.

Asking for 0.30 BTC +10% makes an apparent 19% cut when FPGA trade in is not counted in and you're saying 10% might pay the costs once we reach 200 Terahash. But making abstraction of the trade in the calculations is like saying to investors that they never paid for the FPGA/GPUs, to pay for 100% of the ASICs + a cut with the upgrade price to cover expenses. Which would apparently work standalone and not count the trade in. That doesn't sound like an upgrade path at first.

Which is why 0.25 BTC for 100 mhash was well priced for me. When trade in of 3 FPGA rig is counted, you get 10k BTC and only need about 6812 BTC to pay the remaining 2.5 ASIC rigs. You'd have an apparent 32% cut. Which sounds like enough. The 0.30 for 90 mhash does not satisfy me simply because I see no need for it unless you're not counting in the FPGA trade in (if you don't count that which is already paid for by investors, it's not really an upgrade is it?) or something dire happened which would severely reduce income like loss of part of the rig and you haven't disclosed it.

In short:
Unless you can come up with clear numbers, one can only speculate and assume everything is well and the FPGA/GPU can be used to pay for the upgrade in part, giving you a ~30% cut when you ask 0.25 BTC for 100 mhash. Hence, I believe, the questions as to why that 10% + 0.5 BTC extra charge on the upgrade is needed at all. You're saying it's an upgrade and we assume previous equipment is included to pay for the upgrade.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Perhaps TERAMINING could be costs + fixed percent deducted from 0.25 upgrade fee? (with trade in, 0.25 BTC upgrade would fetch over 5 Terahash).

It would go both ways. If difficulty doesn't raise to 200 Terahash network, more for holders, if more or costs increase, less for holders. It would guarantee costs are covered + income for you. Same about price swings.

Hmm, I do not like it, but 0.30 for 90 mhash is already better.

0.25 for 100 mhash seemed much more appropriate. That's 400 mhash/BTC for the upgrade, which is indeed a bit more than other ASIC offers on the market, but other offers don't already have FPGA rigs to trade in which would pay a large part of the upgrade. Seeing as those FPGA rigs were already paid for by investors (with a good cut for you already). And the upgrade would have also a similar cut for you with 0.25 per 100 mhash upgrade (once trade in of FPGA is deducted from the costs), I would still insist that 0.25 BTC per 100 mhash was already well priced.

Are you sure you cannot give us any numbers to support the need to raise the price and reduce the PPS? I usually like transparency.

I fully understand you are doing this for a profit. I just find such generic answer poorly satisfying after I've purchased bonds under the 0.25 BTC upgrade for 100 mhash upgrade claimed which was already on the upper limit of what I'd be willing to pay, especially since BFL didn't change their specifications.

I'm not saying I think you're not running this for profit. I'm saying that with 1.5 free terahash by trading your 3 current minirig for half a free ASIC each, and if selling your GPU rig would fetch you for about an extra half the price of an ASIC rig (already paid by investors), you only need another 2 terahash (2 rigs equivalent) to fund the remaining of the TERAMINING hashing at 100 mhash per share.

Or ~5500 BTC (2750 BTC / ASIC rig)

You're asking for about 40000 x (0.30 - 0.40) = 12 000 to 16 000 BTC. A 54% to  65% cut for you. And the new 90% PPS proposed would take 10% more of what's left (about 4% - 5% more). 60 - 70% cut total.

It just seems like the upgrade is actually charging us the full price of the ASICs + cut, completely ignoring the fact the FPGA rigs/GPU were paid for (40 000 BTC I believe?) by the investors on the initial IPO and can partially pay/be traded for the ASICs.

Your cut is seemingly more than twice to quintuple the cut others take, hence why I'd like to know the actual numbers on your side and your actual cut.

Mining returns of 23.8506182 BTC paid @ 0.0100678 BTC per share for the week of 2 September to 8 September of 2012

Wait! 90% PPS? Are you telling me you are reducing to 90 mhash per upgrade instead of 100 mhash?

I'm not sure you realize, but 1 BTC equals 350 mhash on the current ASIC specs/price for BFL. 0.40 for 90 mhash upgrade? Really? 0.40 BTC buys 140 mhash. That's already a 35 % cut for you.

you already have 3 rigs. 1 rigs converts to 50% free on an ASIC rig. Or 500 Ghash free on each upgrade (1500 Ghash total). That's basically 15000 x 100 mhash FREE (or 15000 upgrades to 4 x 25 mhash TERAMINING BONDS). Only the other half of those rigs need to be paid. (That's 37.5% of the upgrade for all bonds free)

Almost HALF of the 40 000 upgrades FREE to top the fact the upgrade price has a 35% cut included of what it could directly buy.

And the cherry on top of that, that leaves a large GPU farm for you to sell!

I would really like to see how you arrived to the conclusion that you need to charge that much to give so little.

1. You take 35% cut of what the upgrade cost can buy directly.
2. BUT, you actually get 37.5% reduction on the upgrade costs to top it.
3. You're left with your GPU farm you can sell to further reduce the upgrade cost.

Now, I wouldn't mind the 35% even if it's high, but that seems to completely make abstraction the fact that #2 and #3 are already paid for by investors. If we consider that's a 50% reduction total worth on upgrade price, asking for 0.20 BTC per upgrade would be a 35% cut, but 0.40 BTC seems damn high.

Can you give any explanation as to what your actual cut is in this, and why it seems you're taking a seemingly insane cut, barring there has been some major issues along the way you forgot to tell us? BFL rigs will require MUCH less maintenance, space, extra equipment and power usage per performance than your old farm, but you're jacking up the price and your % cut? At least give us numbers to back such a decision.

Paid.

Paid per 100 BTC block: 0.5 BTC
To pay per KRAKEN share: (0.5 BTC / 10000) * 0.90 = 0.000045 BTC

43792 shares paid at 0.000045 BTC per share = 1.97064 BTC

I'm afraid with BTC-MINING, it's 300 mhash/BTC or 3.33 BTC per ghash, nearly half your current pricing. The admin fees over equipment purchase price is a mere 10%. I currently run it as a copurchase, along with BTC-BOND which is a personal loan to me with fixed interest being paid. For any Butterfly Labs equipment investment, I would mostly use BTC-MINING.

Indeed. I can't have bids everywhere and I often see sales into the bids and think "Would have been willing to pay more than that for those".

I would guess many think the same thing.

Hello,

as many of you might have noticed, liquidity is somewhat low on GLBSE. I often see few bids and large sales bringing the price down by a lot.

I manage 3 assets on GLBSE, including one bond with portfolio, and I'm always looking for good purchase opportunities. Unfortunatly, I cannot place bids everywhere all at once. So next time, if anyone needs to liquidate an asset, why not ask me first if I would be interested in acquiring them instead of selling it into small bids?

If you have a good offer for me, I might also be interested in trading assets, although I'm usually interested in purchasing more assets over switching holdings.

You can review current assets and available capital for purchases on BTC-BOND's holdings page:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0AvwwyRGyc1WgdGFKVlAtZVAzOGNqS1Brd05MUlFlT2c

You may PM any request here or talk with me on the #bitcoin-otc on freenode (username: BTC-Mining)

He was trading 1 ASICMINER for 9 DMC when the price crashed on DMC. Which made the outstanding shares go from ~2000 to over 20000.

Pretty much 0.01111111 per share.

http://dmc.adterrasperaspera.com/trade/

^^^ Watch that trading chart, rates keep changing.

Mining returns of 25.92868131 BTC paid @ 0.01094499 BTC per share for the week of 26 August to 1 September of 2012

He was visiting his wife's family in China. I'm not sure when he's going back home. I believe within the next 2 weeks.

Paid.

Paid per 100 BTC block: 0.5319BTC
To pay per KRAKEN share: (0.5319BTC / 10000) * 0.90 = 0.000047871 BTC
Rounded up: 0.00004788 BTC per share

41618 shares paid at 0.00004788 BTC per share = 1.99266984 BTC