Yes, as I said, that is true -- however Deprived is actually more correct here because we fix the price of silver in BTC by looking at the price of silver in dollars. I mean, I know you're talking about "silver", and I and he are talking about "TU.SILVER", so I don't disagree. Just commenting on how we do things.


It would be both a misconception and a truth. The markets are not perfectly efficient. So if most of our customers are using euros, that would be a better way to sell silver. Not just more efficient but more in line with public perception. The goal here is to move silver, odolvlobo, so we have to sell to our customers. Dollars, euros, BTC, is all just a red herring. If you traded in colored beads I would quote you a price in colored beads and find an exchange which allowed me to trade in colored beads.

What you are really looking at there is my supply chain. If I source silver in US dollars, I cut a price in US dollars to ensure I make a profit such that I can buy more silver with what I make. If I buy it in Euros, same. The real risk to me and my customers actually has nothing to do with currency of any kind including BTC, because silver is money. Once my customers get their hands on shares of TU.SILVER the price in BTC or fiat of any kind is irrelevant.

They have a guaranteed amount of silver.

That is what TU.SILVER is all about.

No I sit on top of that. I just placed another order, I'm on the bid and left my previous order up.

I'm glad to see that your share price is increasing because of the exchange rate. I guess I was wrong about you losing money. But right that it was time to buy I hope I can pick up some cheap shares here!

Odolvlobo is a pretty smart cookie, and he has a point here, as does Deprived -- we do in fact seed our charts with the US dollar price of silver. So it is both true and not true. It is true so long as the US Dollar is the most liquid and stable currency in the world. When it is not true (someday) we will provide continuity by pricing silver in Euros or Yuan or some other currency. Actually one of my goals is to provide open market pricing in BTC, essentially backing BTC with silver. But that won't happen until we get another 100,000 ounces, right?

Please confirm the following three facts because I want to make sure before I buy the villa:

1. You got ripped off for $150,000 and do not have the title to this property and are not connected to this property in any legal way.
2. Your saying that the new guy -- who is a real estate developer -- is willing to sell it to you for less than half of what it's worth.
3. You haven't found anyone who will take this deal for six years.

Do I have that straight?

Go right ahead. Also make sure you tell them the guy sitting on your bid is me. I'm your biggest fan, EB, but reality is reality and your stock is losing money.

Where are February's financials? :0)

No, I'm not bitfloor. Sorry I was just trying to keep it light and lively This thread ended a couple months ago I think.

This thread is now about cats.

Yup, still waiting for that one. The LTC-GLOBAL mods need to take another look, because some of the comments such as identity escrow and personal liability no longer apply, and I should have YES votes from (at least) those two moderators now. The other comments need to be changed as well since we've been operating on another exchange for a couple of months already, and DeaDTerra is providing oversight and has already audited our books.

Anyways, although I'd like to get approved, I wouldn't trade the security for at least another couple of months unless I can get approval from our "comptroller" -- he's the one that approves or disapproves whether or not we can trade on any other exchange than BitFunder.

Thanks for the vote of confidence.

Continuing on from your line of reasoning, there is no such thing as a secured loan because the value of the securities used to back a BTC loan can decline WRT the price of BTC.

Interesting.

Well for what it's worth I've been speculating a little on the mtgoxUSD price, you may enjoy this little gem I came up with recently: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=148358.0

I think we're in a speculative bubble. I may just redo the loan in BTC anyways. Could be to my advantage :>

I wouldn't be so sure. I'm getting a meow reading of 28 with this chart. here's the same chart with the patented NYAN technical indicator I'm using:



Are you seeing what I am seeing? I think the indicator here speaks for itself.

I think it's pretty obvious we're in a speculative bubble. So while we can't predict the top (and therefore cannot cash out at the top) we know the price will be lower 2 or 3 months from now. My speculation is that it might be best to start cashing out slowly. Like dollar cost averaging but in reverse. That's how I am approaching this market now.

Meow.

It appears as if we will bounce back to ~10% over support just like we did the last three times.

Target price in 2-3 weeks: who knows, who cares?

Target price in 2-3months: just under $20

This is an excellent idea. I didn't think anyone would try doing this.

Right. My main worry is that if the loan is for investment, how will the person pay it back? I am very suspicious of direct investment loans. I've already seen one person take out a "rep loan" for the purpose of investing in other loans. When one person defaulted on him he couldn't make his payments and defaulted in-turn. That's essentially a scam because the person asking for money is taking a loan but pretending it's investment in a business. I wouldn't go so far as to say they have the full intent to default if their investment goes awry, but it's an unfortunate consequence that many will have to face soon. BTC has been going up recently and people who took out 30, 60 and 90 day rep loans will almost certainly not be able to pay them back.

The other issue is that people who take out BTC denominated loans for the purpose of investment invariably end up investing in something actually denominated in US dollars -- like a mining company, for example. There just aren't that many places you can invest in a pure BTC enterprise. I wonder what the market will be like once we hit the top. People will probably have to start issuing linked loans just to get funded :/

Well, it's difficult to peg an exact number of how much money he lost so far, but $10,000 is probably an upper limit considering deprecation on the kiln that hasn't been baked into the cake yet, and stuff like office supplies which will be coming out of the company kitty every month from now on (and, keep in mind, there are no profits because there is no equipment the equipment only recently arrived). Also keep in mind, that once he spends money on stuff like a kiln it disappears; if the company fails he will not be able to sell the equipment for anything near what he paid for it (if at all). He has to turn a profit, and reliably. This company will not be valued at it's assets. It will be valued at a multiple of earnings because the assets have little to no intrinsic value. I suspect this is why the bid is around .5 -- they might be lucky to get 50% on used kilns, etc. were the business to fail and they are forced to liquidate.

How much did he lose so far? Difficult to say; he IPO'd 105,000 shares, at 1 LTC/share, and 0.005/LTC/BTC and $25/BTC that's $13,000. So let's take a look at the liquidation value:

1. BTC rose to $35,
2. but LTC fell to 0.0022,
3. so at 0.5 LTC/share, if you denominate things in US dollars, ART lost very close to $9,000 in real terms.

Actually I can't remember the BTC price he IPO'd at. If it was $20, then he only lost $6,000. But it's some huge number like that. His share price is already down to 0.85 best-case; he's going to have to sell a lot of mugs to make up for the loss.

If we try and be nice and say 0.0025/LTC/BTC and 0.85 share price, then ART lost 30% ($4,000). You have to denominate it in USD, or other fiat, because they're buying real world stuff to work with. They don't hold assets in LTC or BTC. So this is pretty much a fact. I think the main reason is because the equipment was late and investors are probably starting to realize that EskimoBob has changed his story a couple of times away from his "four artist friends" towards "I can't wait to set up the kiln and find customers", etc. So this is probably a buying opportunity if there ever was one. Now is the time to pick up cheap shares of ART. If you like EskimoBob's security you can get in now at a deep discount while other investors panic.

I'm hoping his kiln arrives soon. He can probably pull himself out of this hole if he sells enough mugs. Please note I may be wrong; EskimoBob is due to release his February Financial report any day now, and we will be able to see how his company has been doing then.

I'm more interested to know how EskimoBob managed to lose almost 300 bitcoins of his investor's money. The largest bid under .851 is now .5 litecoins, and this is despite the price of litecoins being half what it was when he started. There aren't even 2000 shares on the bid. There is zero buying interest in ART.

When you look at those figures in US dollars, it's even worse; EskimoBob lost over $10k of his investor's money. Weird.

It has become very clear that satoshidice is exacerbating problems in bitcoin. I think it has less to do with what satoshidice represents (gambling) than how they do things. It's the transaction spam. The problem is, they don't seem to care. I find this both ironic and sad, because it's costing them money and there are several easy ways around the problem. For one, not sending confirmations for losing bids would cut their traffic by over 30%, right? Right. But they insist on sending out confirmations on losing bids. Secondly, they could let people use accounts if they want to. This would speed things up from the user's standpoint (so there is a demand) and it would also save money in transaction fees. It would also enable them to add more games and expand their business beyond just the public address game. Also, there is absolutely no difference from a privacy standpoint. So not only would that save them money but it would cut the transaction spam by over 50%. But they haven't done that either.

Yes, "they have to fix it one day anyway". It's true, the blockchain is bitcoin's greatest weakness; people simply do not need 3+ years of cryptographic strength to prove they spent a dollar on an ice cream cone. But satoshidice transaction spam is the kind of thing that will hurt bitcoin before a solution can be found and adopted. Then again, it's only accelerating the obvious. When, not if, the blockchain gets too big (how big is too big?) too many people will be forced into web wallets or other centralized blockchain services, and they will not be able to play satoshidice. So satoshidice will then be forced to allow accounts or it will start losing money.

One wonders why they don't just do it now and save themselves (and us) the trouble.

Either you're outright lying, or you've made a terrible mistake. Don't worry, this will be easy to show one way or another.

Just post your claim e-mail and we can determine if you were on the list that was forwarded to burnside. Then we can confirm whether or not you:

a) made a mistake and lost your e-mail
b) made a mistake and are not a shareholder

Those are the only two ways out of this for you. In either case I expect an apology. We don't need anymore drive by sockpuppets like deeplink and capn noe.

Oh, and in case you missed the post right above yours when you necro'd this thread:
quote author=augustocroppo link=topic=113708.msg1434449#msg1434449 date=1357317432]
Usagi sent me a personal message showing an offer to settle any dispute that a shareholder could have with him.

My notes:

a) I do not think Usagi deserves a scammer tag. I have been watching Usagi before Pirateat40 defaulted. This campaign of false accusations against Usagi was initiated by users like Eskimobob, Puppet, Deprived, etc. Usagi only decided to protect his business (thus his shareholders) when he requested a scammer tag for the users casting aspersions over him. No accusation against Usagi has been proven true, beyond doubt. Hence such accusations became evident for an organized campaign to defame Usagi's business.

b) Since Usagi is not a scammer and not a fraudster, there is no reason for Usagi to offer such generous settlements to his shareholders. Instead, it is the false accusers who should be offering a settlement to repair all damaged caused by them to Usagi's shareholders. But that is not what is happening. Usagi has already requested that the accusers present any remedy to settle the dispute. The false accusers have still not offered any remedy. They have demonstrated that they are not interested in any settlement. They want what they always wanted: Usagi with a scammer tag. Whatever offer is made to settle this endless campaign of false accusations, that will be eventually ignored. A new accusation will pop up without any evidence and the whole fiasco will continue until Usagi receives a scammer tag. The only way to stop this campaign is to threaten the false accusers with a scammer tag. The false accusers have a free pass to falsely accuse Usagi (and any other business) as much as they want. There is no retaliation against them by the forum administration. Moreover, two moderators have already demonstrated a complete lack of fair judgment regarding this situation. Therefore, I think Usagi has no obligation to offer any settlement to his shareholders because it was not him who decided to destroy his business. The false accusers are the ones who should be penalized with a scammer tag if they do not offer a remedy to stop the false accusations.
[/quote]

Since the NAV is higher than .1, won't BTCINVEST be losing money each time you trade?

So if BTC holds or drops, would you have been right to avoid linked loans?

It's just a loan, not intended as a play on currency.

Second point, this is a 100% secured loan with a real payment plan attached to it and it is something which will increase the strength of bitcoin.

It is not a rep loan. It is not a loan to invest in other loans. It's a real loan with a real purpose. You will not find many of these denominated in pure BTC. Any large loan like this take out in BTC is almost certainly a scam, since the interest rate is meaningless due to the volatility in BTC. Essentially EVERY loan becomes a currency play if you think like this.

That's why I like silver. Regardless of how many pieces of paper it takes to buy one, it's always the same amount of silver.