<<<MOVED FROM THE YARR THREAD>>> Please disclose the claims paying ability of CPA such as a basic three line balance sheet (assets, liability, spare liquid assets). Without this information, the 100% insurance is only as good as the backer, and I'm not interested in taking "someone's word" on this. An investor now has to rely on YARR, CPA and BS&T all doing their best to meet obligations.
As a counter example, Starfish BCB backs deposits (approx 9000BTC worth) with assets of approx 29,000 coins.
This financial information is available and quite a number of people have access to it, but it must remain confidential and NOT public due to our customer's requests. Some of them have requested anonymity. As it is possible to discern the identity of our clients with access to the info, and as some of that info is simply private, we will not be releasing that information any time soon to people who have not invested money with us (as they would have an incentive to protect the customer's information). That being said I am working on a series of spreadsheets that will be released soon, to the public, which should help. Until then you will have better luck getting Pirate to expose his books. Unfortunately that is simply the nature of this game, and I sincerely apologize if you do not trust me and prefer to invest directly with Pirate. Anyway, if you're interested in becoming an insider, that could be arranged. You would have full access to company info then, and a round table-style discussion list where we discuss company policy. There are 4 or 5 members besides myself. I have to admit we would love someone with your experience to come on board. CPA's e-mail is cpa@tsukino.ca -- that is probably your best bet for information on CPA. I guess you are under the impression this is me alone doing this. That is true, in the sense that we haven't hammered out a corporate structure yet. Maybe this is something you could assist us with if you were to join us. I trust Patrick to verify you are legit and hope he takes the offer. One way you can prove you actually have the assets backing your claims is to regularly move coins around after pre announcing the addresses you move it to. Is CPA not going to use the float to generate more revenue? |
|
|
|
I personally see nothing wrong with the pirate bonds on the list as they are some of the biggest and most liquid. Clearly the people want pirate bonds so why not report what they pay out? I do understand about taking away some of the assets but taking away 30% of the value of GLBSE and 60% of the weekly trade volume seems counter productive. I would assume as soon as you take this off there would be a different guy making a new list with it on it. If you wanted to break it up into different type of bonds and have more than one list that would be cool. Mining here, pirate there, physical goods and what not and so on. Just my thoughts  That makes sense. I will just leave all of them up here. I have been working on a small site to display this information and will have different sections for bonds, companies, ect. |
|
|
|
|
This may sound stupid, but after locking a thread, how to unlock it? I was going to lock 2 threats of a security in the Marketplace but did one that I did not want to lock. Then I could not find a way to unlock it.
|
|
|
|
|
Oops, I have been playing around with this table for a little bit so the number of tickers changed from what it should be. I was in a rush because I had to go out to see to do some biological specimen collecting and forgot to change it back.
I was experimenting with taking off certain kinds of assets like Pirate bonds, ect.
There are a lot of assets on here that I don't think should be because they are not liquid enough. What kind of filters would people like to see with this, if any? I was thinking of a minimum 7-day average, a certain market capitalization, and minium number of volume traded per week.
Does anyone have any suggestions?
|
|
|
|
I have the most volume of assets on GLBSE and honestly I am not sure if I follow any contract on GLBSE. Does anyone take GLBSE seriously? We can not update our contracts. The first and second largest traded asset on GLBSE do not obey the GLBSE contract. Anyone who thinks GLBSE contracts means anything is well, ignorant.
If we can update them then maybe people should start taking them seriously.
(full disclosure I'm an ass hat on a clown boat)
I think contracts should be able to be changed, but only by following the previous contract and not if there is still outstanding contracts still in the market. For example, a contract that says it will buy back shares/bonds/whatever at the 5 day average wants to change their contract. First they can buy back the contracts as they say they will, then change the contract, and then rerelease the new contract for sale. I think there will be a lot more disputes if a contract was changed midway without the above process I mentioned. That is more like a bait and switch, especially when the only way to keep a contract from changing is to vote against the motion. The only other way is to sell it at a loss and that does not benefit the asset holders. |
|
|
|
Over the last week or so we have received a few messages from asset holders who believe that an issuer is in some way in violation of their asset contract. We have no interest in adjudicating these kind of disputes, nor do we believe it is our role/responsibility to do so.
However, it does seem like there should be some mechanism where asset holders can raise grievances they may have.
To that end we thought it would be good to start a discussion here to see what the community thinks would be an appropriate way of handling this type of situation.
I am with you, I don't think GLBSE should be involved with this. Let the emerging insurance industry take care of disputed contracts or judge.me or a combination of both. You can have it in the terms that if a asset holder takes an issuer to 'court' via judge me that you will follow the settlement that jude.me recommendation. I think 3rd party insurance would be better as they would be doing the investigation and determination of contract violations. Of course, this is exactly what surety contract bonds are for. A third party insures that the contractual obligations will be done. |
|
|
|
I am not saying put them back on. I think you have the right idea, but the wrong way of doing it. Your info is awesome but what you are trying to do is take out the meaningless light weights. My example was a bit unreaslistic but I was trying to make a point.
If you can take out all stocks that have less than 10BTC traded that week not included it would in my opion be better than stocks with less than 100 shares.
I hope I am expressing my idea correctly.
Yea I see the point, but the only problem I feel is that securities that don't have a lot of trading are not effective either. If there is a share that is 0.10 BTC and sells 100 shares a week, it will more more liquid than one that sells for 1 BTC a week but only sells 10 shares. If everything else was equal I would prefer to purchasing 10 of the 0.10 BTC shares rather than 1 of the 1 BTC share. I guess it is personal preference where is that cutoff point. This is why large exchanges have a minimum trade amount that the listed company must maintain to stay on the exchange. |
|
|
|
Dividend table has been updated. I removed assets that have a volume of less than 100 shares a week.
Can you please make it a BTC amount and not a share amount. If stock ABC trades 99 shares at 50 BTC each and is not included and stock XZW who trades 100 shares at .0000001 BTC each is it will be odd. BTW thanks for the great work:) Well I could put them all back on, but I have never liked information overload. Especially when a lot of shares may have a high dividend but are not very liquid. I would trade a lower yield for a more liquid security as there is more guarantee to get out when the money is needed. For example, here is a table of the securities that have at least 100 share volume a week and a weighted average of over 0.10 BTC. Symbol Outstanding Volume Weighted_Average High Low Dividend Dividend_Yield
1 FOO.PPPPT 4181 1207 1.0777 1.15 0.98 0.07 6.5 %
2 TYGRR.BOND-P 21390 5468 1.0461 1.08 1.019 0.068 6.5 %
3 BIB.PIRATE 13907 1032 1.05338 1.09 1.025 0.0675 6.41 %
5 PPT.DIV 9000 1687 0.69071 0.9999 0.5 0.02459 3.56 %
6 OBSI.1MHS 3278 820 0.16095 0.18 0.15 0.00445 2.76 %
7 TEEK.B 1999 340 1.10134 1.9 1.022 0.03 2.72 %
9 GIGAMINING 40000 3351 0.89857 1.1 0.7901 0.0233 2.59 %
10 YABMC 54278 5661 0.15993 0.1987 0.141 0.00408 2.55 %
16 BITBOND 46138 407 0.47224 0.56 0.35 0.00936 1.98 %
17 TYGRR.BOND-B 33300 2015 0.10094 0.103 0.098 0.002 1.98 %
22 BTC-MINING 1933 161 0.90618 0.9999 0.6 0.01492 1.65 %
23 BMMO 7972 1082 0.17218 0.23 0.15 0.0027 1.57 %
26 BFLS 6395 173 1.20514 1.26001 1.02 0.01829 1.52 %
27 PUREMINING 20000 2601 0.27822 0.3397 0.215 0.004 1.44 %
38 COGNITIVE 6400 242 0.63963 0.66 0.5712 0.00472 0.74 % |
|
|
|
|
Dividend table has been updated. I removed assets that have a volume of less than 100 shares a week.
I left them all in.
|
|
|
|
|
That is what happens when you move to Kentucky.
|
|
|
|
|
I prefer the new direction, 80s rap is wack.
|
|
|
|
Entrapment generally only applies if they are getting you to do something you wouldn't/don't normally do.
Yeah buying 50,000 credit card numbers from the FBI (or from anyone) is a very stupid thing to do, but I wonder if it really worth 40 years in jail. They seem to strongly protect their monetary system. What is the number of years in jail for killing an FBI officer? Is it at least 40 years? I wonder what the judicial system values the most. What happens when the feds sell guns to people that end up shooting a federal officer? Who is to blame and who goes to jail then? |
|
|
|
|
I prefer 1/.15, but 6.66 is a perfect exchange rate. That means for every 15 Bitcoins that is $100, every 150 bitcoins is $1000.
|
|
|
|
Borders are just lines drawn on a map. There is no such thing as an illegal person.
Laws are just words written on paper, there is not such thing as an illegal act. |
|
|
|
|
Personally, I would like the boarders of the USA to be open to everyone. If a person shows that they have intent to become citizens of the United States then they should be able to come.
What bothers me is that the current immigration favors one group over another. With the close proximity of the United States to Central America, we get a lot of immigrants from those nations but less from Asian, Africa, and Europe.
There are many good people all over the world. Currently we have a family based immigration system where families will sponser a family member in another country to come here. It is not a good system and it needs to be fixed, but allowing people that did not go through the process to cut in line is not the answer to the current problem. This will only cause more people to bypass the legal system and do it illegally.
|
|
|
|
|
I think guns should only be taken away from cops and require everyone else to be armed.
|
|
|
|
BFLS revenue will not be rolled into ASICs, it will continue to pay out dividends as normal. When I upgrade BFLS to ASIC, I will issue more shares to account for the additional cost of the hardware and double the "share" cost of a unit from 200 shares to approximately 450 shares (not set in stone yet) to account for the increase in the cost of the hardware/upgrade cost.
I have a few other ideas I will be mentioning at some point in the future on the direction to go with that as far as BFLS goes as well.
For BFLS.RIG, it will pay dividends. It's basically the same as BFLS, just with Minirigs. Same deal on the upgrade to ASIC as well. Rollings BFLS and BFLS.RIG was shot down by most people, which is why it's separate... read a few pages back in the thread for peoples thoughts on that.
BFLS and RIG aren't really intended to be a highly traded commodity... I think most people are investing for the dividends. The difference between BFLS/RIG and other offerings is that all the hardware is paid for up front, out of my pocket and I pay out on what the unit earns. You are basically buying into the hardware, not hashrate. When you buy the BFLS and RIG shares, you are buying already purchased hardware, not paying for the purchase of future hardware (with the exception of BFLS.FUTURES of course) that may or may not materialize.
OK, I understand on the upgrade now, but I must have missed the motion or asking shareholders if they want minirigs in with BFLS. When you made the order from BFL from the BFLS.FUTURES you stated that you had enough for a minirig and singles. So I assumed that the minirig was going to be part of BFLS. ...if anyone else wants in on BFLS.FUTURES, now is the time, before I place the order. At least 1 rig box and more singles.. if anyone else wants in on a second rig box, speak up]if anyone else wants in on BFLS.FUTURES, now is the time, before I place the order. At least 1 rig box and more singles.. if anyone else wants in on a second rig box, speak up |
|
|
|
|
Will BFLS revenue also be reinvested to purchase ASICs? If I read correctly BFLS.RIG will not pay dividends but instead reinvest the revenue into the purchase of ASICs.
I am surprised this asset does not have more demand for the BFLS asset. The volume is pretty light. Have you thought of just rolling the BFLS assets into each other so they are not competing with each other for volume?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
