Alright, so with this one... let's say we buy a bond. It's based on your fund, but what if the fund tanks? While it's "guaranteed" and backed right now, that would kill it. What's to keep these bonds afloat in the possibility that your fund does end up tanking?
You mean if the fund loses all of its value? Well, the fund is pretty well diversified, so the chances of that happening are very slim (it has some 50 coins in fixed interest and cash which are very safe). But say the fund does lose significant assets, bond holders will always be paid out so long as the fund has assets/funds when the bond expires. The bond-holder BTC held by the fund when someone buys a bond is placed in safer investments than the other investments in the fund, so that money is relatively safe from volatility, but the fund itself guarantees them, so even if there is significant volatility within the safer investments, bond holders will be paid in full upon bond expiry using BTC-EQTY assets. The risk of default is extremely low. It is definitely amongst the safest BTC investments available right now. Extremely low and "guaranteed" aren't the same, :p. That's like saying "I promise you'll be paid... if I still have the money!" This is Bitcoin, anything can happen. The best we can do is provide the best chance of not failing as possible. I really can't think of any other BTC investment right now that could possibly be safer then these bonds. The borrowed funds themselves are in safe investments, and the guarantor of the funds owns several times more assets then the net issued bonds. Got ya; wasn't trying to be negative towards it... just really trying to see my best course of action at this point. I'm sitting on about 7 BTC and am trying to decide the most efficient method to put it to work for me, lol, while still staying as safe as possible. |
|
|
|
Alright, so with this one... let's say we buy a bond. It's based on your fund, but what if the fund tanks? While it's "guaranteed" and backed right now, that would kill it. What's to keep these bonds afloat in the possibility that your fund does end up tanking?
You mean if the fund loses all of its value? Well, the fund is pretty well diversified, so the chances of that happening are very slim (it has some 50 coins in fixed interest and cash which are very safe). But say the fund does lose significant assets, bond holders will always be paid out so long as the fund has assets/funds when the bond expires. The bond-holder BTC held by the fund when someone buys a bond is placed in safer investments than the other investments in the fund, so that money is relatively safe from volatility, but the fund itself guarantees them, so even if there is significant volatility within the safer investments, bond holders will be paid in full upon bond expiry using BTC-EQTY assets. The risk of default is extremely low. It is definitely amongst the safest BTC investments available right now. Extremely low and "guaranteed" aren't the same, :p. That's like saying "I promise you'll be paid... if I still have the money!" |
|
|
|
They have gone down to thirty-something satoshis per DeVCoin in the past, then back to over 200 maybe even 300.
But maybe nowadays the vast majority of the people receiving stipends are dumpers. maybe in the past most dumpers were one-shot bounty recipients not people getting coins every round.
Still, we haven't even gone back down to the thirty-something buying-opportunity yet that we've seen before so hey if people want to dump them cheap that is more cheap coins for people to buy, right?
I am waiting for even cheaper prices before increasing my buying though, right now I still just have my same old offers at every satoshi of price that have been there all along.
-MarkM-
Ahhh, so this is normal? I think part of what is causing the dumping (other than the 20m from a single person) is how many people got shares the last round. At almost 1.5k shares across tons of people... those who got a few shares likely throw theirs up for sale because they don't feel it's worth holding since they won't accumulate more. It's possible that once this pay round ends, it will slow down on the selling end. |
|
|
|
|
I'm hashing 2.98 MH/s but it says 2.56 or so on the site usually. Also, I have a 3-5% reject rate... I'm not sure how others have lower. If I switch to something like LTC I have a 0.0X% reject rate usually (ex. having 30k+ accepts and less than 20 rejects).
|
|
|
|
Mmmm, this looks interesting but... I find it hard to follow the ASICMiner train right now... from a logical POV, there are tons of ASIC's being shipped out right now and the hash rate is increasing (and will increase at a very fast rate). As hash rate goes up, AM's relative hash rate (and therefore income) lowers. It's hard to justify going into a fund that is banking so much on what is inevitably going to be heading downhill as soon as all the new chips start hitting people's doorsteps. At least to me, I think we are either at, or are very near, AM's peak; it seems like a pretty high-risk low-reward investment option.
Or am I missing something here?
You're forgetting they are not mannequins. They will keep upgrading, buying more power, developing new miners, selling stuff, etc. You invest in the company, not the current hashing power. But we're basically hoping that ASICM can keep up with all the other ASIC providers? I'd think if they could increase their hashing power considerably over a short period of time they'd have done it already, :p. It's tough, really. I get that we're basically betting on the company as a whole... but with BFL, Avalon and the others all finally getting out some major hash power... it's going to offset the playing field considerably. |
|
|
|
Because those who've earned them them are selling at lower and lower prices - implying that many value their efforts and those of others at a (far) lower level than that initially paid, or where they perceived that payment level to be. It's probably better this happens asap as gives a indicative clearing level of the value of e.g. writings by writers, and therefore I hope a means of re-assessing sustainable payments and shares.
That's the classic theory - in practice I think people are operating on fear and panic. They fear they'll get nothing if they wait to sell, so they sell. I've held onto all mine and sometimes I wonder if I'm a mug. Then I console myself with the thought that when fear and capitulation are greatest, that's when the market turns... That may be true, but it doesn't really matter - it still implies shares for one or more projects (or perception of them) were overpriced else instead of selling on fear and panic at that price those people would be buying up the sales of others' efforts. Well we can always experiment with the price. How about in the next writing round, the pay is half a share per 1000 words. We can then assess whether there is the same dumping. If dumping stops and the price rises, we can declare a success and keep it at half a share per thousand words. I'm all for it. Half a share at 148 satoshis per devcoin is worth much more than a full share at 47 satoshis per devcoin. What do we need to do to make this happen? I don't want to call out anyone publicly but what I will say is that the tanking price occurred after a single specific event: someone dumped over 20 million coins on the market on their own, tackling the big buy walls that were already up. This is what caused the downward spiral and the "panic selling" we are seeing, and is what has killed the price for the time being. It wasn't a large group of people, it was a single one. Now, with that said, I think the current reward system is good. People just need to start paying more attention to what they're doing before they make drastic decisions. |
|
|
|
|
Alright, so with this one... let's say we buy a bond. It's based on your fund, but what if the fund tanks? While it's "guaranteed" and backed right now, that would kill it. What's to keep these bonds afloat in the possibility that your fund does end up tanking?
|
|
|
|
|
Mmmm, this looks interesting but... I find it hard to follow the ASICMiner train right now... from a logical POV, there are tons of ASIC's being shipped out right now and the hash rate is increasing (and will increase at a very fast rate). As hash rate goes up, AM's relative hash rate (and therefore income) lowers. It's hard to justify going into a fund that is banking so much on what is inevitably going to be heading downhill as soon as all the new chips start hitting people's doorsteps. At least to me, I think we are either at, or are very near, AM's peak; it seems like a pretty high-risk low-reward investment option.
Or am I missing something here?
|
|
|
|
|
Tagging the thread to follow along with it... I like the idea... questionable about the execution and knowledge. Even having knowledge in other markets is very different from one based on BTC, especially with its high volatility and all the unknowns floating around with regards to government intervention.
|
|
|
|
Uhauuu!
Now on Vircurex for 1 BTC you need more then 2.000.000 DVC
What is it happening?
It means that all the monthly production of DVC (about 200.000.000) is now worth less then 100 BTC.
Is DVC going to die?
Because those who've earned them them are selling at lower and lower prices - implying that many value their efforts and those of others at a (far) lower level than that initially paid, or where they perceived that payment level to be. It's probably better this happens asap as gives a indicative clearing level of the value of e.g. writings by writers, and therefore I hope a means of re-assessing sustainable payments and shares. That's the classic theory - in practice I think people are operating on fear and panic. They fear they'll get nothing if they wait to sell, so they sell. I've held onto all mine and sometimes I wonder if I'm a mug. Then I console myself with the thought that when fear and capitulation are greatest, that's when the market turns... I've held on to the vast majority of mine as well. Any that I did sell were at the high point of the market. Once it dropped below 82 (which was the highest I've personally seen) I pulled the orders I had up and I've been holding since. The way I see it, the risk vs. reward of holding is much greater than doing panic selling at a fraction of the profitability. The only issue I have is that I think it may drop more from day to day before it hits the bottom... and even selling at 48 and buying at 47 when you have millions of coins boosts your holdings considerably! |
|
|
|
Uhauuu!
Now on Vircurex for 1 BTC you need more then 2.000.000 DVC
What is it happening?
It means that all the monthly production of DVC (about 200.000.000) is now worth less then 100 BTC.
Is DVC going to die?
People are panic dumping - they see the price fall and they sell in case it falls further. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. At some point investors will come in who think it is a bargain. The price is too low given that Devcoin owns some assets - such as Devtome. The sooner it is monetised the better - that way fiat can be converted to BTC which can be converted to DVC which can be added to the distribution pool. It would be nice if Devcoin could accrue other assets. Then we can market it as an asset backed coin. Yeah, this would be awesome. We need more things to back up the coin... Also, I wish I had dumped all mine at the 70 mark into that massive buy wall. Then I would have over 55% more coins now by rebuying,  . |
|
|
|
You trolled me Troll of the decade.
Wait, who trolled who?! Nonono, |
|
|
|
Troll of the decade.
Wait, who trolled who?! |
|
|
|
I deposited to coinlanders using the normal bitcoin deposit method, and after that I've noticed that only inputs.io is available for withdrawals.
There have been some problems with inputs.io: I created the account and I have tried once to logout and login again, and it worked.
Now I've tried again to login and it doesn't work anymore. I'm sure the password is correct because I've saved it with LastPass, and never had a problem with it.
For some reason I don't have the recover key, but since the inputs.io account is empty it could easily be reset it.
Or, if you prefer, we might change the email bound to coinlenders.
Obviously I need to be able to access the funds to my coinlenders account again.
I can easily prove I'm owner both to my email and to my coinlenders account (the problem only resides input.io side).
(posting also here, just in case)
You have to be careful with that. All you have to do is go to Lastpass -> "generated password for inputs.io" and it will copy the true pass for you. Then tell lastpass to overwrite the hexed one with that, :p. |
|
|
|
|
I like the idea of 0.01 being once a day and 0.1 being "instant." I think that would be awesome.
|
|
|
|
Interested in traffic from bitcoin only resources. Need sources.
CoinFaucets is one... pm me if you're interested. |
|
|
|
Update: BitcoinAddict removed from the rotation due to breaking frames. I apologize for that problem guys! |
|
|
|
To make things VERY clear.
I am NOT managing the SatoshiPoker asset, or have any control in or over it.
I do not know who lavafish is, nor did I authorize or suggest he make any such a poor posting or move for the asset.
This asset also has not been given final approval either.
-Ukyo
Does this mean it's essentially a scam at this point? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
