Sold   1242
Swapped   0
Total   1242
Price   0.0495
Total   61.479
Less Fee   61.356042
Man Fee   1.84068126

BTC Balance (BTC-TC)   1013.190225
14362 LTC-ATF.B1    143.62000000
Coinlenders CD    200.32603248
Just-Dice Balance    100.94542987
TOTAL ASSETS    1,458.08168763
   
Outstanding MINING   30637
Outstanding SELLING   30637
Outstanding PURCHASE   266
Effective Units   30903
   
Block reward   25
Difficulty   21,335,329
Hashes per MINING   5000000
   
Daily Dividend    0.00011786
50 days (Min Liquid)    0.00589288
100 days (Forced Close)    0.01178577
365 days (Buyback)    0.04301806
405 days (IPO)    0.04773236
400 days (Post SELLING div)    0.04714308
410 days (Pre SELLING div)    0.04832165
   
NAV Post MINING Div    1,454.43953145
NAV/U Post MINING Div    0.04706467
Days Dividend Post Div   399.33
SELLING Dividend    -         
NAV Post SELLING Div    1,454.43953145
NAV/U Post Selling Div    0.04706467
PURCHASE selling price    0.04941790
PURCHASE buy-back price    0.04612338

One problem is that it will remain a theoretical arbitrage rather than a practical one.  For it to be useful in practice you'd have to rely on the market correctly pricing SELLING at the settlement on icbit.se.

A second issue is that if you assume the icbit.se projected difficulty rise is correct then you could almost certainly make significantly more money by just buying PURCHASE, splitting it and selling MINING - as their projection is a LOT worse than the one the market appears to be using in its current valuation.  I haven't, however, looked at icbit - and it may well be that their projection is just what they're using when selling futures - and so is nowhere near what even they believe (but rather a projection sufficiently high that they're confident of profit).  That's in the same way that if you go to a bookie and they offer you an even money bet they do NOT believe you'll win half the time.

There's two problems with that :

1.  If the 5 BTC fee gos to the people reviewing the contract then there's nothing left for the Exchange.
2.  1 BTC doesn't buy much time.

Expanding on point 2 - what would you expect for your 1 BTC?  Say I was a reviewing your contract and I found a few things unclear or objectionable (but fixable) do I reject it?  Or do you amend it pay another 1 BTC and try again?

Could anyone properly review, say, my DMS contract for 1 BTC?  It's pretty complicated - and HAS to be to properly cover all the bases.  Is the reviewer expected to write up a critique if they fail it?  How long do you think it would take to review AMC's contract and point out all the problems with it.

As soon as the process gos beyond "Read it, approve it if it's perfect otherwise reject it" time taken rapidly escalates.  Yours isn't actually a great example - as it's pretty straightforward.  But some apparently simple contracts/IPO plans have issues that would take quite a lot of explaining just to get the issuer to understand what the problem was - things like exchange-rate exposure and why they can't have fixed price in BTC when their assets and revenue are all in USD.

The fee for reviewing either has to be high or it has to be variable.  With small IPOs such as yours (no offence intended) the bulk of fees the exchange will EVER receive is the listing fee.  Listing fee is 5 BTC.  You're having 100K shares at .04 BTC each - so 400 BTC total value.   The exchange makes 1.6 BTC if you sell them all via the market and they all need to change hands again more than 2 times each before trade fees would exceed the lsiting fee.  That's why reviewers can't be paid from the current listing fee.

And without significantly raising the fee there's just no way to get a group of competent people to review IPOs/contracts with any complexity.  About the only way to do it without raising the fee IS a "perfect or fail" approach - where ANY signficant defect in the contract causes a fail without any feedback provided other than that reason.  So on AMC it would get failed immediately because the contract explicitly created a conflict of interest with Ken representing both AMC/VML.  Then if that got fixed and he resubmitted again it may get failed because his projections showed him mining more bitcoins than the total netowrk could mine (which was in his original draft).  That would minimise the time taken on reviews - as you could just stop reading as soon as you found a serious problem or a contradiction.  And it would force people to get it right first time - either by being competent themself or by paying someone competent to avoid having to keep paying 5 BTC fees trying to list.

But of course then they'd just run over to Bitfunder instead - as there if the contract had one fairly minor flaw they wouldn't have to pay 2 fees.  Competition between multiple exchanges is great on many levels - but because it's perceived as being on price it leads to a race to the bottom.  Meaning on Bitfunder you just have to persuade Ukyo - why doesn't seem to pay attention to detail at all - and on BTC-TC you're at the mercy of a bunch of randoms voting on whatever criteria they want.  And that means ones that should be rejected getting accepted and ones that should be accepted getting delayed or rejected - think we all agree on that, just maybe not so much on which ones fit in each category.

It actually used to be different - the requirement used to be that you had to get a score of +5.  So if you had 2 no votes you'd need 9 Yes votes to pass.

In theory I much prefer that (old) way - but there's a few problems with it :

Number of voters changes as people buy and sell shares.
Some voters don't vote at all - or aren't very active.
Counting NOs as double gives undue weight when some people may vote NO for invalid reasons (e.g. they run a competitive asset or they don't understand a contract or they just don't like the issuer).

Unfortunately pretty much ANY voting system is going be flawed when the criteria for voting is unrelated to capability to properly assess securities.  And that ends up where we are now:

People criticise assets that were approved.
Those whose assets aren't approved (or take a long time) blame the voters.

I'm not going to get into whether your asset should be approved or not (I've previously indicated that I'd have voted YES if I had a vote).  But let's just say that I've yet to see someone who had problems getting votes come here and say "This time the voters were right and I'm cancelling my security as it wasn't up to scratch."  ALL issuers who don't get votes as fast as they'd like are going to blame the voters - so when it happens (as is the case here) it doesn't actually shed any light on the situation - as you'd be saying it whether your asset should have been approved or not.

At root the problem is money.  To have securities properly checked is potentially expensive - you need multiple people doing it (to avoid bias) and those capable of doing it properly aren't going to be cheap.  If some panel of suitable people were to be paid to screen securities then the registration fee would need to rise significantly.  And that's where the problem comes - because most issuers believe their contract is already fine.  So why would they pay a large fee to BTC-TC to have some panel agree with them when they could list on Bitfunder much cheaper?

BTC-TC and Bitfunder compete with one another in part on price - neither can afford to raise their listing fees if the other doesn't.

The starting point for improved standards (both in approving worthy listings and rejecting bad ones) would, in my view, be for burnside and Ukyo to agree that they'll BOTH raise their listing fees significantly.  Then they'd have the budget to do more DD on listings.  Until then BTC-TC is limited to doing whatever can be done for free - which means unpaid volunteers who may well not be competent.

No, they're only getting a share of the 10% of profits that VML passes to AMC.  90% of the profit made using their capital is syphoned off to VML - they take the risk (or has VML got $1 million in assets to repay even if sales of hardware doesn't make enough?) and only get a portion of 10% of profits.

To add insult to injury on the first $1 million of profit AMC's 10% is counted as being repayment of principal - reducing the effective royalties percentage to anywhere from 0-10%.

VML only exists to enrich you rather than those putting up the cash.  Everyone knows it now.  Unless that's fixed there's no hope of any decent return for investors - certainly not enough to justify risking the capital on joining the ASIC manufacturers club late.

Sold   1903
Swapped   0
Total   1903
Price   0.053474
Total   101.761022
Less Fee   101.5575
Man Fee   3.046724999

BTC Balance (BTC-TC)   1069.52649
14362 LTC-ATF.B1    143.62000000
Coinlenders CD    200.19311462
Just-Dice Balance    100.82334008
TOTAL ASSETS    1,514.16294466
   
Outstanding MINING   29397
Outstanding SELLING   29397
Outstanding PURCHASE   264
Effective Units   29661
   
Block reward   25
Difficulty   21,335,329
Hashes per MINING   5000000
   
Daily Dividend    0.00011786
50 days (Min Liquid)    0.00589288
100 days (Forced Close)    0.01178577
365 days (Buyback)    0.04301806
405 days (IPO)    0.04773236
400 days (Post SELLING div)    0.04714308
410 days (Pre SELLING div)    0.04832165
   
NAV Post MINING Div    1,510.66716773
NAV/U Post MINING Div    0.05093109
Days Dividend Post Div   432.14
SELLING Dividend    0.00378802
NAV Post SELLING Div    1,398.31077213
NAV/U Post Selling Div    0.04714308
PURCHASE selling price    0.04950023
PURCHASE buy-back price    0.04620021

Have disabled trading on PURCHASE and cleared orders - will turn it back on after the dividends are paid of course.

I'm just doing some auditting to make sure all totals are correct before the SELLING dividend gos out later (doesn't maater if they're wrong for MINING dividends - but for SELLING it does).

Have discovered one small mistake.  In yesterday's report I calculated management fee based on the previous day's selling price for PURCHASE.

Here's the data to work out the error :

Units   851
Wrong Price   0.053705
Right Price   0.053583
Error   0.003108431

The error is the difference in two prices multiplied by number of units multiplied by .998 and then multiplied by 0.03.  The .998 removes exchange fee then the .03 calculated management fee.  I overpaid myself by .0031 BTC yesterday - which is being returned now.

Seems a strange thing to say - as though you were the one with the ability to determine what happened.  Unless you're a sock-puppet of Ken's you have no option BUT to accept what Ken decides (which may or may not be the same thing as going with the majority view).

How many bets have there been that hit the max-profit limit?  Extra BTC invested doesn't increase profits unless it allows bets that currently can't be covered - and there's no sign of that being a major issue.

Increasing house edge definitely isn't going to attract more players - whatever else it does.

Seems a decent move - you have a good concept and the site's working fine.  You SHOULD be earning something decent from it - and I'm happy to see this increase.

And I say that as someone who DOES have funds deposited there on the house side (and will likely never roll the dice on other side of the table).

People saying 1% just don't get it.  As a depositor there I want dooglus to have an incentive to continue running the site and developing it - with 1% the only way he'd do financially well in the short-mid term would be to run with the funds.  The 4% change makes negligible difference to investors but gives a big (and deserved) boost to dooglus' cut.  In return we can have far more confidence in his ongoing commitment to the site - an exchange I'm more than happy with.

It'll actually be a bit higher than I'd predicted.

There's been decent sales of PURCHASE which adds a tiny bit.
I just did the LTC-ATF.B1 dividend transfer back - which got DMS 0.88278905 BTC when I'd only added .8 BTC on for investments when I made my guess yesterday
And our Just-Dice deposit did decently yesterday evening (after losing a little bit early on) - our balance there is now : 100.78643714 (that could, of course, drop or rise significantly between now and dividend time).

As things stand right now I'd estimate dividend of around .00372 - .00373.

For IPOs where the issuer needs XXX amount you could apply two simple rules:

1.  The funds raised from sales are escrowed by the site until XXX is raised - or reversed to all shares (and the IPO closed) if XXX isn't raised in Y days/weeks.
2.  Issuer account is locked against transferring shares or selling at below a declared IPO price until 1. is met.

Number 2 is a problem (as happened in the past with Ken) where the issuer gets impatient and starts selling cheap.
Number 1 would only apply where there was a minimum needed to achieve their goals.  If they fail to reach that in a reasonable time period (weeks not months) then the IPO has failed - so just return the cash, delist it and move on.  You have to lock a lot of account functionality to do that - otherwise issuer an just transfer funds to an alt account and reuse it to buy more shares inflating the count of what was actually sold.

I think you're still not clearly understanding the main problem with AMC btw.  The problem is that its structure so that even if it DOES make profit from hardware sales under 5% of it ends up with investors.  How much less than 5% depends on a definition of 'profit' imposed by VMC (which shareholders have no say in or oversight of) - which makes the 'no salary' clause of AMC worthless (as Ken can give whatever he wants as salary to himself/friends/family before profit comes anywhere near AMC) and on how much profit is made.  To get 2.5% return on capital requires $2 million profit on sales to be made - that's sales of ASICs that won't even be out until end of this year/early next by KEN's estimate.

It's an application fee - that means it's a fee you pay for applying.
It isn't an acceptance fee - which you'd only pay if your application was accepted.

Sorry about that - totally forgot to put it back up for half an hour.

ESTIMATE FOR TOMORROW'S REPORT - NOT AN ACTUAL REPORT

BTC Balance (BTC-TC)   977.0382354
14362 LTC-ATF.B1    143.62000000
Coinlenders CD    200.06200176
Just-Dice Balance    99.93705666
TOTAL ASSETS    1,420.65729377
   
Outstanding MINING   27512
Outstanding SELLING   27512
Outstanding PURCHASE   368
Effective Units   27880
   
Block reward   25
Difficulty   21,335,329
Hashes per MINING   5000000
   
Daily Dividend    0.00011786
50 days (Min Liquid)    0.00589288
100 days (Forced Close)    0.01178577
365 days (Buyback)    0.04301806
405 days (IPO)    0.04773236
400 days (Post SELLING div)    0.04714308
410 days (Pre SELLING div)    0.04832165
   
NAV Post MINING Div    1,417.37142138
NAV/U Post MINING Div    0.05083829
Days Dividend Post Div   431.35
SELLING Dividend    0.00369521
NAV Post SELLING Div    1,314.34895408
NAV/U Post Selling Div    0.04714308
PURCHASE selling price    0.04950023
PURCHASE buy-back price    0.04620021

This includes an estimated 0.8 BTC in investment income.

Am guessing eltopo forgot to take off either today or tomorrow's mining dividend in his calculation (or mine's wrong).

Sold   851
Swapped   0
Total   851
Price   0.053705
Total   45.702955
Less Fee   45.61154909
Man Fee   1.368346473

BTC Balance (BTC-TC)   979.863193
14362 LTC-ATF.B1    143.62000000
Coinlenders CD    200.06200176
Just-Dice Balance    99.93705666
TOTAL ASSETS    1,423.48225137
   
Outstanding MINING   27512
Outstanding SELLING   27512
Outstanding PURCHASE   368
Effective Units   27880
   
Block reward   25
Difficulty   19,339,258
Hashes per MINING   5000000
   
Daily Dividend    0.00013002
50 days (Min Liquid)    0.00650111
100 days (Forced Close)    0.01300222
365 days (Buyback)    0.04745810
405 days (IPO)    0.05265898
400 days (Post SELLING div)    0.05200887
410 days (Pre SELLING div)    0.05330910
   
NAV Post MINING Div    1,419.85723285
NAV/U Post MINING Div    0.05092745
Days Dividend Post Div   391.68
SELLING Dividend    -         
NAV Post SELLING Div    1,419.85723285
NAV/U Post Selling Div    0.05092745
PURCHASE selling price    0.05347382
PURCHASE buy-back price    0.04990890

We're actually down very slightly on Just-Dice : we were up until an hour or ago.

Will make a 2nd post showing what tomorrow's will look like.

Sounds about right - it'll be a lot smaller than last one but still a decent size.  We'll know exactly how much later today - as soon as difficulty changes, which sould be in about an hour or two's time.  Although the change is almost certainly going to happen before today's difficulty, MINING dividend today will be at the old rate and SELLING won't get a dividend until after MINING's dividend tomorrow.

After I post today's results I'll immediately (assuming difficulty has changed) post a spreadsheet showing what would happen if the next dividend was done immediately.  In practice SELLING difficulty will be slightly higher (sales of PURCHASE + the LTC-ATF.B1 dividend comes today so will be added onto the dividend tomorrow).

Well AMC's a bit different.  Here's what happens with the cash.

Shares are sold to the public - and immediately diluted in value by 50% or more due to Ken's personal holdings + the way he deals with unsold shares.

Those then buy miners that mine.

From what Ken just posted, mined income gos into a pot that once it gets to $1 million the cash will be loaned to VMC (wholly owned by Ken).

VMC then makes chips and repays the principal to AMC using 100% of profits.  That means that for the first $1 million of profit AMC doesn't even get its 10% royalty - as the royalties it was due are treated as repayment on capital (rather than repayment coming solely out of VMC's 90%).

So after $1 million of profit AMC has received 0% profit.
After $2 million profit it would have received 5% of profits.
After $4 million if would have increased to 7.5%

But how likely is that much PROFIT will be made on sales of ASICs that only get produced end of this year/beginning of next?  By then demand will largely have been satisfied by existing producers - and sales prices will have been driven down by competiton.  If that chip line never makes $1 million proft then investors bear all 100% loss - Ken only takes the lion's share of profits not losses.

So the best result for investors is that they get, as profit 0-5% of all cash funnelled through VMC - with VMC (Ken) deciding what counts as profit.  Even the mined coins get passed through VMC to make sure Ken gets at least 95% rather than the 50% share distribution would suggest.

So it's an entirely rational decidion for Ken to sell more shares - as he gets at least 95% of any profits from the capital with no risk.  Having decided he's going to skin investors (rather than just fleece them) it's the logical thing to do.  It is, of course, entirely irrational for investors to send him any cash.

That's not a safe conclusion to make.

Remember there's big-odds gambles available - the max being 990000:1.

So someone only has to bet .00101 BTC on that bet to hit the max winning cap.

At present there's about 15k BTC invested.  If everyone in there went with 100% risk exposure (so max winnings 15k BTC) a single very lucky .01515151 bet could clean the whole bank.

Don't confuse a 1000 winnings cap with somehow meaning gamblers have to risk 1000 BTC to put it at risk.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if a nsignificant number of investors regularly bet their small investment gains on high-odds bets.  If they lose their capital is still untouched and if they win they get some nice winnings.  If someone leaves 10 BTC there and gets 0.1 BTC interest are they going to take out 0.1 BTC or have 100 'free' spins at trying to win 1k BTC?  I reckon quite a few will do the latter.