Most likely the case.

There was just a 10:1 split so sure as hell he didn't have 1.2 shares before it.

So either he's bought 2 - which makes little sense if he wants to sell.  Or he sold 8 - in which case he already knows how to use the market and doesn't need a thread as he can just use Asks or sell into bids like he did when selling the other 8.  Or he doesn't have any at all and is hoping to scam.

So why not just use that instead of issuing a bond?  Or use that to buy then when the equipment arrives sell bonds then to get back your capital.

If the cash is going to sit in that wallet idle then selling bonds makes no sense.
If the cash is NOT going to sit in that wallet then it can't back the bonds.

What am I missing here?

It's not a worthwhile investment at all.

The cash raised is mainly being loaned to VM which is totally owed by Ken.  If everything works well then at best they get back 10% of the profit made with their capital.  But VMC gets to decide what is profit - so Ken can skim off even more by paying himself a wage from VMC.

To make ANY profit on this $1 million Ken has to make over $1 million profit selling sub-standard ASICs that won't even be delivered until early next year.  That's not a good investment at pretty much any price - even below the .005 initial IPO.

You can't value it based on book - as its main assets will be debt from a dodgy company with no assets (VMC).  You can't value it based on forward earnings as there almost certainly won't be any from the $1 million.  The small earnings from a handful of Avalons are just dust in comparison.

Remember this is the guy whose first projections had AMC mining more bitcoins per day than get generated in total - so relying on any predictions he makes would be daft.

AMC's great for flipping shares on but don't get caught holding them when the dust settles.

Ah, in that case I can just login a bit before doing my report and look the value up - saves me some calculation.  But first need burnside to show up and process the withdrawals.

Regarding point 1, you need to do one of two things:

A.  Explain in detail what's being done with the cash - and how it can't possibly fail to produce sufficient cash to pay all commitments in respect of the bonds (this is impossible for anything related to mining - and, for that matter, for pretty much anything at all).
B.  Demonstrate that you have sufficient BTC-denominated assets to cover payment of interest and calling the bonds even if your mining investment totally fails.

B is the one to focus on.

You also need to define a fixed date at which interest will start to be paid.  It isn't a bond if payment depends on performance - and that includes the timing of payments as well as the amounts.  The date doesn't need to be immediate - but if it isn't then don't expect too many sales until the date gets close as until then it's just an interest-free loan.

Yeah - assuming you have 2FA on.  Otherwise think it's .25%.

Actually no - it's wrong

*1.002 on buys, *.998 sells.

You were applying 2% not 0.2%.

If coinlenders were to default then we'd lose the principal - not just the interest.  So I'd have to be marking it down immediately to reflect the risk of that.
By the same token I should make down ALL the capital as if BTC-TC defaults we lose it.

There's CP risk on the capital wherever it is - I'm not going to start applying different multipliers to each bit of cash to reflect some relative risk-assessment.  We now (or when it getst here) have 200 (+accrued interest) exposure to Coinlenders and the same amount less CP exposure to BTC-TC.  I'm treating thos two as cancelling one another out - for simplicity.

I see no reason to believe Coinlenders is more likely to steal interest than principal - so all cash on deposit there is being treated the same.

Sold   505
Swapped   0
Total   505
Price   0.053705
Total   27.121025
Less Fee   27.06678295
Man Fee   0.812003489

BTC Balance (BTC-TC)    1,257.85886871
12500 LTC-ATF.B1    125.00000000
TOTAL ASSETS    1,382.85886871
   
Outstanding MINING   26681
Outstanding SELLING   26681
Outstanding PURCHASE   348
Effective Units   27029
   
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    1,379.34449907
NAV/U Post MINING Div    0.05103202
Days Dividend Post Div   392.49
SELLING Dividend    -         
NAV Post SELLING Div    1,379.34449907
NAV/U Post Selling Div    0.05103202
PURCHASE selling price    0.05358362
PURCHASE buy-back price    0.05001138

Have got 1862 more LTC-ATF.B1 for us at face value from an investor who wanted to sell.

Currently awaiting manual processing:
  Withdrawal of 200 requested 2013-06-28 16:06:26. Cancel
  Withdrawal of 100 requested 2013-06-28 16:37:05. Cancel
  Withdrawal of 18.62 requested 2013-06-28 16:55:02. Cancel

That's our pending withdrawals - the third one is the payment for the LTC-ATB.B1 which will be in our account on LTC-Global shortly.

A 100 BTC withdrawal has been initiated to Just-Dice.

Destination BTC address is : 1DyF66SU2B4oYUyFKHFdXaq3VTranjz8k2

So when it leaves BTC-TC you should see a transaction show up headed to there.

Both motions passed, so I'll be transferring 200 BTC to CoinLenders and buying a 30-day CD and depositing 100 BTC into Just-Dice.

For today's report (in about an hour) that 300 BTC will be shown as on BTC-TC - if the actual balance drops then it means burnside has approved the manual withdrawals.  As I can't predict when that will happen I'll just leave it as though it was in BTC-TC for now.

In future reports those investments will be individually reported.  Coinlenders will have the interest calculated and applied daily (we get it all at the end of 30 days but it would be wrong not to add it until then - as we'd be selling new PURCHASE too cheaply).  With Just-Dice I'll be reporting the actual balance at (or around) each report - it may be some minutes out of date.

Withdrawal to Coinlenders has already been initiated - and is waiting on manual processing.

Here's confirmation of the address being sent to - so if the BTC-TC balance drops you should see 200 BTC on its way to this address.

Message   CoinLenders User Deprived Deposit Address: 1JmP3seEPDvajmpYchJhAQeigsLWqSMzxK Server 1
Signature   IDP2437qPrH86nPQ9nRwV5gBN62teNVX8MuU3ePWVyPuI+CWQ/j3OOxYHgHpY74EWq7SoaW3OK5WE7frkA433Gk=
Signing Addr   See here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=159359.msg2250828#msg2250828

My accounts with Coinlenders and Just-Dice will, of course, have 2FA (it's already switched on for Coinlenders).

If it was a loan you'd be guaranteed to get the principal back without having to rely on "profit".  Loans are repaid without reference to profit made with the loaned cash.

It's an investment that pays interest as though it was a loan - AMC gets 100% of the risk for under 10% of the profit (it could be well under 10% depending on sales).

Are you sure VMC can afford to be this generous?

I mean all AMC is going to do is lend VMC $1 million.

And in return VMC is going to pay it back from profits?  AND allow them to buy hardware?

Shouldn't VMC get something out of it?

I didn't address this part.  Firstly at no stage have I claimed the current ASICMINER price is justified - whether it is or not depends largely on what your expectations are.  I'd be fascinated to see you compare, say, ASICMINER to S.MPOE based on current and projected future P/E or similar - but I fear somewher in there'd be a "*10 because it's listed on MPEx".

On what I do you're partly correct - though trading in and out of positions isn't really my thing in the way it applies to typical day-trading.  I'm not at all interested in trying to find short-term movements of a few percent or precisely time when a bubble bursts etc - as those things are hard to do and not actually all that profitable.

Leeching is a harsh term - but not entirely inaccurate.  What I try to do is redistribute wealth from the stupid (most other people) to the less stupid (myself) - I'm very explictly profiting from other users of the market rather than from the securities themselves.  Which is, as it happens, the business model of all the companies listed on MPEx.

S.DICE- Redistribution from the stupid (those who play -EV games) to the less stupid (those who back the house).
S.BBET - Redistribution from the stupid (those who are wrong) to the less stupid (those who are right).
S.MPOE - Options trading is rather obviously redistribution.  Exchange fees profit from the users not the securities.
S.MG - Looks like the whole basis of the game economy is redistribution of wealth.

Yet somehow when ALL you do is redistribute wealth (not create it) that's finance - but when I do it it's not.  If the argument is that you create wealth by giving returns to your investors then I do that too. 

Finance = resource allocation?  That's precisely what I do - (re)allocate resources from others to myself and my investors.  Which, as it happens, is precisely what you do.  That speculation happens to be (one of) my area of business is irrelevant.  Much of what I do is very clearly finance - for example the management of currency exposure by using bonds issued in a different currency to offet assets against liabilites removing exchange-rate exposure (and, at the same time, leveraging capital).

Or look at DMS - that's pretty much pure finance employed to create a set of derivatives that allow both speculators AND investors to trade both sides of a pseudo-PMB.

Speculation and finance aren't mutually exclusive any more than gambling and finance are exclusive.

Holding more money doesn't make you right - it just makes it worse if you get it wrong.  Bigger isn't necessarily better.

You're going to see this happen on all mining stocks - when their ASICs arrive their price will inflate to a level that is a guaranteed loss.  Key is to buy in before the ASICs arrive then sell after the price gos stupid.  The only skillful part is working out whose ASICs are about to arrive.

In a few months time there'll be the huge crash (when ASICs have arrived and investors notice that even if difficulty didnt increase it would take years - or for some assets decades - for them to make back the current share price).  We saw it all happen before - and it'll happen again.

I think the reinvestment thing is the other issue that throws investors off.  It's not the magic bullet they believe it to be.

Ignoring all the pompous verbiage here's what you explicitly got wrong:

"It would seem to me that all those users who haven't managed to sell out on the bubble started last month are SOL by now."

Hardly SOL if they can sell out now for 3.4 rather than the much lower price back then.  You then repeated the same claim (in essence that the price could only fall)

"AM sort-of brokenly IPOd at .65, under my previous lower bound estimate (*) and has about 0 chances of ever significantly appreciating in price to compensate. "

Is an increase from .65 to 3.5 significant appreciation or not?

Youre the one who said PRICE there - so no need to get all snotty when I start discussing price rather than value.

Your comments on value were higher up - where you gave .07 as the maximum value.  A laughable guess given its dividend that week was about half that.


I see maths isn't your strong suit - though apparently comparing apples to oranges is.

There's somewhere around 160k ASICMINER shares held by the public.  You already previously determined the dividend paid per share to be ~.29 per share.  Mental arithmetic (for those of use able to do it) suggests multiplying the 2 numbers gives a figure rather nearer to 50k than 15-20k.

And that's just what was paid to public-owned shares.  Yet you appear to be comparing it to what was paid to ALL S.DICE shares (80k).

For that comparison you'd need to look at the whole 400k shares receiving dividends - and would get a number in excess of 100k BTC paid.

On total profits distributed ASICMINER is ahead by over 25%.
On profits returned to shares held by the public it's a country mile ahead.


Which is to say not a fact at all.

Looks like I need to read up on max bet - I'd assumed max bet varied based on the bet so as to be whatever the maximum was that would incur loss to the house of 1% of capital.  From what you're saying it's a fixed amount regardless of which bet is chosen (so X BTC whether they go for a 1 in a million shot or a a 98% shot).  I'd assumed the main exposure would be on people gambling the max they could on the most extreme odds bets.    So if there was 100k of capital (and 1% risk exposure) then 1 BTC would be the max bet with a 1/1000 chance of winning and .001 BTC the max bet on the 1 million to 1 shot.  Mean bet size doesn't mean much (in terms of exposure) without accounting for the odds at which the bets occurred.

And yeah - little point discussing details.  Personally I'd like a very complicated system as the more options there are the more advantage there is to be gained.

You can't tell in advance.

They can't sell until they get approval and that happens if/when they get 5 YES vote from moderators.

After that the Issuer can start selling whenever they want - most just put up sales right away (which is actually a bad move if they only have limited shares to sell - but most have no idea how to maximise their IPO revenue).  Think furknap was going to give some notice on his (once approved) - which is far better than selling right away (I only gave a short period of notice on DMS - but there's unlimited supply at a fixed price on that so no benefit to anyone in adding a delay).

I think we're headed back to mid-2012 GLBSE era.  Where everyone gets to run a security and the possibilites (for losing money) for investors are endless.  Bitfunder doesn't even require that they have a forum thread or a means of contacting the issuer - and issuers can have the option of editing their contract at will (which I guess is ONE way of making sure they don't break their contract - just not really the best way).  They can even convert a bond to a fund without a vote or even any proper notification (already been done once - the face value and guarantee were removed from a security with shares outstanding).  For a while you could even list a business without disclosing what area of business it was in.

The good old days are coming back.

That's what you claimed when you were trying to woo ASICMINER to list on MPEx.

AFTER that, when it became plain ASICMINER wasn't going to do that you told a rather different story.  The comedy quotes include:


The last sentence shows just how wrong you were - you believed that having failed to list on MPEx it was doomed : when in fact it's risen well above the maximum price you thought it would achieve if it listed on MPEx.