Do understand that the value of MINING is what the market decides 1 MH/S of PMB is worth.  If you made an error, don't compound it by selling then buying some other PMB at double the price.

If the price of MINING DOES reflect PMB value (or is still too high) then buying a different PMB higher is a worse mistake than staying in MINING - and would increase your losses.  In that scenario you should sell MINING and not touch another PMB.
If the price of MINING has fallen below value then swapping to a PMB at higher price would be reducing your profits - and the correct move would be to stay in MINING.

Selling and avoiding PMBs totally MAY be the right move.  Staying in MINING MAY be the right move.  Selling then buying (or continuing to hold) PMBs that cost more will rarely if ever be the correct move.  Which is the correct move depends on the true value of PMBs - which I don't claim to know and wouldn't reveal if I did.

On a more general note don't fall into the trap of believing that your lack of udnerstanding was due to the complexity of the contract.  If you bought MINING and now believe that decision was wrong then your lack of understanding was entirely that you didn't understand what ALL PMBs are actually worth.

No - the book value of PURCHASE is totally unaffected by what price MINING and SELLING trade at.  It's just the capital/shares.

If one falls the other pretty much has to rise - if it doesn't then it leaves open a massive arbitrage opening.

PURCHASE receives all dividends paid to MINING and SELLING - and there's no way for NAV/U to reduce other than through dividends (or theoretically through a loss in investments).  So eventually PURCHASE will receive back ALL of its current NAV/U - and trading in MINING/SELLING has zero impact on that.  As the fund will itself buy back pairs of MINING+SELLING at NAV/U-2% it imposes an effective bottom on combined bids - as if they fall below that then there's an immediate opportunity for someone holding one to bid on the other and be able to turn in the pair for a profit if the bid fills.  Even if noone else works the math out for that I'd be doing it on my personal account - as it's free money with no risk.

What's more likely to happen as MINING falls is that there'll be a lack of sales of PURCHASE.  But if MINING drops then at some point even the total retards buying PMBs for double the amount are going to realise they're giving away money - without even needing to have a clue as to the true value of PMBs (whatever that is).  And that should then increase MINING price - tempting people back to buy more PURCHASE.

The nature of the offering is that unless ALL the market agree on what a fair price for a PMB is there's always going to be some sector of it that perceives value in SOME activity here.  The price changing just alters which group see an opportunity - be it people who buy PMBs, people who want to sell PMBs, people who want to arbitrage, people who want to take profit on a position obtained at a different price, other PMB issuers who want to turn off their mining gear and back their offerings with MINING etc.

a) could include other investments as well.

There's also a couple of other things that can change NAV//U upwards:

d)  When a new PURCHASE is sold, after management fee is taken on it the funds added to capital are still above NAV/U.  That increases overall NAV/U very slightly.
e)  If someone sells PURCHASE back (or a MINING + SELLING - not available at present but will be if it ever becomes needed) it would be at 2% below NAV/U, also increasing the NAV/U of remaining units.  Selling MINING + SELLING back will only be offered if/when there's a need for it - i.e. if it isn't possible to sell a MINING + SELLING to market for at least the amount a buy-back at NAV/U -2% would give.  That's necessary (and promised in the contract) to ensure noone is ever locked in with zero demand for BOTH MINING and SELLING.

On point e, I'll already buy back pairs of MINING + SELLING in decent quantities if anyone wants to get out at NAV/U -2%.  That guarantees a minimum level of liquidity - and gives a baseline price people can rely on if they want to close a position by buying the other of the pair to match their holdings.

What do you mean?

I can see it being possible MINING will fall even lower - but the relative prices of MINING/SELLING have no impact on what capital cover is maintained.  All they do is change the maximum potential profit you can make on each one.  As MINING falls lower, the maximum possible percentage profit you an make from a SELLING drops.  But that isn't implosion - it's just a part of how the market will finally settle at a price.  If the ratio moves far enough then those who bought SELLING cheaper will reach the point where they decide they're better off taking profit now rather than staying in - which will then move the prices back in the other direction.

I wouldn't bother arguing the point - you're playing his game when you do so.  He's trying to take the discussion off-topic to give a reason why the thread can be locked.

He doesn't actually believe that if someone breaks one part of a contract (in this case price discovery) then rectifying that entitles them to nullify the remainder of the contract.  He's just trying to help a friend out by derailing the thread with nonsensical arguments.  Just ignore him - everyone knows he's wrong and most know that HE knows he's wrong.  If his pretend argument were true then anyone could intentionally break a contract (or reveal that they'd previously broken it) in order to cancel the whole deal.

Can't say for sure what someone else is using in their calculations, but in my reports :

Total Assets (same as NAV) = all cash held + book value of all other assets owned.
Effective Units is the number of PURCHASE sold less any PURCHASE bought back.  That can be calculated in practice by looking at number of PURCHASE outstanding andd adding to it either of MINING or SELLING outstanding (as there's always the same of those).  It's how many PURCHASE would be outstanding if all MINING/SELLING were converted back to PURCHASE.  As all dividends paid to MINING OR SELLING are also paid to purchase it's the number of shares between which dividends are split - and also the number that NAV has to be divided bt to get NAV/U.

Sold   150
Swapped   0
Total   150
Price   0.054412
Total   8.1618
Less Fee   8.1454764
Man Fee   0.244364292

BTC Balance (BTC-TC)    961.23784813
12500 LTC-ATF.B1    125.00000000
TOTAL ASSETS    1,086.23784813
   
Outstanding MINING   20608
Outstanding SELLING   20608
Outstanding PURCHASE   351
Effective Units   20959
   
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    1,083.51271315
NAV/U Post MINING Div    0.05169678
Days Dividend Post Div   397.60
SELLING Dividend    -         
NAV Post SELLING Div    1,083.51271315
NAV/U Post Selling Div    0.05169678
PURCHASE selling price    0.05428161
PURCHASE buy-back price    0.05066284

PMs are considered private information - and rightly so.  Yet you routinely ask people to send copies of PMs that an alleged scammer wrote so that they can be confirmed as existing.

If you'll confirm that a PM (which was NEVER intended to be public) is legitimate then what pathetic excuse is there for not confirming that a post made in public is genuine?  Your argument (giving it more credit than it deserves by even using that term) falls down because you are NOT being asked to release new information - just to confirm whether information that already exists in the public domain is genuine.

As, at best, that information reflects dishonest behaviour it's clearly in the interests of forum users to find the truth.  Remember that confirming (or otherwise) the existence of that information is NOT just about whether Garr had a sock-puppet or not.  It's also about clearing up whether or not Inaba tried to deceive when he posted that screen-shot.  At present there's a cloud hanging over TWO people's heads - and one of them, Inaba, has asked for the one over his to be cleared.

So you already HAVE a victim (if the post exists).  Inaba's reputation is being by damaged by Garr's mealy-mouthed attempt to give the impression that the post didn't exist - and that his statement of apology was forced and untrue.

At this rate everyone's going to have give negative rep to 3 people for this - not just one.  One for doing it and 2 for helping cover it up.

And we're back to the ludicrous position of a scam only being a scam if a victim comes forward.  As I've said before on this inane concept - there'd be no convicted murderers if that policy were applied more widely.  To be guilty of being a scammer doesn't require success on every occasion - incompetent scammers are also scammers, just not very good at it.  Provided there's an intended or potential victim then the perpetrator IS a scammer.  Even if the tag is only for successful scammers (so ones so bad noone will fall for it will never get a tag) then why does the victim need to complain?  The victims here have been identified (or at least some of them : we have no idea how many more sockies were out there).

I also disagree with the concept that a scammer who pays back ceases to be a scammer.  But at least on that point there's some general consistency - i.e. it doesn't only apply to people you're on good terms with.

But that's my point.  I read the NO vote as being that whoever made the vote (and I've no idea who it is) believed this investment would never make a profit.  In which case you must agree the vote is valid.  Whether you believe they're correct in that conclusion or not is irrelevant - you've accepted that if someone believes an investment is definitely not going to make a profit they should vote NO.

Or do you believe it's only right if YOU believe there's no chance of something making a profit?  If so, maybe all moderators should be told to PM and check with you before voting ...

You can't say voting for X reason is right - but then claim that a particular instance of voting for X reason is wrong just because YOU say so.  It's what the voters think that matters - that's why there's a bunch of them and not just you.

The vote explicitly says "This asset in almost guaranteed to be a loser for investors.".  None can ever be more sure than "almost guaranteed" - as with ANY asset there's always the chance of a profit if the issuer decides to hand out money for free.  If he's wrong then it doesn't make his reason for voting wrong - just the math he used to reach the conclusion.  And furkuknap OR yourself can easily disprove him if you want.  If an issuer doesn't explain how investors WILL (or CAN) make a profit then it's not fair to complain if people do the math themself and then reach a conclusion the issuer maybe doesn't like.  It's the issuer's job to sell the asset - to moderators then to investors.

Well he only has four options:

1.  Stop posting about it all - leaving everyone sure he's guilty.
2.  Deny it and ask Theymos to confirm the post never existed (without the request any denial would look weak).
3.  Admit it and apologise etc.
4.  Claim he's still scared you might cancel the order so won't post about it.  Due to your earlier post that would now be unbelievable - as if he believed him posting might make you break your word then he has no reason to believe you won't break it anyway on some other pretext.

2 or 3 are the only sensible ones (depending on whether he did it or not).  If I were to bet on it I'd bet on a period of 1. followed by 3.

Asking Theymos to confirm before you'd made your earlier post was bad tactically.  In poker, on the river, if you're SURE someone's bluffing/has a worse hand then you DON'T call.  You always raise.  If you're telling the truth then you hold the nuts - and a raise was in order.

Inaba:  Assuming that you're telling the truth about the Werner post (which is my instinct) then why not call Garr's bluff?  At present he's hiding behind the perceived threat that you'll cancel his preorder to avoid having to make a clear statement on it.  Make a statement that if he denies it being his sock-puppet AND asks for theymos to confirm the post didn't exist then you won't cancel his pre-order regardless of what theymos then says.  Clearly you run the risk if you do that of Theymos then lieing and saying the post never existed - but he could do that anyway.  And I doubt, if the post existed, theymos would risk lieing.

Garr: If Werner IS your sock-puppet then you need to own up to it clearly and without evasion, admit it was wrong, repay anyone who lost on auctions as a result and bring this to a close.  If Werner isn't your sock-puppet (and you didn't make the post) then you need to be sending a PM to theymos to clear your name.  At present I doubt there's very many people who believe it wasn't you - as it would be a totally stupid thing for Inaba to claim when you're on good terms with the only person who can easily establish the truth.  Having maged/theymos try to worm out of getting involved to protect you would do you more harm than good - as it looks like compounding the fuckup by trying to cover it up.

This argument has been had before.  Problem with defining guidelines is that they then have to be enforced.  If they're enforced then someone hasto decide whether the vote was correct or not.  If someone gets to decide that they may as well save time and just approve (or not) securities themselves.

Personally I wouldn't vote NO just because I believed something was likely to be unprofitable - but others may choose to and may be correct in doing so.  My main criteria (when I have a vote - which hasn't been the case for a while) are that the contract is clear and that I've no reason to believe the operator would act dishonestly or without integrity.  But to an extent I'm biased by self-interest - as I trade rather than invest so investments being unprofitable isn't that important to me.

Others may believe that an unprofitable investment is not just bad for investors - but also for the exchange (as it removes investment capital from play and potentially could put investors off further investment after they realise they lost money).  I see that as a valid reason to vote NO - if it's what voters believe.

If someone put up a bond with a clear contract that was going to sell shares at 1 BTC each but stated it would only ever pay back 0.1 BTC would YOU approve it?  If not, why not?  If you'd vote NO on that why would you approve one where investors would make a loss but it wasn't so clear? 

NOTE:  I'm NOT saying this is an unprofitable investment.  But if a voter genuinely believes it IS unprofitable is it actually wrong for them to vote NO?  Think carefully about my example where a bond was explicitly unprofitable - as it's very easy to fall into an irrational and inconsistent position where you'd vote NO to something explicitly unprofitable but vote YES to something unprrofitable but less obvious.  And that position, of course, would be directly rewarding deception.  And that's why whilst I wouldn't personally vote NO I'm totally fine with people voting NO where they believe something is unprofitable (AND they believe unprofitable investments are bad for the exchange).

And Furuknap always has the option of presenting a model explaining how it IS profitable - to persuade them to change their vote.  Far worse is where someone votes NO and gives no reason at all - as then the issuer can't do anything.

That's not true.

SELLING costs a lot more than MINING.  At most it can gain the value of MINING as profit (and MINING isn't going to get 0 - whatever happens).  So there's just no way it can ever make 100% profit.

At current prices you have to pay .036 for selling and can only possibly win the .019 from MINING.  So absolute maximum profit (if MINING never got a single dividend more) is ~50%.  A little bit can be added to that for gain from new sales and investment - but no way that will take it anywhere near doubling your money.

Sold   1148
Swapped   0
Total   1148
Price   0.054589
Total   62.668172
Less Fee   62.54283566
Man Fee   1.87628507

BTC Balance (BTC-TC)    956.04225788
12500 LTC-ATF.B1    125.00000000
TOTAL ASSETS    1,081.04225788
   
Outstanding MINING   20480
Outstanding SELLING   20480
Outstanding PURCHASE   329
Effective Units   20809
   
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    1,078.33662623
NAV/U Post MINING Div    0.05182068
Days Dividend Post Div   398.55
SELLING Dividend    -         
NAV Post SELLING Div    1,078.33662623
NAV/U Post Selling Div    0.05182068
PURCHASE selling price    0.05441172
PURCHASE buy-back price    0.05078427

I'm in no way a fan of BFL - but on this issue I agree.

I can only see two reasons why they'd not want to verify whether the post was made by werner:

1.  They believe bidding up your own auctions with sock-puppets is fine - or at least something they shouldn't try to deter (i.e. something so trivial that they don't want to be involved).
2.  They're friendly with Garr AND believe it was his sock-puppet (if they're friends and DON'T think it's his sock-puppet then they'd have already checked).

I disagree with whichever of those is the reason - any deception by someone trying to obtain funds from the public should be exposed if it's simple to do.  In this case if werner made the post then with the short time-span there's no reasonable explanation other than that Garr was controlling the account.  In theory he could claim he was using it then but not when it bid on his auctions - but I can't see there being a lot of sympathy towards such a claim.

No - we don't need to ask Theymos that.

All we need to ask is whether the werner account made (and then deleted) the same post that Garr subsequently posted (which can be checked).  Checking IPs would produce a false negative if the werner account was run through a proxy - and possibly a false positive if wener was someone close to (but not) Garr (though it would still be dodgy having a family member or whatever bid on your auctions to pump the price)..

If the werner account didn't make the post at all then there's then zero reason to believe it's Garr and it would mean Inaba faked the only direct evidence of a link.
If the werner account DID make the post then obviously it IS a sock-puppet of Garr's - and with the auction bids that plainly deserves some sort of untrustworthy or scammer tag.

There's no point asking Garr - as he's obviously lieing either in his apology or by attempting to infer that his apology is untrue.  Asking a liar which of two contradictory statements is the truth is obviously futile - as why would you believe the answer?

Think this was meant for the ASIC-M thread.  Miners shouldn't get too excited.

NAV/U is the total amount of assets we hold divided by the effective number of outstanding units of PURCHASE.

Any time a dividend is paid it drops by the amount of the dividend.
If new PURCHASE are sold it rises slightly - as there's a small markup in their price.
In we make profit from investment then NAV/U rises.
If an investment were to default then NAV/U would fall (we won't invest in anything which can make a loss without defaulting)

SELLING only gets a dividend if the days of dividend post mining div is over 410.

If difficulty falls or stays the same or only rises slightly then SELLING won't get a dividend.
If difficulty rises a lot then SELLING can get a big dividend (as happened last change) - but NOT if difficulty had previously stayed the same/fallen for a while (as capital reserves would have to be refilled before there was any extra left that could safely be given to SELLING).

So yes - the MAIN factor (by a mile) deciding whether (and how large) SELLING gets a dividend IS the rate at which difficulty changes.

NAV/U post dividend divided by the current MINING dividend.

It's the number of days the capital could continue to pay out the current MINING dividend assuming no change in NAV/U (other than the actual payment of the dividend itself).

GLBSE had maker-taker.  One of the very few things I liked about the site (maybe the only thing - can't think of a second off-hand).  So anyone who used GLBSE should be used to it (though I expect most never even noticed).