 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1]
|
Missed some stuff I guess. Just wanted to confirm. This stock is dead and we're all out the Bits, right?
Yeah. Oh well. At least I got all these dividends. Cheers all! |
|
|
|
|
Missed some stuff I guess. Just wanted to confirm. This stock is dead and we're all out the Bits, right?
|
|
|
|
I am surprised that the price of AMHASH1 is too high now knowing that: 1) Friedcat said: "We will pause the transaction and dividends of AMHash from 10th February to 28th February" 2) The transactions are not paused 3) Friedcat did not said "We will pay the total of dividends for 10-28 February IF we restart in the beginning of March" 4) Havelock indicates a wrong 208.57% when dividend is 0.0 for 20 days 5) Friedcat disappeared: Last Active: January 26, 2015, 03:46:31 AM https://www.havelockinvestments.com/fund.php?symbol=AMHASH1The Dividend Yield is annual return... it is correct. |
|
|
|
I think it is a combination of factors.
1. RentalStarter is based in USD (Real bricks and mortar and rents from tenants). The recent drop in $ per BTC has made it look cheap (Asset value after liabilities is about $700k).
2. Has been trading for over 2 years now
3. Steady returns in $ terms. Last year returned about $0.12/share. Expected to increase significantly over the next year. Don't forget the capital assets.
4. Regular and good communications from Brandon who runs the business.
If you want more details then contact Brandon, by email or on #rentalstarter on freenode and request an invite to the online web channel.
Andy
Full disclosure: I hold a substantial number of shares in RENT and have been increasing my holding over the last few months.
Hmm well I agree that all of those factors would explain upward pressure on the price, but the price jumped around 65% in two days (Jan 7-9) after seeing no significant movement for several months. The only announcement I saw around then was on the 10th, which was for underwhelming dividends. I may just be naive, but isn't that a little out of the ordinary? The difference is investor relations... He's actually pretty good at it, but really it doesn't matter because he's the only one who even cares about it at all. If you look on Havelock, there are really only two funds with any volume or liquidity, AMHASH1 and RENT. RENT is the only company that bothers to regularly update their Havelock page and with the thing he's doing on Slack, any shareholder can ask him a question 24/7. He even posts all his company data and financials on the slack page. All of which could possibly be fake, yes, but is very good for bolstering confidence in the stock. Compared to the other riff-raff on Havelock, he seems to be the only person taking it even remotely seriously. |
|
|
|
today is the 10th so why a dividend your quote doesnt help i read it before
Maybe Havelock paying out of their own pocket as they will get it when AMHash is ready to work I hope so that would actually be amazing lol a delay by 14 days would cost them 0,28% of total payout amount so for them its better to continue payouts if they know amhash will pay later rule of the havelock amhash1 fund says: 3. If the delay of payment happens, all unpaid payments will be accounted separately on daily basis and increase by 0.02% per day
(flat rate based on the initial unpaid payment amount, no compound rate) after three days.
Wouldn't that just mean the tomorrow's dividend would be increased by 0.28% and the next day's dividend will be paid with a 0.26% premium and so on? Not that 0.28% or 0.02% matters too much, lol. Might as well be 0. |
|
|
|
I never suggested any kind of central control on traders, just imagine what will start to happen when traders are able to borrow 10:1 or 50:1, you think that won't create ridiculous volatility?? You think any merchant will accept Bitcoin with massive daily swings? Because that is where things are headed! Maybe we should have guys with guns in every city that oversee every Bitcoin trade controlled by a central entity to make the rules of how bitcoins can be traded.
That would be ideal. Maybe then we would have a useful currency.
And if someone tries to make a trade that doesn't follow the rules...shoot them in the face.
I'm saying that you are mistaken on the source of volatility. Illiquidity creates volatility not the other way around. You are thinking too hard of using BTC as a store of value when that is not how merchants like tigerdirect are using it. Merchants today don't carry BTC on their books longer than they have to because of currency risk. They are using Bitcoin as a medium of exchange where volatility matters much less than illiquidity and bid-ask spreads. If the buyer has to buy on the bid and the merchant has to sell on the ask then BTC is not saving anybody money. Bitcoin is itself volatile due to its newness, margin or no margin doesn't matter. But what traders do is vitally important to the usability of bitcoins. The best thing that can happen to bitcoin volatility is to create a trusted futures exchange with long term contracts that is also highly liquid. Only way to do that is through margin. |
|
|
|
The problem isn't the price going up, it is the wild back and forth swings as leveraged traders enter and exit trades that is hampering Bitcoin being used as an actual currency. When the Russian rubble started to drop in the last few weeks people were scrambling to buy any hard asset they could get their hands on to preserve purchasing power. So the same concept applies to Bitcoin. Stability is necessary for bitcoin to flourish as a means of exchange, otherwise all we have is a fancy new casino. if everyone wants the price of bitcoin to go up, y don't we create a system such that no one can sell lower than the last price?
Margin trading doesn't create volatility. The underlying creates volatility. No one knows what bitcoins should be worth. That's the primary issue. It really doesn't matter if it's one dude buying and selling Bitcoin with 10x leverage or 10 people buying and selling Bitcoin with just cash. It's the same. We need MORE traders, leveraged or not. The spreads are what makes BTC unusable for daily transactions, not volatility. Imagine you go to a store that lets you pay with BTC with a spot price exchange.... For the buyer, he doesn't want to pay in an equivalent amount of BTC because he's going to end up paying the Bid which might be .5 to 1% greater than the Ask price. In that situation why would I pay in bitcoins when I can pull out my credit card and get 2% cash rewards? |
|
|
|
|
Uhhh.. I'm not a market genius, but I'm pretty sure currency traders create liquidity, not take it away.
If anything we need more traders to close the bid-ask spreads in all of the exchanges. The huge spreads between bitcoin exchanges is what is the problem. We also need more futures trading to create more predictability in the price of bitcoin and give those futures traders as much margin as the exchange can handle.
|
|
|
|
Sorry if this is a super newbie question, but I am trying to understand what this is...
Please let me know if I got this right:
The bitcoin mining difficulty is constantly increasing as more people are competing to mine the same # of bitcoins and the number of "mine-able" bitcoins decrease.
AMHASH1 is a contract for the use of the current mining equipment on hand right now and AMHASH1 will never upgrade its equipment through their servicing fee. This equipment will eventually be made obsolete because of the mining difficulty issue. Once the equipment becomes too inefficient to produce a profit for the contract holders they will cease operation, the shares will no longer pay a dividend and will become worthless.
The primary variables that affect how long the cloudmining contract can continue and produce dividends is the price of BTC and the rate of the increase of the mining difficulty. Contract holders are just speculating that the contract will eventually at least pay dividends worth at least 100% of the price of the contract before AMHASH1 inevitably goes out of business.
Is this roughly how this works?
Close enough to sound true, without being true  Difficulty goes up; difficulty goes down  Gen 3 AMhash, will continue to pay a dividend until the maintenance fee (electricity + labor) exceeds the dividend for 10 days: This is called the 10 day rule  Gen 3 AMhash will definitely cease at the next Block halving in the middle of 2016. Therefore, it is possible that dividends could carry on for 1 year 6 months. BTC price determines the size of the dividend. Current difficulty determines the size of dividend. AMhash never goes out of business, merely the Gen 3 mining equipment in the Bitcoin farm you are buying a share in, ceases to produce coins exceeding the maintenance fee. AMhash can build new farms e.g. Gen 4 mining equipment Bitcoin farm in the future for themselves or for us or for big investors  Recently, there was 5% decrease in mining difficulty, which increased the dividend a little bit. Before that, the BTC price fell below $209, which greatly reduced the dividend. The latter always has the biggest impact on the dividend. Hope that helps, whatever decision you are contemplating  Appreciate it. That actually clarified a lot for me. Cheers. |
|
|
|
|
Sorry if this is a super newbie question, but I am trying to understand what this is...
Please let me know if I got this right:
The bitcoin mining difficulty is constantly increasing as more people are competing to mine the same # of bitcoins and the number of "mine-able" bitcoins decrease.
AMHASH1 is a contract for the use of the current mining equipment on hand right now and AMHASH1 will never upgrade its equipment through their servicing fee. This equipment will eventually be made obsolete because of the mining difficulty issue. Once the equipment becomes too inefficient to produce a profit for the contract holders they will cease operation, the shares will no longer pay a dividend and will become worthless.
The primary variables that affect how long the cloudmining contract can continue and produce dividends is the price of BTC and the rate of the increase of the mining difficulty. Contract holders are just speculating that the contract will eventually at least pay dividends worth at least 100% of the price of the contract before AMHASH1 inevitably goes out of business.
Is this roughly how this works?
|
|
|
|
|
