Yah, but he has a point about attempting to maintain a percentage of the network hashrate. People aren't even attempting to do that, they're just taking out loans (creating bonds/stocks) for diminishing returns (less effective hashes).

So for a mining bond based on difficulty, the issuer gains a lot of capital during the IPO, and can buy the shares back at a later point (like a year) cheaper. It's great for him, but it's also great for the first comers too. The people after the IPO and near the end of the spectrum get the short end of the stick. The issuer would have a difficult time maintaining the % of network hashrate, but if he could, then it would be a sounder investment for the long run. As it stands, a bond like TAT.VM relies on the difficulty increasing and the dividends dwindling, because if they didn't then he would go broke. Right now he's paying out more per day than he's making per day, but he gets a nice fat cheque he invest in something else to (hopefully) profit enough to cover the loss. Thus he and the initial investors do well I'm not sure any mining bond out there is maintaining a network % with the huge delays in shipments. Maybe one day though..

277 shares of DMC traded for 26 AM, AM valuation at 2.48 BTC.

Friedcat seems to do everything himself. I worry what would happen if he got hit by a truck tomorrow and ended in a coma or worse a graveyard. Does he have people who can then take over the operation smoothlessly?

I do.

.b

I suppose I could put a max trade price of 10,000 btc. It would just be an impossible trade.

Thanks for pointing it out.

-Ukyo

I do not need to know...if I see my return is not good in the future..I am better to exit the market now....

Well, obviously you really do not know how bonds work. I hope you don't get burned by that lack of knowledge, but I'm afraid that if you expect a bond issuer to just give you money out of the kindness of their hearts, then you'll definitely be burned.

.b

The whole point of a PMB is that the interest grows to zero over time, as long as difficulty increases. This is exactly the same as a loan, in which interest eventually decreases to zero. The main difference is that if difficulty does not go up, the interest is higher. With a loan, the interest gets higher based on the general economy (if it has a flexible interest at all).

How on earth can you even consider investing in a PMB, much less set one up, unless you understand these extremely basic concepts?

Hang on, I have an idea. Why don't I lend you 100 BTC at an interest of 10% per year. Then, as you pay down, I'll come and ask you to pay 15% instead, just because, you know, you want you to build confidence. Then, I'll tell you how to use those 100 BTC and if you don't use them the way I say, I'll bitch that you could have made much more money if you did like I said and probably say that you're a bad manager who doesn't listen to his lenders.

Oh, and by accepting my loan, you're forbidden to take up any other loan for any purpose from anyone ever again regardless of terms because doing so would ruin my confidence in you.

Does that sound like a reasonable plan? If not, why would you suggest the exact same thing to the issuer of PAJKA?

Geez, I'm going to have to write an article to explain this...

.b

Now you're making even less sense.

It doesn't matter how the issuer has or gets the money; there's no incentive to give it to you!

And why would anyone feel cheated for an issuer issuing another bond? Would you feel cheated if your bank gave another loan to a different customer on different terms?

This is not a business; it is a bond. There is no business to grow. It is simply a loan of money and no point in growing. In fact, the whole point of getting a loan is to finance something that gives you more in return.

It is probably easier for you to understand if you completely ignore the mining aspect of this. The mining aspect is irrelevant because you do not care how you get the money, you care only for getting the money. Whether there is a mining operation behind, a set of stocks, or just a kind uncle paying the interest (which is what you're getting; don't kid yourself on the dividend thing) is completely irrelevant to you as long as you get what the contract states.

Look at TAT.VM pending on BTCT. It is a mining bond that isn't backed by mining at all, it is backed, perpetually, by proceeeds from holding AM shares. That doesn't matter to anyone; the interest is fixed at whatever 1MH/s yields for a given period. TAT can fund this from growing pot in his backyard for all you care.

.b

Anyway just a suggestion here ..the cost to double its hashrate per bond is very small ,since this issuer already hold enough shares of AM to allows him to doing that .. post a new contract for bonds not only will cost him, also will led ripped out of its old investors. .Remember here double its hashrate is not equal to double in dividend..Anyway this is not a single side benefit , as I stated if the issuer is consider to growth its business and get more available funds for him to invest in, that to boost his IPO process finished is still the cheapest way and most effective way.. As long as people are doubt of BFL.....

I've done the math, so don't worry about that. I just don't see why you think it makes sense for anyone to give money away. If the issuer does not have the funds to complete the contract, then that is a completely different issue, but as far as I've been able to understand, that is not the issue here as the current hashrate is backed well by AM shares and funds and the expected increase later is at an undefined point in time.

Consider this: If the issuer wants to get more funds using different terms, it makes no sense to give away free money to the people with whom the issuer already has a contract. The issuer can simply create a new bond with different terms and if the market wants that, the market will buy the bonds.

Again, your proposal is simply asking for more money with nothing in return. The issuer has no motivation what so ever to give you that, unless it is out of a charitable approach, in which case I would question the issuer's financial acumen and probably keep that in mind for any future assets from that issuer.

If you do not like the terms of your contract, you can sell. If you like the terms of the contract, you can buy. Trying to renegotiate with a single-sided benefit only will not work.

.b

I'm struggling to grasp the accurate meaning of what you're saying, but you're solely talking about benefits to you. Let's make it simple.

DO NOT mention share price, as this is solely a benefit to you (and is irrelevant to the issuer because the bonds on the market are already sold)
DO NOT mention hashrate, as this is solely a benefit to you (and is an added expense to the issuer which is a pretty clear disadvantage)

Now explain to me, what does the issuer get out of this, considering the bonds on the market are already sold at a well-known and clear-cut contract?

Remember, don't mention shareprice or dividends; those either do not benefit the issuer or benefits you only.

.b

The doubling was part of the contract you purchased. You didn't answer my question; what does the issuer get in return for giving you more money? At this point, you're only begging for money but not offering anything in return.

.b

PAJKA is a bond, not a share in a company. There is absolutely no reason why the issuer would want to give you more money. Think of it like this; a bond is like a loan where you know in advance exactly what you will be getting in return (in this case a certain hash rate). What you are asking is that the borrower (or issuer in this case) should just start giving you more than you're entitled to so that you can get more when you resell your debt.

What is the benefit to the issuer here?

.b

Yes - partialy. Partialy from dividends on ASICMINER shares I still own and partialy from the mined BTC using my HW.
Yes, it is fixed hash rate of 3mhash/s and it will upgrade to fixed rate of 15mhash/s when BFL delivers to me.
If the difficulty goes down you earn more, if it goes up (much more probable) you earn less. But keep in mind that if you buy mining HW it is the same or even worse because you have still to operate it and pay for electricity and so on.
When I would buy back? Well I would be probably buying the bond back in the case that the BTC price is going down which would mean that the operationg prices would be high in BTC. There is no reason to do that earlier unless the bonds is trading heavilly undervalued - then I could buy it partially back on the market.
Well, if you buy into PAJKA.BOND you are in for both - the profit and the risk.
I believe that BFL will deliver - the question is when.
I am honest person and so if they would refund orders instead of delivering I would buy some other BTC ASIC HW and match the offer I did with BFL HW.
200 ASICMINER shares are 10ghash/s (plus extras from sold HW) and my HW does 2.6ghash/s. That is 12.6ghash/s.
There are 4563 PAJKA.BONDs out @3mhash/s. That is 13.6ghash/s.
The difference is only 1ghash/s and it can be very easily covered with the cash from sold ASICMINER shares for many years.
I am now offering the bonds at a premium - so if they are selling even at a premium I can use the money from the sale to cover them with more ASICMINER shares for example.
But honestly I expect that more will be selling after BFL delivers to me and bonds upgrade to 15mhash/s. We will see where the PAJKA.BOND price goes then.
You are welcome.

   So I calculated approx. .07 BTC per share in the next 91 days. Assuming the decline is steady at a rate of decline of 26% per quarter, this means the next quarter would be .0518, the next .038, and the next .029. That means your one year return on your money is a total of .1888 BTC. So if you buy at .2 BTC, you will be making 94% on your money, if you buy at .3 you will make 62%, if you buy at .4 (like I did) you will make 47%.

  Considering the uncertainty involved this is a fair return. Somebody just bought 67 shares at .2, so this is probably a really good deal if the share price stabilizes. Of course, if difficulty increases exponentially and mining yields decrease at an accelerating rate, then the calculation above will not be valid and the return will be less.

   Ultimately whether this is a good investment or not all depends on confidence of investors, because we determine the share price. As far as mining bonds go, I figure this must be one of the best due to electricity in Ukraine being the cheapest in the world. I don't see how someone living in the US or Germany, paying 6+ cents per Kwh and paying higher cost of living for food and rent can compete with 3-4 cents per Kwh and cheaper labor, food, and rent. Since the dividends are currently backed by ASICMiner, at any price below .4, it's like buying discounted Asicminer passthrough shares.

It would be very helpful if rastapool could tell us if this rate of decline in dividends is expected to be steady or if it will accelerate.

This forum needs a "forum name on a sheet of paper next to item" rule that really helps a lot.

你真的中国

they might as well release a statement

AMC is again increasing its FUTURE hash power : 10000TH/s Estimated