I think it's time to introduce some changes to the BDD fee attribution for the new round. BDD is working because of its excellent management - 2070 can't be thanked enough! Does anyone here even remember deprived? - and because there is the possibility to always buy and sell on the market at a reasonable price and in reasonable volume. Big parts of this liquidity are provided daily by market makers and arbitrageurs.
To make BDD more dynamic I propose a simple change:

Accounts with huge volume should get a discount on the management fees of B.EXCH.

For everybody who isn't a market maker or arbitrageur this has the benefit of more liquidity because market prices will be closer to their actual valuation. Because the market makers will pass along their reduced fees, tighter valuations can then also be traded. Looking at the past few months I think there is a huge amount of trades that didn't happen because the bid and ask gap was too far apart. A 3% markup is a big variable for a valuation as tight as the one we're looking at. The higher traded volume in turn means higher profits for 2070, too.

The proposal in detail
Half of the management fees (1.5% of NAV/U - the current management fee is 3% of NAV/U) will be waived for trades done by accounts/traders with a volume of 10 BTC+ within a period of 1 month.
This way the amount of extra work for 2070 increases only by one check of account volumes per month (or other period) and it's completely transparent to outsiders.

The technical details
How and when to determine the volume and how to give a discount?

• Look at the trade volume of each account over a certain period of time and give a discount on the fee for the following period for high volume accounts - this is most probably difficult/impossible to do if havelock doesn't implement that technically.
• Look at the trade volume of each account over a certain period of time and reimburse parts of the management fee if the volume was high afterwards - probably the easiest way to handle this
• Depending on the data provided by havlock to the issuers a rolling average model could also be possible - this would most probably mean more work for 2070 though and therefore is not a preferable option

 I'm looking forward to discussions and hope to also hear from parties who are not 2070 or market makers

Thanks 2070 for your unique-in-BTC management!

Hey 2070 I just realised you have legendary status by now because you posted close 67 pages of posts in a row I frequented a chat back in the days where they gave "loner" awards for the person posting the most lines without getting a response.
I want you to have that!

On an even more serious note: Do we really still have 67 days to go until (hopefully) the next round starts and we reached 180 days?

2070 thanks from my side, too. I was shooting a short message that certainly came over as rude but I really appreciate what you're doing!

Any reason why there's no B.EXCH for sale?

soundasleep is really quick to respond normaly. He will respond.

Has anyone reacted to the email btw.? Deadline was severeal weeks ago iirc.

follow

Sad to see the .6% and the 2% of buyback going to fund capital go. This makes the game less tricky - if I haven't overlooked something that is
Care to explain why they had to go? This will be a fast round ^^

As long as there are buy orders up for B.SELL and it is possible to stretch the B.MINE period for a day or two it might be possible to gain a little. Too lazy to calc it though

Which ones?

Happy BDDay. Crazy that it's been one year already!

Now that everybody has dumped ctl and ctb of course...

How to ignore this in php? curl complains about the cert being invalid and doesn't execute API calls.

There is a problem with their SSL certificate. I hope they'll fix it soon.

Nav/U 0.00903750 * 1.03 != "New EXCH Sales Starting Price          0.00937426"

Is it off by one dividend?

Having re-read my post I realized I forgot to mention that I liked the ride so far and you did a great job

For ppl buying B.MINE as a replacement for another mining asset this fund has become unattractive. For one it's the obvious reason that without liquidity in B.SELL it's tedious to get MINE only. Buying MINE @ market price costs 0.0091 for 5GH/s where cex costs around .00825 (I'm not too sure whether this comparison is entirely fair though tbh). Adding to that there's the end-game that requires brain power to grasp and adds another obstacle if in a buy-and-forget mind-set.
Buying SELL has become a big gamble since it's unclear if and when there will be dividends in this round at all. Then there are the timing problems you mentioned where you will always overpay when buying B.EXCH even if you buy right after diff-change. The point deprived wanted to make when DMS was first offered was that people were overpaying for mining assets (and creating a way for non-believers to capitalize on this assumption). Because people aren't overpaying any more the raison d'être for BDD in it's current form is no longer valid. I don't think an offer with 5TH/s will solve that. For the next round the changes necessary are not just changing numbers around in the current model but rather a complete overhaul of the fund that represents the "new truth" that mining has levelled out and won't rise at 20% per diff-change any more.
We should start discussing how the fund can be changed for the next round.

I don't understand why bigger players would need a bigger hashing-power option as they can always just buy more 5 GH/s-es . What's the reasoning behind this?

What are the regulatory implications of this? Does this require a change in your company structure?

The problem is then that DMS holders would have to prove ownership of DMS. This could prove difficult without the help of Deprived or burnside. Even if the ownership is proven, Kate can - and I think she will - at least stall paying to the owners directly rather than to Deprived/DMS.