2. Another person expresses that they simply will not approve a bond that is not guaranteed to pay out full ROI. First, I can easily argue that ALL bond assets present this risk. Furthermore, what I am providing is a dynamic and speculative instrument. This is not just a case of putting in X dollars, and knowing you will get X+Y% back on a specified date. Almost none of the bonds in bitcoin work that way anyway.
I never wrote "guaranteed". The point is that you don't intend to ever repay the bond's face value (if it had one). That is typical for "perpetual mining bonds", and it is one reason that I typically vote against them. The other reason is that they generally lose money because the value of the bond goes to 0 and the dividends are typically not enough cover the depreciation of the bond.
It don't think the fact that it is a "dynamic and speculative instrument" (which is not how you portray it), or that you call it a "callable structured note" makes it any more suitable as an investment (BTW, "callable" is bad for bond owners, and "structured" means complicated and, in this case, risky).
Either way, you only need a few more votes and it has only been a few days.
The issue is that only about 6 people currently vote at all, so it becomes that much more important to establish what the justifiable standards are for approving an asset. I'd prefer to have 0 No votes, even if I didn't need every vote anyway.
Let me ask you a question. If a standard for allowing an asset of any kind: stock, bond, note, fund, etc, is whether it will ever reach 100% ROI, wouldn't the great majority of assets fail this test? Furthermore, in the cases where this is obviously possible, how often do you think any shareholder actually holds assets long enough to see them through to their potential 100% ROI?
My asset description is quite transparent, and quite clear. There is no confusion about how it is being portrayed, nor any attempt at deception. I think you are voting against it simply because you want to assume a role of protecting any investor too ignorant to use it successfully. But it is not for you to make decisions for investors. Your role is to vet me as an issuer, the contract's clarity, my asset's viability, and whether the offering stands to benefit the shareholders of LTCG. It is my assessment that your vote is in contrast with those values.
The fact remains that there are indeed ways to use this asset to make gains, even if you ignore the real possibility that difficulty could stagnate or go down at some point in the future.
There is also a hidden benefit within this offering in that it provides a vehicle to correct the mining asset market down to the prices I have established as the minimum the market and my risk can bear. This actually indirectly makes money for shareholders through the ironic incidence that they are already paying and losing too much with their current BTCTC mining investments.
There are also ways to play this asset by timely reinvestment and exiting at the right time. As the asset ages, and likely depreciates, newly issued bonds will continue to be offered at even more affordable prices, allowing me to set the market rate for 1MH/s in perpetuity.
These are just some of the ways this instrument can work. There is a real utility and service to be provided here, regardless of whether you would personally invest in it, or whether you think others should speculate on it.
Show Posts
