Probably a spike as the SDICE funds arrive (much later on Bitfunder) then a lull and dip until ActiverMiner prove they can deliver (as some people will want to get out and use funds elsewhere).

Question for Ken:

Will we be able to get shares from Bitfunder transferred to BTCT once ActiveMining is approved on there?

(subject to a reasonable minimum number of shares)

W00t!

1ffs69AbZjkrKVzihEhSezrqqtohX1KLe

Vbs, aren't your predictions 1 month out based on when things are due to go online, basically end July and end August? Or have I misunderstood?

Ken, thanks for adjusting the name as regards AM. That's a rather important move for trust reasons.

As a business owner myself I can promise you that the bookkeeping costs almost nothing. Not only that, but for  the amounts involved it shouldn't even be something anyone has to mention. It's an integral part of any business, let alone one raising this amount of money.

Again, I'm not dissing Ken here as I expect it is because he is too busy (I've been there myself, tho I wasn't fundraising) but there is no counter argument other than "crap, I've not had time, I know it's a bad excuse and it will be sorted as a matter of urgency". As for a certified accountant - well you need one at the appropriate time but they too don't need to cost much. We're talking 3-4 figures (at least in the UK) over a year unless you have some crazy complex stuff going on; a lot should be automated but I could believe a mining business may have some complexities if tax breaks are being explored (in the UK I'd be gunning for R & D tax credits).

The only reason anyone in the Bitcoin mining world is getting away with things like this is because it's a crazy gold rush with a lot of crazy people. There is very little that is professional going on in pure business terms, which is not to say that a lot of money won't be made.

It's all very high risk, very unbusiness like, and yet it's going to make some people very rich indeed. Already has in one case.

Those asking for things like accounts and forecasts are completely correct, it's just that at the moment there are enough people around who will invest and be damned anyway. They don't deserve to be pilloried for asking sensible questions, but they themselves should back off and stop the constant trolling. That doesn't make their questions less valid.

ActiveMining has a long way to go and a lot to prove before becoming a market leader. I'm amazed at the fanboys of any of these mining companies. If you're investing more than a couple of Bitcoins, it's a business decision and fanboyism shouldn't come into it.

Some decisions are not helping at all. Even the name is very dubious in my mind and that alone nearly put me off getting involved as it feels purposefully designed to be misleading (whether it was or not isn't the point, it clearly is and was a bad decision if you want to be trusted).

I worry about your relationship!

Ken really should take you (or someone) up on this. So many of these things can and should be properly and easily addressed, both formally on here in one single post and the website should be fixed up (and perhaps simplified/reworked). It will help the IPO, simple as that.

If you're trying to raise that much money, and it's a shedload of money, then you should deal with these matters because it directly affects your money raising attempts. It's all well and good being a great engineer but this is an IPO and needs to be dealt with accordingly. I have an investment but it's in my highest risk category not because I don't believe in the concept but because there have been endless communication failures. Many others won't be investing at all for this reason.

You may say well more fool them, but for Ken it's essential to get as many people on board as quickly as possible. And for you too. At the numbers involved you'll have lots of people who don't have the time or inclination to do significant research, so you want to make it easy for them.

I'm in no way criticising Ken's work in an engineering capacity but I think the public relations side needs addressing and he probably needs help to do that. Say what you like about friedcat, he's handled himself very well and he's come through with the goods. I hope Ken comes through too!

That's part of the new IPO, not someone getting out.

That's a good post and fair comment, but it's quite clear that communication issues remain. If you read other threads here, there are (apparently) issues over photos in use that simply shouldn't be. If true, this is clearly really bad and very unhelpful. That's the stuff that is worse than not having a website or being too busy. And that should be sorted out.

Can I request someone takes on BitcoinSharp as well.

Yes he should quite frankly. It would cost little in the scheme of things and make the operation at least feel more professional.

I, and I'm sure I'm not alone in this, have even offered to potentially arrange/manage it for some straight forward shares. It would still take a little of Ken's time as the information must be correct and kept up to date. That's not to say I would definitely do it as I've a ton of things to do right now, but someone would.

It's not that you need a big website (AM anyone?!), it's that what you have should be done properly when raising this amount of money.

Posted on that link as I can buy in bulk at those prices.

If no one bites, nothing ventured nothing gained! I've got plenty of other things going on so I'm in no rush at all.

Also, nightowlace has a set on ebay.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=257113.0

Good analysis and can't disagree.

I think 4 BTC is an decent price for a good quality 1 BTC. 5 maybe. 6 is too much I decided. However, that's based on my expecting Bitcoins to head towards $5-$10,000 in the very long term, something they simply may not do.

The 5, 25 and 100 coins/bars are a bigger unknown.

Purely investment wise, I think there are other things around right now for people who are canny as the private prices are a little high. As a collector thing, I will certainly try and ensure I have a full set sooner or later. 

I'd happily buy from nightowlace as they know

Thanks again for the analysis and info.

Here are the precise Series 1 numbers (no hand counting!) based on the link provided.

1 BTC: 5098
5 BTC: 611
25 BTC: 225
100 BTC: 18

These are all series 1 coins. Do all series 1 coins have the typo or only until date XXX (sometime in Nov'11)? How can we tell? If you let me know, I'll do the calculations.

EDIT: Just read up and checked some of the addresses and I think these are all series 1's with errors.

Series 2 (based on the link)
1 BTC: 10397
5 BTC: 490
25 BTC: 350
100 BTC: 36

Note I also have a discrepancy with the 100 BTC bars - I may be out by 18.

500 BTC and 1000 BTC bars - now they are properly rare.

I don't agree here. If Bitcoin fails, I think it'll still be seen as the first digital currency of major significance and I think the coins will retain a significant collector's value.


So the thing to know is - how rare is rare when it comes to these higher value coins? Is 1000 considered 'rare' enough to be really high value, or 100, or 10? The rarity factor is what's important when we're talking these prices.

Of course I agree that the coin will be collectable and valuable, but when you have 1000 of them then they will move around dealers and owners. Not in huge numbers, but sufficient to act as a price control. When you have 100 of them, hardly any will change hands in any year, maybe 5-10. And in the case of the 100 BTC coin (which I'm increasingly tempted by if one came up), hardly ever.

I agree with everything you say, my conjecture is purely around the BTC multiple involved since that's what's important if you're dealing with BTC already. If I pay 6 BTC now and it's worth 3 BTC (but $30,000) in the future, I should have just kept my 6 BTC, or kept 4 BTC and bought one of the more recent series (which I've ordered for around 2 BTC).

However, this still comes back to knowing the rarity value. Is 100 of a coin rare, or 10, or 1000? How rare must a coin be to be worth $200,000? We can't know exactly but history must have examples.

BTW Thanks for your really valuable input. What do think to other people making/planning on making coins?

Edit: The bottom 2-3 sections give an indication of rarity numbers for some high grade, high value coins. 100-150. At much lower numbers, you're talking really high value. I think 1 BTC coins are of most interest right now purely down to affordability.

http://www.pcgs.com/prices/PriceGuideDetail.aspx?MS=4&PR=1&SP=1&c=67

EDIT: 100 BTC are bars, my bad. Still relevant.

My thinking is as follows.

At the moment those coins are being sold for 3.5-8 BTC (that's the range I've been quoted privately/auctions). If Bitcoin remains below $1000 then I can totally see them carrying a large premium.

If Bitcoin goes much above $1,000, then they will retain a high value in fiat but I don't see them retaining this value in BTC terms. Things need to be very rare to be above $10,000 in value and we can see from Chainsaw's post that they simply aren't that rare. There are 1000+ unredeemed if those figures are correct. They'll be collectable and they'll be a high value in fiat for sure, but I can't possibly see them retaining their Bitcoin multiple in the long term. As such, an investment in Bitcoin itself is better than in an actual coin.

To put it another way, $800 as an upper end price right now is ok. Let's say there are 1000 of them. That means there are $800,000 worth of them in existence. If Bitcoin hits $10,000 which it could easily do in 10 years if it took off as a commodity (not just for transactions), those coins are worth $80 million and each one is $80,000. With 1000 available, I just can't see it balancing out like that. Discounting the balance, that values the rarity at $70,000. 1000 items just doesn't seem rare enough for that.

100 items still sounds too many but maybe not - think of it as 100 prints from Andy Warhol - I wonder how much the best ones are worth? I found this link for a $200,000 print but I can't find how many were originally made.

http://en.rian.ru/art_living/20130321/180147013.html

However, I am not an expert and I would be very happy to be persuaded otherwise

The 25 BTC coin is actually looking more interesting value wise. As a multiple of its BTC value, these go for 1.3-1.8x or so. They are also much more rare. And they look pretty (!).

So, in pure value terms I think the 1 BTC coins are collectable but not good value in BTC, where as the 25 BTC coins - if obtained at a good price - are much more interesting.

Of course I'd still like one, I'm just hesitant at current prices compared to other Bitcoin investments. For investment purposes I'd prefer a 25 BTC coin. The 100 BTC coin is really interesting too. I don't know prices for these as I haven't checked around. And they look properly rare, which is what you really want.

To sum up, I'm saying that versus an investment in BTC itself, I'm not yet persuaded the numbers stack up. As a pure fiat investment, sure! And if BTC goes nowhere, it's a great hedge.

And they are very, very cool.

Ignore!

As a long term investment I'm not so sure.

If bitcoin values drop, bitcoin disappears, or it doesn't go past $1000 or so then yes I agree. If Bitcoins head towards $10,000, which they would if they became seen as a solid investment worldwide alongside gold, then I find it difficult to believe that the actual coins would be worth the current BTC multiples being charged. In which case you'd be better just holding on to the currency.

Right now I think they work both as a collectors item and a short term investment. Long term, if you're very positive about Bitcoin, they aren't good value. At least the 1 BTC ones.

My interest is basically as a collector and I'd fund it from some recent trading profits

What do you think?

Thanks for the feedback. Really useful.