[CLOSED] S.DICE - SatoshiDICE 100% Dividend-Paying Asset on MPEx

[boonies4u]

Investing in SatoshiDICE actually peaked my interest. These returns are ridiculous though...

0.0033278 BTC for 1/100M of 10%? Are you insane?

[1714222107]

1714222107

[muyuu]

did i read the fine print right, 100,000,000 shares at .0032 or 3,200,00 btc or more than 30 million usd?

that is insane...

Your math is a little broken there, but as they say practice makes perfect.

I dont see it - checks out fine.

His thousands have 2 zeroes. It's more like 3.2 million US$ at 10$/BTC valuation.

[bitfoo]

Here's another way to look at this: 320,000 BTC is a little more than 1.5% of all bitcoins that will ever exist.

[EskimoBob]

Thank the gods that this one did not show up in GLBSE or in any of the other new exchanges that have popped up lately.
20 BTC for opening a account? This is a robbery.
 

"Want a piece of SatoshiDICE"

LOL... With a deal like this, you do not get even a piece of SatoshiDICE'es ass hair.
There are better and more noble ways to burn your BTC.

[Stephen Gornick]

From the prospectus (Full):

These amounts are subtracted from revenues before calculating net profits. SatoshiDICE does not
pay salaries or compensation to any person and thus salaries will not be taken out of net profits.

Legal expenses have thus far been paid out of pocket by the operator, Erik Voorhees. If legal
expenses exceed $1,000 per month, the amount will be deducted from SatoshiDICE’s net profits and
this will be described in the monthly Profit and Loss statements. There are currently no ongoing legal
expenses.

Web development expenses for the new website have been fully paid (there will not be upcoming
costs for this site). In the future, if other upgrade plans are implemented, these expenses will be
subtracted from net profits.

Subtracting expenses out before the reported revenue numbers skews the profitability.  I get that they are relatively a small amount, but I don't get why you would do that?  I would think P&L should list all revenues and expenses.    Even if there is no outlay for an expense, it still should be booked, I would think.  Without doing that paints a rosier picture (margins) than actually exists. (Again, probably inconsequential, but why not include them?)


From the Asset page on MPEx:

virtual trading of virtual shares of unregistered corporations

 - http://polimedia.us/bitcoin/mpex.php?mpsic=S.DICE

I still have a hard time grasping how these voluntary associations are being referred to as companies and corporations.

I can see how the operator might be protected from being sued personally by a customer, for instance, if I am understanding the concept of corporation by estoppel.  But I hate to see the word corporation used for these "assets".    These are voluntary associations of otherwise unrelated parties.  I've written on this elsewhere:

 - http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=80139.msg897131#msg897131

When someone is talking about raising something like $7K for a project that you'ld never get a loan for from a bank or never would see finding through an Angel, for instance, then I think these cyber equities are a fantastic innovation.   But raisng over a quarter of a million dollars, with a valuation of several million dollars -- I wonder if this cyber-equities approach should be reconsidered.

What's the downside to finding a nice jurisdiction with great privacy laws an incorporating there?  There probably are several jurisdictions where you could incorporate yet still raise the funds through MPEx.

[MPOE-PR]

Investing in SatoshiDICE actually peaked my interest. These returns are ridiculous though...

AAPL pays ~2.5 dollars a year in dividends. The share trades for ~650 dollars. You may think the reason you don't own AAPL is because "they're insane". The truth however is that you don't own AAPL because you don't have money.

0.0033278 BTC for 1/100M of 10%? Are you insane?

I don't think you read the offer very carefully. 0.0032 BTC (lowest tier) buys someone 1/100M of the revenue of SatoshiDICE! The dividend yield works out (if worked out by people who actually can do division and multiplication) at an estimated 0.00036 BTC a year per share, or a little over 10%.

This revenue has some very marked advantages over any available alternatives. To wit:

a. It is better than Ponzi. This should be self explanatory. If it is not self explanatory you are not an investor and do not belong discussing securities.

b. It is better than mining bonds. Mining bonds depreciate. You pay 1.5 BTC to buy one today, it's worth 1.0 BTC in four months and in the interim it's paid 0.1 or 0.2 dividends. You've not made 10 or 20% a month. You've made a 30% loss over the quarter. A 30% loss compares disfavourably to a 1% gain a year.

c. It is insulated from fiat-world risk. The government of Japan decides to arrest a person from MtGox staff? Your MtGox investment is now worth zero. Game over. Dwolla decides to lock the accounts of TradeHill? Your TradeHill investment is now worth zero. Game over. The only thing that can kill pure-BTC plays like SD is the collapse of BTC itself, which is no extra risk to the BTC investor: you already have those BTC.

Here's another way to look at this: 320,000 BTC is a little more than 1.5% of all bitcoins that will ever exist.

And for now, and possibly for a little while longer, SatoshiDice is a lot more than 1.5% of all that's worth owning in bitcoins. There are some good companies out there. Maybe ten, maybe twenty, certainly not one hundred. This is one of them.

Subtracting expenses out before the reported revenue numbers skews the profitability.

Net profit is calculated as the difference between revenue and expense. Why would this be problematic? What would it skew?

I still have a hard time grasping how these voluntary associations are being referred to as companies and corporations.

Because that is exactly what a company or corporation is: a voluntary association. Furthermore, milk is the white liquid seeping out a cow's udders, not the item found in a government approved package announcing to the world that within lies milk. This is an important point and I think too easily forgotten.

When someone is talking about raising something like $7K for a project that you'd never get a loan for from a bank or never would see finding through an Angel, for instance, then I think these cyber equities are a fantastic innovation.   But raising over a quarter of a million dollars, with a valuation of several million dollars -- I wonder if this cyber-equities approach should be reconsidered.

This is a very limiting, unfortunate and in the end destined-to-fail way to regard bitcoins. They are not this exotic pet, to play around the "serious" fiats and fill the cracks they leave.

Bitcoin is the harbinger of doom for all fiat currencies. That is its role. That's what it is supposed to do. The notion that it should be relegated to denominating scams and ridiculous penny-ante endeavors of bizarre internet denizens with visible mental handicaps (yes, not being able to do basic math is a mental handicap for an adult human) is loathsome.

Bitcoin will support million dollar ventures, and it will support billion dollar ventures. And then it will support trillion dollar ventures, and quadrillion dollar ventures, and as the dollar slowly I mean quickly devalues into irrelevancy bitcoin will support everything. That's the paradigm.

And as shocking as this may sound, nobody needs nobody's permission for this.

Now, here's the question, and it lies in front of everybody: do you have some money for which you want to make some money, or do you have some time to kill for which you want to waste people's time?

That's the whole story.

[Bitcoin Oz]

I don't think you read the offer very carefully. 0.0032 BTC (lowest tier) buys someone 1/100M of the revenue of SatoshiDICE! The dividend yield works out (if worked out by people who actually can do division and multiplication) at an estimated 0.00036 BTC a year per share, or a little over 10%.

And if you have to pay 20btc just to register on MPEX just to get a few shares you will NEVER make a profit buying S.DICE.

[MPOE-PR]

And if you have to pay 20btc just to register on MPEX just to get a few shares you will NEVER make a profit buying S.DICE.

This is not playing around in some finance-themed MMORPG. This is investing. We're not playing here, you understand this? It's not the monthly subscription for Diablo IV we're discussing, too expensive at 20 btc, would be ok at 5.

If you need to talk to a lawyer you need to pay, depending on where you live, 500 or 5,000 dollars just for him to hear out your story. Nothing more. If you need to talk to a doctor you need to pay... eh, I don't even want to get into that.

IPOs are not for people wanting to buy 5 dollars worth of shares, nobody participated in the Facebook IPO based on the strength of his 19.95 balance sheet with freestocks.com.

20 bitcoins is nothing for an investor. He who stumbles and falls on a twenty bitcoin trap is not an investor. There's really no other way around it.

[AndrewBUD]

Can I buy some of these? thanks

[MPOE-PR]

Surely. If you have an MPEx account it's as easy as putting in a BUY order for your desired volume. If you don't have an account you will have to talk to someone who offers brokering services. I think Brendio might be one, there might be more people offering it.

[AndrewBUD]

I'll need some sort of brokerage service...

If anyone is willing to do this service please PM me.


Thank you...

[DeaDTerra]

I am planning on setting up a pass through for this asset to GLBSE, I am currently in contact with Meni and Erik to set this up
It should be all up in a day or two.
//DeaDTerra

[freeAgent]

From the prospectus (Full):

These amounts are subtracted from revenues before calculating net profits. SatoshiDICE does not
pay salaries or compensation to any person and thus salaries will not be taken out of net profits.

Legal expenses have thus far been paid out of pocket by the operator, Erik Voorhees. If legal
expenses exceed $1,000 per month, the amount will be deducted from SatoshiDICE’s net profits and
this will be described in the monthly Profit and Loss statements. There are currently no ongoing legal
expenses.

Web development expenses for the new website have been fully paid (there will not be upcoming
costs for this site). In the future, if other upgrade plans are implemented, these expenses will be
subtracted from net profits.

Subtracting expenses out before the reported revenue numbers skews the profitability.  I get that they are relatively a small amount, but I don't get why you would do that?  I would think P&L should list all revenues and expenses.    Even if there is no outlay for an expense, it still should be booked, I would think.  Without doing that paints a rosier picture (margins) than actually exists. (Again, probably inconsequential, but why not include them?)


From the Asset page on MPEx:

virtual trading of virtual shares of unregistered corporations

 - http://polimedia.us/bitcoin/mpex.php?mpsic=S.DICE

I still have a hard time grasping how these voluntary associations are being referred to as companies and corporations.

I can see how the operator might be protected from being sued personally by a customer, for instance, if I am understanding the concept of corporation by estoppel.  But I hate to see the word corporation used for these "assets".    These are voluntary associations of otherwise unrelated parties.  I've written on this elsewhere:

 - http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=80139.msg897131#msg897131

When someone is talking about raising something like $7K for a project that you'ld never get a loan for from a bank or never would see finding through an Angel, for instance, then I think these cyber equities are a fantastic innovation.   But raisng over a quarter of a million dollars, with a valuation of several million dollars -- I wonder if this cyber-equities approach should be reconsidered.

What's the downside to finding a nice jurisdiction with great privacy laws an incorporating there?  There probably are several jurisdictions where you could incorporate yet still raise the funds through MPEx.

Subtracting out one-time costs is a fairly common practice for companies that report non-GAAP statements (though in the real world they must also report GAAP earnings and cannot simply hide one-time costs because they feel like it).

Overall, this seems like a terrible investment idea to me on pretty much all fronts.  You're dealing with a non-entity ("unregistered corporation" wtf?) to purchase extremely small amounts of a business that is extremely easy to copy (see Groupon).  SatoshiDice appears to currently be a sole proprietorship and will remain so in reality because these "shares" have no voting rights.

These "shares" bear more similarities to a an annuity than they do to actual equity.  On top of this, I see nothing resembling an audited financial statement.  Proceed at your own, in my opinion extreme, risk.

[DutchBrat]

I can't find anything in the prospectus about a lock-up period for the other 90 million shares

The asset is listed as 10 million shares, does that mean the other 90 million will never be sold

If they will be sold in the future, the asset should be listed as 100 million shares with a free-float of 10 million shares

[Rassah]

I didn't see this asked or discussed, so here's my question: Why?
Why does SD need to go public, why does Erik want to dilute his own ownership and give up some control over his business, and what will he use the money raised for?

[DutchBrat]

I didn't see this asked or discussed, so here's my question: Why?
Why does SD need to go public, why does Erik want to dilute his own ownership and give up some control over his business, and what will he use the money raised for?

He sells 10% of SD for $350K (if all the shares sell)

I think that answers most of your questions

[MPOE-PR]

Proceed at your own, in my opinion extreme, risk.

All bitcoin risk is extreme risk in this perspective. Not saying it is not a valid perspective, either.

The concern you raise about voting rights is valid, but there is a reason to do things this way. Specifically, bitcoin lacks as of yet an effectual way to enforce the will of the shareholders against a recalcitrant management. Because of this, it is better (or at least more honest) to give shares no voting rights than to feign giving them some rights that in reality aren't enforceable in any practical manner (and in fact experience has shown that time and time again, these forums are filled to the brim with imploded pretenses of the sort). Yes, you lose out on the possibility that shareholder votes would enshrine better management. It's not clear that this would actually conceivably occur (and it's not so clear it occurs all that often in the common everyday world, either). In exchange you gain something, too.

The shares are intended to work as shares. It seems the most that can be done at the moment. Maybe in time we find better solutions.

I can't find anything in the prospectus about a lock-up period for the other 90 million shares

The asset is listed as 10 million shares, does that mean the other 90 million will never be sold

(c)The representatives of SatoshiDice warrant that no further shares will be offered by them for a period of 30 days from the date these offered shares are sold. The representatives of SatoshiDice further warrant that they will never sell more than half the total shares.

So: 30 days lockdown, never sell out more than 50mn. That's the deal.

[DutchBrat]

Proceed at your own, in my opinion extreme, risk.

All bitcoin risk is extreme risk in this perspective. Not saying it is not a valid perspective, either.

The concern you raise about voting rights is valid, but there is a reason to do things this way. Specifically, bitcoin lacks as of yet an effectual way to enforce the will of the shareholders against a recalcitrant management. Because of this, it is better (or at least more honest) to give shares no voting rights than to feign giving them some rights that in reality aren't enforceable in any practical manner (and in fact experience has shown that time and time again, these forums are filled to the brim with imploded pretenses of the sort). Yes, you lose out on the possibility that shareholder votes would enshrine better management. It's not clear that this would actually conceivably occur (and it's not so clear it occurs all that often in the common everyday world, either). In exchange you gain something, too.

The shares are intended to work as shares. It seems the most that can be done at the moment. Maybe in time we find better solutions.

I can't find anything in the prospectus about a lock-up period for the other 90 million shares

The asset is listed as 10 million shares, does that mean the other 90 million will never be sold

(c)The representatives of SatoshiDice warrant that no further shares will be offered by them for a period of 30 days from the date these offered shares are sold. The representatives of SatoshiDice further warrant that they will never sell more than half the total shares.

So: 30 days lockdown, never sell out more than 50mn. That's the deal.

Thanks, you might want to include that in the prospectus as well, not just on the asset contract page

[evoorhees]

did i read the fine print right, 100,000,000 shares at .0032 or 3,200,00 btc or more than 30 million usd?

that is insane...

Math fail. It's 320,000 btc, or about 3.2m USD. This puts it at 10x p/e based on current earnings and assuming zero growth.  

[evoorhees]

Investing in SatoshiDICE actually peaked my interest. These returns are ridiculous though...

0.0033278 BTC for 1/100M of 10%? Are you insane?

Man some people need to check numbers more carefully. It is .0033278 for 1 of the 100m shares (though only 10m shares are being offered). It is not 1/100m of 10% of the shares.