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

[Pale Phoenix]

I think the point here is that there is no loan at all. Erik has been compensated fairly via IPO and the shares he holds, and never noted any desire to loan funds to SDICE in the past.

I wonder if there are any other surprise liabilities SDICE has...

Yes, after reading Deprived's post and re-reading the contract, I agree that there is no loan.

As for other liabilities, Erik mentioned earlier in the thread that he would have a balance sheet prepared at the end of this month, but I would urge him to have one done up as soon as possible to reassure investors. The stock has recently started to show signs of life (however small) and it would be a shame for the uncertainty introduced today to go unanswered.

[1714937379]

1714937379

[1714937379]

1714937379

[1714937379]

1714937379

[freedomno1]

I think the point here is that there is no loan at all. Erik has been compensated fairly via IPO and the shares he holds, and never noted any desire to loan funds to SDICE in the past.

I wonder if there are any other surprise liabilities SDICE has...

Yes, after reading Deprived's post and re-reading the contract, I agree that there is no loan.

As for other liabilities, Erik mentioned earlier in the thread that he would have a balance sheet prepared at the end of this month, but I would urge him to have one done up as soon as possible to reassure investors. The stock has recently started to show signs of life (however small) and it would be a shame for the uncertainty introduced today to go unanswered.

Maybe A third party audit request initiated by shareholders if that seems plausible that way all finances can be taken into account
Of course not sure on the practical value of measuring it in BTC or if it would work but a third party would be able to figure out these type of details best
If shareholders don't mind paying for that type of cost

[malevolent]

A single person can win up to ~6400 BTC with one bet, how would the situation be handled if there weren't enough Bitcoins for the winner? How would that person be contacted, or that person receive the rest of the BTC within a few days (or more) that would be needed to acquire them or move from a cold wallet.
Of course, it's also possible that few very lucky people deplete the pool within a few days; I am wondering if satoshidice is in any way prepared for this?

[DutchBrat]

A single person can win up to ~6400 BTC with one bet, how would the situation be handled if there weren't enough Bitcoins for the winner? How would that person be contacted, or that person receive the rest of the BTC within a few days (or more) that would be needed to acquire them or move from a cold wallet.
Of course, it's also possible that few very lucky people deplete the pool within a few days; I am wondering if satoshidice is in any way prepared for this?

Apparently not, but according to the prospectus SD has a limited balance of reserves

Min and Max Bets
Because there is a limited pool of funds to back bets, there is a max bet for each bet option. The max
changes periodically as bets are processed, adjusting for the current wallet balance. Min bets are
established at .001 per bet because anything lower makes the bet foolish for the player (as the small
miners’ fees would eat up any winnings).

As per the prospectus.... http://polimedia.us/bitcoin/assets/S.DICE_Prospectus_Full.pdf

Is this the loan Erik is talking about, or is there a limited pool of funds in SD that the shareholders de facto own?

[Factory]

Is this the loan Erik is talking about, or is there a limited pool of funds in SD that the shareholders de facto own?

This is what he is talking about.

[cusdog]

I think the point here is that there is no loan at all. Erik has been compensated fairly via IPO and the shares he holds, and never noted any desire to loan funds to SDICE in the past.

I wonder if there are any other surprise liabilities SDICE has...

Yes, after reading Deprived's post and re-reading the contract, I agree that there is no loan.

As for other liabilities, Erik mentioned earlier in the thread that he would have a balance sheet prepared at the end of this month, but I would urge him to have one done up as soon as possible to reassure investors. The stock has recently started to show signs of life (however small) and it would be a shame for the uncertainty introduced today to go unanswered.

Maybe A third party audit request initiated by shareholders if that seems plausible that way all finances can be taken into account
Of course not sure on the practical value of measuring it in BTC or if it would work but a third party would be able to figure out these type of details best
If shareholders don't mind paying for that type of cost

An audit can do only so much with respect to completeness of reported liabilities, especially in the realm of BTC-listed securities. It would have caught the 6K (whatever it is), but if management really wanted to keep something from the shareholders (not saying that is the case here) it is going to remain hidden most likely. Where an audit (or even just compiling financial statements) will help is in catching mistakes/oversights and hidden transactions which have a cash (BTC) component.

[Deprived]

I think the point here is that there is no loan at all. Erik has been compensated fairly via IPO and the shares he holds, and never noted any desire to loan funds to SDICE in the past.

I wonder if there are any other surprise liabilities SDICE has...

Moreover, management can't really pass responsibility for its own actions to the shareholders, because the shareholders have no control whatsoever. If three months down the road Erik comes and says "hey, we had a break-in, the funds are gone" then how exactly can Random Q Investor verify this claim, make sure it's not something like Vircurex pulled recently? And if Erik never comes and says thus, what's the point of the entire maneuver? In all circumstances they with the ability to prevent losses are they who must be responsible for the losses.

That such losses are not passed to shareholders was (near enough) explicitly clarified by Erik during the IPO:

b) Actually, the financial statements are better than "audited."  All the information is mathematically verifiable using the blockchain, which is public. You don't have to trust any auditor, you can audit yourself any time of day to see exactly what SatoshiDICE is making (and some have done that in other threads on this forum).

If it can't be verified by the block-chain then it can't be in the financial statements - and so can't be passed to investors (by deductions when calculating net profit).

If your claimed reason for no auditing is that it can already be done then:

1.  You don't need to have audits.
2.  You can't charge anything which investors can't verify themselves via the block-chain.

Those two points go hand-in-hand : if you want #1 you have to provide #2 (and lose the ability to pass many costs on).

A burglary (and for that matter a theft from a BTC wallet) wouldn't be allowed to be deducted anyway - as they aren't marketing or development costs: the only two categories of deduction allowed when calculating net profits.

[ThickAsThieves]

I think the point here is that there is no loan at all. Erik has been compensated fairly via IPO and the shares he holds, and never noted any desire to loan funds to SDICE in the past.

I wonder if there are any other surprise liabilities SDICE has...

Moreover, management can't really pass responsibility for its own actions to the shareholders, because the shareholders have no control whatsoever. If three months down the road Erik comes and says "hey, we had a break-in, the funds are gone" then how exactly can Random Q Investor verify this claim, make sure it's not something like Vircurex pulled recently? And if Erik never comes and says thus, what's the point of the entire maneuver? In all circumstances they with the ability to prevent losses are they who must be responsible for the losses.

That such losses are not passed to shareholders was (near enough) explicitly clarified by Erik during the IPO:

b) Actually, the financial statements are better than "audited."  All the information is mathematically verifiable using the blockchain, which is public. You don't have to trust any auditor, you can audit yourself any time of day to see exactly what SatoshiDICE is making (and some have done that in other threads on this forum).

If it can't be verified by the block-chain then it can't be in the financial statements - and so can't be passed to investors (by deductions when calculating net profit).

If your claimed reason for no auditing is that it can already be done then:

1.  You don't need to have audits.
2.  You can't charge anything which investors can't verify themselves via the block-chain.

Those two points go hand-in-hand : if you want #1 you have to provide #2 (and lose the ability to pass many costs on).

A burglary (and for that matter a theft from a BTC wallet) wouldn't be allowed to be deducted anyway - as they aren't marketing or development costs: the only two categories of deduction allowed when calculating net profits.

What about if Erik just uses the secret key to win himself 200btc per day for a month, how do we audit that?

[Deprived]

I think the point here is that there is no loan at all. Erik has been compensated fairly via IPO and the shares he holds, and never noted any desire to loan funds to SDICE in the past.

I wonder if there are any other surprise liabilities SDICE has...

Moreover, management can't really pass responsibility for its own actions to the shareholders, because the shareholders have no control whatsoever. If three months down the road Erik comes and says "hey, we had a break-in, the funds are gone" then how exactly can Random Q Investor verify this claim, make sure it's not something like Vircurex pulled recently? And if Erik never comes and says thus, what's the point of the entire maneuver? In all circumstances they with the ability to prevent losses are they who must be responsible for the losses.

That such losses are not passed to shareholders was (near enough) explicitly clarified by Erik during the IPO:

b) Actually, the financial statements are better than "audited."  All the information is mathematically verifiable using the blockchain, which is public. You don't have to trust any auditor, you can audit yourself any time of day to see exactly what SatoshiDICE is making (and some have done that in other threads on this forum).

If it can't be verified by the block-chain then it can't be in the financial statements - and so can't be passed to investors (by deductions when calculating net profit).

If your claimed reason for no auditing is that it can already be done then:

1.  You don't need to have audits.
2.  You can't charge anything which investors can't verify themselves via the block-chain.

Those two points go hand-in-hand : if you want #1 you have to provide #2 (and lose the ability to pass many costs on).

A burglary (and for that matter a theft from a BTC wallet) wouldn't be allowed to be deducted anyway - as they aren't marketing or development costs: the only two categories of deduction allowed when calculating net profits.

What about if Erik just uses the secret key to win himself 200btc per day for a month, how do we audit that?

Some things can't be audited - and just have to be taken on trust.

[MPOE-PR]

What about if Erik just uses the secret key to win himself 200btc per day for a month, how do we audit that?

Well, BTC finance is still predicated on the operator being honest. That's the fundamental block of the entire edifice.

[evoorhees]

Let me step back a bit here.

My last few posts were unprofessional. I apologize for the tone. Having a bad day dealing with government bureaucracy =/

I absolutely should have disclosed that there was a betting pool, and that this pool consisted of the loan from me. The reason I did not was because I figured since there was a liability (the loan) and an asset (the 6100 btc in the wallet) the two cancelled out and needn't be mentioned. Obviously this was retarded of me. Again, I apologize. And I understand why such disclosure is so important even if the asset remains there - for situations like this!

I understand also that as a shareholder, being asked to forgo a month of dividends in order to replenish a fund which you didn't know existed is upsetting. I should have recognized this before I posted.

I'll continue with the last plan I mentioned. My dividends for June will be retained by the site for the betting pool. S.Dice holders will receive dividends as normal. I'm sorry for the drama today, I can see it was largely because of me and how I approached the issue and responded to you guys.

Back to work.

[evoorhees]

Let me step back a bit here.

My last few posts were unprofessional. I apologize for the tone. Having a bad day dealing with government bureaucracy =/

I absolutely should have disclosed that there was a betting pool, and that this pool consisted of the loan from me. The reason I did not was because I figured since there was a liability (the loan) and an asset (the 6100 btc in the wallet) the two cancelled out and needn't be mentioned. Obviously this was retarded of me. Again, I apologize. And I understand why such disclosure is so important even if the asset remains there - for situations like this!

I understand also that as a shareholder, being asked to forgo a month of dividends in order to replenish a fund which you didn't know existed is upsetting. I should have recognized this before I posted.

I'll continue with the last plan I mentioned. My dividends for June will be retained by the site for the betting pool. S.Dice holders will receive dividends as normal. I'm sorry for the drama today, I can see it was largely because of me and how I approached the issue and responded to you guys.

Back to work.

If s.dice goes into the red more than collected in the pool will you let it die or will you make a new loan? if you let it die people will come after you with pitched forks.

Also your new plan seems to be in violation of the contract. 100% has to be paid out.

Of course I wouldn't let it die.

The new plan is not in violation of anything. I can pay myself my dividend, and then send that amount to the SD wallet pool. Everyone else will get their dividends like normal, I'm just sending mine back in.

[Deprived]

Let me step back a bit here.

My last few posts were unprofessional. I apologize for the tone. Having a bad day dealing with government bureaucracy =/

I absolutely should have disclosed that there was a betting pool, and that this pool consisted of the loan from me. The reason I did not was because I figured since there was a liability (the loan) and an asset (the 6100 btc in the wallet) the two cancelled out and needn't be mentioned. Obviously this was retarded of me. Again, I apologize. And I understand why such disclosure is so important even if the asset remains there - for situations like this!

I understand also that as a shareholder, being asked to forgo a month of dividends in order to replenish a fund which you didn't know existed is upsetting. I should have recognized this before I posted.

I'll continue with the last plan I mentioned. My dividends for June will be retained by the site for the betting pool. S.Dice holders will receive dividends as normal. I'm sorry for the drama today, I can see it was largely because of me and how I approached the issue and responded to you guys.

Back to work.

If s.dice goes into the red more than collected in the pool will you let it die or will you make a new loan? if you let it die people will come after you with pitched forks.

Also your new plan seems to be in violation of the contract. 100% has to be paid out.

Of course I wouldn't let it die.

The new plan is not in violation of anything. I can pay myself my dividend, and then send that amount to the SD wallet pool. Everyone else will get their dividends like normal, I'm just sending mine back in.

What you've proposed is 100% fine - can only assume goat didn't read it correctly.

[lightbox]

Let me step back a bit here.

My last few posts were unprofessional. I apologize for the tone. Having a bad day dealing with government bureaucracy =/

I absolutely should have disclosed that there was a betting pool, and that this pool consisted of the loan from me. The reason I did not was because I figured since there was a liability (the loan) and an asset (the 6100 btc in the wallet) the two cancelled out and needn't be mentioned. Obviously this was retarded of me. Again, I apologize. And I understand why such disclosure is so important even if the asset remains there - for situations like this!

I understand also that as a shareholder, being asked to forgo a month of dividends in order to replenish a fund which you didn't know existed is upsetting. I should have recognized this before I posted.

I'll continue with the last plan I mentioned. My dividends for June will be retained by the site for the betting pool. S.Dice holders will receive dividends as normal. I'm sorry for the drama today, I can see it was largely because of me and how I approached the issue and responded to you guys.

Back to work.

If s.dice goes into the red more than collected in the pool will you let it die or will you make a new loan? if you let it die people will come after you with pitched forks.

Also your new plan seems to be in violation of the contract. 100% has to be paid out.

Of course I wouldn't let it die.

The new plan is not in violation of anything. I can pay myself my dividend, and then send that amount to the SD wallet pool. Everyone else will get their dividends like normal, I'm just sending mine back in.

So your dividend (whatever its amount) becomes a new loan? What if its not enough to run the SD betting pool? What if your dividend is, oh, say 6100BTC? (unlikely, but you never know)

SD is paying back your 6100BTC loan, just to take out another loan from you?  or you are personally GIVING SD your dividend? (that doesnt sound like a good deal for you) ?

[Abu22]

Still no GPG key for demonstablty proving the authenticity of the announcment? (Even after the first time round)

Still no word on the overdue 'announcemnt' or the various suspect arbitrary costs...Instead of answering you introduce more bad news. When are you going to address these issues.

Still no mention of why you've even hired a PR that is never present.

..And your proposed plan to recoup the 'lent' funds (That are arguably not even yours. - You got the IPO BTC, in exchange for the creation and managment of SD. A portion of those funds genereated should have gone to the payment pool as a means of enabling SD to become somewhat self sufficent. But whatever...)

You've left SD looking like this;

Reasons to use Sdice:
----------------------------------------------------------
It's the only website for gambling btc you know.
It has the largest pool / payout ability
I Love using a new age currency on the 1990s style platform.
-----------------------------------------------------------

Hypothetically, if you did get an accountant to manage that shitstorm of documents that you've made, into a professional format holding a higher level of integrity... Would you be passing this cost on despite it not falling under either development or Marketing costs. Just pointing that out before you try to...

Your last few posts also demonstrate the ability of others misunderstanding and criticisms effect on raising ones tone in posting. Please keep this in mind where you are met with it. (However yours are only due to your own oversights, so we're still not quite yet on equal footing.)

also @Chaang Noi (Goat) ช้างน้อย, Just because SD has a position of power within the MPOE does not mean they should leverage that to act above the law and common decency. Said it a few pages back... But to think that coercion is a good business model to stand upon..Just, no.

[Jonny Heggheim]

Wow lots of drama as always.

I totally understand and agree on how you view the money in the pool. I support the decision, since I have wondered why you have been giving loans on bad days (and they were only mentioned in loss carryover). Thanks for lending the money.

2 lines in assets sheet could also explain clearly:

Code:

Wallet pool:  +6100
Private loan: -6100

[Bugpowder]

Unreal.  The point of an IPO is to provide capital to run a company.

100% of the betting pool must be provided by IPO proceeds.

If not, S.DICE is just another bitcoin scam, albeit a more complex and profitable one than most.

Way to squeeze the last drop out of this lemon, Erik.

[ex-trader]

Unreal.  The point of an IPO is to provide capital to run a company.

That is not correct.

An IPO is simply the public sale of private shares. These can be:

1. Existing shares sold by owners to raise money for themselves.
2. New shares issued by the company to raise additional funds for the company.

It is often the case that an IPO consists of a mixture of both types. The exact nature is required to be clearly stated in the prospectus on a 'normal' regulated exchange.

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

Unreal.  The point of an IPO is to provide capital to run a company.

100% of the betting pool must be provided by IPO proceeds.

If not, S.DICE is just another bitcoin scam, albeit a more complex and profitable one than most.

Way to squeeze the last drop out of this lemon, Erik.

Erik was selling off his own shares, not newly issued shares.

[StarenseN]

2 lines in assets sheet could also explain clearly:

Code:

Private loan: -6100
Funds raised by IPO tier 1: +35,000

FYP