SCAM IPO [Bakewell] - Finally, a 'transparent' investment that will 'grow'!

[niko]

I see we're now at 5006 in the wild!

When do we expect to have our first rig up and running?

Also, does anyone else think it may be a good idea to have a spreadsheet documenting where money is spent and recieved from?

Sure, a spreadsheet would be nice. I'd be happy with a general biweekly report stating income from btc mined and sales of equipment, and payouts and various expenses. No need for details. In case you are concerned whether we are getting good deals, get in touch with Ian with questions and suggestions.

[1714793298]

1714793298

[1714793298]

1714793298

[johnjay3000]

I see we're now at 5006 in the wild!

When do we expect to have our first rig up and running?

Also, does anyone else think it may be a good idea to have a spreadsheet documenting where money is spent and recieved from?

Sure, a spreadsheet would be nice. I'd be happy with a general biweekly report stating income from btc mined and sales of equipment, and payouts and various expenses. No need for details. In case you are concerned whether we are getting good deals, get in touch with Ian with questions and suggestions.

Yeah what you're describing sounds good, it is more just my curiosity, not that I don't trust Ian.

[Carnth]

hopefully I get to go shopping this weekend.
Looks like when it is all said and done we will have around $4k CAD to put into gear.

This has got to be one of the fun parts of managing a mining asset... getting to spend thousands on equipment.
Have fun, and make us proud.
Don't forget to wheel and deal a little. Ask the manager for discounts if you spend more than X thousand. The worst that can happen is that they say "no."

[silverbox]

So have you bought any gear yet?  Paid any dividends?

What are you planning on buying a couple boxes with 2 7970s in them?

Puts you at ~2.6Ghash?

Thats about  6 BTC a week, half paid as a dividend to shareholders.  3 BTC spread over 5000 shares @ .125 each 625 BTC, thats about 0.5% per week.  With no ASIC gear on order.

Wow, I didn't realize how light the payout is when the operater doesn't put any gear in to start the company.

[Carnth]

[snip entire argumentative statement from competing mining company operator]

 

[silverbox]

[snip entire argumentative statement from competing mining company operator]

 

Ian knows why that statement is there, in the future please don't come to my companies thread and talk trash or I'll be here to talk trash in yours.

[niko]

So have you bought any gear yet?  Paid any dividends?

What are you planning on buying a couple boxes with 2 7970s in them?

Puts you at ~2.6Ghash?

Thats about  6 BTC a week, half paid as a dividend to shareholders.  3 BTC spread over 5000 shares @ .125 each 625 BTC, thats about 0.5% per week.  With no ASIC gear on order.

Wow, I didn't realize how light the payout is when the operater doesn't put any gear in to start the company.

If I had a gear to put in I would be mining for myself. The whole point of Bakewell is to pool resources and start a mining operation, with reasonable transparency and a clear plan regarding the transition to ASICs.

[snip entire argumentative statement from competing mining company operator]

 

Ian knows why that statement is there, in the future please don't come to my companies thread and talk trash or I'll be here to talk trash in yours.

Oh, okay. Nevermind.

[Deprived]

You asked for any suggestions I had - so here gos.

First off, just resetting the price (as you propose) would have exactly the wrong result.  The price CAN'T go over 0.15 because of the ceiling - so what your proposal does is guarantee that the price of shares wll progressively fall.  That's not something your investors are going to like too much  - remember that a lowered price per share for further issues has a double-whammy effect on existing investors:

1.  It locks them into a loss on their share value.,
2.  For each new piece of equipment you buy more shares have to be sold (as the price/share is lower) - meaning their portion of dividends gets diluted more than hashing power increases.

What you need to do is give prices a chance to rise - and the key to that is patience.  So here's my suggestion (only a quick sketch of it - as it's 4.00am and I need to head to bed shortly):

Remove further new shares from the market other than sufficient to buy your next rig.  Once those have sold, no new ones will be made available immediately.

Let the price adjust itself.  If/when that price settles above 0.15 for some significant amount of time then announce that the next block of shares will be made available in a week (or whatever time-scale).  That block should be sufficient to buy your next rig (i.e. the cost of it less any portion of mining income reserved for expansion).  At the predefined time/date you sell that block into the market at 0.15.  Any pre-orders above .15 would of course get filled first.  That surplus above 0.15 could be put towards expansion or dividended out to all share-holders post-sale.

How does this help?

1.  The price can rise above 0.15.  That removes one of the current problems - tha tanyone buying shares KNOWS WITH CERTAINTY that if they ever need to liquidate (in the foreseeable future) they're guaranteed to take a loss doing it (not strictly true for those who bulk-purchased).
2.  A lot of investors like the possibility of buying shares in an IPO then selling them afterwards for a profit.  At present that's impossible.  This gives a window in which profts can be taken.
3.  If even a single share sells on issue at above 0.15 then existing investors have gained from it.  Rewarding your early investors is always a good idea.

In essence you need to reduce/regulate supply so the market can set a price.  If that price happens to be below 0.15 then the simple truth is that you wouldn't have sold much more even if you'd left the Ask-wall up.  Already I see some slightly lower asks going up - and that is BOUND to continue if things don't change: as there's nowhere someone who wants to sell can price an ask except below 0.15.  What about new investors who would have bought shares if you left the wall up?  They'd be buying off current investors at below 0.15 right now - with the wall gone (albeit temproarily) there's at least a cahnce those trades will occur above 0.15.  WHich doesn't directly help you sell MORE shares - but at a minimum is more encouraging for current investors.

Let the market show you whether/when there's demand for more shares at 0.15 (or above) - if you see the demand there then fill it.  If there's not the demand then the Ask-wall does nothing anyway.

[zapeta]

I was thinking that with the x% gain, the overall ceiling would be raised.
However I do see it could get really bad if a few of those .00001 sells hit in a low liquidity time, mucking the average.
Not ideal at all. got it.

"In essence you need to reduce/regulate supply so the market can set a price"
Understood.

I like the idea you have. We are already broken up into sections of 2500 right now, this fits with that.

Thank you for the contribution, I am eager to see what the others have to say

I think limiting the amount of shares is a great idea.  There are several mining operations that have left a huge ask-wall up, and prices have only dropped.  The operations which have had a more controlled release of shares have seemed to at least maintain prices.

[Deprived]

Yeah - it may seem counterintuitive, but having an ask-wall up all the time will sell less shares than only having it up occasionally.  I believe there's a few reasons for this:

1.  The huge wall looks insurmountable - it gives the impression that the company has run into a brick-wall.  If the potential invstor hasn't read the whole thread (and most don't - as evidenced by the total junk people invest in) then they may get the impression nothing will happen until all have sold.
2.  There's no urgency for potential investors to but with a huge wall - they know it'll still be there tomorrow/next week.
3.  The wall totally prevents investment for short-term speculation, immediately ruling out an entire class of investors.

[markm]

Maybe a special IPO Mode would be a useful feature in an exchange?

Set an IPO period, a week or however long you want.

Have the underwriters buy the shares, so the company knows it is getting the capital it is asking for as that is part of what underwriters do / what underwriters are for.

Set IPO mode with IPO price, so no offers less than IPO price can be made.

Then the underwriters sell into the market so people who only offered the flat IPO price might not even get any as people more eager might outbid them for all the shares.

Once the IPO period is over, the floor on offers is removed and its market-as-usual.

If people think the IPO is overpriced they can simply sit out the IPO period and put in lowball offers once normal trading commences.

-MarkM-

[markm]

Maybe treat each next rig as a separate company, so no dilution of current shares?

Administrative overhead though.

Barring that maybe patience has to be it. Demonstrate the awesomeness of the company and part with shares only when good offers are made, content to chug along forever as a one-rig company if one rig is all the initial sale of shares sufficed to finance...

(Me I am a one-GPU company and have been for over a year, Interested in financing an expansion of my operation? )

-MarkM-

[Bitcoin Oz]

I never sold all the shares of BitcoinRS either so i simply pulled them from the market and only sell when theres bids at the IPO price or higher. This has allowed some people to make a small profit.

Never sell your remaining shares below IPO price and try to keep a regular dividend schedule.

Theres  been a few people who have sold down their initial shares and screwed over their investors. See the DMC thread 

[Carnth]

(tho the builder told me offhand I would be his monday build and he'll call me)

You could not build yourself?  I'm just asking, I don't know your technical skill, but I thought (ASSumed) you could build the rigs yourself.
That could have saved $70 * 2 = $140
Plus would make a great weekend project. And hashing would start sooner.


Expense on Windows 7  and on SSD = blah  . Yes it adds to resell, but not needed for mining.

[MrTeal]

That fair, but for $400 than you spent on one system you could purchase a 5x7970 rig from Newegg that would hash more and would probably resell just as well. I think you're underestimating how hard it's going to be to sell a dozen 7970 CF rigs into a market like Edmonton. I would guess that you would be better off for speed resale going with high density, and then parting out and selling later.

[niko]

I didn't go through the whole shopping list, but the cards and power supply sell at the same price from vuugo - but you'd wait and pay for shipping, and get only manufacturers' warranties. So, it seems to me that overall this was a good deal.

[MrTeal]

Also, $460 is simply too much to pay for a 7970 these days, even a GE. Memory Express actually has a vanilla 7970 on sale right now for $340 plus a $15MIR, even if those don't really factor in for bulk purchases like this. It's OOS online, but I've seen it go down to that level every couple weeks. I know you want to get hashing right now, but even with free electricity a 7970 will only get you about $3/day.

You might want to consider not waiting until you have 2500 shares sold to do each rig purchase. I know selling gaming computers seems like a nice idea, but I really think you'll have a tough time averaging even $1400 when you go to sell them. If that was the case, you'd need to mine at current difficulty and price for 100 days just to pay $600 in depriciation per rig.

If you want immediate dividends, I'd really consider buying used mining rigs. At current prices $2000 could pretty easily find two used open air 5x5870 rigs that would do 2GH/s each and would likely maintain their value in resale much better. It's just too late in the GPU mining game to be paying the penalty to drive new hardware off the lot.

[Puppet]

The "insurance" was a bad idea.

I know Ian did it in good faith and to inspire confidence, so I am not writing this as a stab against him, but think it through; any funds that are held by Usagi can not be used by Ian to grow Bakewell and will not produce any ROI, nor interest for  anyone (except possibly Usagi, should he manage not to squander them).

Therefore, its no different than when you as an investor would buy proportionally less shares, and keep the rest in your own wallet in "escrow". Why would you want usagi to do that for you? Because that is the only difference,  if they are in your own wallet, they are safe or you can chose to use them whenever you want. Now those coins are Usagi's, you wont have access to them until 2013 and my guess is you will never see them back.

Ian so far has been as open as he can be, he is fully verified at GLBSE and while Im not convinced of the profitability of mining,  I would trust him 10x more to take proper care of my investment than I would trust the GLBSE unverified and almost certainly scamming Usagi who has already proven that his CPA insurance will not honor its contracts when he feels like it (see BMF saga).

So, I would urge investors to vote for this motion; dont force Ian to throw your money away on a scam, and keep in mind that usagi has a non trivial position in BAKEWELL and you can guess how he will vote.

[niko]

The motion is available for voting on GLBSE, and it expires on October 1st. I also urge everyone to vote.

[LoweryCBS]

The motion is available for voting on GLBSE, and it expires on October 1st. I also urge everyone to vote.

I am against continuing the insurance, and in favor of closing the CPA account.

Does this mean I vote YES, or NO, on the motion?