Bitcoin Forum
November 20, 2019, 09:58:11 PM *
News: Help collect the most notable posts made over the last 10 years.
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  

Warning: Moderators do not remove likely scams. You must use your own brain: caveat emptor. Watch out for Ponzi schemes. Do not invest more than you can afford to lose.

Warning: One or more bitcointalk.org users have reported that they strongly believe that the creator of this topic is a scammer. (Login to see the detailed trust ratings.) While the bitcointalk.org administration does not verify such claims, you should proceed with extreme caution.
Pages: « 1 [2]  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Gauging interest: PuppyBear bearish investment fund  (Read 2333 times)
Deprived
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


View Profile
September 29, 2012, 04:46:18 PM
 #21

What time-zone are those time-stamps in?  Would be interested to see when that is relative to this (and MP's thread on a similar topic) being made.

Would also be interested to hear what Puppet has to say.

LOL, its micrea who just copy/pasted it from my post. I dont even use IRC.

That's why I asked about time-zone - as one pretty obvious interpretation of Mirceau's irc chat was that he was intentionally quoting from this thread, then his next line was commenting (in a joky fashion) that you were stealing his idea.

I don't take anything usagi says at face value.  I was also accused by it of being an account made on mirceau's behalf in early august this year.  Despite the FACT that my account wasn't even created this year - let alone in the week that it alleged.
The Bitcoin Forum is turning 10 years old! Join the community in sharing and exploring the notable posts made over the years.
1574287091
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1574287091

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1574287091
Reply with quote  #2

1574287091
Report to moderator
kuzetsa
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 369
Merit: 250


View Profile
September 29, 2012, 05:03:38 PM
 #22

I'd be willing to sell put options on NASTY shares at the IPO price if you were interested in taking a short position.

Angry As a shareholder, all I have to say is:

thefuq are you talking about?

What will this do for the value / further dilution of my shares, etc.

Sure hope you don't plan to do something like this without first putting it up to a vote.
Sorry i did not understand the dilution part:
((...snip...))
Maybe I missunderstood you?
But taking a short position on NASTY should work, because I think the liquidity is too limited currently, therefore I don't think it would be a good idea for OgNasty.

It's like I was telling OGNasty the other day on IRC:

"I'm new to such things. only ever had a broker manage my stuff prior to bitcoin"

As such, I don't understand this "short" thingy? All I saw here in the post was:

"... something something something I'll sell for cheap ..."

Which I might have misunderstood?

And by diluting shares, I meant the value / dividends would be less if there are more outstanding shares because of this sale. Currently only about 7000 outstanding shares but if even another 3000 were sold there would be less dividend payment per share. Nothing more was meant by "dilution" than the common use.

MPOE-PR
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 756
Merit: 500



View Profile
September 29, 2012, 06:10:30 PM
 #23

What time-zone are those time-stamps in?  Would be interested to see when that is relative to this (and MP's thread on a similar topic) being made.

Would also be interested to hear what Puppet has to say.

LOL, its micrea who just copy/pasted it from my post. I dont even use IRC.

That's why I asked about time-zone - as one pretty obvious interpretation of Mirceau's irc chat was that he was intentionally quoting from this thread, then his next line was commenting (in a joky fashion) that you were stealing his idea.

I don't take anything usagi says at face value.  I was also accused by it of being an account made on mirceau's behalf in early august this year.  Despite the FACT that my account wasn't even created this year - let alone in the week that it alleged.

Mr P. sez: Indeed the quote was from this thread, and indeed the comment was mostly humorous.

My Credentials  | THE BTC Stock Exchange | I have my very own anthology! | Use bitcointa.lk, it's like this one but better.
Deprived
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


View Profile
September 29, 2012, 06:13:38 PM
 #24

I'd be willing to sell put options on NASTY shares at the IPO price if you were interested in taking a short position.

Angry As a shareholder, all I have to say is:

thefuq are you talking about?

What will this do for the value / further dilution of my shares, etc.

Sure hope you don't plan to do something like this without first putting it up to a vote.
Sorry i did not understand the dilution part:
((...snip...))
Maybe I missunderstood you?
But taking a short position on NASTY should work, because I think the liquidity is too limited currently, therefore I don't think it would be a good idea for OgNasty.

It's like I was telling OGNasty the other day on IRC:

"I'm new to such things. only ever had a broker manage my stuff prior to bitcoin"

As such, I don't understand this "short" thingy? All I saw here in the post was:

"... something something something I'll sell for cheap ..."

Which I might have misunderstood?

And by diluting shares, I meant the value / dividends would be less if there are more outstanding shares because of this sale. Currently only about 7000 outstanding shares but if even another 3000 were sold there would be less dividend payment per share. Nothing more was meant by "dilution" than the common use.



If OGNasty entered into either selling a short OR a PUT option then it would have no effect on number of outstanding shares.

Easiest way to ythink of it is that it's a bet (below is very simplified) -

OGNasty bets that NASTY shares hold their value, the other side bets that they lose value.
It's really nothing more than that.

Only risk to shareholders is that someone shorts the share then tries to talk the price down.  But if there's nothing wrong with the share then:

a)  It probably won't work,
b)  IF it does drop (and there's nothing wrong) then those who aren't misled get to buy more for cheap.

And there's no need for shorters to try to talk down targets anyway - why try to talk down a decent share when there's plenty of bad ones you can short and let collapse on their own without any need for interference?

So if it happens there's no real issue for shareholders - and, in any event, it's not gonna happen anyway.  OGNasty's post was more of an "I dare you to bet against me" than an offer he'd have had any expectation of being accepted.
Puppet
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980
Merit: 1008


View Profile
September 29, 2012, 06:14:12 PM
 #25

As such, I don't understand this "short" thingy? All I saw here in the post was:

When you short an asset (or sell it short), you sell an asset that you do not own, but that you borrowed from someone else.

Assume you have a share in company X, and I think the market price for that share will drop, and you think it wont;  I could ask you to lend it to me for some time; we agree on minimum and maximum terms, I pay you a fee it, and then I can sell the share at the current high price, and some time later, I will buy it back (at a lower price hopefully) and return the share to you. Its simply a bet the price will fall. As the short seller, my potential profit is the difference between sell and buy price (minus your fees) and it can never be bigger than the asset value, ie when the price would drop to zero and I could buy it back for free.  My risk however, when unhedged is in theory unlimited, since the price of the asset could go arbitrarily high.

A put option works similarly, but its a contract between buyer and seller that doesnt necessarily involve a transfer of the asset. There is also a difference in risk and potential profits; the risk to the buyer of the put option (who bets on a price drop) is limited to the premium paid to the seller. If the buyer loses his bet, and the price does not drop below the strike price, his option becomes worthless, but thats it. His potential profit is limited to the difference between current price and the agreed strike price.

eck, I see deprived posted while I typed..
dust
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 840
Merit: 1000



View Profile WWW
September 29, 2012, 06:25:15 PM
 #26

This is a great idea.  I too suspect that the GLBSE has overall been a huge transfer of wealth from investors to asset issuers and scammers.

Cryptocoin Mining Info | OTC | PGP | Twitter | freenode: dust-otc | BTC: 1F6fV4U2xnpAuKtmQD6BWpK3EuRosKzF8U
OgNasty
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3108
Merit: 1741


I 💚 Bitcoin


View Profile
September 29, 2012, 06:56:47 PM
 #27

If OgNasty entered into either selling a short OR a PUT option then it would have no effect on number of outstanding shares.

Easiest way to think of it is that it's a bet (below is very simplified) -

OgNasty bets that NASTY shares hold their value, the other side bets that they lose value.
It's really nothing more than that.

This is a good explanation.  Me willing to sell PUT options is only a bet that the share price is currently undervalued, and it's a bet I would be making with my own funds.  The only effect it should have on shareholders, is to inspire confidence that I'm willing to bet the share price will go up.

MPOE-PR
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 756
Merit: 500



View Profile
September 29, 2012, 07:18:55 PM
 #28

This is a great idea.  I too suspect that the GLBSE has overall been a huge transfer of wealth from investors to asset issuers and scammers.



18 months and counting!

If OgNasty entered into either selling a short OR a PUT option then it would have no effect on number of outstanding shares.

Easiest way to think of it is that it's a bet (below is very simplified) -

OgNasty bets that NASTY shares hold their value, the other side bets that they lose value.
It's really nothing more than that.

This is a good explanation.  Me willing to sell PUT options is only a bet that the share price is currently undervalued, and it's a bet I would be making with my own funds.  The only effect it should have on shareholders, is to inspire confidence that I'm willing to bet the share price will go up.

The problem with your theory is: if you had the money available to cover this bet it would make sense for you to buy back your own shares (or, if your normal business allows, expend more capital to expand it at the same ROI level). If you aren't buying back your shares it's likely you don't have the money (it's also possible you're not thinking things through, obviously).

If you don't have the money available you'd be writing what are essentially naked options, which you (in spite of what you might think) aren't either qualified (intellectually) or prepared (financially) to do. I know, I know, it's easy to think you're a big kahuna in BTC finance based on forum circlejerking. So thought kludge, so thought Rosenfeld, so thought all sorts of people who are now selling their cars & wives to cover for their inept dealings.

As others, as well as I, have pointed out to you: buying puts from the underlying owner makes zero sense. If you default they're useless and if you don't default they're useless.

My Credentials  | THE BTC Stock Exchange | I have my very own anthology! | Use bitcointa.lk, it's like this one but better.
Pages: « 1 [2]  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!