[HAVELOCK] DIRECT FUND Mining Contract Offer Starts Monday August 10th!

[skuser]

Payment once per week=less transparency=more place to 'play' with dividends. At least daily payment is absolute necessity. Hashnest pays after each found block...

[1715093879]

1715093879

[twentyseventy]

so to buy, 1th right now
1,000 GH would be $550??

with an est, monthly return right now of $81

So roughly 6.7 months on ROI.
assuming a bit of difficulty increase, let's say 7 months on the nice side.

So if nothing goes wrong. you get 5 months of profit. so maybe $400

so that's a 1.72 return.

Let's ignore the fact that blocks will half, difficulty will increase, and a crap load more power will come online.
You need to hope the price of btc increases

Or just buy $550 of bitcoin and hope it goes up.

Seems like a pretty weak investment. with high chance of 0 profit. and possibly even a loss of money?

Why would anyone do this?

Well, to be honest, it's really hard to make any profit as a small to even medium size self-miner of BTC. And, as many have found out over the years, it's very hard to make profit in Bitcoin as opposed to making profit in an asset denominated in dollars. This contract has no downside of the price moves up, as some investments do.

So, for those that want the possibility of making profit, in BTC (and as it said, possibly 72%, with difficulty and price relatively stable). Obviously, that's not a given, but it's a point of reference of why people would want to purchase these contracts.

[Phildo]

There is definitely a downside if the price goes up. If the price goes up they will be more fucked than if they bought coins today (dollars wise), and if the price goes up more people will be able to afford the electricity to run miners or have incentive to run miners which will make the difficulty go up which will make this operation make less money.

[gallery2000]

Got ripped off by  Ascicminer

[BitcoinNewsMagazine]

Fixed term mining contracts and no transparency? Thanks, but not interested.

[twentyseventy]

These things just don't make sense.

Will this hashpower generate $550k worth of bitcoin in a year? If yes, the company is stupid for making this offer, why should I trust them to maintain the miners and send all that profit back to me over the next year?

If no, you would be stupid to pay someone and they would be stupid to actually waste electricity on miners, and in competing with the rest of the miners that they own over coins mined when they can just take that pile of coins and pay back like you do with B.MINE.

You say they are transparent but they offer nothing. You say there is no conflict of interest, but every miner has a conflict of interest with every other miner by trying to sovle the same blocks and making the difficulty go up.

Fiat-wise, no one knows if this will generate $550K worth of Bitcoin in the coming year; that depends on the BTC/USD price and no one can predict that. Strictly logically, it makes sense to assume that the miners hope that the price stays the same or increases. However, if the Mining Operator can make a guaranteed profit up front (by commissioning and deploying mining equipment for a fixed cost, plus a fixed electricity cost), by selling some of it for more than its cost, then they've made a profit irrespective of the BTC price. With as much hashpower as they have, there is some hedging that they don't mind having.

Yes, every miner has a conflict of interest with all other miners, but the lessor of hashpower has no conflict of interest with those he leases his hashpower to - he simply wants to provide that defined hashpower at the least cost possible. You'll see that, in the contract, the Mining Operator is allowed to use whatever equipment they choose to provide such hashpower.

[twentyseventy]

Payment once per week=less transparency=more place to 'play' with dividends. At least daily payment is absolute necessity. Hashnest pays after each found block...

I believe that we could theoretically pay dividends every day but, honestly, it's very inefficient and time-consuming to do so (as opposed to once per week). As much as daily dividends are highly coveted in this space, it's unnecessary and overly cumbersome to institute. The Havelock BTC address will be published so that contract holders can see the BTC transfers on-chain and reference the weekly totals paid to the contract holders to verify totals.

There is definitely a downside if the price goes up. If the price goes up they will be more fucked than if they bought coins today (dollars wise), and if the price goes up more people will be able to afford the electricity to run miners or have incentive to run miners which will make the difficulty go up which will make this operation make less money.

There's certainly a downside, but you have to ask if a Mining Operation in one of the Top 5 spots would stop mining in the face of a declining price - again, they're very comfortable at $220 as that's when (price-wise) we began speaking with them. This is not a micro-operation where they could just 'buy coins' at that rate instead without moving the market, especially having meted out millions of dollars for mining equipment and infrastructure (buildings, wiring, etc).

The supply of Bitcoin miners is not perfectly or evenly relatively elastic - even a doubling in price would only cause a short-term bump in difficulty. Most mining equipment that would still be profitable at that price is already deployed. Manufacturing new mining equipment, especially at the current GH/J consumption rate is a multi-month process - it's not as if people can simply turn on the mining 'spigot' and churn out brand new profitable equipment at the drop of a hat.

Got ripped off by  Ascicminer

Sorry to hear that; this is not going to be ASICMiner again; this Organization is more reputable and more geographically distributed.

Fixed term mining contracts and no transparency? Thanks, but not interested.

Simple mining contracts (no maintenance fees or power fees) where the hashpower is real, instead of theoretical, puts the lessor and lessee of hashpower on the same side. Unlike Perpetual Mining Bond of Bitcoin-past, this contract doesn't pit the contract issuer against the contract purchaser. I do apologize that we can't release the name of the Mining Operator until the first block of contracts (initial offering ) is inked, but I can again say that they're in the Top 5 of all Miners. Please feel free to check this list out at www.blockchain.info/pools

Thanks for investigating the offering, even if you do end up staying on the sidelines-

[Phildo]

These things just don't make sense.

Will this hashpower generate $550k worth of bitcoin in a year? If yes, the company is stupid for making this offer, why should I trust them to maintain the miners and send all that profit back to me over the next year?

If no, you would be stupid to pay someone and they would be stupid to actually waste electricity on miners, and in competing with the rest of the miners that they own over coins mined when they can just take that pile of coins and pay back like you do with B.MINE.

You say they are transparent but they offer nothing. You say there is no conflict of interest, but every miner has a conflict of interest with every other miner by trying to sovle the same blocks and making the difficulty go up.

Fiat-wise, no one knows if this will generate $550K worth of Bitcoin in the coming year; that depends on the BTC/USD price and no one can predict that. Strictly logically, it makes sense to assume that the miners hope that the price stays the same or increases. However, if the Mining Operator can make a guaranteed profit up front (by commissioning and deploying mining equipment for a fixed cost, plus a fixed electricity cost), by selling some of it for more than its cost, then they've made a profit irrespective of the BTC price. With as much hashpower as they have, there is some hedging that they don't mind having.

Yes, every miner has a conflict of interest with all other miners, but the lessor of hashpower has no conflict of interest with those he leases his hashpower to - he simply wants to provide that defined hashpower at the least cost possible. You'll see that, in the contract, the Mining Operator is allowed to use whatever equipment they choose to provide such hashpower.

If you don't return to me 1 BTC or more for every 1 BTC I give you I am in a worse position fiat wise than I would be if i had nothing, no matter what the btc/usd exchange rate.

That is the comparison people need to make. It's not the same as saying "I should have night apple stock instead of X 20 years ago," that is an actual decision. If you do not return the amount of coins you are given you are a worse "investment" than literally doing nothing.

Once people realize that and stop subsidizing miners via stuff like this and preorders to scumbag companies mining might make sense again.

[twentyseventy]

If you don't return to me 1 BTC or more for every 1 BTC I give you I am in a worse position fiat wise than I would be if i had nothing, no matter what the btc/usd exchange rate.

Yes, I absolutely agree to this point - the factors that affect this outcome are change in BTC/USD rate, change in difficulty, and (obviously) the Mining Operator holding up their end of the bargain. I'm in no way saying that profit is guaranteed here - no one can know how BTC/USD rate and difficulty will change in the next year.

Overall, people will always want to try their hand a mining - it's one of very few ways to possibly profit in BTC as opposed to profiting in Fiat. This this offering was designed to be the simplest, easiest way to do so with the greatest opportunity of profit (not guarantee). There's a defined time period (nothing Perpetual, or needing 'reinvestment); no maintenance, power, or electricity fees; and an exit available (selling onto the open market) at any time.

[mrcashking]

Dangerous game, Im not playing. Havelock has proven to have issues in the past and mining has the worst issues I ever seen. It's like a match made in heaven.

[mrcashking]

So that's it. Now we got a dead thread over here?

[Phildo]

If you don't return to me 1 BTC or more for every 1 BTC I give you I am in a worse position fiat wise than I would be if i had nothing, no matter what the btc/usd exchange rate.

Yes, I absolutely agree to this point - the factors that affect this outcome are change in BTC/USD rate, change in difficulty, and (obviously) the Mining Operator holding up their end of the bargain. I'm in no way saying that profit is guaranteed here - no one can know how BTC/USD rate and difficulty will change in the next year.

Overall, people will always want to try their hand a mining - it's one of very few ways to possibly profit in BTC as opposed to profiting in Fiat. This this offering was designed to be the simplest, easiest way to do so with the greatest opportunity of profit (not guarantee). There's a defined time period (nothing Perpetual, or needing 'reinvestment); no maintenance, power, or electricity fees; and an exit available (selling onto the open market) at any time.

"trying their hand at mining" is dumb. There are 2 reasons to mine, get bitcoins, secure the network. These miners are already running, paying an unnamed person won't help there, so the only reason is to get bitcoins. It doesn't make sense to "try mining" via someone else's miner unless you will get more bitcoins than you can get from the market, and if that were the case it wouldn't make sense for that person to let you try. As soon as everyone realizes this the hashrate and price will stabilize to something that makes sense.

[lumeire]

We're playing over dangerous waters over here, AMHash got us fried real bad.

[twentyseventy]

So that's it. Now we got a dead thread over here?

I'm happy to answer any questions about the offering of the offering structure.

"trying their hand at mining" is dumb. There are 2 reasons to mine, get bitcoins, secure the network. These miners are already running, paying an unnamed person won't help there, so the only reason is to get bitcoins. It doesn't make sense to "try mining" via someone else's miner unless you will get more bitcoins than you can get from the market, and if that were the case it wouldn't make sense for that person to let you try. As soon as everyone realizes this the hashrate and price will stabilize to something that makes sense.

I think this is an opportunity for the Mining Operator to hedge their exchange rate risk by accepting a certain amount of guaranteed fiat in advance. This way they can lock in some profit (fiat-wise) and retain additional capital for future infrastructure investments.

[twentyseventy]

DIRECT Offering begins at 1PM 2PM Eastern Daylight Time Today!

Offering price has been updated to reflect $0.55 per unit at the most current Coinapult rate of $264.18

Offering Start Date: Monday, August 10th at 1PM EDT (5PM GMT)
Offering End Date: Monday, August 24th at 1PM EDT (5PM GMT) or until Sold Out

Units Offered: 1,000,000 (Equivalent to 1GH/s per Unit)

Offering Price: $0.55 per Unit, in BTC = .00208192 BTC

Link: https://www.havelockinvestments.com/fund.php?symbol=DIRECT

Public Offering: Link TBD

Reports: https://www.havelockinvestments.com/reports.php



Please let me know if you have any questions about the offering or the listing!

[twentyseventy]

Apologies to everyone for the delayed start; I had incorrectly input the start/ending date for the public offering-

Offering will begin at 2PM - thanks for your patience!

EDIT: Offering is up! Thanks to our early purchases and please ask any questions here, or email at directhash@gmail.com

[masdaq]

Thanks to our early purchases

This sort of thing is never easy for me, might as well get it over with...

http://s11.postimg.org/nva18x49v/Capture.png

[Phildo]

So that's it. Now we got a dead thread over here?

I'm happy to answer any questions about the offering of the offering structure.

"trying their hand at mining" is dumb. There are 2 reasons to mine, get bitcoins, secure the network. These miners are already running, paying an unnamed person won't help there, so the only reason is to get bitcoins. It doesn't make sense to "try mining" via someone else's miner unless you will get more bitcoins than you can get from the market, and if that were the case it wouldn't make sense for that person to let you try. As soon as everyone realizes this the hashrate and price will stabilize to something that makes sense.

I think this is an opportunity for the Mining Operator to hedge their exchange rate risk by accepting a certain amount of guaranteed fiat in advance. This way they can lock in some profit (fiat-wise) and retain additional capital for future infrastructure investments.

All great reasons for the still unnamed for no reason mining operator to offer this and terrible reasons for people to buy it. What are these guys going to do when all the people that can't do math run out of money?

[Blazed]

Thanks to our early purchases

This sort of thing is never easy for me, might as well get it over with...

Was wondering when you would show up and post some pics.

[pedrog]

So, after seeing 23 BTC market cap become 17 BTC market cap (and not having any clue how this could happen during an IPO), clicked on  "order book" & got even more confused.

Anyone make heads or tails of this?  (multiple bid prices, multiple ask prices, last buy @ ,00150003 not 0.00208192)

Someone sold 1 share for 0.00150002 just to reflect on market cap, market cap is based on last trade.

But you're right, trading shouldn't be enable while initial offering is available.