[BitFunder] My name is Bond. MPOE Bond. ( Jan: 9.99%, Feb: 4.8% Mar: -23%)

[Bugpowder]

Very interesting how February interest rate unfolded, it is possible market reacted to our announcement to set our request to 4.8%, despite MPBPT-E was among smallest players. So this time we will announce it only after bond will be bought.

At the moment 178.2 BTC was raised in MPBPT-O for March bonds, bid still open till tomorrow evening.

Doubtful.  The total exposure was MUCH less this month, so the higher interest rates never triggered.

7`155.47 BTC max exposure this month vs 60`807.41 BTC max last month.

[1715225436]

1715225436

[1715225436]

1715225436

[1715225436]

1715225436

[1715225436]

1715225436

[1715225436]

1715225436

[rini17]

Very interesting how February interest rate unfolded, it is possible market reacted to our announcement to set our request to 4.8%, despite MPBPT-E was among smallest players. So this time we will announce it only after bond will be bought.

At the moment 178.2 BTC was raised in MPBPT-O for March bonds, bid still open till tomorrow evening.

Doubtful.  The total exposure was MUCH less this month, so the higher interest rates never triggered.

7`155.47 BTC max exposure this month vs 60`807.41 BTC max last month.

Of course, but of these 7155.47 BTC only 100 was from MPBPT-E. There were plenty of others that could have decided to request any other interest rate, not exactly 4.8%. Quite a coincidence, don't you think?

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

Very interesting how February interest rate unfolded, it is possible market reacted to our announcement to set our request to 4.8%, despite MPBPT-E was among smallest players. So this time we will announce it only after bond will be bought.

At the moment 178.2 BTC was raised in MPBPT-O for March bonds, bid still open till tomorrow evening.

Doubtful.  The total exposure was MUCH less this month, so the higher interest rates never triggered.

7`155.47 BTC max exposure this month vs 60`807.41 BTC max last month.

Of course, but of these 7155.47 BTC only 100 was from MPBPT-E. There were plenty of others that could have decided to request any other interest rate, not exactly 4.8%. Quite a coincidence, don't you think?

The coins needed stopped at your 100 BTC @ 4.8%. The people who chose 4.9% didn't get their coins used. People didn't magically decide to copy your interest rate, it just stopped there. If MPOE needed some more bitcoins then the rate will be 4.9% or 5% or whatever.

You got lucky cause if you set it any bit higher you'd get 0% returns.

Anyway, not a good sign if you don't even comprehend how it works..

[rini17]

Very interesting how February interest rate unfolded, it is possible market reacted to our announcement to set our request to 4.8%, despite MPBPT-E was among smallest players. So this time we will announce it only after bond will be bought.

At the moment 178.2 BTC was raised in MPBPT-O for March bonds, bid still open till tomorrow evening.

Doubtful.  The total exposure was MUCH less this month, so the higher interest rates never triggered.

7`155.47 BTC max exposure this month vs 60`807.41 BTC max last month.

Of course, but of these 7155.47 BTC only 100 was from MPBPT-E. There were plenty of others that could have decided to request any other interest rate, not exactly 4.8%. Quite a coincidence, don't you think?

The coins needed stopped at your 100 BTC @ 4.8%. The people who chose 4.9% didn't get their coins used. People didn't magically decide to copy your interest rate, it just stopped there. If MPOE needed some more bitcoins then the rate will be 4.9% or 5% or whatever.

You got lucky cause if you set it any bit higher you'd get 0% returns.

Anyway, not a good sign if you don't even comprehend how it works..

What were the odds for exactly this to happen,considering that in the past most bondholders went somewhere between 4.9 - 5%, not 4.8? I think it was certainly something for me to comment on. And what were the odds of other bondholders watching this thread and getting influenced, no magic involved?

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

Very interesting how February interest rate unfolded, it is possible market reacted to our announcement to set our request to 4.8%, despite MPBPT-E was among smallest players. So this time we will announce it only after bond will be bought.

At the moment 178.2 BTC was raised in MPBPT-O for March bonds, bid still open till tomorrow evening.

Doubtful.  The total exposure was MUCH less this month, so the higher interest rates never triggered.

7`155.47 BTC max exposure this month vs 60`807.41 BTC max last month.

Of course, but of these 7155.47 BTC only 100 was from MPBPT-E. There were plenty of others that could have decided to request any other interest rate, not exactly 4.8%. Quite a coincidence, don't you think?

The coins needed stopped at your 100 BTC @ 4.8%. The people who chose 4.9% didn't get their coins used. People didn't magically decide to copy your interest rate, it just stopped there. If MPOE needed some more bitcoins then the rate will be 4.9% or 5% or whatever.

You got lucky cause if you set it any bit higher you'd get 0% returns.

Anyway, not a good sign if you don't even comprehend how it works..

What were the odds for exactly this to happen,considering that in the past most bondholders went somewhere between 4.9 - 5%, not 4.8? I think it was certainly something for me to comment on. And what were the odds of other bondholders watching this thread and getting influenced, no magic involved?

It's possible that nobody else put up at 4.8%.

It just STOPPED at 4.8%, because that's how much coins MPOE needed this month.

That doesn't mean anyone else has put it at 4.8%, nor anyone else listened to you..

[Deprived]

Very interesting how February interest rate unfolded, it is possible market reacted to our announcement to set our request to 4.8%, despite MPBPT-E was among smallest players. So this time we will announce it only after bond will be bought.

At the moment 178.2 BTC was raised in MPBPT-O for March bonds, bid still open till tomorrow evening.

Doubtful.  The total exposure was MUCH less this month, so the higher interest rates never triggered.

7`155.47 BTC max exposure this month vs 60`807.41 BTC max last month.

Of course, but of these 7155.47 BTC only 100 was from MPBPT-E. There were plenty of others that could have decided to request any other interest rate, not exactly 4.8%. Quite a coincidence, don't you think?

The coins needed stopped at your 100 BTC @ 4.8%. The people who chose 4.9% didn't get their coins used. People didn't magically decide to copy your interest rate, it just stopped there. If MPOE needed some more bitcoins then the rate will be 4.9% or 5% or whatever.

You got lucky cause if you set it any bit higher you'd get 0% returns.

Anyway, not a good sign if you don't even comprehend how it works..

What were the odds for exactly this to happen,considering that in the past most bondholders went somewhere between 4.9 - 5%, not 4.8? I think it was certainly something for me to comment on. And what were the odds of other bondholders watching this thread and getting influenced, no magic involved?

The conspiracy theory breaks down as the information would only be useful IF the people using it could predict what demand for bonds would be.  Setting it at 4.8% if demand was for a higher quantity would be potentially giving up on cash, similarly if demand was lower then they wouldn't get anything.  Though it is a bit of a coincidence that it ended on exactly that - either yours was highest bond paid or someone else DID choose 4.8%.  It makes no sense for someone to pick 4.8% because you did - 4.799% makes far more sense.

I'm a bit puzzled why you picked 4.8% anyway.  Are you really SURE that if the final rate ended up at 4.7% your investors would prefer to get nothing than risk their capital?  Because that's what setting a rate of 4.8% means - that you'd rather not invest than take any lower.

I'd have thought you should just be setting your rate at somewhere around 2% - so investors funds get used any time it'll cover your premium + the max 1% selling fee.

[rini17]

The conspiracy theory breaks down as the information would only be useful IF the people using it could predict what demand for bonds would be.  Setting it at 4.8% if demand was for a higher quantity would be potentially giving up on cash, similarly if demand was lower then they wouldn't get anything.  Though it is a bit of a coincidence that it ended on exactly that - either yours was highest bond paid or someone else DID choose 4.8%.  It makes no sense for someone to pick 4.8% because you did - 4.799% makes far more sense.

I'm a bit puzzled why you picked 4.8% anyway.  Are you really SURE that if the final rate ended up at 4.7% your investors would prefer to get nothing than risk their capital?  Because that's what setting a rate of 4.8% means - that you'd rather not invest than take any lower.

I'd have thought you should just be setting your rate at somewhere around 2% - so investors funds get used any time it'll cover your premium + the max 1% selling fee.

We had seen MPBOR for previous months consistently end up in the 4.9-9.9% range (please note that MPBOR can be different than net result - like November MPBOR was 9.9%, but net result was a loss), so decided going just a notch lower is pretty safe. Looks like we did indeed risk our bond being unused, although without MPOE revealing the distribution it's hard to tell. We'll heed this warning.

I am not trying to get into conspiration theories. Just thinking maybe we inadvertently provided other bondholders a number to latch on.

[rini17]

March bond overview:
2046 MPBPT-O shares sold = 204.6 BTC investment made as follows:

Bond 1
Desired premium : 2.9 %
Amount:117.1 BTC

Bond 2
Desired premium : 4.69 %
Amount:87.5 BTC (plus 12.5 BTC CoinBr own investment, total 100BTC)

If only first bond gets used, CoinBr own investment will be excluded from dividend payment and the result will be computed for all shares:
(117.1 + bond 1 net gain + 87.5)/204.6 BTC. That would mean over 1.6% MPBPT net result in case MPBOR ends up at 2.9%. But as thousands of MPOE options sold already and there are strong expectations both bullish and bearish that both support option trade, it's unlikely for this worst case to happen. (Of course, there's also the worst worst case MPOE will lose as a whole, but that won't be affected much by our desired premiums).

[Deprived]

The conspiracy theory breaks down as the information would only be useful IF the people using it could predict what demand for bonds would be.  Setting it at 4.8% if demand was for a higher quantity would be potentially giving up on cash, similarly if demand was lower then they wouldn't get anything.  Though it is a bit of a coincidence that it ended on exactly that - either yours was highest bond paid or someone else DID choose 4.8%.  It makes no sense for someone to pick 4.8% because you did - 4.799% makes far more sense.

I'm a bit puzzled why you picked 4.8% anyway.  Are you really SURE that if the final rate ended up at 4.7% your investors would prefer to get nothing than risk their capital?  Because that's what setting a rate of 4.8% means - that you'd rather not invest than take any lower.

I'd have thought you should just be setting your rate at somewhere around 2% - so investors funds get used any time it'll cover your premium + the max 1% selling fee.

We had seen MPBOR for previous months consistently end up in the 4.9-9.9% range (please note that MPBOR can be different than net result - like November MPBOR was 9.9%, but net result was a loss), so decided going just a notch lower is pretty safe. Looks like we did indeed risk our bond being unused, although without MPOE revealing the distribution it's hard to tell. We'll heed this warning.

I am not trying to get into conspiration theories. Just thinking maybe we inadvertently provided other bondholders a number to latch on.

I just had a proper look at the bonds list.

Here's the list:


    198xX3n8ov4ejgEsWjt3SpPRkDuieL3EHA 120.00000888
    1dNhiuBxKFjkxi5uWYhKzyy3rr65nMkDo 100.00000888
    1D7YtrxnyK3ug3Rvp9jX66T8kVzWww9Jr8 4478.46233504
    1NTfLJi1AZgzeXNHF5Gx1sAmRj6RBE7qxe 100.00000888
    1Pk9FAH7dCGBZ1mw5HbU9AgAvYhrQnFZFp 100.00000888
    1Mn65Q9Xm6NBoPdF8ppS3AzgRLt92ZKtTq 100.00000888
    16yqE5GW2iLnXvCX3SHe6r5UbRFAuARond 2`157.00762056

The last one is the one that was cut off - so that one must have bid 4.8% too.  We know that's the one that was cut off for a few reasons:

1.  I'm pretty sure the list is done from lowest to highest requested rate.
2.  We know none of the others were the cut-off point (all the ones ending in 888 obviously got full allocation and the 4467.xx one submitted exactly same amount previous month so clearly didn't get cut off).

If we then look at January list we see:

198xX3n8ov4ejgEsWjt3SpPRkDuieL3EHA 120.00000888
1D7YtrxnyK3ug3Rvp9jX66T8kVzWww9Jr8 4`478.46233504
1Mn65Q9Xm6NBoPdF8ppS3AzgRLt92ZKtTq 100.00000888
16yqE5GW2iLnXvCX3SHe6r5UbRFAuARond 2`261.23910617
1swAzHw1zTWqoi5184VinvUxLWnBskPVW 3`708.33297766
1CqQiHmp2T3TWXZx3J7yueDxH5rVnZ9A94 1`726.89016169
1A2hqHVSUERAT3t1yJ7ggYCQccvH6pZGZm 1`904.91150845

Notice that the one that was cut-off this month occurs before the last three larger investors - indicating (if I'm correct about hte lsit being in requested-rate order) that he asked for less than 3 of the other 4 large investors (who presumably invested again this month but didn't have their funds used).  Whilst it's possible he copied your rate it seems highly unlikely that a regular investor would change to exactly same rate as a small investor (changing to 1 satoshi less is always better).  I think it's just coincidence that he picked same rate as you - a round number just below the expected average.

IF 3 largish investors missed out in Feb there has to be a good chance they'll bid lower this month (or that at least 2 will - it's entirely possible the last one who bid 9.99 in Jan in a 2nd bid from someone, equally it could be someone who's fairly risk-averse and doesn't want their funds used unless the potential return is high).

[LoweryCBS]

         Approves.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Forbes_Nash,_Jr.

[rini17]

Sadly, the rocket growth of bitcoin took its toll from MPOE lenders: they lost over 23% on March bonds.

Only consolation can be if you bought some MPOE call options on CoinBr, all of them were exceptionally profitable.

Update: MPBPT-O liquidated at 0.07679501 per share. Examples in description will be updated to more clearly inform investors that loss is possible.

[SlipperySlope]

Is it true that we have to pay to see the financial results for the bonds we invested in?

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

Is it true that we have to pay to see the financial results for the bonds we invested in?

You mean MP's blog?

[rini17]

Is it true that we have to pay to see the financial results for the bonds we invested in?

March results are here: http://polimedia.us/trilema/2013/mpoe-march-2013-statement/ Yes the blog us usually paid, but this post seems to be free.

[SlipperySlope]

As I am currently blocked from accessing the free financial results for the bonds that I invested in, can you describe the situation that caused the MPOE bonds for March 2013 to suffer a 23% loss?

I suppose my anxiety with regard to future investment in MPOE bonds has to do with my lack of understanding as to exactly how MPOE uses the bond money to offset the trading risk of MPOE options, and what is the nature of the gamble that distinguishes MPOE bonds from conventional financial instruments of the same category.

My understanding was that the August 2012 loss was due to insider trading. What was the cause of the March 2013 loss? If it was simply the rapid growth of bitcoins, then is it true that MPOE bond is a bet against bitcoin volatility? That would not seem to be a good bet in the current situation obviously.

[ThickAsThieves]

It's a bet that more options traders will bet incorrectly than the bot that writes them.

[MPOE-PR]

As I am currently blocked from accessing the free financial results for the bonds that I invested in, can you describe the situation that caused the MPOE bonds for March 2013 to suffer a 23% loss?

I suppose my anxiety with regard to future investment in MPOE bonds has to do with my lack of understanding as to exactly how MPOE uses the bond money to offset the trading risk of MPOE options, and what is the nature of the gamble that distinguishes MPOE bonds from conventional financial instruments of the same category.

My understanding was that the August 2012 loss was due to insider trading. What was the cause of the March 2013 loss? If it was simply the rapid growth of bitcoins, then is it true that MPOE bond is a bet against bitcoin volatility? That would not seem to be a good bet in the current situation obviously.

The entire thing was originally announced here. It is also found in the S.MPOE contract. What are you blocked from?

[SlipperySlope]

I see some old information in the comments at http://polimedia.us/trilema/2012/sa-ne-jucam-de-a-investitiile-n-bitcoini/#comment-78745 , and I get "... Paid Content This article is available for a fee. ...".

[MPOE-PR]

I see some old information in the comments at http://polimedia.us/trilema/2012/sa-ne-jucam-de-a-investitiile-n-bitcoini/#comment-78745 , and I get "... Paid Content This article is available for a fee. ...".

Information doesn't rust. Older is usually better, since it had time to be debugged.

If you're hitting the paywall it just means you've done a lot of reading on the site. You get more free loads each week, or else you can buy some credits.

In this case however you're not losing anything, the comment is an integral English translation of the article, which is written in Romanian.

[rini17]

April bond overview:
2028 MPBPT-E shares sold = 202.8 BTC investment made as follows:

Bond 1
Desired premium : 2.9 %
Amount:117 BTC

Bond 2
Desired premium : 4.69 %
Amount:85.8 BTC (plus 14.2 BTC CoinBr own investment, total 100BTC)

Same investment strategy as March.

The prospect was updated to more clearly reflect possible gain/loss. MPBPT-O May will be launched in few days.