[BTC-TC and BF] MININGCO.ETF - Closed

[usagi]

If you 're going to list it on two sites I'd suggest making one the main and the other a pass-through to it.

If there's ever any votes, somewhere needs to have the official result - and they can't both vote in one another's motions.  The pass-through's vote would end before the main vote - then you'd reflect their votes in the main one by using 2 proxy accounts (one to vote yes, other to vote no) - you couldnt vote the pass-through as a block if it could be of similar or greater magnitude to the main one.

Just sum the votes manually.

[Deprived]

If you 're going to list it on two sites I'd suggest making one the main and the other a pass-through to it.

If there's ever any votes, somewhere needs to have the official result - and they can't both vote in one another's motions.  The pass-through's vote would end before the main vote - then you'd reflect their votes in the main one by using 2 proxy accounts (one to vote yes, other to vote no) - you couldnt vote the pass-through as a block if it could be of similar or greater magnitude to the main one.

Just sum the votes manually.

But then neither site shows the official result - one may show pass, the other fail and noone looking at either knows what actually happened.

If one was the "main" then those looking at it would see actual results and those looking at the other would see it was a pass-through and know to look at the main to see how any vote actually ended.

There's other problems with making two sites both the main as well - that was just the simplest one to point out.

Consider the situation if one site is hacked and funds stolen, or operator runs away or whatever.  Should current BTC.CO investors have to soak up losses caused by a listing on Bitfunder that went bad?  Or vice-versa?

Now consider it specifically from the perspective of current investors on BTC.CO.  Adding bitfunder as an equal investor exposes them to additional counter-party risk for no real benefit to themselves (with a limited number of investments there's no benefit to investors from increased capital).  Sure - the risk of Bitfunder disappearing is low - but ANY risk which delivers no benefit is bad.

With one main and the other a pass-through that sort of liability is already defined - the main is totally unaffected by anything which happens on the pass-through, the pass-through can be screwed by both platforms.

I honestly think not defining a main is pretty bad for a few reasons - not necessarily very obvious ones but valid ones nonetheless.  Either have one main and one pass-through - or run two seperate but otherwise identical funds.

[MPOE-PR]

I honestly think not defining a main is pretty bad for a few reasons - not necessarily very obvious ones but valid ones nonetheless.  Either have one main and one pass-through - or run two seperate but otherwise identical funds.

I agree with this point. Not defining a main is in effect enacting a merger in the market. Not having that merger recognized structurally creates tensions which aren't either useful or productive.

[usagi]

I honestly think not defining a main is pretty bad for a few reasons - not necessarily very obvious ones but valid ones nonetheless.  Either have one main and one pass-through - or run two seperate but otherwise identical funds.

I agree with this point. Not defining a main is in effect enacting a merger in the market. Not having that merger recognized structurally creates tensions which aren't either useful or productive.

No, it isn't. In the real world companies list on two or more exchanges all the time and they just sum the votes. I could probably give you six examples without even thinking, such as coeur d'alenne and first majestic for starters.

[Deprived]

I honestly think not defining a main is pretty bad for a few reasons - not necessarily very obvious ones but valid ones nonetheless.  Either have one main and one pass-through - or run two seperate but otherwise identical funds.

I agree with this point. Not defining a main is in effect enacting a merger in the market. Not having that merger recognized structurally creates tensions which aren't either useful or productive.

No, it isn't. In the real world companies list on two or more exchanges all the time and they just sum the votes. I could probably give you six examples without even thinking, such as coeur d'alenne and first majestic for starters.

You're comparing apples and oranges.

What we refer to as exchanges (BTC.CO, Bitfunder) actually fill a whole bunch of different functions (exchange, broker, registrar, company bulletin board etc).

In RL an exchange has basically nothing to do with voting - voting would be handled by the company directly.  One body needs to track and record the results of votes.  If Carnth wants to do that off-site and record/publicise results somewhere else then that's fine - but remind me of the benefits of NOT having total votes recorded on either exchange?.

But that doesn't address the issue of investors on one site taking on part of the risk of default on the other exchange which they neither use nor, in the case of current BTC.CO investors, were even aware before they invested was a risk they were expected to take on in return for no benefit to them.  Obviously if current investors vote to accept that risk (and any dissenting are bought out at full value) then that's fine.

[Monster Tent]

So is this a good fund to invest in ?

I would say no not because of the person running it but because mining companies and mining bonds are a bad investment to begin with. Add further management fees for the ETF and it gets even worse. Ive yet to see any mining company make any real profit and the bitcoin difficulty will only grow in future. There are also very few quality investments in bitcoinland because investing in an asset thats based in USD is a short on bitcoin.

[Carnth]

In RL an exchange has basically nothing to do with voting - voting would be handled by the company directly.  One body needs to track and record the results of votes.  If Carnth wants to do that off-site and record/publicise results somewhere else then that's fine

I would keep the result on the Asset spreadsheet. That would act as the definitive count for all votes across the exchanges.

[Carnth]

Our position in GMP continues to rally as it will have Avalon ASICs devices mining "soon."
The price of Cognitive has slipped a bit but shows signs of improving.
Even with the Cognitive dip, GMP's rally has increased the fund's NAV per share to BTC0.57.

Once again, I have chosen to waive Management Fees this week. Thank you to all who have invested.
Total Dividends of 0.16649484 will be paid tomorrow night (USA time).




Future Outlook - My guess as to what's to come.

Just about all companies are holding off on purchasing new equipment, except for ASIC devices. Until ASIC devices are in the hands of mining companies, dividends from them will continue to wane.

Avalon ASIC devices have proven to meet their specs, so any mining company that can get their hands on one will have a tremendous advantage (hence GMP's rally). It looks like bASIC-MINING might be going with Avalon as well.

Also, the Price of BTC vs USD continues to be a huge factor. Order an ASIC device to early and you end up paying more BTC, but wait to long, and then you won't have an ASIC device when you need it.

[creativex]

It looks like bASIC-MINING might be going with Avalon as well.

Our strategy would be best described as hedging. One Avalon unit has been ordered as they've proven they can ship a working ASIC product. bASIC-MINING continues to hold 395BTC in reserve and will continue to benefit from BTC's price appreciation vs fiat currency while lead times between ordering and receiving ASIC products shrinks.

[Carnth]

Total dividends of 0.16211835 (management fee included) will be paid this week.

COGNITIVE has rebounded from it's earlier low and all the other underlying assets have also improved slightly. GMP is still at 0.6 BTC.
This has increased the NAV per share to BTC0.59


I am still interested in comments on bringing the fund to BitFunder.
Should it be a pass-through? Or should I just sell shares there and include them as part of the total assets? All assets are kept on the spreadsheet.

I think it will be much easier to distribute dividends if the Bitfunder asset were a pass through.



Future Outlook - My guess as to what's to come.

GMP's high price is due to Avalon delivering first. But when other ASIC companies release, I fear that the price of GMP will "re-normalize."
Expect high volatility until every company has all their ASIC devices happily hashing away.

[creativex]

Setting up the ETF as a pass through is the most appropriate way IMO.

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

As much as I like BitFunder, setting it as a passthrough seems like the best solution.

[Carnth]

I am setting up a pass-through on BitFunder.

Here is what the pass-through asset summary looks like:

***
Pass-through to MININGCO.ETF on btct.co

Each share of this pass-through = 1 share of MININGCO.ETF on the Bitcoin Trading Corp ( https://btct.co/security/MININGCO.ETF )

Forum for this pass-through and MININGCO.ETF: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=134389.0
Assets held by MININGCO.ETF: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AqLxDN0JzEUNdHdhandXeDQwTU13N2ZmbWxMMHNzeGc

FEES:
A pass-through share is priced at about 1% higher than the MININGCO.ETF share it represents. This fee covers the exchange fees associated with operating this pass-through. There are no other fees for the pass-through. 100% of dividends paid from the MININGCO.ETF less Bitcoin network transaction fees, will be paid to the pass-through.
The MININGCO.ETF fund has other fees. See the MININGCO.ETF asset details on Bitcoin Trading Corp for details.

Proof of shares owned:
After pass-through shares are sold, and equal number of MININGCO.ETF shares will be deposited. MININGCO.ETF shares for this pass-through are held in this account: https://btct.co/portfolio/frc9CQ==
***


Does this look good? Do I need to add or remove anything? Please let me know.

The pass-through shares will go up for sale "soon."

[Carnth]

Total dividends of 0.15498476 (management fee included) will be paid this week.

There was basically no price movement this week in the underlying assets. Dividends have continued to wane as the companies are investing in ASIC units that will arrive "soon."


Future Outlook - My guess as to what's to come.

With ASICMINER running tests and a few other ASIC devices popping up, everyone is waiting for the ASIC explosion to occur.

Fun fact: I wrote the word "ASIC" (including this one) 4 times in this post. (I don't count ASICMINER as that is the name of an asset.)



As mentioined earlier, I will start selling pass-through shares on BitFunder after the dividend is paid.

[Carnth]

Pass-through shares are now live on BitFunder.

[Carnth]

Total dividends of 0.12766327 (management fee included) will be paid this week.

This week, Cognitive had a noticeable dip in price as Garrett is restructuring the asset. A motion passed to retain 50% of Cognitive's dividends for future growth. This, however, reduces the dividends by 50% as well.
This has caused the NAV per share to lower to BTC0.57.


Future Outlook - My guess as to what's to come.

Cognitive's new growth fund is a good move. It will allow Cognitive to stay competitive and we should expect to see larger dividends in the long term.



ASICs, ASICs, ASICs, ASICs!

When, When, When, When?!?!

Sit tight everyone, the roller coaster is approaching the peak of the first hill.



MiningCo.ETF is available on BTCT.co and as a pass-through on BitFunder.

[zx9r]

I was looking to invest in some mining stuff and I think that doing it through this fund could be a nice option. I will give it a try.

BTW, I'm already a bitfunder user, I have some assets there and feel confident with the site. While opening an account in btctc should not be a big problem for me I would prefer using bitfunder right now. If I understood well, this have a penalty of 1% because of the bitfunder commisions. Am I right or it has any other penaltys among of that ?

[zx9r]

One thing that scares me:



The dividends are getting lower in each pay out. At the current level of dividends it represents a 7% yearly which seems very low. I know that in the future this will depend of the rentability of the underlying assets, which relys in serveral things like new mining hardware, difficulty, BTC/$ parity etc...

Do you have any prediction about the rentability of the fund in the next 12 months or so ?

[miTgiB]

One thing that scares me:



The dividends are getting lower in each pay out. At the current level of dividends it represents a 7% yearly which seems very low. I know that in the future this will depend of the rentability of the underlying assets, which relys in serveral things like new mining hardware, difficulty, BTC/$ parity etc...

Do you have any prediction about the rentability of the fund in the next 12 months or so ?

Congnative lowered their dividend by 50%, and ~20% of the fund in made up of that 1 asset, so it is reflective.

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

This is the problem with investing in mining companies for the *current* dividends when ASICs are here.