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

[miTgiB]

Just my 2 cents but it might be worthwhile to start posting dividend yield as a percentage in addition to the actual dividend amount.

I haven't posted dividend yields because btct.co does it for you:
On the MiningCo.ETF asset page, click on the history tab. Is what you are looking for on the top-right?

All and all keep up the great work! Innovative products like yours are only helping BTC

Thanks for the kind words.

That's exactly what I meant I was also referring to adding to your weekly update posts on this forum (ie this weeks dividend was 10.0% unannualized) but like I said its simple math and anyone can do that given that you already post the NAV.

It certainly might be an interesting data point for some, I tend to like watching the yield against initial investment, or cost averaged investment.  The NAV might rise or fall over time, but what I've invested is rather constant, and that is the return I am interested in.

[bitzox]

It certainly might be an interesting data point for some, I tend to like watching the yield against initial investment, or cost averaged investment.  The NAV might rise or fall over time, but what I've invested is rather constant, and that is the return I am interested in.

I agree 100% I do the same thing, it makes more sense on an individual level.

My point was more for trying to get more "mainstream"/reputable. Most (and by that I mean all that I have seen) securities on major exchanges report dividends in $ and in % obviously BTC is different its a community that is at this stage all early adapters and people who are more than happy to do these kinds of calculations themselves. Which is a good thing, I'm just trying to give my 2cents on how to move towards the mainstream.

[Carnth]

Total dividends of 0.2009091 will be paid this week.

This is about 0.00144539 per share with an instant annual dividend yield of 9.28%


Nasty Fans took a hit this week despite this week being it's birthday.
All other underlying assets are holding steady

This has caused the NAV per share to decrease to BTC0.81


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

For Nasty Fan's birthday, OgNasty added an ASICMINER USB Block Erupter, and participated in some group-buys of KNC Miner and Metabank Bitfury. Let's hope this pans-out to more dividends.

This week I started to post a little more info about our dividends (thanks bitzox).
The div per share and yield should be more useful to everyone who holds shares.
The "instant annual dividend yield" is calculated this way:
(This week's Dividend per share) / (This week's share price) * (52 weeks in a year) = Instant annual dividend yield

If you are interested in more dividend yield information (such as 30, and 90 day averages) please go to the asset page on btct.co and click on the History tab.



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

[Carnth]

Total dividends of 0.20912003 will be paid this week.

This is about 0.00150446 per share with an instant annual dividend yield of 10.160%


GMP dove this week due to some heavy profit taking. Nasty Fans is holding steady, while ASCIMINER-PT and bASIC-MINING are steadily increasing.

This has caused the NAV per share to decrease to BTC0.77


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

Glari Mining Project announced that it has purchased 3 KnCMiner Jupiters. The Jupiters report to be at about 350GH/s each. This good news should help the price recover, but getting the Avalon to start mining would help more.

BFL announced "Chip Credits" that will add capital to Nasty and Cognitive. Again, it would help more it BFL would actually deliver the ASIC devices.




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

[iCEBREAKER]

Good news everyone!

I'm travelling and unable to confirm at this time...but I've just been notified that DHL dropped off a package from one Zhang Ying. I believe the Batch 2 Avalon has arrived.

[Carnth]

Good news everyone!

I'm travelling and unable to confirm at this time...but I've just been notified that DHL dropped off a package from one Zhang Ying. I believe the Batch 2 Avalon has arrived.

Yes, I saw!

Next we need GMP.
Then BFL needs to deliver to Cognitive and Nasty and the our divs will soar..

[miTgiB]

This has caused the NAV per share to decrease to BTC0.77

The spreadsheet shows you have bASIC-MINNING at 0.75, the 7 day average is 0.7112 and then you have the NAV at 0.78, I know it will get there over the next week, but can't front run

[Carnth]

This has caused the NAV per share to decrease to BTC0.77

The spreadsheet shows you have bASIC-MINNING at 0.75, the 7 day average is 0.7112 and then you have the NAV at 0.78, I know it will get there over the next week, but can't front run

It has been a very unique series of events that occurred one right after the other.

Here's what happened:
Before I made my weekly dividend post, I removed the fund's sell wall from the market. I don't normally do that, but I did this week. I did this because the NAV went down I wanted to give a chance for the other shareholders who are selling to lower their price first.
Next, I made my weekly dividend post.
Then bASIC announced that they received their Avalon.
I knew this would have a drastic effect on the price, so I checked the latest price and updated the spreadsheet with "last price" instead of the usual 7 day average.
All the while, I still did not restore the buy wall on btct.co or Bitfunder.
There was no intent for MiningCo.ETF to front run as MiningCo.ETF never had any shares up for sale.

Ironically, between your post and now--there has been so much volume on bASIC-MINING that the 7 day average price is actually higher then my spreadsheet.

The usual sell wall will be restored in the next couple of hours on both btct.co and Bitfunder. And they will be priced as usual using the NAV calculated with 7 day averages from the underlying assets.

[miTgiB]

This has caused the NAV per share to decrease to BTC0.77

The spreadsheet shows you have bASIC-MINNING at 0.75, the 7 day average is 0.7112 and then you have the NAV at 0.78, I know it will get there over the next week, but can't front run

It has been a very unique series of events that occurred one right after the other.

Here's what happened:
Before I made my weekly dividend post, I removed the fund's sell wall from the market. I don't normally do that, but I did this week. I did this because the NAV went down I wanted to give a chance for the other shareholders who are selling to lower their price first.
Next, I made my weekly dividend post.
Then bASIC announced that they received their Avalon.
I knew this would have a drastic effect on the price, so I checked the latest price and updated the spreadsheet with "last price" instead of the usual 7 day average.
All the while, I still did not restore the buy wall on btct.co or Bitfunder.
There was no intent for MiningCo.ETF to front run as MiningCo.ETF never had any shares up for sale.

Ironically, between your post and now--there has been so much volume on bASIC-MINING that the 7 day average price is actually higher then my spreadsheet.

The usual sell wall will be restored in the next couple of hours on both btct.co and Bitfunder. And they will be priced as usual using the NAV calculated with 7 day averages from the underlying assets.

I haven't been a buyer recently either, and while not long term holder, in bitcoinland probably one of the longer holders around, I was just poking some fun at you.  I am very shocked just how much the IPO shares were holding bASIC-MINNING back as we see them run now that all 5000 shares have been issued, 1000 held by creativex I do not worry flooding the market, so the 4000 in the float are hopefully in strong hands seeing how strong the rise is.

[gnomesick]

Carnth, have you considered Havelock's HIM fund lately?  While it is referred to as a "fund", it operates more or less like Cognitive and bASIC-mining, although I suppose technically based on the prospectus the equipment is owned by Havelock Investments and not the fund's unitholders, so perhaps it does not meet MiningCo's selection criteria. (I will say though, that in bitcoinland it seems that proven trustworthiness and transparency are more valuable than apparent legal "rights".)

HIM has 1.8TH in BFL Singles on pre-order (plus 5 ASICminer blades operating currently), with the first pre-orders dating to the first week they were available, so with Singles starting to ship the dividends should start rising significantly, potentially quite soon.  The manager, James Grant (lightbox here on bitcointalk), puts out monthly income statements and quarterly financials, and generally seems to run a pretty tight ship.  There has been a downward price correction in the last few days, which may make this a good opportunity for MiningCo to buy in. 

(Disclosure: I own units of HIM... that said, I have a larger position in MiningCo).

[Carnth]

Carnth, have you considered Havelock's HIM fund lately?  While it is referred to as a "fund", it operates more or less like Cognitive and bASIC-mining, although I suppose technically based on the prospectus the equipment is owned by Havelock Investments and not the fund's unitholders, so perhaps it does not meet MiningCo's selection criteria. (I will say though, that in bitcoinland it seems that proven trustworthiness and transparency are more valuable than apparent legal "rights".)

You are correct that MiningCo.ETF's asset contract specifies where ownership of equipment lies with the shareholders.
I'm not opposed to new assets to include in the fund but HIM would require MiningCo.ETF's asset contract to be changed. And that would mean a Motion.

Any other MiningCo.ETF shareholders interested? Would you vote "yes" to allowing underlying mining assets where shareholders do not own the equipment?

I originally put "shareholders own equipment" in the contract because it gives some inherent value to the underlying asset. The asset is valued for the equipment and the dividends it generates.
Other mining assets can only be valued for the dividends they generate. Which is not a bad thing. But that's the difference between a mining stock and a PMB (perpetual mining bond).

[Carnth]

Total dividends of 0.20818809 will be paid this week.

This is about 0.00120340 per share with an instant annual dividend yield of 7.11%


GMP is slowly recovering, but all other underlying assets have skyrocketed on news that Avalon and BFL continue to ship. Especially bASIC-MINING since it has received TWO ASIC devices in one week.

This has caused the NAV per share to increase to BTC0.88



It certainly has been busy.
MiningCo.ETF has never seen so much action in a week.

With good news on Avalon and BFL delivering, underlying assets are doing well dividend wise. bASIC-MINING almost doubled in value after they received their first Avalon, and then it almost doubled again after getting their second.

We have all been waiting for the ASICs to be delivered "soon," and it looks like it is finally here.

I have updated the historical values on the spreadsheet and included historical entire NAV and outstanding shares. I hope the extra performance data gives a little more transparency. Plus I think the graphs are cool too.

In case anyone overlooked, the spreadsheet also contains a Dividend Ledger sheet.
There you can keep track of all the dividends accrued, payouts, and fees collected.


MiningCo.ETF is available on BTCT.co and as a pass-through on BitFunder.
[/quote]

[solstoce]

Basic-mining vote passed and it will be doing a 1/10 split not sure what effect this is gonna have.  I'm naive to what happens next in a 1/10 split but i'm interested to see since it represents a big part of the fund.

[stereotype]

Carnth, have you considered Havelock's HIM fund lately?  While it is referred to as a "fund", it operates more or less like Cognitive and bASIC-mining, although I suppose technically based on the prospectus the equipment is owned by Havelock Investments and not the fund's unitholders, so perhaps it does not meet MiningCo's selection criteria. (I will say though, that in bitcoinland it seems that proven trustworthiness and transparency are more valuable than apparent legal "rights".)

You are correct that MiningCo.ETF's asset contract specifies where ownership of equipment lies with the shareholders.
I'm not opposed to new assets to include in the fund but HIM would require MiningCo.ETF's asset contract to be changed. And that would mean a Motion.

Any other MiningCo.ETF shareholders interested? Would you vote "yes" to allowing underlying mining assets where shareholders do not own the equipment?

I originally put "shareholders own equipment" in the contract because it gives some inherent value to the underlying asset. The asset is valued for the equipment and the dividends it generates.
Other mining assets can only be valued for the dividends they generate. Which is not a bad thing. But that's the difference between a mining stock and a PMB (perpetual mining bond).

I think as long as you can assure potential/shareholders that MININGCO will stay away from the likes of Virtualmine, until you can buy in at a pre defined dividend %, i see no problem.

EDIT: Nicely managed and presented, BTW. 

[gnomesick]

You are correct that MiningCo.ETF's asset contract specifies where ownership of equipment lies with the shareholders.
I'm not opposed to new assets to include in the fund but HIM would require MiningCo.ETF's asset contract to be changed. And that would mean a Motion.

I think some kind of motion is certainly called for, because unless I'm missing something (and I may well be), does Nastyfans even fit into MiningCo's contract at present?  My understanding of Nastyfans was that in a (utterly transparent) attempt to avoid contravening securities regulation, we only hold "seats" in a "fanclub" to which OgNasty "donates" bitcoin on a regular basis.  So there isn't even technically a contractual obligation on OgNasty's part, let alone any kind of property interest in his mining equipment.

I originally put "shareholders own equipment" in the contract because it gives some inherent value to the underlying asset. The asset is valued for the equipment and the dividends it generates.
Other mining assets can only be valued for the dividends they generate. Which is not a bad thing. But that's the difference between a mining stock and a PMB (perpetual mining bond).

I absolutely support some kind of contractual amendment that continues to keep PMBs and the like out of the fund.  However, I think the current language restricts us from investing in some very promising mining company-like entities - including possibly one we are already invested in(!) - without necessarily providing much substantial in the way of "security".  Bitcoinland still operates primarily on trust and track-record -- what do we really think the prospects would be of a lawsuit against friedcat and co if they decided to up and run with gazillions of shareholders money?

Anyway, like I said, I think we should keep some kind of language keeping the fund focused on mining companies and company-like entities, and I don't know exactly how to express that, but I think the most important thing is to make it clear that hash-based bonds are excluded.

By the way, apparently I am mistaken and HIM actually has 3TH on order, 1.8 very early in the queue, and 1.2 more recently.

*edit: forgot a quote script in there

[gnomesick]

By the way, Carnth, I'd like to add that I think you're doing a fabulous job with this fund and I am very excited for its future.
(Just to put my current criticism of one aspect of the fund in its proper, positive context )

[Ashitank]

Bought few shares

[Carnth]

Basic-mining vote passed and it will be doing a 1/10 split not sure what effect this is gonna have.  I'm naive to what happens next in a 1/10 split but i'm interested to see since it represents a big part of the fund.

This is pretty common in the securities world.
Here is an example of a 10 for 1 split:

Before split
You have 25 shares. Each share is worth 1.00
Total value: 25.00

After split:
You have 250 shares. Each share is worth 0.10
Total value: 25.00


You don't gain or lose any value during a split. But the result is that shares are now "more affordable."
<Speculation>Usually after shares become more "affordable" more people generally tend to buy.</speculation>

Any other MiningCo.ETF shareholders interested? Would you vote "yes" to allowing underlying mining assets where shareholders do not own the equipment?

I think as long as you can assure potential/shareholders that MININGCO will stay away from the likes of Virtualmine, until you can buy in at a pre defined dividend %, i see no problem.

I will be taking a deeper look into this. It certainly would diversify our portfolio.

EDIT: Nicely managed and presented, BTW. 

Thanks for the kind words.

I think some kind of motion is certainly called for, because unless I'm missing something (and I may well be), does Nastyfans even fit into MiningCo's contract at present?  My understanding of Nastyfans was that in a (utterly transparent) attempt to avoid contravening securities regulation, we only hold "seats" in a "fanclub" to which OgNasty "donates" bitcoin on a regular basis.  So there isn't even technically a contractual obligation on OgNasty's part, let alone any kind of property interest in his mining equipment.

This is all true. The original Nasty Mining asset (from GLBSE) was a mining company where the shareholders owned the equipment.
Today, it is a "fan club" exactly as you say. It is structured this way to avoid any potential regulation issues.

By the way, Carnth, I'd like to add that I think you're doing a fabulous job with this fund and I am very excited for its future.
(Just to put my current criticism of one aspect of the fund in its proper, positive context )

Bought few shares

Thank you very much.

[Mytche]

Carnth, have you considered Havelock's HIM fund lately?  While it is referred to as a "fund", it operates more or less like Cognitive and bASIC-mining, although I suppose technically based on the prospectus the equipment is owned by Havelock Investments and not the fund's unitholders, so perhaps it does not meet MiningCo's selection criteria. (I will say though, that in bitcoinland it seems that proven trustworthiness and transparency are more valuable than apparent legal "rights".)

HIM has 1.8TH in BFL Singles on pre-order (plus 5 ASICminer blades operating currently), with the first pre-orders dating to the first week they were available, so with Singles starting to ship the dividends should start rising significantly, potentially quite soon.  The manager, James Grant (lightbox here on bitcointalk), puts out monthly income statements and quarterly financials, and generally seems to run a pretty tight ship.  There has been a downward price correction in the last few days, which may make this a good opportunity for MiningCo to buy in. 

(Disclosure: I own units of HIM... that said, I have a larger position in MiningCo).

I have been watching the HIM fund and tend to agree that it seems well run and should be competitive to our other issues. 

The fundamentals are there, but I do have 2 small concerns due to the way it is structured.
1. I don't really like the way it does the management fee, 15% of mining revenue instead of issuing himself shares during the IPO.  (It really just means that you need to look at 85% of hashing when doing per share calculations.)
2. The lack of shareholder quorum on issues.  (There are no obvious bad decisions that were made, but I would like it more if stock splits and equipment choices were at least discussed)

[Ashitank]

Looks like all issued shares on BTC-TC are sold.