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

[creativex]

Imagine that.

Great job on the fund Carnth. Very nice spreadsheet layout...complete with graph pr0n!

[Carnth]

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

Imagine that.

Yeah.... imagine. 


MiningCo.ETF actually has an excess of cash right now. This is why no new shares are currently up for sale (BitFunder has 10 left).
New shares will be put up for sale after more shares underlying assets are added to the fund.

Also, I have a little hesitancy using all our cash to purchase share of funds that we already have. If we pass a motion that would allow new underlying assets (like HIM), I would want to use the cash for that. See more about what I think of the motion below.

Great job on the fund Carnth. Very nice spreadsheet layout...complete with graph pr0n!

And good job on bASIC-MINING. 2 Avalons in less than 7 days. Wow.


<Self congratulation>MiningCo.ETF now has over 200 shares outstanding. We broke BTC1 NAV per share which means we got our two bagger.</congratulations>

I've been considering the motion to include more high quality mining assets. Of course we will stay away from PMBs. But the language of the motion will need to be correct to make sure of this.

I think the number one thing that helps mining assets maintain there value is the inclusion of some kind of reinvestment or growth.

Give me your thoughts on a motion to remove the clause "where the equipment is owned by shareholders" and instead use "where the asset includes a growth/reinvestment fund for the purchase of new equipment on an ongoing basis."

I want to get the wording correct. Let me know what you think.

While we are talking about motions. What about our own stock split. MiningCo.ETF has always been a "higher" priced fund. But is 1+ BTC too high? Would you vote for a split? What ratio? 2:1?  4:1?  10:1?

[miTgiB]

I've been considering the motion to include more high quality mining assets. Of course we will stay away from PMBs. But the language of the motion will need to be correct to make sure of this.

I think the number one thing that helps mining assets maintain there value is the inclusion of some kind of reinvestment or growth.

Give me your thoughts on a motion to remove the clause "where the equipment is owned by shareholders" and instead use "where the asset includes a growth/reinvestment fund for the purchase of new equipment on an ongoing basis."

I want to get the wording correct. Let me know what you think.

I don't see anything wrong with the change.  We are a small group overall, and tend to discuss ideas and if this change gives the ability to further diversify the holdings....

While we are talking about motions. What about our own stock split. MiningCo.ETF has always been a "higher" priced fund. But is 1+ BTC too high? Would you vote for a split? What ratio? 2:1?  4:1?  10:1?

I think asking burnside if anything is easier, should help make the choice.  I think the lower entry price will only help attract new funds and make a well balanced basket for others without the need to put too much into something.  When I bought into the fund, USD/BTC was around $20 and the fund under BTC0.60 still, now the BTC value to the dollar has risen 5 fold and the fund also doubled in BTC value, so 10:1 would keep it in reach for more, but also maybe set the NAV to a more extended fraction, say 4 places to the right, which is about 1 cent in USD

I'm sure I might have ideas as others also contribute.

[Mytche]

<Self congratulation>MiningCo.ETF now has over 200 shares outstanding. We broke BTC1 NAV per share which means we got our two bagger.</congratulations>

<acknowledgment of congratulations> Thank you for your hard work on this! I have a few of the IPO level shares as well a number more I purchased over the recent weeks.</acknowledgement of congratulations>

[Mytche]

I've been considering the motion to include more high quality mining assets. Of course we will stay away from PMBs. But the language of the motion will need to be correct to make sure of this.

I think the number one thing that helps mining assets maintain there value is the inclusion of some kind of reinvestment or growth.

Give me your thoughts on a motion to remove the clause "where the equipment is owned by shareholders" and instead use "where the asset includes a growth/reinvestment fund for the purchase of new equipment on an ongoing basis."

I want to get the wording correct. Let me know what you think.

With the recent inflows of BTC, I agree that we have reached a point where MININGCO.ETF should expand the definition of its asset class.  

I would like to make sure that this amendment would still exclude an issue that only has preorders and is paying dividends from shareholder equity.  
Or one that only uses credit (secondary IPOs) to purchase new equipment.

maybe "Only actively mining assets that allocate mining revenues to pay dividends and reinvest in new equipment on an ongoing basis."

Note: I do like HIM as a choice (discloser I own some HIM)

Cheers

[iCEBREAKER]

There's nothing wrong with being heavy in cash.  It's good to have BTC ready when an opportunity emerges.  Wait for the crash coming Soon^TM in about two weeks.

I suggest we re-balance by taking some profit on BASIC and getting more GMP.  Sell this blow-off top and go where the growth is!

[gnomesick]

Give me your thoughts on a motion to remove the clause "where the equipment is owned by shareholders" and instead use "where the asset includes a growth/reinvestment fund for the purchase of new equipment on an ongoing basis."

I think this is pretty good!  Gets the job done without too much superfluity.

While we are talking about motions. What about our own stock split. MiningCo.ETF has always been a "higher" priced fund. But is 1+ BTC too high? Would you vote for a split? What ratio? 2:1?  4:1?  10:1?

I'm not sure if a split is necessary just yet, but if it got to 2-2.5btc/share, maybe reconsider then?

[solstoce]

First off, I wanna say great job on this fund  

My question is if I wanted to move a PT share on bitfunder to be with my shares on BTC-TC is there anyway to move my pt share to BTC-TC?  

On another topic, I wanted to bring up something to discuss.  The 7 day moving average to find the NAV USED to work great.  Why I say USED to work great is because market moves used to be very small and the 7 day average helped to keep NAV high while the underlying assists were dropping or rising a few points here and there.  As you can see this week with assists like Basic-Mining the NAV correction has been very slow, even though the price point of the underlying assists has skyrocketed.  The end result has been a very slow NAV correction.  During this time shares are being listed while NAV is low and new shares are being acquired for MININGCO.ETF with this newly aquired BTC.  Now the problem as we acquire new investors with this low NAV is it is not enough BTC to fund the same % of each share originally owned by the entire fund.  This is because the 7 day NAV isn't enough funds to acquire current priced shares. A good example would be the more than .15 BTC per share price difference compared to 7 day average price of NASTY on our spreadsheet of 0.44 as of now. Thats more then a 30% difference. The missing .15 btc has to be coming outta the funds portion maybe not directly but indirectly correct?  Hopefully this make sense because this is going to happen with Cog next week too imo and with DIV of MININGCO.ETF being on pace to be double what it was last week we should be working on fixing this ASAP.

Some solutions maybe to add a premium over the NAV like they do in the bullion market or we could take a shorter moving day average.  Thanks for reading and hopefully we can find a solution together!

[Carnth]

Thanks for all the feedback.

It has been decided: I will be raising a motion to change the contract to allow funds that have a growth/reinvestment plan.

I will be working on the wording of the motion to change the contract and put it up as soon as possible.

There may be a little snafu involved with the Bitfunder pass-through when voting. Let me explain:
Btct.co is the "main" exchange where all MiningCo.ETF shares are held. The Bitfunder shares are held in "escrow" in a separate btct.co account.
This allows a correct "Shares outstanding" count on the MiningCo.ETF asset of btct.co.
When the motion is raised all shares held for Bitfunder in the "escrow" account on btct.co will vote either all yes or all no.
I think I'm going to have to get the majority of votes from Bitfunder and then what ever the results are, have the "escrow" account vote 100% either yes or no.

I suggest we re-balance by taking some profit on BASIC and getting more GMP.  Sell this blow-off top and go where the growth is!

GMP is still on the table. It hasn't had a purchase for our fund in a long while, but the plan is to add more.

I'm not sure if a split is necessary just yet, but if it got to 2-2.5btc/share, maybe reconsider then?

You might be right. Plus, Bitfunder adds just one more layer of complexity for a split. (Does Bitfunder support splits?)

First off, I wanna say great job on this fund 

Thanks for the kind words.

The 7 day moving average to find the NAV USED to work great. 
...
The end result has been a very slow NAV correction. 
...
This is because the 7 day NAV isn't enough funds to acquire current priced shares.
The missing btc has to be coming outta the funds portion maybe not directly but indirectly correct?

This is all correct. People who buy into the fund before the share price is corrected don't really "get a deal" because the purchasing power of the fund is diminished--just as you said.
The end result is that the entire fund has an overall lower NAV than if the shares were sold at "real time" prices. Maybe a by 1 or 2 percent.

if I wanted to move a PT share on bitfunder to be with my shares on BTC-TC is there anyway to move my pt share to BTC-TC? 

Yes. You can move your shares either way between btct.co or Bitfunder. Send me a PM and we can set it up.

[iCEBREAKER]

I think the number one thing that helps mining assets maintain there value is the inclusion of some kind of reinvestment or growth.

Give me your thoughts on a motion to remove the clause "where the equipment is owned by shareholders" and instead use "where the asset includes a growth/reinvestment fund for the purchase of new equipment on an ongoing basis."

I want to get the wording correct. Let me know what you think.

While we are talking about motions. What about our own stock split. MiningCo.ETF has always been a "higher" priced fund. But is 1+ BTC too high? Would you vote for a split? What ratio? 2:1?  4:1?  10:1?

Motion 1:  Yes!  Mining hardware becomes obsolete with increasing frequency, but growth funds remain forever green.  ADDICTION may be adding such a fund to their offering.  AMC could be the next AM, or at least play AMD to their Intel.  Also, 100TH shows great promise.   (Yes it's a bond, but still.  Because Bitfury.)

Motion 2:  Yes!  10:1 split is fine.  Lower the barrier to entry and we'll have more volume.  Being able to cash out as/when necessary is a great feature.  Helping our DRIPs get traction with more granularity adds value as well.

Motion 3:  Yes!  We should buy Carnth several beers of high quality as a token of our gratitude for a job well done.

Feature request:  make another version of the spreadsheet that auto-updates in real time.  Our NAV is through the roof ATM but can I be arsed to math it myself?  No.  Ain't nobody got time for that.   

[Carnth]

Motion 1:  Yes!  Mining hardware becomes obsolete with increasing frequency, but growth funds remain forever green. 

Everyone please comment on proposed Motion text (below).

Bitfunder shareholders: After asking in #bitfunder IRC, I found out that Bitfunder does not have the capability for me to submit a Motion. However, if you would like to send a Bitcoin Signed message (signed with your public BTC address used in the public Bitfunder Asset list) with your vote and PM it to me, that will have to do.
The majority of the Bitfunder votes will determine how the "escrow" account votes.

The motion will be up for vote on btct.co when I do my weekly dividend update.

Motion 2:  Yes!  10:1 split is fine. 

Split will be on hold for now.

Motion 3:  Yes!  We should buy Carnth several beers of high quality as a token of our gratitude for a job well done.

Thanks for the kind words.
And if anyone really wants to buy me a beer, send BTC to my personal btct.co account: Carnth
I'll take "high quality" beer suggestions too. Most votes=the beer I get.

Feature request:  make another version of the spreadsheet that auto-updates in real time.  Our NAV is through the roof ATM but can I be arsed to math it myself?  No.  Ain't nobody got time for that.   

I'll get my crack team of developers on that. But first, I'll need a crack team of developers.



Motion to change the asset contract.

Motion summary:
Removal of the clauses that requires mining equipment to be owned by the shareholders, but require that underlying assets have and maintian a growth/reinvestment fund.
This will allow the inclusion of additional mining assets into the fund.
Enhanced HTML formatting will allow for easier readability by adding bold, italics, and proper word-wrapping.


Motion Changes:

Change this sentence from the paragraph "Summary"
From: "MININGCO.ETF is an Exchange Traded Fund that holds assets that are invested in mining Bitcoins where mining equipment is owned by the shareholders."

To: "MININGCO.ETF is an Exchange Traded Fund that holds assets that are invested in mining Bitcoins."

--

Change this sentence from "Assets to be included,"
From: "Only mining assets where equipment is owned by the shareholders will be included in the fund."

To: "Only mining assets where a growth or reinvestment clause will be included in the fund."
--

Change this sentence from the "Executive Summary" on the asset details page
From: "Only mining companies where the shareholders own the equipment are included."

To: "Only mining assets where a growth or reinvestment clause will be included."

--

Change this sentence from the the "Business Description"
From: "Only mining assets where equipment is owned by the shareholders will be included in the fund."

To: "Only mining assets where a growth or reinvestment clause will be included in the fund."

--

Allow the asset contract to be updated with enhanced html formatting, a feature of BTC-TC that was implemented after this asset was created.

[solstoce]

Motion to change the asset contract.

Motion summary:
Removal of the clauses that requires mining equipment to be owned by the shareholders, but require that underlying assets have and maintian a growth/reinvestment fund.
This will allow the inclusion of additional mining assets into the fund.
Enhanced HTML formatting will allow for easier readability by adding bold, italics, and proper word-wrapping.


Motion Changes:

Change this sentence from the paragraph "Summary"
From: "MININGCO.ETF is an Exchange Traded Fund that holds assets that are invested in mining Bitcoins where mining equipment is owned by the shareholders."

To: "MININGCO.ETF is an Exchange Traded Fund that holds assets that are invested in mining Bitcoins."

--

Change this sentence from "Assets to be included,"
From: "Only mining assets where equipment is owned by the shareholders will be included in the fund."

To: "Only mining assets where a growth or reinvestment clause will be included in the fund."
--

Change this sentence from the "Executive Summary" on the asset details page
From: "Only mining companies where the shareholders own the equipment are included."

To: "Only mining assets where a growth or reinvestment clause will be included."

--

Change this sentence from the the "Business Description"
From: "Only mining assets where equipment is owned by the shareholders will be included in the fund."

To: "Only mining assets where a growth or reinvestment clause will be included in the fund."

--

Allow the asset contract to be updated with enhanced html formatting, a feature of BTC-TC that was implemented after this asset was created.

Great news I hope this go through!  

Great buy chance for someone 2 Shares left below NAV on btct.co

[Ashitank]

You have my yes even before voting starts 

[Carnth]

Total dividends of 0.3916489 will be paid this week.

This is about 0.00170282 per share with an instant annual dividend yield of 7.32%


All assets have risen dramatically (except GMP) since the ASIC devices have shown up in our underlying stocks (except GMP and Cognitive).

This has caused the NAV per share to increase to BTC1.21


A Motion has opened for MiningCo.ETF. Please read carefully and vote.

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

Nasty Fans just got a major shipment of BFL ASIC devices. This should help our dividends for next week.
GMP and Cognitive are still waiting for ASIC deliveries. "Soon," I guess.


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

[miTgiB]

You fat fingered sheet two cell A7

[Carnth]

You fat fingered sheet two cell A7

 Whoops! 

I got the day and month backwards. Fixed.  Thanks.

[gnomesick]

So what does that motion means, exactly? Investing into scams like AMC or people who only have risky preorders to show for?

Well, not counting fairly negligible income from FPGAs, "people who only have risky preorders" accounted for all of our underlying assets until ASICminer shares were purchased a little while ago (the FPGA income may not have been so negligible when the shares were originally purchased, but I think we all know those dividends weren't what was propping up any of their share values in the last couple of months - rather the possibility of "risky preorders" panning out). 

Whether this motion would technically make AMC a possibility or not would require a more technical look at the AMC/VMC situation than I'm willing to do right now, though I personally don't think it passes the sniff test, and I think Carnth has shown that it will take more than a single person singing a possible investment's praises for him to invest fund monies in it.

The discussion preceding this motion was primarily about investing in Havelock Investments Mining Fund, though I will point out again that the present structuring of one of our existing assets, Nastyfans, does not meet MiningCo's prospectus as it is currently written (with the requirement of shareholder "ownership" of the mining equipment), and I do think it's important that we get ourselves on one side or the other of this 'policy' surrounding equipment ownership, to preserve the integrity of the fund's prospectus and operation.

Are any of the fund's unitholders who are currently voting against the motion willing to come forward and explain why?  I was surprised to see nearly half the currently cast votes cast against.

[Carnth]

"people who only have risky preorders" accounted for all of our underlying assets until ASICminer shares were purchased

It's true, all of our underlying assets had ASIC pre-orders since MiningCo.ETF's inception. But that is not entirely the reason of why those assets were included in the fund. It is because they were shown to have stability, and a proven track record of timely dividends.
This will continue to be the number one selection criteria for this fund. As such, most (if not all) brand new mining assets will automatically be excluded until they produce dividends, and show that they can continue to produce dividends. This conservative nature of MiningCo.ETF helps it avoid most of the drama surrounding new assets.

I get the point of the change, but I think the new writing is much more confusing.

You don't get why the motion was brought up? Or what the changes of the motion are?
If the language of the motion is confusing, then please refer to the motion summary. The motion summary explains all the changes proposed.

Also I'm not sure I understand why Nastyfans does not qualify under current terms.

As explained in one of my previous posts, Nasty Fans (originally Nasty MINING) restructured how it operates and no longer states that "mining equipment is owned by the shareholders."

[Carnth]

Wow... with about 24 hours left in the current motion vote, only 64 out of 230 votes have been counted.

Obviously I have let down the shareholders in communication somewhere.

I need your help. How can I reach more shareholder so that they know they can vote? I am not particularly fond of the "news" feature that btct.co has. Some asset managers like to spam with it. Besides, the motion itself sent an email to all shareholders (or it should have). Did you receive it the motion email?

What else could I have done to get more share holders to vote?

[stereotype]

Wow... with about 24 hours left in the current motion vote, only 64 out of 230 votes have been counted.

Obviously I have let down the shareholders in communication somewhere.

I need your help. How can I reach more shareholder so that they know they can vote? I am not particularly fond of the "news" feature that btct.co has. Some asset managers like to spam with it. Besides, the motion itself sent an email to all shareholders (or it should have). Did you receive it the motion email?

What else could I have done to get more share holders to vote?

You could have communicated it on Bitfunder, maybe. Or present a dummys guide on how to vote, possibly.