[DEAL LOCKED IN WITH USER 420] LTC

[ElectricMucus]

This is great, although it's not that big of a deal overall it should contribute some stability. Well done guys.

[1714132169]

1714132169

[1714132169]

1714132169

[cptmooseinc]

I probably should've chosen a different word. I didn't mean "scam" in the sense you were going to run off and not pay in the event LTC drops. I understand what you did with the "WILL", and that's nice and all, but the process is all messed up. I understand you're still paying a premium and will pay no matter what. It seems two parties participated in a system they really didn't understand. A deal's a deal, but hopefully anyone on the seller's side will consider my post as reference to develop an outline.

If nothing else, please consider using this site in the future to develop a deal. http://www.mystockoptions.com/black-scholes.cfm

This is one of the standard models that is used to price options contracts.

As an example, I put the current ask price for LTC in ($.062/LTC) for the stock price. I put in $.07/LTC as the exercise price. The time is 1 year. Being that LTC is so cheap, the annual interest rate column is negligible, so I just entered 5 for this. Since LTC is a less accepted and still extremely volatile currency, I entered an 85% volatility rate because of its ability to swing wildly quickly.

After entering all these numbers and clicking the "Calculate" button, the Black-Scholes Calculator estimates a $0.02/LTC option contract fee. I said $.025 off the top of my head as a guess, though that's also the number I myself would have been comfortable with, and not have required the buyer of the contracts to still purchase if under $.07 at the time.

Hope this helps, and I'm sorry I used the term "scammer".

-Moose

[cptmooseinc]

EletricMucus,

This is great that two parties were wanting to do a deal like this and it got done, though it does not provide any additional stability for the currency other than one person showing a vote of confidence.

Now, that's not to say that 420 doesn't believe in LTC, because he's stated many times he does and has become very active in the currency. I feel like his deal was a bit of good will to offer support for LTC, but he's technically in what's called a "short" position. He's long LTC (owning them) but short on them because he sold options against it for a set strike above the current price. This means that between now and 1/1/14, according to the trade, 420 believes LTC will remain weak and under $.07. Now, we know this isn't the case with what he's said before, but this is how the trade itself speaks.

smoothie is obviously very long on the prospects of LTC and plans to cash in handsomely down the road. :p

This deal will not affect the price of LTC directly though no matter what happens. This is essentially a "dark pool" (http://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/dark_pool_liquidity.asp) trade that will not do anything substantial for the currency.

[smoothie]

I probably should've chosen a different word. I didn't mean "scam" in the sense you were going to run off and not pay in the event LTC drops. I understand what you did with the "WILL", and that's nice and all, but the process is all messed up. I understand you're still paying a premium and will pay no matter what. It seems two parties participated in a system they really didn't understand. A deal's a deal, but hopefully anyone on the seller's side will consider my post as reference to develop an outline.

If nothing else, please consider using this site in the future to develop a deal. http://www.mystockoptions.com/black-scholes.cfm

This is one of the standard models that is used to price options contracts.

As an example, I put the current ask price for LTC in ($.062/LTC) for the stock price. I put in $.07/LTC as the exercise price. The time is 1 year. Being that LTC is so cheap, the annual interest rate column is negligible, so I just entered 5 for this. Since LTC is a less accepted and still extremely volatile currency, I entered an 85% volatility rate because of its ability to swing wildly quickly.

After entering all these numbers and clicking the "Calculate" button, the Black-Scholes Calculator estimates a $0.02/LTC option contract fee. I said $.025 off the top of my head as a guess, though that's also the number I myself would have been comfortable with, and not have required the buyer of the contracts to still purchase if under $.07 at the time.

Hope this helps, and I'm sorry I used the term "scammer".

-Moose

Apology accepted.

Thanks for the information.

It will be very useful for others and in the future for myself.

Mahalo!

Smoothie

[smoothie]

EletricMucus,

This is great that two parties were wanting to do a deal like this and it got done, though it does not provide any additional stability for the currency other than one person showing a vote of confidence.

Now, that's not to say that 420 doesn't believe in LTC, because he's stated many times he does and has become very active in the currency. I feel like his deal was a bit of good will to offer support for LTC, but he's technically in what's called a "short" position. He's long LTC (owning them) but short on them because he sold options against it for a set strike above the current price. This means that between now and 1/1/14, according to the trade, 420 believes LTC will remain weak and under $.07. Now, we know this isn't the case with what he's said before, but this is how the trade itself speaks.

smoothie is obviously very long on the prospects of LTC and plans to cash in handsomely down the road. :p

This deal will not affect the price of LTC directly though no matter what happens. This is essentially a "dark pool" (http://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/dark_pool_liquidity.asp) trade that will not do anything substantial for the currency.

\

Electricmucus is correct in that if more people do futures contracts, trade/invest in LTC securities/create merchant accepting LTC businesses LTC will become more valuable and stable.

[420]

This is great, although it's not that big of a deal overall it should contribute some stability. Well done guys.

thanks

I did agree to all the terms and this should go smooth; although it is quite long for my taste (1 year). I'm highly confident Litecoin will be worth a bit more than 0.07 but either way I wanted and took this deal and documented my own evidence of the terms

Electricmucus is correct in that if more people do futures contracts, trade/invest in LTC securities/create merchant accepting LTC businesses LTC will become more valuable and stable.

+1

This thread and the attention our deal is getting alone is good for LTC...oops did I let the secret out

[smoothie]

This is great, although it's not that big of a deal overall it should contribute some stability. Well done guys.

thanks

I did agree to all the terms and this should go smooth; although it is quite long for my taste (1 year). I'm highly confident Litecoin will be worth a bit more than 0.07 but either way I wanted and took this deal and documented my own evidence of the terms

Electricmucus is correct in that if more people do futures contracts, trade/invest in LTC securities/create merchant accepting LTC businesses LTC will become more valuable and stable.

+1

This thread and the attention our deal is getting alone is good for LTC...oops did I let the secret out

+1

420, what have we started? lol 

[Deprived]

This is one of the standard models that is used to price options contracts.

If you'd actually read the OP before posting a bunch of times you'd have noticed this is NOT an options contract.  It's essentially a bet on whether at a specific date the price of LTC will be above/or below a certain value.

There's no option to choose to buy or not.
There's no ability to purchase at point other than the fixed date.

So all your posts about how to calculate option pricing are entirely irrelevant.

[BlackBison]

It's not a very good deal for 420 given the volatility of LTC, however he can simply buy 10,000LTC right now and lock-in a 10%+ gain in the next year.

Obviously if he has say only 10-20k ltc in 'savings' and he's bullish it would be idiotic to do anything but this.

[cptmooseinc]

Deprived, smoothie did not have "WILL" buy in the OP. He did, however, modify that post to say as such. He originally wanted an OPTION to buy them in January, but changed the wording to get 420 to accept. This changed exactly what kind of contract they entered into.

I simply explained a scenario in which both parties could have been much happier, as 420 would have claimed some funds up front in exchange for selling an OPTION to buy the 10k LTC, as smoothie originally wanted, instead of smoothie HAVING to buy them as he is now.

So yes, in the beginning smoothie asked for an OPTION to buy, essentially trading an option tied to a currency. It's not my fault the wording was changed.

-Moose

[smoothie]

Deprived, smoothie did not have "WILL" buy in the OP. He did, however, modify that post to say as such. He originally wanted an OPTION to buy them in January, but changed the wording to get 420 to accept. This changed exactly what kind of contract they entered into.

I simply explained a scenario in which both parties could have been much happier, as 420 would have claimed some funds up front in exchange for selling an OPTION to buy the 10k LTC, as smoothie originally wanted, instead of smoothie HAVING to buy them as he is now.

So yes, in the beginning smoothie asked for an OPTION to buy, essentially trading an option tied to a currency. It's not my fault the wording was changed.

-Moose

I honestly can say that what I meant to say was WILL buy. Not CAN buy.

I think I made those changes to the OP before you posted in this thread. So technically you were still referencing the changed OP because from your view it said WILL and not CAN.

[cptmooseinc]

I hadn't read the updated OP when I typed my post. I saw it when it was still "can" buy, but I didn't reply until later when I had time. Either way, setting up an options contract as I described it better for both parties involved. It gives the seller a premium for his time that he's comfortable with, and if the LTC doesn't go above $.07, then the buyer is stuck only losing the option premium, rather than being forced to buy $700 worth of LTC that could be worth potentially nothing by then.

I'm not trying to squabble with anyone. I only ever wanted to present how the contracts should have been handled over how they were handled.

[420]

Is there any scenario where LTC is gone by then? I'm guessing only if a code vulnerability is found and hacked... otherwise it's always worth SOMETHING

[cptmooseinc]

Not gone in the literal sense. Gone in the "abandoned and no longer used" sense.

[smoothie]

Is there any scenario where LTC is gone by then? I'm guessing only if a code vulnerability is found and hacked... otherwise it's always worth SOMETHING

Well presuming the network still exists and you can send LTC I WILL but 10,000 LTC for $700.

You're going to get your money either way. Just depends on if I can get the LTC. I hardly think LTC will be abandoned to that point where no one is mining it anymore.

[ThaddeusB]

So I'm to understand that 420 provided an option contract to Smoothie for the right to buy 10k LTC a year from now at $.07/ea, but I see nothing about an option premium?!

It's not an option, its a forward contract.  The purchase is mandatory.  This type of contract, while not as common as an option, is perfectly ordinary and does not always (or usually) carry a premium.

[cptmooseinc]

When I typed the response, it was based on smoothie's OP that stated CAN and not WILL. This would make my response correct, as that would be an option.

[smoothie]

Figured it is time to give this thread a bump.

Price of LTC at $0.50

[420]

This was fulfilled to smoothie's satisfaction. right smooth?

[destruct]

haha seems you lost out hard on this