[PicoStocks] 100TH/s bitcoin mine [100th]

[Dexter770221]

News about chips:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=228677.msg2476313#msg2476313

They don't blew up

[1715566232]

1715566232

[1715566232]

1715566232

[1715566232]

1715566232

[furuknap]

But how do I do this ? If the price is too low current shareholder will complain. If the price is too high I will be accused of pump and dump scheme :-) ... ok, no orders from us for now ... in few hours we will have chip results. Right now we are here: https://bittiraha.fi/content/matka-alkaa ...

Investors know that you don't control the prices, at least the somewhat serious ones do. Why would they complain to you that others choose to buy or sell at various prices?

"I had this fish soup today, and I'm not really satisfied with it. Fix it for me!"

You should have stayed out of the market, and to the extent that you were to enter it, that is a major, major event, much greater than some random update about power efficiency. If you, knowing more about the operation than anyone else in the world, say "You know, I don't think I'll ever get more from this investment than I can by selling out right now" you're sending a very wrong message to the market. If Mark Zuckerberg sold his FB shares now, he would send the same message, and you wouldn't hear other news for a week from any major news outlet.

In any regulated asset market, there are explicit rules for handling such events. Any insider selling or buying anything is breaking news and directly affects investors' evaluation of a stock. Regardless, your ability and right to control what people pay for shares ended during IPO.

You placed your bets then by selling a certain number of shares to the public. Those shares were effectively investors assuming the risk of failure in your project. At later dates, some of those investors have resold that risk to someone else, who again assumed risk on your behalf, expecting a reward in some fashion, usually proportional to the risk they are taking.

However, you've demonstrated clearly that either 1) you don't know how to operate an asset market or 2) you do not care for those who took risk on your behalf enough to allow them the reward they expected.

What makes this even worse is that you gave your word after the first time this happened that it wouldn't happen again. You broke that promise today. When will you break your next promise to the market? You have promised to give us a share of the profits, and you have promised to not directly manipulate the market. You've broken one promise already.

I'm truly sorry about this, but this kind of behavior from a publicly traded company is completely unacceptable, regardless or whether it is from malice or ignorance.

.b

[furuknap]

Sell them at the price you believe is right. Unless picostocks is not an open market exchange but dictated by contrived hidden rules?

Apparently, we don't know that. Apparently, there was, or became a rule, that if the chips worked, Picostocks would limit the uppoer bounds of the price.

Anyone that believes in your project doesn't really care about what you sell for, since they'll know that the price will go up by the merit of the project, not by immediate speculative interest.

Do you even understand what happened today? The price does _not_ go up anymore because tytus has decreed that 0.4 is the upper bound he will accept anyone selling or buying.

Let me see if I get this straight? You are basically busting your balls to get everything working as fast as possible for all shareholder's benefit, but aren't allowed to sell your own shares? Now that's irony.

This isn't a share, it is a bond. If these were shares, this would in any regulated market be a criminal offence and the whole project would now be at risk of shutting down or be put under external administration. Tytus would face jail time.

.b

[furuknap]

I'm sorry, I find it just disturbing: some entrepreneurs work and risk their time to build a 100th mine, they offer the public to profit of their work by investing only 0.04 BTC per 200 Mhash/s in their enterprise, the share price has subsequently almost tenfolded on nothing and what do you get as thank you: whining forum members when you sell a tiny bit of the shares you paid for yourselves. 

The problem is... Well, everything about this, really.

Tytus hasn't assumed any risk; he sold that risk to investors during IPO. People haven't bought in at 0.04, they have bought in at up to 0.3965, and guess what, if they're lucky, they'll get 0.009% profit on accepting the risk that everything goes down the drain and their entire investment is lost.

Here's a deal for you. I'll sell you a lottery ticket, which may be worth nothing, but it may be worth around what you pay for it, perhaps a bit more. You can pay me 3BTC for that lottery ticket. If it is a lucky number, you get around BTC3.1 back, but if it's not lucky, you get nothing.

Just let me know how may you want.

.b

[Kyune]

In any regulated asset market, there are explicit rules for handling such events. Any insider selling or buying anything is breaking news and directly affects investors' evaluation of a stock. Regardless, your ability and right to control what people pay for shares ended during IPO.

Would you have been ok, or "more ok", then, with Tytus listing shares for sale had he done so anonymously, since it would not send the same insider signal, rather than announcing it so publicly and using a trading platform (picostocks) that appears to allow us all to track which specific accounts are trading the shares?  This is one of the interesting differences between picostocks and some of the other exchanges; other exchanges (e.g. btct.co, Bitfunder) would seem to make it easier for large shareholders and insiders to dump shares anonymously without tipping off the market that they are doing so, unless I am unaware of information leakage on those platforms.

[furuknap]

Would you have been ok, or "more ok", then, with Tytus listing shares for sale had he done so anonymously, since it would not send the same insider signal, rather than announcing it so publicly and using a trading platform (picostocks) that appears to allow us all to track which specific accounts are trading the shares?  This is one of the interesting differences between picostocks and some of the other exchanges; other exchanges (e.g. btct.co, Bitfunder) would seem to make it easier for large shareholders and insiders to dump shares anonymously without tipping off the market that they are doing so, unless I am unaware of information leakage on those platforms.

Whether the sale is anonymous or not is just a matter of hiding the fact and doesn't make the act any less horrible. The news is still that tytus feels that 0.4 is the absolute maximum value anyone should pay. As someone who knows more about this operation than anyone, those are heavy words.

The fact that he currently holds so many shares that he can control the price only makes his ability to enforce his opinions on everyone else apparent.

What if he decides that nobody from here on is allowed to sell for more than 0.1? He can certainly enforce that, just like he enforced 0.21 and 0.23 a few weeks ago when investors were willing to pay 0.35 and maybe more. In other words, anyone buying this share can only sell at a price that tytus agrees to. If he decides you should have paid a lower price, well, you've lost, just like those that lost in May.

.b

[Vbs]

What if the guy that holds 200,000 decides that he wants to sell at 0.1?

[furuknap]

What if the guy that holds 200,000 decides that he wants to sell at 0.1?

That must be his or her choice, provided they are not insiders and does not break any rules. The latter is more of a joke at this point.
.b

[Vbs]

What if the guy that holds 200,000 decides that he wants to sell at 0.1?

That must be his or her choice, provided they are not insiders and does not break any rules. The latter is more of a joke at this point.
.b

Ok. Anyway, thanks for explaining your reasoning.

[furuknap]

I'll be blunt. At this point, I see now way for an extremely long time to rebuild the confidence of investors. If 100TH is still to be a viable asset, several things must happen.

1) 100TH is delisted from pico.
2) 100TH is listed on another exchange where tutys has no controlling interest
3) The shares controlled by tytus are put in escrow, only to be put on market after the escrow has ensured the rules set forward by tytus (and possibly the exchange) has been followed (for example 48 hour notice, declaration of price in advance, any exchange-specific regulations if any, etc)

Whether pico surives is actually not very relevant to 100TH, but I can't see an exchange operated by tytus being possible in the foresesable future.

I'll post an article in the coming days explaining my thoughts on this event and what happened in May. Tytus, I encourage you do contact me (DM) if you want to voice your side of it as part of that article. I will publish anything relevant and give you an early review of the content.

.b

[kakobrekla]

+1 internet point for furuknap.

[kaerf]

Would you have been ok, or "more ok", then, with Tytus listing shares for sale had he done so anonymously, since it would not send the same insider signal, rather than announcing it so publicly and using a trading platform (picostocks) that appears to allow us all to track which specific accounts are trading the shares?  This is one of the interesting differences between picostocks and some of the other exchanges; other exchanges (e.g. btct.co, Bitfunder) would seem to make it easier for large shareholders and insiders to dump shares anonymously without tipping off the market that they are doing so, unless I am unaware of information leakage on those platforms.

Whether the sale is anonymous or not is just a matter of hiding the fact and doesn't make the act any less horrible. The news is still that tytus feels that 0.4 is the absolute maximum value anyone should pay. As someone who knows more about this operation than anyone, those are heavy words.

The fact that he currently holds so many shares that he can control the price only makes his ability to enforce his opinions on everyone else apparent.

What if he decides that nobody from here on is allowed to sell for more than 0.1? He can certainly enforce that, just like he enforced 0.21 and 0.23 a few weeks ago when investors were willing to pay 0.35 and maybe more. In other words, anyone buying this share can only sell at a price that tytus agrees to. If he decides you should have paid a lower price, well, you've lost, just like those that lost in May.

.b

If you noticed...his wall was eaten up. As you said...let the market dictate. If the market thinks .4 is worth it then they will buy. Are you trading based on voodoo technical analysis and "signs" or fundamentals. If not on fundamentals then you're gambling. Live with the gamble.

The problem is... Well, everything about this, really.

Tytus hasn't assumed any risk; he sold that risk to investors during IPO. People haven't bought in at 0.04, they have bought in at up to 0.3965, and guess what, if they're lucky, they'll get 0.009% profit on accepting the risk that everything goes down the drain and their entire investment is lost.

Here's a deal for you. I'll sell you a lottery ticket, which may be worth nothing, but it may be worth around what you pay for it, perhaps a bit more. You can pay me 3BTC for that lottery ticket. If it is a lucky number, you get around BTC3.1 back, but if it's not lucky, you get nothing.

Just let me know how may you want.

.b

The IPO is exactly where Tytus (attempted) to sell his risk...but if you noticed, a very small percentage of total shares went to the community at large. People simply didn't trust it. He tried to sell at 0.04 and few people bought.

Serious question...if tytus put a block of 10000 shares are at the IPO price on the market today, would you be happy or sad? My answer is...I would be ELATED and I've bought a lot of shares above the IPO price.

Another question: when do you think tytus is entitled to sell? how much would you allow him to sell? I don't know the exact numbers, but it seems like there is less than 10% of total shares in the hands of non-insiders. If you seriously believed this security was worth over 0.4, you should have absolutely NO problem with him dropping a wall at 0.4 because the market would see value in purchasing at 0.4. Perhaps you were counting on the low liquidity to make a profit during "panic buying"...again that is a gamble you took. IMO, if you truly believe the security has value over 0.4 then tytus is doing you a favor by increasing liquidity.


Like you said...this is a BOND. The original purpose of this security was to allow people to purchase hashing power. In your analysis, you stated this would not be like AM because fundamentally they are two different types of securities. Logically there should be a cap on the price of this. If the market thinks it's higher than 0.4 that wall would have disappeared with time.

FYI, a very similar thing happened with the ASICMINER-PT. The person who runs the PT put up a wall @ 2.1/2.4 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=210933.0 ...much lower than the market price at the time.The market ATE  IT UP because they saw value.

[furuknap]

If you noticed...his wall was eaten up. As you said...let the market dictate. If the market thinks .4 is worth it then they will buy. Are you trading based on voodoo technical analysis and "signs" or fundamentals. If not on fundamentals then you're gambling. Live with the gamble.

If you're talking about today's event, he pulled the wall before it was hit. If you're talking about the walls in May, he only stopped adding more once I (and others) yelled at him for it, which prompted the promise of 'never again!' that was broken today.

The IPO is exactly where Tytus (attempted) to sell his risk...but if you noticed, a very small percentage of total shares went to the community at large. People simply didn't trust it. He tried to sell at 0.04 and few people bought.

Exactly. The market did not at the time want to assume the risk for such a price, so they didn't. This is a healthy market in action.

Serious question...if tytus put a block of 10000 shares are at the IPO price on the market today, would you be happy or sad? My answer is...I would be ELATED and I've bought a lot of shares above the IPO price.

Sure, and people know that there's no point in buying anything above that price because tytus may just as well throw more bonds on the market at that price.

However, if tutys the day after told you that 'Sorry, we couldn't get the chips to work, your bonds are now worthless' would you be equally elated? When that is a real risk that you are assuming, you want some kind of reward if that risk turns out to work in your favor.

Again, look at my proposal. you can buy a bond/ticket from me for 3BTC. It may turn into 3.1 or even 3.5 if the cows don't come home at all, but it may also turn into zero. How many do you want?

I'm guessing your lack of "Wow, give me 100!" is less due to your lack of funds and more because you realize that assuming the risk of losing everything is not worth the potential upside of just 0.1 or 0.5.

Now, why would you be OK with this scenario if the numbers were slightly different, say 0.30 and 0.31 and 0.35 instead? Because that's exactly what you're saying; you assume all the risk for minute potential reward but only because in the case of 100TH we're talking about slightly different numbers. The upside has been capped today by tytus.

Another question: when do you think tytus is entitled to sell? how much would you allow him to sell? I don't know the exact numbers, but it seems like there is less than 10% of total shares in the hands of non-insiders. If you seriously believed this security was worth over 0.4, you should have absolutely NO problem with him dropping a wall at 0.4 because the market would see value in purchasing at 0.4. Perhaps you were counting on the low liquidity to make a profit during "panic buying"...again that is a gamble you took. IMO, if you truly believe the security has value over 0.4 then tytus is doing you a favor by increasing liquidity.

I'm not sure tutys should be entitled to sell at all, but that's up to the market to decide after he has made a proper announcement. The market will either say "wow, he's stupid and doesn't know half the things I do" or they will say "wow, if he's bailing, knowing what he does, then maybe this isn't such a good idea after all" or anything in between.

In fact, tutys has given power of decision over to the market, but now he's effectively killed that market with his actions by saying '"children, please, you can't play with the toys I gave you after all"

Like you said...this is a BOND. The original purpose of this security was to allow people to purchase hashing power. In your analysis, you stated this would not be like AM because fundamentally they are two different types of securities. Logically there should be a cap on the price of this. If the market thinks it's higher than 0.4 that wall would have disappeared with time.

FYI, a very similar thing happened with the ASICMINER-PT. The person who runs the PT put up a wall @ 2.1/2.4 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=210933.0 ...much lower than the market price at the time.The market ATE  IT UP because they saw value.

If you don't see the difference between a PT operator selling off the assets of a completely different fund and this then you have now idea what you're talking about.

Let me ask you this; what would you say if friedcat came out tomorrow and said "Sorry, we really don't have confidence that AM will ever make much more than 1BTC so here are 10,000 shares at 1BTC put on the market". How do you think investors now buying at 3BTC would think? Would that be a reasonable and defendable action because, you know, it's his shares and stuff?

.b

[kaerf]

If you're talking about today's event, he pulled the wall before it was hit. If you're talking about the walls in May, he only stopped adding more once I (and others) yelled at him for it, which prompted the promise of 'never again!' that was broken today.

Not talking about today's wall. I was talking about the ~0.2 walls that were bought up quite quickly. Yes, he did stop after people on the forum complained.

Serious question...if tytus put a block of 10000 shares are at the IPO price on the market today, would you be happy or sad? My answer is...I would be ELATED and I've bought a lot of shares above the IPO price.

Sure, and people know that there's no point in buying anything above that price because tytus may just as well throw more bonds on the market at that price.

However, if tutys the day after told you that 'Sorry, we couldn't get the chips to work, your bonds are now worthless' would you be equally elated? When that is a real risk that you are assuming, you want some kind of reward if that risk turns out to work in your favor.

Again, look at my proposal. you can buy a bond/ticket from me for 3BTC. It may turn into 3.1 or even 3.5 if the cows don't come home at all, but it may also turn into zero. How many do you want?

I'm guessing your lack of "Wow, give me 100!" is less due to your lack of funds and more because you realize that assuming the risk of losing everything is not worth the potential upside of just 0.1 or 0.5.

Now, why would you be OK with this scenario if the numbers were slightly different, say 0.30 and 0.31 and 0.35 instead? Because that's exactly what you're saying; you assume all the risk for minute potential reward but only because in the case of 100TH we're talking about slightly different numbers. The upside has been capped today by tytus.

The primary reward is the dividend. I'm buying a share of hosted mining. NOT speculation that the value of my shares will go up.

Let me ask you this; what would you say if friedcat came out tomorrow and said "Sorry, we really don't have confidence that AM will ever make much more than 1BTC so here are 10,000 shares at 1BTC put on the market". How do you think investors now buying at 3BTC would think? Would that be a reasonable and defendable action because, you know, it's his shares and stuff?

.b

That is not what tytus did, right? In fact, he posted some positive news (in his mind). What would be the market's reaction if friedcat announced he was going to sell any shares? Regardless of his motivations. If friedcat said he wanted to cash out some shares for liquidity but the company was still sound, would you take him at his word or would you speculate that the company is going down? Some people would take him at his word, some would panic. I'm not saying it'd be an easy decision to pick a side in that case, but putting on a tin-foil hat will either prove foolish or genius...most people don't have a crystal ball.

So tytus put 5000 shares for sale at 0.4 (a bit above the lowest ask -- above the all time high). If you think shares are worth more than 0.4 then he did you a favor because now you can buy more. If they are worth less than 0.4 shares...well first people need to buy through the lower asks then start buying into his wall. As you said the wall could be an indication that tytus feels this is a ceiling, so buyers should be wary...anyone that buys at these levels should be acutely aware of the risk they are taking (because of the wall).

I believe you're most dismayed at the fact that tytus put a potential cap on share price and he is limiting your upside in terms of share price. Let me ask you this. What are you buying in this security? From the business plan, it was clear to me that I was buying hashing power. This is as if I was buying hosted Avalons or BFL machines. The primary reason for buying shares is to earn income from the hashing power. A secondary side-effect of listing shares on an exchange is that others would be able to bid on my purchased hashing power. I understand that when you bought into this security, one of your primary variables was share price and that is a valid variable to include. However, the primary variable should have been mining income.

If you read "Simplified Exit" part of the business plan, it states that Picostocks makes it easier for people to disinvest from mining technology. The section also states that shares prices will "likely" increase around the time of deployment, but I interpret the document as meaning...prices of your shares might or might not increase. The document also states that value of the shares will quickly diminish over time. Again, this information indicates to me that the primary value of the shares should be the dividends rather than banking on an increase in share price.

I understand you're not pleased with a (perceived) cap on share price, but IMO you were using the wrong variable to calculate returns.

[silvermario]

I'll be blunt. At this point, I see now way for an extremely long time to rebuild the confidence of investors furuknap. If 100TH is still to be a viable asset, several things must happen.

[some absurd demands]

FTFY

[HeRetiK]

100TH IS GONNA SKYROCKET LOLOLOL

[furuknap]

If you're talking about today's event, he pulled the wall before it was hit. If you're talking about the walls in May, he only stopped adding more once I (and others) yelled at him for it, which prompted the promise of 'never again!' that was broken today.

Not talking about today's wall. I was talking about the ~0.2 walls that were bought up quite quickly. Yes, he did stop after people on the forum complained.

So you are talking about market manipulation.

The primary reward is the dividend. I'm buying a share of hosted mining. NOT speculation that the value of my shares will go up.

Sorry to say, but you are not. If you think that's what you're buying, you may be in for a surprise.

You are buying a chance for a share of hosted mining. That chance carries risk of not getting anything, just like my proposal.

This isn't unique for this PMB; it is common to all PMBs and assets. Even US Treasuries carries a slim chance of default. There's always risk with assets; the people that bought into this at 0.04 did not buy shares of hosted mining, they bought a chance that they might get a share of hosted mining, but with huge risks.

If fact, here's the flip side of the challenge; would you sell me your shares at 0.04 again? Because if you think you're only buying shares of mining and do not want any upside in terms of price increase, then that must be a fair price, right?

Let me ask you this; what would you say if friedcat came out tomorrow and said "Sorry, we really don't have confidence that AM will ever make much more than 1BTC so here are 10,000 shares at 1BTC put on the market". How do you think investors now buying at 3BTC would think? Would that be a reasonable and defendable action because, you know, it's his shares and stuff?

That is not what tytus did, right?

It was. It is what he did today and it was what he did in May. Sure, he did so right after good news, which is essentially the same as saying "I forbid you to feel too optimistic about this news. I decide how optimistic you should be"

Did he put up a buy wall when the chips were delayed? Or when Bitfury failed in his bet yesterday? Those were negative news and he did not attempt to control people's emotions then. Why are you OK when he does so and only he is benefiting from the action?

I believe you're most dismayed at the fact that tytus put a potential cap on share price and he is limiting your upside in terms of share price.

There might be a speck of relevance to your argument if I even had any shares. However, I sold before yesterday so the cap wouldn't have affected me in any case. In fact, if he put up a sell wall at 0.1, I would benefit.

So, I'll advance your next question; what possible motivation could I have, seeing that I don't get an ounce of benefit from the wall going away but would in fact get a benefit if it was there? How could I possibly be arguing for the thing that would not give me benefit but would argue against that which would bring me benefits?

Could it be, I don't know, that there is no personal motivation behind my attacks on this behavior and that this is genuinely an attack on the action for no other reason than that this is really, really, really, really, really bad for investors and thus bad for 100TH, thus bad for a good idea (picostocks), and thus bad for Bitcoin? Could it be that, unlike what you seem to think, there are people in the world that looks beyond immediate financial rewards and, oh god no, would actually like to see the whole community grow, even when it goes against their immediate personal benefit?

Nah, that would mean I was right all along, and that would also mean you're arguments are based on a false assumption, and we can't have that, can we?

I understand you're not pleased with a (perceived) cap on share price, but IMO you were using the wrong variable to calculate returns.

You have no idea what I used to calculate anything for my investments.

.b

[HeRetiK]

tytus' 0.2 wall in may was too sudden, too soon, i give you that. share prices where going up to about 0.26 and all of a sudden tytus' cut the market off. that was a wrong thing to do, he apologized, said he would give a heads up in the future and we moved on.

tytus' 0.4 wall was announced and came up with prices at what, 0.36? that's what, 11% assuming you bought in at the highest price back then? not bad for a single day of speculating.

either way, comparing AM to 100TH is comparing apples to oranges. AM is still growing and selling hardware, while a 100TH will always just stay a 200MH mining bond that hopefully comes to fruition.

i think you were just trying to pull the market up up up and are pissed that someone with a greater stake in the shares intervened.

[furuknap]

i think you were just trying to pull the market up up up and are pissed that someone with a greater stake in the shares intervened.

Are you incapable of reading or is it just that you project your own motivations on everyone else and refuse to comprehend that there may be motivations that conflict with your desires?

.b

[Vbs]

There isn't any clear cut, one-sided, point of view to this. Everyone that bought 100TH PMB's knew they weren't buying them in a regulated exchange.

If anyone wins at poker in an underground casino they also know there is a chance to be ripped clean on the way out by the bouncer.

The only guiding principle that remains is to assess if the issuer was doing what he did with a good intent or a bad intent.

My personal answer is that he did it with good intent. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and should proceed accordingly. There is no "one truth".