[BTCTC][[ASICMINER-PT]] - Public trading of ASICMINER shares

[Zedster]

Bitfunder is already trading and at a higher price?  Am i understanding what am I am seeing correctly.  Sorry for the newbness.

Prices on BitFunder are determined by asicminer holders who have already transferred shared in shares.
They are the ones posting asks.

Thanks for the explaination

[burnside]

based on DeaDTerra's recent post, there was mention of using the transaction fees or some other kickbacks to pay DeaDTerra.

As you can see, deadterra stated that should the asset become a burden, a thank you payment (and honestly no amount was ever discussed or promised) MAY be offered as a thank you for agreeing to the management of an asset to help the community.
When we began the discussion of creating an ASCIMINER pass-through to assist shareholders due to the lack of an exchange, we both decided that the main focus was to offer a method of trade without concerns of fees to nickle and dime them to use it, so that more users would feel comfortable doing such and relying less on friedcat to have to constantly manage transfers.

So as it stands, there are currently no "kickbacks" of any amount promised in regards to BitFunder.
You are simply reading more into it than there is.

Appreciate the clarification.  I don't think I really read all that much into it.  Just read that it was being discussed, and it sounds like you've confirmed that.  It's nothing nefarious, we've discussed the same issuer volume type things before, and cryptostocks already has it.  It's just that it's a really (really) bad idea.

I see no issue with a PT wanting to have a dividends fee on what is expected to be one of the highest paying assets.
Although I think transfer fees may be a bit overkill when coupled with that fee, but that is my opinion.
I am not sure how I feel about the exchange operator managing assets. This is an issue I currently argue with myself over.
If you are buying the shares, i.e. they are your shares to sell, you should be allowed to sell at whatever price you want.
You are only competing with other users who might transfer shares shares in.
Though, your delay on including transferred shares until March 11th does help that a bit.
If you are using 'investor' funds to buy shares and not your own, you probably should sell them at face value without loss unless the exact profit amounts were provided to the investors beforehand.
That though, depends on proof of cost.

I agree with most of that.  I'll reiterate that after the first week of the IPO when we know how many shares have sold a refund in the form of a dividend is planned.  The problem is that if say, only 500 shares sell, then the premium on the call becomes a higher portion of the overall cost.  I don't know how else to do it fairly.  The final cost following the dividend will come very close (less than a percentage point) to my actual cost.

The goal was never to make a windfall on the sales.  The final trigger for me to do this was the thread where they're tracking bids and asks post by post.    It just became obvious that something better could be worked out.

Cheers.

[burnside]

The ask is up at 0.65!

There will only be these 1000 shares for sale at this time.  The call option I was working on for the second 1000 shares fell through, so get 'em while you can. 

Without the second 1000 shares which were cheaper, if all 1000 sell this week the immediate dividend will be around 0.01 to 0.015.

Cheers.

[Zedster]

Hope to have the BTC tomorrow.  Just not easy exchanging in Denmark.  They will sell out about 30 mins before my bank can pull their finger out.  You watch.

[zx9r]

The ask is up at 0.65!

There will only be these 1000 shares for sale at this time.  The call option I was working on for the second 1000 shares fell through, so get 'em while you can. 

Without the second 1000 shares which were cheaper, if all 1000 sell this week the immediate dividend will be around 0.01 to 0.015.

Cheers.

Right now the ask is of 492 shares. The 24h vol is 86 shares. Supposing that all 86 are first time sales this gives a total of 587 shares (less if some share has been reselled). Where are the remaining shares to 1000 ?

[burnside]

Right now the ask is of 492 shares. The 24h vol is 86 shares. Supposing that all 86 are first time sales this gives a total of 587 shares (less if some share has been reselled). Where are the remaining shares to 1000 ?

I think you might be looking at the wrong site. 

https://btct.co/security/ASICMINER-PT

[zx9r]

Right now the ask is of 492 shares. The 24h vol is 86 shares. Supposing that all 86 are first time sales this gives a total of 587 shares (less if some share has been reselled). Where are the remaining shares to 1000 ?

I think you might be looking at the wrong site. 

https://btct.co/security/ASICMINER-PT

Yep 

[DeanC]

how often are the dividends paid here?

[burnside]

how often are the dividends paid here?

By contract they'll be paid within 72 hours of ASICMINER releasing them.  If it takes me any longer than that, (eg, I'm on vacation.) then the maintenance fee will be waived.

In practice I expect to be turning them around pretty quickly, most likely within 24 hrs.

Cheers.

[DeanC]

And please remind me...
How often does the ASICMINER pay? Once a week? Or how it works?

[Deprived]

And please remind me...
How often does the ASICMINER pay? Once a week? Or how it works?

We expect once a week (on Thursdays) but not sure it's absolutely written in stone.

[DeanC]

Last question:
are there about 163000 shares - worth about 81500btc of ASICMINER?

Calculations:
3860.41091438 BTC / dividend per share was approximately 0.02354413 bitcoins = 163964

source:
http://mineforeman.com/2013/03/01/asicminer-pays-dividends/

[Deprived]

Last question:
are there about 163000 shares - worth about 81500btc of ASICMINER?

Calculations:
3860.41091438 BTC / dividend per share was approximately 0.02354413 bitcoins = 163964

source:
http://mineforeman.com/2013/03/01/asicminer-pays-dividends/

There's actually 400,000 shares.

The 163k you refer to are the ones sold on GLBSE.  Dividends are going only to those shares until they've been paid back the initial 0.1 BTC the shares were sold for.  After that all future dividends will be split between all 400k shares (the other shares are ones taken by those running ASICMNER for their work/investment into it plus some which were going to be sold on GLBSE but weren't in the end as the funds weren't needed due to a rise in BTC price).

So for now each share gets 1/162k of each dividend - once each share has received 0.1 BTC it'll get 1/400k of dividend thereafter.

[burnside]

I've had some good conversations with ASICMINER shareholders that would like to move their shares to the exchange, but are turned off by the maintenance fees.

I completely understand this, especially when there's a very good alternative out there that passes through 100% of the divs.  I still don't get how they can do that.  It seems like a recipe for trouble, however it does force me to reconsider. 

What I'm thinking is that a tiered maintenance fee probably makes the most sense.  Here is my proposed change:

< Each ASICMINER-PT is entitled to 95% of the dividends paid on one ASICMINER share.

> A management fee of X% will be levied on each dividend payment where X is determined by the number of shares currently managed by the pass through.  For under 1000 shares, the management fee shall be 3%.  For over 1000 shares, the management fee shall be 2%.  For over 3000 shares, the management fee shall be 1.5%.  For over 5000 shares the management fee shall be 1%.  For over 10000 shares the management fee shall be 0.5%.

DeaDTerra's pass through also addresses the possibility of reaching 5000 shares and becoming a board member.  Should we reach 5000 shares, and we are granted a seat at the board, the fund will bring motions to decide how to vote on upcoming ASICMINER motions.  This is a distinct ability that I do not believe the other platform has.  (I don't think they have motions?  Do they?)

If we reach 5000 shares, become a board member, and are granted a mining unit, then we will at that time take motions as to how to deal with it.  Either by reselling it, or by contracting a mining company to operate it for us for an additional dividend, or whatever the current shareholders deem appropriate.

Cheers.

[Ukyo]

I completely understand this, especially when there's a very good alternative out there that passes through 100% of the divs.  I still don't get how they can do that.  It seems like a recipe for trouble, however it does force me to reconsider. 

What I'm thinking is that a tiered maintenance fee probably makes the most sense.  Here is my proposed change:

< Each ASICMINER-PT is entitled to 95% of the dividends paid on one ASICMINER share.

> A management fee of X% will be levied on each dividend payment where X is determined by the number of shares currently managed by the pass through.  For under 1000 shares, the management fee shall be 3%.  For over 1000 shares, the management fee shall be 2%.  For over 3000 shares, the management fee shall be 1.5%.  For over 5000 shares the management fee shall be 1%.  For over 10000 shares the management fee shall be 0.5%.

I should think it would not be hard to get to 10,000 shares. G.ASICMINER-PT is not too far from it based on pending transfers and it sounds like you are already gaining momentum.
You say "I don't get how they can do do that." at 0% yet 0.5% would practically be the same as G.ASICMINER-PT compared to your 5% starting point. 90% decrease. Sounds contradictory.
Compared to how you believe things needed to be 5% to work means you do not understand how a possible 90% lower rate your suggesting make any sense, right?
Or are you meaning that 0.5% is within perfectly acceptable range, and that 5% was probably overkill to start with since you did not know the shares would be paying out such high rates?
There is nothing wrong with making money. Perhaps people should stop and think that paying the 5% might make you a better asset manager to want to grow it as large as possible.
Your time is also valuable as the coder/operator of btct among other things. Sometimes quality comes with a price and standard of expectations.

DeaDTerra's pass through also addresses the possibility of reaching 5000 shares and becoming a board member.  Should we reach 5000 shares, and we are granted a seat at the board, the fund will bring motions to decide how to vote on upcoming ASICMINER motions.  This is a distinct ability that I do not believe the other platform has.  (I don't think they have motions?  Do they?)

Well, the asset's don't have options of "Yes with/out votes" or a mention of voting in G.ASICMINER-PT for nothing. I would link it for you but that may not be proper here.

With everything being said so far, while acting as a pass-through you should make sure to fully understand the asset you are passing through and all it entails since you are liable for the shares and any possible board member responsibilities/benefits/requirements/expectations expected of ASICMINER board members.

[burnside]

I should think it would not be hard to get to 10,000 shares. G.ASICMINER-PT is not too far from it based on pending transfers and it sounds like you are already gaining momentum.
You say "I don't get how they can do do that." at 0% yet 0.5% would practically be the same as G.ASICMINER-PT compared to your 5% starting point. 90% decrease. Sounds contradictory.
Compared to how you believe things needed to be 5% to work means you do not understand how a possible 90% lower rate your suggesting make any sense, right?
Or are you meaning that 0.5% is within perfectly acceptable range, and that 5% was probably overkill to start with since you did not know the shares would be paying out such high rates?
There is nothing wrong with making money. Perhaps people should stop and think that paying the 5% might make you a better asset manager to want to grow it as large as possible.
Your time is also valuable as the coder/operator of btct among other things. Sometimes quality comes with a price and standard of expectations.

Hard to explain I guess without putting together a pretty graph, but the tiered pricing goal was to make the passthru maintenance relatively constant.  The simplest example; if it's 1% at 5000 shares and 0.5% at 10000 shares, that means the maintenance fee is the same at 10000 shares as it is at 5000.

Cheers

[Ukyo]

I should think it would not be hard to get to 10,000 shares. G.ASICMINER-PT is not too far from it based on pending transfers and it sounds like you are already gaining momentum.
You say "I don't get how they can do do that." at 0% yet 0.5% would practically be the same as G.ASICMINER-PT compared to your 5% starting point. 90% decrease. Sounds contradictory.
Compared to how you believe things needed to be 5% to work means you do not understand how a possible 90% lower rate your suggesting make any sense, right?
Or are you meaning that 0.5% is within perfectly acceptable range, and that 5% was probably overkill to start with since you did not know the shares would be paying out such high rates?
There is nothing wrong with making money. Perhaps people should stop and think that paying the 5% might make you a better asset manager to want to grow it as large as possible.
Your time is also valuable as the coder/operator of btct among other things. Sometimes quality comes with a price and standard of expectations.

Hard to explain I guess without putting together a pretty graph, but the tiered pricing goal was to make the passthru maintenance relatively constant.  The simplest example; if it's 1% at 5000 shares and 0.5% at 10000 shares, that means the maintenance fee is the same at 10000 shares as it is at 5000.

Cheers

Ahh I see.
If the goal is to make it a same fee regardless of the number of shares, why not just write it down as a flat fee? Sounds easier rather than dealing with tiers if your just making the tiers to that effect anyways.

[burnside]

I should think it would not be hard to get to 10,000 shares. G.ASICMINER-PT is not too far from it based on pending transfers and it sounds like you are already gaining momentum.
You say "I don't get how they can do do that." at 0% yet 0.5% would practically be the same as G.ASICMINER-PT compared to your 5% starting point. 90% decrease. Sounds contradictory.
Compared to how you believe things needed to be 5% to work means you do not understand how a possible 90% lower rate your suggesting make any sense, right?
Or are you meaning that 0.5% is within perfectly acceptable range, and that 5% was probably overkill to start with since you did not know the shares would be paying out such high rates?
There is nothing wrong with making money. Perhaps people should stop and think that paying the 5% might make you a better asset manager to want to grow it as large as possible.
Your time is also valuable as the coder/operator of btct among other things. Sometimes quality comes with a price and standard of expectations.

Hard to explain I guess without putting together a pretty graph, but the tiered pricing goal was to make the passthru maintenance relatively constant.  The simplest example; if it's 1% at 5000 shares and 0.5% at 10000 shares, that means the maintenance fee is the same at 10000 shares as it is at 5000.

Cheers

Ahh I see.
If the goal is to make it a same fee regardless of the number of shares, why not just write it down as a flat fee? Sounds easier rather than dealing with tiers if your just making the tiers to that effect anyways.

Then if the dividend is low everyone gets screwed.  Didn't seem very fair.

Cheers.

[Ukyo]

Then if the dividend is low everyone gets screwed.  Didn't seem very fair.

Cheers.

So if the dividend is low when you have fewer shares, then people get more screwed?
i.e. if the dividend is low, and your taking 5% Vs. the dividend being low and you taking 0.5% for greater shares.

That does not seem very fair. The more people refuse to join due to whatever, the more the current holders get screwed. right?

Apparently you are concerned about the dividend payout amount. If we add that to the equation then perhaps the % should be based on dividend ranges instead?

Maybe I misunderstood something somewhere.  It wouldn't be a first.

[Monster Tent]

Something like 1-2% is ok to run a simple passthrough for one stock but something that requires constant trading such as an ETF 5% is more reasonable. It depends how much work there is to run it.

I dont think the fee really matters because  other asicminer owners might run their own passthrough and compete.