[Group Buy] Avalon ASIC Batch 3 [CLOSED- Seven 4 module Avalons ordered]

[rm187]

Lots of topics here.  As one of the original investors I'd like to weigh in a bit on machine allocation.  I'm ok with the plan to distribute investments evenly across all machines.  It egalitarian and greatly simplifies accounting.  None of this machine-labeling nonsense. Early investors will feel, though, like their investment has been diluted by later investments, (and that was one of the reasons that I kept adding shares ... to offset that dilution a bit).

CoinHoarder, I'm happy with the Ownership Percentages that you came up with for the mining pool ... once you have all 7 miners.  Now here's the kicker.   How would you feel about doing that 6 more times.  Actually I'd be happy to help with this.  As I see it people should be added to the pool with the skin they had at the time of EACH purchase.  As you begin receiving shipment, shares from the group of investors that enabled you to buy that miner are added to the ownership roster.  This gives early investors their "premium" for having skin in the game early on, and it allows later investors to share the risk of any one miner going down.

Any thoughts in this regard would be much appreciated.  Thanks

I also feel this way. I'm not sure how to solve the problem. My money was invested in the first unit.
I had a 10%~ investment on it. I was very likely to get my ROI in the first month. Now I have roughly 1% share. I'm not likely to see my ROI until the very last unit is received and mining. Depending on how avalon ships, it could be less then a few weeks from the first to the last unit. But its likely going to be much longer.

[1714027479]

1714027479

[koquillion]

Ok before I sound like a complete a**hole. I should mention a compromise, say 50% ownership until "your" miner arrives.  After that then you're 100% vested.  So here are the scenarios:

• 1. Everyone's 100% vested from the begining
• 2. Once the nth miner is received only shared that helped buy all miner up to that one are 100% vested
• 3. Once the nth miner is received shared not represented by the remaining miners are only 50% vested

That might/will cause a new discussion when the units are not received in the order they were bought. You could say that the first miner received counts as the first one ordered, but one could also argue that, if the fifth one arrives first, that we wouldn't have anything yet without the investors in the fifth unit.

[matt608]

Lots of topics here.  As one of the original investors I'd like to weigh in a bit on machine allocation.  I'm ok with the plan to distribute investments evenly across all machines.  It egalitarian and greatly simplifies accounting.  None of this machine-labeling nonsense. Early investors will feel, though, like their investment has been diluted by later investments, (and that was one of the reasons that I kept adding shares ... to offset that dilution a bit).

CoinHoarder, I'm happy with the Ownership Percentages that you came up with for the mining pool ... once you have all 7 miners.  Now here's the kicker.   How would you feel about doing that 6 more times.  Actually I'd be happy to help with this.  As I see it people should be added to the pool with the skin they had at the time of EACH purchase.  As you begin receiving shipment, shares from the group of investors that enabled you to buy that miner are added to the ownership roster.  This gives early investors their "premium" for having skin in the game early on, and it allows later investors to share the risk of any one miner going down.

Any thoughts in this regard would be much appreciated.  Thanks

I also feel this way. I'm not sure how to solve the problem. My money was invested in the first unit.
I had a 10%~ investment on it. I was very likely to get my ROI in the first month. Now I have roughly 1% share. I'm not likely to see my ROI until the very last unit is received and mining. Depending on how avalon ships, it could be less then a few weeks from the first to the last unit. But its likely going to be much longer.

If you had a 10% investment when there was 1 avalon you should have a 1.428% share of 7 Avalons.  They won't necessarily arrive in the order they were bought in anyway, what if the first one arrives a month late?  Isn't it better for all of us to spread the risk across all of them?  Also it did say in the OP that more machines would be ordered if there was enough money for it with nothing about assigning investors to specific machines. 

[silvercoins]

The arrangement had always been a "group buy" as the SUBJECT of this thread suggests. All investors own all machines equally sharing all the risk between everyone.

I can not imagine the extra work load determining who's is what and when and how much.

It's a GROUP BUY.

[SebastianJu]

The arrangement had always been a "group buy" as the SUBJECT of this thread suggests. All investors own all machines equally sharing all the risk between everyone.

I can not imagine the extra work load determining who's is what and when and how much.

It's a GROUP BUY.

I dont want to take a side because i think both views have advantages but it was planned as a group buy to buy one avalon machine. Then another one. At least iam thought all the time i put my money into to buy the one machine.
Maybe in future groupbuys this has to be specified more exactly. Im ok with having a part of all machines because it spreads the risk in case a machine is broken or something.

[mrbrt]

The arrangement had always been a "group buy" as the SUBJECT of this thread suggests. All investors own all machines equally sharing all the risk between everyone.

I can not imagine the extra work load determining who's is what and when and how much.

It's a GROUP BUY.

I dont want to take a side because i think both views have advantages but it was planned as a group buy to buy one avalon machine. Then another one. At least iam thought all the time i put my money into to buy the one machine.
Maybe in future groupbuys this has to be specified more exactly. Im ok with having a part of all machines because it spreads the risk in case a machine is broken or something.

You have a point, but the problem is that this makes the task of division of mining revenue incredibly complicated for coinhoarder, or whoever is tasked with that duty. Also, what happens when people trade shares? And as people have already mentioned it spreads the risk, so that if machine #5 is shipped and hashing before machine #1, everyone is still earning shares.

[cryptojournal]

The arrangement had always been a "group buy" as the SUBJECT of this thread suggests. All investors own all machines equally sharing all the risk between everyone.

I can not imagine the extra work load determining who's is what and when and how much.

It's a GROUP BUY.

I agree. I understand Spinner et al.'s position, but this would be an absolute nightmare for CoinHoarder. and even worse with the transmission of shares. This would need weighted attribution of each share, etc. I really think that's not realistic. What's more, I absolutely don't expect it to take weeks between "early" and "late" units.

[mrbrt]

The arrangement had always been a "group buy" as the SUBJECT of this thread suggests. All investors own all machines equally sharing all the risk between everyone.

I can not imagine the extra work load determining who's is what and when and how much.

It's a GROUP BUY.

I agree. I understand Spinner et al.'s position, but this would be an absolute nightmare for CoinHoarder. and even worse with the transmission of shares. This would need weighted attribution of each share, etc. I really think that's not realistic. What's more, I absolutely don't expect it to take weeks between "early" and "late" units.

Agree on the early and late units. I think that goes against the whole point of having "batches". Is there any evidence from the first batch shipment that there were early and late units?

btw, crypto - great blog. (at least i think its yours  )

[rm187]

The arrangement had always been a "group buy" as the SUBJECT of this thread suggests. All investors own all machines equally sharing all the risk between everyone.

I can not imagine the extra work load determining who's is what and when and how much.

It's a GROUP BUY.

I dont want to take a side because i think both views have advantages but it was planned as a group buy to buy one Avalon machine. Then another one. At least iam thought all the time i put my money into to buy the one machine.
Maybe in future groupbuys this has to be specified more exactly. Im ok with having a part of all machines because it spreads the risk in case a machine is broken or something.

Same. I did my due diligence and stayed up for 24+ hours to watch the Avalon event. Had my money in before Avalons were on sale.
CH refunded every member that did not make the cut, closed all payments before Avalon were on sale. Annouced the groubuy was closed. I did not expect him to spend the next 3 days taking more. Though I appreciate the community dedication.

Althought its not actually a big deal.(for me), I now feel shafted because, my investment is diluted for a extra period of time; even though I did the extra work that 80% of the people here did not bother with. At the end of the days it will be moot once all the Avalons are up and running. So we really shouldn't take this out of proportion.

[ProfMac]

I also feel this way. I'm not sure how to solve the problem. My money was invested in the first unit.
I had a 10%~ investment on it. I was very likely to get my ROI in the first month. Now I have roughly 1% share. I'm not likely to see my ROI until the very last unit is received and mining. Depending on how avalon ships, it could be less then a few weeks from the first to the last unit. But its likely going to be much longer.

I don't understand your concern.

If you had 7% of the 1st unit, and there were 7 more units added, you would have 1% of 7 units.
It is the same expected income and ROI.

The trade off is that you will still have income if your machine is DOA.
You will also have less income if another machine is DOA.

[koquillion]

If you had 7% of the 1st unit, and there were 7 more units added, you would have 1% of 7 units.
It is the same expected income and ROI.

It would be if they all arrive at the same time. Their point is that, in a worst case scenario, when one unit arrives on the first of the month, and the other six on the last of the month, they would only have 1% of the one unit during the first month instead of the 7%. I was one of the investors of the first two units as well, and I do understand the 'problem', but having 7 units also has it's advantages (like less risk). It's also unlikely that there will be weeks between deliveries (and would expect them all to be sent together, if at all possible.

[cryptojournal]

Agree on the early and late units. I think that goes against the whole point of having "batches". Is there any evidence from the first batch shipment that there were early and late units?

btw, crypto - great blog. (at least i think its yours  )

I Neo. No, the blog you're referring to is not mine. I had no idea there was a blog by that name... If so, I'm sorry about that. I am indeed a (professional) writer/journalist, but I have no blog about cryptos so far, though that might happen in the future.

[CoinHoarder]

CoinHoarder,

Hey, I just checked your ownership spreadsheet and you have me down as 53.099 coins, but to my reckoning I only invested 50 BTC.  I think you added my payment of 3.1 twice 

2013-03-25 09:49:02   PAYMENT RECEIVED   1   0   248572c5aea14beb4669168eda7fc187ee0218e5bd8bd63316f1114b8dfbd82e   Spinner   15hGBYyvfYWGhm8Ts58wohoqGwf7xwyoUJ
2013-03-25 09:51:03   PAYMENT RECEIVED   19   0   1515629aec7aabf120ad86bf2d1d63235149c68835c1d225209d0749cdd27165   Spinner   15hGBYyvfYWGhm8Ts58wohoqGwf7xwyoUJ
2013-03-25 11:42:03   PAYMENT RECEIVED   20   0   8064252c3a58eae24c4305057e7f1bb28b8bec45aae36a510dd598d671f695e1   spinner   15hGBYyvfYWGhm8Ts58wohoqGwf7xwyoUJ
2013-03-25 13:43:24   PAYMENT SENT   0   17.497   5062a5127fd1da2534e7cb9425be24b667e9b7ddff5b9ef854ded2bf92a127bb   spinner   15hGBYyvfYWGhm8Ts58wohoqGwf7xwyoUJ
2013-03-25 23:23:03   PAYMENT RECEIVED   3.1   0   7052ee6db7cb8389747a515214bf8c2748207e5d6b979bc8b6a87d1d21dfe5c5   spinner   1Ec3p5MDk4ec3J2QuJEatoQmoTX9AjUcJJ 
2013-03-26 04:49:06   PAYMENT RECEIVED   35   0   3095e730f90451b39cc9864636bac8bd37b0c4718263f6ad172a6e74c23c6c86   spinner   15hGBYyvfYWGhm8Ts58wohoqGwf7xwyoUJ
2013-03-26 21:57:09   PAYMENT SENT   0   7.504   735a652c9829ff3328be6566ea7feb3107a9a977f44e1b90b4369e52c698ba76   spinner   1Ec3p5MDk4ec3J2QuJEatoQmoTX9AjUcJJ

I'd be glad to take them, but rather get it fixed now.  It'd be a mess if this were exposed after mining. 

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I have corrected this, however, that messes up our our ownership percentages. I need to go back through and see what else I messed up on, because now we are short 3.099 BTC.

Thanks,

Ch

[bowen151]

On the percentages spreadsheet for the "monthly net gain" could we also see projected BTC return side by side? Not only the overall aprroximate dollars?

Or am I understanding it wrong?

[CoinHoarder]

Splitting ownership interest of each Avalon individually is not up for discussion due to the accounting nightmare I would surely face. If you are not happy with this, please seek someone to buy your shares. There are plenty of people looking to buy shares that are happy with splitting ownership of all Avalon's, myself including.

This decision is not up for debate. I'm sorry if you feel mislead or wronged, that was never my intention.

Thanks,

Ch

[mrbrt]

CoinHoarder,

Hey, I just checked your ownership spreadsheet and you have me down as 53.099 coins, but to my reckoning I only invested 50 BTC.  I think you added my payment of 3.1 twice 

2013-03-25 09:49:02   PAYMENT RECEIVED   1   0   248572c5aea14beb4669168eda7fc187ee0218e5bd8bd63316f1114b8dfbd82e   Spinner   15hGBYyvfYWGhm8Ts58wohoqGwf7xwyoUJ
2013-03-25 09:51:03   PAYMENT RECEIVED   19   0   1515629aec7aabf120ad86bf2d1d63235149c68835c1d225209d0749cdd27165   Spinner   15hGBYyvfYWGhm8Ts58wohoqGwf7xwyoUJ
2013-03-25 11:42:03   PAYMENT RECEIVED   20   0   8064252c3a58eae24c4305057e7f1bb28b8bec45aae36a510dd598d671f695e1   spinner   15hGBYyvfYWGhm8Ts58wohoqGwf7xwyoUJ
2013-03-25 13:43:24   PAYMENT SENT   0   17.497   5062a5127fd1da2534e7cb9425be24b667e9b7ddff5b9ef854ded2bf92a127bb   spinner   15hGBYyvfYWGhm8Ts58wohoqGwf7xwyoUJ
2013-03-25 23:23:03   PAYMENT RECEIVED   3.1   0   7052ee6db7cb8389747a515214bf8c2748207e5d6b979bc8b6a87d1d21dfe5c5   spinner   1Ec3p5MDk4ec3J2QuJEatoQmoTX9AjUcJJ 
2013-03-26 04:49:06   PAYMENT RECEIVED   35   0   3095e730f90451b39cc9864636bac8bd37b0c4718263f6ad172a6e74c23c6c86   spinner   15hGBYyvfYWGhm8Ts58wohoqGwf7xwyoUJ
2013-03-26 21:57:09   PAYMENT SENT   0   7.504   735a652c9829ff3328be6566ea7feb3107a9a977f44e1b90b4369e52c698ba76   spinner   1Ec3p5MDk4ec3J2QuJEatoQmoTX9AjUcJJ

I'd be glad to take them, but rather get it fixed now.  It'd be a mess if this were exposed after mining. 

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I have corrected this, however, that messes up our our ownership percentages. I need to go back through and see what else I messed up on, because now we are short 3.099 BTC.

Thanks,

Ch

If you need someone to send an additional 3.099BTC I'll gladly volunteer.

[CoinHoarder]

On the percentages spreadsheet for the "monthly net gain" could we also see projected BTC return side by side? Not only the overall aprroximate dollars?

Or am I understanding it wrong?

Yes.. I think it makes more since to have BTC under monthly net gain- someone from the group provided an almost done spreadsheet for me that I just edited a little to come up with the final product. I will spend more time on it in the near future.

[CoinHoarder]

If you need someone to send an additional 3.099BTC I'll gladly volunteer.

Hehe, I will go over it now, we should have raised enough BTC to buy all Avalons, as I created this address for this specific purpose.

I am hoping it was just a simple mistake when doing the math on one of the shares.

[koquillion]

If you need someone to send an additional 3.099BTC I'll gladly volunteer.

It's probably an accounting error, since all the orders have been paid for 

[cryptojournal]

On the percentages spreadsheet for the "monthly net gain" could we also see projected BTC return side by side? Not only the overall aprroximate dollars?

Or am I understanding it wrong?

Yes.. I think it makes more since to have BTC under monthly net gain- someone from the group provided an almost done spreadsheet for me that I just edited a little to come up with the final product. I will spend more time on it in the near future.

Thank you CH for all your efforts. They are much appreciated by this investor and all the others, I'm sure.