[Group Buy#1] Avalon ASICs CHIPS! Using JohnK as escrow! FINISHED!

[Noitev]

Since for whatever reason (despite voicing my discontent at the time) this group buy used "chips per bitcoin" instead of a fixed price of "bitcoins per chip" (chips aren't divisible, bitcoins are...) as the dividing metric, I calculate that the original cost was 0.08016525 BTC per chip.  This included escrow fees at 1.5% to JohnK, chip shipping costs from Avalon, ragin's 1%, but NOT redistribution shipping from ragin to buyers as that was to be paid individually to ragin at a later date.

782.1 BTC * 1.025 (1 percent for ragingazn628 and 1.5 percent for johnk ) = 801.6525 for one order

801.6525 / 10000 = 0.08016525 per chip

Ragin is (rightfully) forfeiting his escrow fee of 1%

John K's escrow fee is therefore 782.1 * 0.015 = 11.7315 BTC

Ragin's fee (returned to the group is) 782.1 * 0.01 = 7.821 BTC

Refund available is therefore 782.1 (chips plus shipping) +  7.821 (Ragin's share) = 789.921 BTC available for refund

Math check: 801.6525 (collected) - 11.7315 (JohnK's fee) = 789.921 (check)

(no sample chips accounted for in the calculation; at time of purchase this wasn't indicated as part of the deal...)

Refund issued per chip is thusly 789.921 / 10000 = 0.0789921 BTC per chip

This should be issued to all present documented chip holders in the group.  Cost from after the fact sales amongst group members should not be accounted for as the sale constitutes a transfer of risk, and would make the refund entirely too complicated to process.

Your math checks out.  Please double check I got it right on the chip count sheet.  

Also, I fully agree that second party sales prices will not and should not be considered.

Well not exactly, that only works in a perfect world

we have

790.51250333

782.1 from the refund.
7.821 set aside that was to be raging's fee.
0.59150333 remaining in this group buy's btc address.

there are a lot of addresses in the group buy escrow address and john k. can explain them
John. K's amount was already taken out, so regardless of what it "should be" it is 790.51250333 or 0.07905125033 per share unless some of those mystery addresses are under john. k's control, in which case it is greater.

Of course, I think Raging should pay for those chips... in which case the share per person would be 0.07930502641 after subtracting 32 shares from raging.

[Egon]

Having too much is better than not having enough.  I would be OK with dividing that number up, or holding the additional ~0.6btc for a period of time after the refund for someone else to come forward etc.

Fortunately it's pretty close.

[Egon]

I don't think it makes or breaks anyone in here getting 0.00006 extra btc per chip.

I'm fine to divide it up to the other guys in this group who made tracking sheets to facilitate the refund.

[Noitev]

Having too much is better than not having enough.  I would be OK with dividing that number up, or holding the additional ~0.6btc for a period of time after the refund for someone else to come forward etc.

Fortunately it's pretty close.

I'm not sure what you mean by "someone else to come forward"

[bigbeninlondon]

There were tips sent to the payment address for John K.  When I have a moment I'll capture those that were recorded and see if they match up to the extra total.

[Noitev]

There were tips sent to the payment address for John K.  When I have a moment I'll capture those that were recorded and see if they match up to the extra total.

the total to john includes the tips I believe.

36905473f73a53874f81da80629be982ec269116e59c0ca723032f94e9aae149 has 11.99906528 BTC
e03868aa432c035196bd7476551ac5fafec8b7d5915b256c7385d778c5fa0528 has 0.01025 BTC

combined, this is more than 1.5% to John k. so I assume this includes tips.

[Vycid]

I do not think Raging should have his chip money withheld without his permission.  Raging the chip buy operator and Raging the chip buyer are discrete entities in my mind.

We are all biased here because we stand to profit from taking his chip money.

What I want is for Raging to give John permission to distribute that money, or send in more money or whatever. Otherwise he will receive a negative trust rating (from me at least) for not covering the losses he was responsible for. He should not be penalized out of his chip buy if he refuses to pay. That money should be protected.

Honestly Raging, prodigits7 didn't take the chips. You did,  because you wanted to use them to help you make money on your NEO-ASICs thing. This was dishonest, since they did not belong to you, and since you did not have permission to do it.

Asking you to pay for the chips that you took from the group to (try to) use for your own personal gain is not unreasonable.

I hope you agree.

[Noitev]

I do not think Raging should have his chip money withheld without his permission.  Raging the chip buy operator and Raging the chip buyer are discrete entities in my mind.

We are all biased here because we stand to profit from taking his chip money.

What I want is for Raging to give John permission to distribute that money, or send in more money or whatever. Otherwise he will receive a negative trust rating (from me at least) for not covering the losses he was responsible for. He should not be penalized out of his chip buy if he refuses to pay. That money should be protected.

Honestly Raging, prodigits7 didn't take the chips. You did,  because you wanted to use them to help you make money on your NEO-ASICs thing. This was dishonest, since they did not belong to you, and since you did not have permission to do it.

Asking you to pay for the chips that you took from the group to (try to) use for your own personal gain is not unreasonable.

I hope you agree.

I agree with were you're coming from, I'm just kind of upset with how Raging is acting...

On a similar note, if anyone wants to give to people who did the bookkeeping while refunds were being sorted, we can just post tip addresses after refunds are distributed and you can give whatever you feel is fair.

[aceat64]

There were tips sent to the payment address for John K.  When I have a moment I'll capture those that were recorded and see if they match up to the extra total.

the total to john includes the tips I believe.

36905473f73a53874f81da80629be982ec269116e59c0ca723032f94e9aae149 has 11.99906528 BTC
e03868aa432c035196bd7476551ac5fafec8b7d5915b256c7385d778c5fa0528 has 0.01025 BTC

combined, this is more than 1.5% to John k. so I assume this includes tips.

Part of the discrepancy could be from the original sheet. For instance, I paid 20.83225 BTC but the original spreadsheet shows 20.822 BTC.

My transaction is:
https://blockchain.info/tx/0907a3597cfaa9e02dae4f5a4a5d103e8eafd000ad0500fb4c81784aa4d96fd7

[Egon]

Of course, I think Raging should pay for those chips... in which case the share per person would be 0.07930502641 after subtracting 32 shares from raging.

Think they're talking about making Ragin pay for the sample chips not his bulk chip order?

[bigbeninlondon]

There were tips sent to the payment address for John K.  When I have a moment I'll capture those that were recorded and see if they match up to the extra total.

the total to john includes the tips I believe.

36905473f73a53874f81da80629be982ec269116e59c0ca723032f94e9aae149 has 11.99906528 BTC
e03868aa432c035196bd7476551ac5fafec8b7d5915b256c7385d778c5fa0528 has 0.01025 BTC

combined, this is more than 1.5% to John k. so I assume this includes tips.

Part of the discrepancy could be from the original sheet. For instance, I paid 20.83225 BTC but the original spreadsheet shows 20.822 BTC.

My transaction is:
https://blockchain.info/tx/0907a3597cfaa9e02dae4f5a4a5d103e8eafd000ad0500fb4c81784aa4d96fd7

I think the original spreadsheet did some funky math to get the "# of Chips".  I just added a column dividing the actual payment by the original cost per chip, and the numbers fluctuated a little.  The sum with everyone's payment equates to 10007.7655633831 chips.  This is BTC.622528329997057275 more than we needed.  So by incorrectly calculating people's pay, there was a slight overage.


After we get this figured out, please take away this lesson: Always deal with discrete values when proportioning out discrete items.  This % of a chip bullshit is YET ANOTHER failure on Raging's part.

Edit: aceat64 your total has been updated.

[wrenchmonkey]

Of course, I think Raging should pay for those chips... in which case the share per person would be 0.07930502641 after subtracting 32 shares from raging.

Think they're talking about making Ragin pay for the sample chips not his bulk chip order?

Yup. The way I see it Ragin received 32 total chips, therefore, he's not entitled to a refund for those 32, since he received those chips. If he were to get a refund on those 32 chips which he took, he would be double-dipping. He's entitled to a refund for all the chips he paid for minus the 32 he took.

It's not rocket science. It's pretty simple, really.

[Noitev]

Of course, I think Raging should pay for those chips... in which case the share per person would be 0.07930502641 after subtracting 32 shares from raging.

Think they're talking about making Ragin pay for the sample chips not his bulk chip order?

Yup. The way I see it Ragin received 32 total chips, therefore, he's not entitled to a refund for those 32, since he received those chips. If he were to get a refund on those 32 chips which he took, he would be double-dipping. He's entitled to a refund for all the chips he paid for minus the 32 he took.

It's not rocket science. It's pretty simple, really.

When you put it like that, yeah. haha

[bigbeninlondon]

Let's not forget that Raging paid for 212 chips.  That means he was entitled to .67904 of the 32 developer chips.  I'd be ok with only charging him 31 chips, since his purchase legitimately entitled him to a portion of one.

[Noitev]

Let's not forget that Raging paid for 212 chips.  That means he was entitled to .67904 of the 32 developer chips.  I'd be ok with only charging him 31 chips, since his purchase legitimately entitled him to a portion of one.

or .67 of one 

[bigbeninlondon]

Yea, I guess since this whole group buy has been built on fractions of chips, it could apply here too.

[John (John K.)]

Customary 'I'm not dead' post:

Whew, I refunded all other GB's I've received refunds for, and now am trying to make a headway here. Please expect delays due to the fragmented nature of this particular refund list.

[John (John K.)]

As per the 32 sample chip issue, I think it's quite fair that the amount of chips were taken from OP and split amongst buyers here, but note that in other GB's the sample chips weren't in the equation when the refunds were made. I'm open for discussion on this though.

[nebiz]

As per the 32 sample chip issue, I think it's quite fair that the amount of chips were taken from OP and split amongst buyers here, but note that in other GB's the sample chips weren't in the equation when the refunds were made. I'm open for discussion on this though.

My vote is that we proceed as normal, the sample chips were not accounted for in the group buy agreement. Hurt him in his trust, not his pocket.

Of course, if my premise is wrong, and there is a record that we agreed elsewise regarding the sample chips prior to closing the group buy, I suggest levying appropriate penalties. This is the most legally accountable solution.

[Noitev]

As per the 32 sample chip issue, I think it's quite fair that the amount of chips were taken from OP and split amongst buyers here, but note that in other GB's the sample chips weren't in the equation when the refunds were made. I'm open for discussion on this though.

My vote is that we proceed as normal, the sample chips were not accounted for in the group buy agreement. Hurt him in his trust, not his pocket.

Of course, if my premise is wrong, and there is a record that we agreed elsewise regarding the sample chips prior to closing the group buy, I suggest levying appropriate penalties. This is the most legally accountable solution.

The chips weren't decided on in the beginning. We definitley voted 8 go to bkk. the rest he said he'd keep because "the 1% wasn't that much for being the organizer and he wanted to keep the rest to test personally." This sort of implies that he was keeping the remainder as part of his 1% for being organizer which, at the time, seemed fair. Seeing how he recently said he didn't deserve the 1%, it only makes sense he pay for the chips.