[BTC-EQTY] A new Bitcoin Investment Fund

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

New people have no business starting "funds". Not now, not ever.

This is a high trust, high competence field. Only people who have been involved in Bitcoin for a long time and with credible results may do this. Anyone else trying to do this 1. won't get anywhere; 2. is a scammer anyway. Whether they plan to or not they're a scammer, it makes no difference. They'll just have a more or less planned out scam, but it will be a scam.

And before you start with the "I've been involved since 2005" Tortilla stuff: no, you haven't. You're not involved now. To be involved you have to actually do something. People using the word "Bitcoin" in conversation aren't involved in Bitcoin, they're involved in conversing.

With all due respect, this sounds like a rant and is nonsense.

If everyone had the same attitude as this, Bitcoin would never have risen to the place it is now. Simply labeling everything as "won't go anywhere, won't work, waste of time" is a pretty terrible position to have for an innovative, emerging technology.

they did the same to me with my company's High Frequency Algorithm Fund, just thought I'd give you a heads up. I had to drastically scale back the size of the proposed offering but this greatly shifted the cost benefit analysis to the point where this market is simply not mature enough for it.

I made the same observations as you as there is literally no way to not be defensive when you are trying to actually get something done, but it won't help, thats all I'm trying to say

Let me quote this from you:

Okay I was able to look those two funds up.

Jokerdragon's seems to have been running for a year, the screenshots on the blog sites are interesting because some people wanted to see something similar from this offering.

Exchange.ESIF's thread pretty much has the exact same scrutiny as mine, except all by you.

The fact that you're not aware of competing offerings until people mentioned it nor how they are all scammy as fuck should tell you why you should not be doing a "High Frequency Trading Algorithm ETF IPO".

[Chet]

The BTC economy actually could use more new ventures.
The problem comes from people jumping in with both feet before they put a toe in the water to check the temperature. Experience in other 'markets' is not enough, BTC isn't other markets, this one is actually free and unregulated.
Since we don't have gov't toadies telling people what to do, and courts and police to back it all up the community takes care of itself.
To get a new venture going you need to spend some time, talk to people, demonstrate your knowledge and trustworthiness.
If you make a new venture that goes badly from the investors point of view there is no practical difference between that and a deliberate scam ....

[stslimited]

New people have no business starting "funds". Not now, not ever.

This is a high trust, high competence field. Only people who have been involved in Bitcoin for a long time and with credible results may do this. Anyone else trying to do this 1. won't get anywhere; 2. is a scammer anyway. Whether they plan to or not they're a scammer, it makes no difference. They'll just have a more or less planned out scam, but it will be a scam.

And before you start with the "I've been involved since 2005" Tortilla stuff: no, you haven't. You're not involved now. To be involved you have to actually do something. People using the word "Bitcoin" in conversation aren't involved in Bitcoin, they're involved in conversing.

With all due respect, this sounds like a rant and is nonsense.

If everyone had the same attitude as this, Bitcoin would never have risen to the place it is now. Simply labeling everything as "won't go anywhere, won't work, waste of time" is a pretty terrible position to have for an innovative, emerging technology.

they did the same to me with my company's High Frequency Algorithm Fund, just thought I'd give you a heads up. I had to drastically scale back the size of the proposed offering but this greatly shifted the cost benefit analysis to the point where this market is simply not mature enough for it.

I made the same observations as you as there is literally no way to not be defensive when you are trying to actually get something done, but it won't help, thats all I'm trying to say

Let me quote this from you:

Okay I was able to look those two funds up.

Jokerdragon's seems to have been running for a year, the screenshots on the blog sites are interesting because some people wanted to see something similar from this offering.

Exchange.ESIF's thread pretty much has the exact same scrutiny as mine, except all by you.

The fact that you're not aware of competing offerings until people mentioned it nor how they are all scammy as fuck should tell you why you should not be doing a "High Frequency Trading Algorithm ETF IPO".

obscure thinly traded scams were LITERALLY the last thing on my mind when I decided to offer this diversification to the bitcoin community

I maintain that market research on exchange liquidity and the hedging algorithm is way more important, obviously this is where we disagreed

the only thing worth caring about from other funds would be to provide competitive maintenance fees or dividends, thats how it should be, but thats not how it is here, I hope you can see this is an obvious roadblock to the bitcoin economy and investment community

[xaviarlol]

With all due respect, this sounds like a rant and is nonsense.

If everyone had the same attitude as this, Bitcoin would never have risen to the place it is now. Simply labeling everything as "won't go anywhere, won't work, waste of time" is a pretty terrible position to have for an innovative, emerging technology.

Bitcoin has risen to where it is now precisely because of me imposing this here correct attitude against the inception to early 2012 prevailing mistaken attitude of noobish idiocy that you seem to favor. BTC wallowed around 10 per as long as the Global Scam Exchange folk were the prevailing crowd. This was not a coincidence.

The mere fact that you have the unmitigated gall to presume you know the history when you don't, and the boneheaded cluelessness to then use completely wrong "arguments" built on this resounding, absolute ignorance when confronted by the very people who wrote that history is one of those "only on the Internet" sorts of things. At the very least don't add hypocrisy to insult by prefacing that nonsense with "due respect". There's no respect there, in spite of plenty of respect being due. Claiming otherwise is not helping you.

Also don't misrepresent what I say. It's not a matter of "everything", it's a matter of noob ventures without a chance in Hell. Those aren't "everything" by any means.

For starters, no, I don't/didn't know who you are. What you said initially sounded aggressive and arrogant, copiously generalized, and unthoughtful, hence my initial response to you. But alas your experience appears to have put you in a position to make such a generalization.

While I am not fond of the elitist attitude expressed in your second post, you clearly have been "around the block" on this subject and are qualified to make such assertions. Though you couldn't possibly know what my experience is, or how qualified I am, you have chosen to put me in the pool of "idiocy" (your words). That's your choice, but don't be surprised when people react in the way I did, and assume you are a douche (or douchette in your case), for lack of knowing better.

[stslimited]

With all due respect, this sounds like a rant and is nonsense.

If everyone had the same attitude as this, Bitcoin would never have risen to the place it is now. Simply labeling everything as "won't go anywhere, won't work, waste of time" is a pretty terrible position to have for an innovative, emerging technology.

Bitcoin has risen to where it is now precisely because of me imposing this here correct attitude against the inception to early 2012 prevailing mistaken attitude of noobish idiocy that you seem to favor. BTC wallowed around 10 per as long as the Global Scam Exchange folk were the prevailing crowd. This was not a coincidence.

The mere fact that you have the unmitigated gall to presume you know the history when you don't, and the boneheaded cluelessness to then use completely wrong "arguments" built on this resounding, absolute ignorance when confronted by the very people who wrote that history is one of those "only on the Internet" sorts of things. At the very least don't add hypocrisy to insult by prefacing that nonsense with "due respect". There's no respect there, in spite of plenty of respect being due. Claiming otherwise is not helping you.

Also don't misrepresent what I say. It's not a matter of "everything", it's a matter of noob ventures without a chance in Hell. Those aren't "everything" by any means.

For starters, no, I don't/didn't know who you are. What you said initially sounded aggressive and arrogant, hence my initial response to you. But alas your experience appears to have put you in a position to make such a generalization.

While I am not fond of the elitist attitude expressed in your second post, you clearly have been "around the block" on this subject and are qualified to make such assertions. Though you couldn't possibly know what my experience is, or how qualified I am, you have chosen to put me in the pool of "idiocy" (your words). That's your choice, but don't expect people to not react in the way I did (and worse).

I even went to their irc channel to talk about this, their emphasis on the WoT and forum post count is completely out of touch with reality, leading to even further arbitrary scrutiny to determine legitimacy or the lack thereof. I did learn a little (that the size of my offering was too large for the current bitcoin economy) but since this is the only place to offer securities, we need to fix the infrastructure first before larger and more diverse offerings can be accepted. Which is something I am lukewarm to addressing.

[Chet]

I even went to their irc channel to talk about this, their emphasis on the WoT and forum post count is completely out of touch with reality, leading to even further arbitrary scrutiny to determine legitimacy or the lack thereof. I did learn a little (that the size of my offering was too large for the current bitcoin economy) but since this is the only place to offer securities, we need to fix the infrastructure first before larger and more diverse offerings can be accepted. Which is something I am lukewarm to addressing.

The emphasis on WoT and Post counts is not at all out of line. This is the internet, there is really no other way for people to reasonably judge who they are dealing with. Even with those cautions a lot of scams have happened, a lot of people have been burned.
A time might come when there is a better way but for now until there is a verified track record to look at we have no way of telling a 'real trader' from a 13yr old in mom's basement.
One well written description of a project can too easily be a cut and paste.

[MPOE-PR]

Though you couldn't possibly know what my experience is, or how qualified I am, you have chosen to put me in the pool of "idiocy" (your words). That's your choice,

It's not me putting you in that pool, it's your own actions putting you in that pool. It is my choice to express this, but it is not however an arbitrary, subjective, personal slant, if that's what you're intimating. The internet doesn't know (and doesn't care) if you're really a dog. As long as you meow you're a cat.

It's your wake-up call, and you're very much welcome to use it that way. Quite frankly I don't care what you assume of me after having a ten ton anvil dropped on your head on your first herpderp post. If you're still here in a year or two, and if you've meanwhile managed to do one or two things that didn't blow up, or at least didn't blow up much more spectacularly than davout's shit, then I'm likely to start listening.

So now. You've got a lot of catching up to do, and hopefully another foot for later.

I did learn a little (that the size of my offering was too large for the current bitcoin economy) but since this is the only place to offer securities, we need to fix the infrastructure first before larger and more diverse offerings can be accepted.

That's pretty ridiculous stuff. The "current Bitcoin economy" is something like one billion dollars. From what I hear it's you that was judged too small for your proposed offering, not the economy.

Specifically what "we" and specifically what "infrastructure" is this about?

[jski]

xaviarlol  I started a fund too, but I only have family and friends in it, they trust me....LOL I am going to run that a while before I invite strangers let alone people in the forum. Also unless you have a proven track record, starting a fund with a one-off fee to join is not going to have them flooding your gates. If you are good as you claim to be why not make your money with the performance fee only??

I am always on the look out for funds to invest my funds money in.

[stephwen]

I even went to their irc channel to talk about this, their emphasis on the WoT and forum post count is completely out of touch with reality, leading to even further arbitrary scrutiny to determine legitimacy or the lack thereof. I did learn a little (that the size of my offering was too large for the current bitcoin economy) but since this is the only place to offer securities, we need to fix the infrastructure first before larger and more diverse offerings can be accepted. Which is something I am lukewarm to addressing.

The emphasis on WoT and Post counts is not at all out of line. This is the internet, there is really no other way for people to reasonably judge who they are dealing with. Even with those cautions a lot of scams have happened, a lot of people have been burned.
A time might come when there is a better way but for now until there is a verified track record to look at we have no way of telling a 'real trader' from a 13yr old in mom's basement.
One well written description of a project can too easily be a cut and paste.

The emphasis on post count is a great way for jobless people or teens with a lot of time to spare to gain credibility, indeed. 

[Chet]

The emphasis on post count is a great way for jobless people or teens with a lot of time to spare to gain credibility, indeed. 

Well I guess if people only look at the numbers and don't do their homework by reading a fair number of them you would be right.
I just don't care to form a judgement on 1 or 2 bad (or good) posts.

[stslimited]

Though you couldn't possibly know what my experience is, or how qualified I am, you have chosen to put me in the pool of "idiocy" (your words). That's your choice,

It's not me putting you in that pool, it's your own actions putting you in that pool. It is my choice to express this, but it is not however an arbitrary, subjective, personal slant, if that's what you're intimating. The internet doesn't know (and doesn't care) if you're really a dog. As long as you meow you're a cat.

It's your wake-up call, and you're very much welcome to use it that way. Quite frankly I don't care what you assume of me after having a ten ton anvil dropped on your head on your first herpderp post. If you're still here in a year or two, and if you've meanwhile managed to do one or two things that didn't blow up, or at least didn't blow up much more spectacularly than davout's shit, then I'm likely to start listening.

So now. You've got a lot of catching up to do, and hopefully another foot for later.

I did learn a little (that the size of my offering was too large for the current bitcoin economy) but since this is the only place to offer securities, we need to fix the infrastructure first before larger and more diverse offerings can be accepted.

That's pretty ridiculous stuff. The "current Bitcoin economy" is something like one billion dollars. From what I hear it's you that was judged too small for your proposed offering, not the economy.

Specifically what "we" and specifically what "infrastructure" is this about?

yeah but my proposed IPO was larger than anything currently seen in this community. for an initial offering

[Chet]

yeah but my proposed IPO was larger than anything currently seen in this community. for an initial offering

I'm curious now, does your company have a track record, public financial statements and the usual stuff available for review for potential investors? Initial Public Offerings normally follow either some amount of VC or perhaps just founder investments so the offering can be reasonably evaluated by potential buyers.
If yes can I get a link to some of that material? 

[xaviarlol]

Hi everyone,

I have elected to close this fund to the public for now. Instead, I will be the sole shareholder of the fund, and the results will be published publicly if you are interested in following this funds performance. I will post the first statement at the end of May.

[MPOE-PR]

Hi everyone,

I have elected to close this fund to the public for now. Instead, I will be the sole shareholder of the fund, and the results will be published publicly if you are interested in following this funds performance. I will post the first statement at the end of May.

Not a bad way to go about it. Try and make the results as publicly verifiable as at all possible (not always an easy task, this).

[xaviarlol]

The statement is here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AuQ3xQRnpXqEdG5yMHZCaVkydWM5V1pzZld6WmtZa2c#gid=0

Though keep in mind the investment period is only about 1.5 days. So the stats are very much premature.

Also making changes/alterations to it all the time, its very premature.

[bitdragon]

is your Fixed Interest assets related to mining too?

Try and make the results as publicly verifiable as at all possible (not always an easy task, this).

would be nice and helpful for everyone.

Seems like an awfully high percentage involved in Asicminer. From my understanding, it seems to be a bet against appreciation in $ of bitcoins ?

[xaviarlol]

is your Fixed Interest assets related to mining too?

Try and make the results as publicly verifiable as at all possible (not always an easy task, this).

would be nice and helpful for everyone.

Seems like an awfully high percentage involved in Asicminer. From my understanding, it seems to be a bet against appreciation in $ of bitcoins ?

The fixed interest Assets are currently all allocated in a coinlender account, earning ~25% PA interest. They are in a CD for 30 days.

[bitdragon]

do you have a strategy or a plan on how you are going to deal with asicminer shares or is it a wait and see and react emotionally once things start moving in one way or another?

you don't need to share the details, just if you have one or not.

[xaviarlol]

do you have a strategy or a plan on how you are going to deal with asicminer shares or is it a wait and see and react emotionally once things start moving in one way or another?

you don't need to share the details, just if you have one or not.

At this time and in the short-mid term, I really like ASICMINER. I will not be selling unless something significant happens. I also plan on accumulating more when the opportunity arises for better value.

[xaviarlol]

Hey all, the first statement is now available. You can find it here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AuQ3xQRnpXqEdG5yMHZCaVkydWM5V1pzZld6WmtZa2c&usp=sharing

Summary:
- Because the fund began on May 23rd, The first monthly statement period is just 8 days long.
- Investment assets rose by 2.22459023 BTC, or +3.78%. The normalized 31 day growth rate was +14.64%. NAV as of May 31st is 61.564244055 BTC.
- Despite little to no movement in ASICM share price since the fund opened (23rd of march), I am pleased of the growth rate of the fund.
- No dividend was issued. If a 100% dividend was issued, its normalized yield rate would have been 174.99% PA, or 3.4% per 8 day period.