SANDSTORM: - A Collective Investment Vehicle for BTC. -

[canth]

(wall of text)

Korbman, you raise some good points, and some that are a little off the mark.

-- The Sandstorm Description does not "promise" or "guarantee" profits, last I checked. He states the yield as goals. I agree that his methods and strategy are left to mystery though...
-- When a fund issues new shares, it does not necessarily dilute the value because the bitcoins gained all belong to the fund. While they may not dilute things, it's possible for him to push down the price if they are overvalued however. Maybe the answer is that he should have included exactly how he will price future releases, and what will trigger him to do so, etc.
-- Regarding your worst-case scenario where Mr. Mutch can't "buy back" the shares in the event of dissolution, one one hand this is a risk for most assets. However, in this case, dissolution should involve the liquidation of assets on behalf of the shareholders, not a buyback.
-- Yes, Mr. Mutch could easily share his BitFunder wallet address so we can verify his holdings via the Public Asset list. He should also make public his BTCT.co portfolio since the allow this. Only Havelock does not have this feature, ironically...

He could certainly share his asset listings, but to a certain extent this would somewhat undermine the value of the fund since anyone could watch his trades and benefit without being part of the fund. I'm not saying that the transparency wouldn't be worth it - merely that it somewhat reduces the value of underlying trading decisions, which seem to be a significant portion of the profits.

I hate to bring this up since I don't want to compare Mr Mutch with one of the world's greatest investors, but Warren Buffett didn't tip his hands to investors - he expected them to trust him to do what was in their best interest, without being involved. Of course, he had yearly audits to prove his holdings.

[1714647829]

1714647829

[1714647829]

1714647829

[1714647829]

1714647829

[1714647829]

1714647829

[1714647829]

1714647829

[ThickAsThieves]

(wall of text)

Korbman, you raise some good points, and some that are a little off the mark.

-- The Sandstorm Description does not "promise" or "guarantee" profits, last I checked. He states the yield as goals. I agree that his methods and strategy are left to mystery though...
-- When a fund issues new shares, it does not necessarily dilute the value because the bitcoins gained all belong to the fund. While they may not dilute things, it's possible for him to push down the price if they are overvalued however. Maybe the answer is that he should have included exactly how he will price future releases, and what will trigger him to do so, etc.
-- Regarding your worst-case scenario where Mr. Mutch can't "buy back" the shares in the event of dissolution, one one hand this is a risk for most assets. However, in this case, dissolution should involve the liquidation of assets on behalf of the shareholders, not a buyback.
-- Yes, Mr. Mutch could easily share his BitFunder wallet address so we can verify his holdings via the Public Asset list. He should also make public his BTCT.co portfolio since the allow this. Only Havelock does not have this feature, ironically...

He could certainly share his asset listings, but to a certain extent this would somewhat undermine the value of the fund since anyone could watch his trades and benefit without being part of the fund. I'm not saying that the transparency wouldn't be worth it - merely that it somewhat reduces the value of underlying trading decisions, which seem to be a significant portion of the profits.

I hate to bring this up since I don't want to compare Mr Mutch with one of the world's greatest investors, but Warren Buffett didn't tip his hands to investors - he expected them to trust him to do what was in their best interest, without being involved. Of course, he had yearly audits to prove his holdings.

The rules need to be different in bitcoin. Trust is earned and justified, not gambled for.

Plus, he already does share his holdings info, he simply doesn't prove it yet. So trade secrets are not the issue anyway.

Has Mr. Mutch earned his license? Or is he driving blindfolded with kids in the car?

[Deprived]

-- Regarding your worst-case scenario where Mr. Mutch can't "buy back" the shares in the event of dissolution, one one hand this is a risk for most assets. However, in this case, dissolution should involve the liquidation of assets on behalf of the shareholders, not a buyback.

It's a different risk here than for most funds.

Most funds promise in the event they cant continue to sell off assets and share it out to investors.

Sandstorm promises :

"If on the unlikely chance that Sandstorm can't continue:
Shareholders will be fully informed and a suitable replacement for management will be sought after. If this attempt is unsuccessful, shares will be purchased back at 105% of the 7 day average. All remaining assets will be liquidated and distributed to shareholders through dividends."

So he promises to by buy back based on market price - which is horrible for a fund to do.  Having made that promise I think korbman's perfectly valid point is that he should be demonstrating that he has the assets to do so (NOT just the assets the fund holds) otherwise the fund is backed by a promised buyback value which can't be delivered.

Buy-backs based on market price are widely used - and are bad in pretty much every case.  They either allow the issuer to talk (or flood) the price down first OR they expose the issuer to having to pay an excessive amount.

With the current trading price for Sandstorm I have no idea whether the issuer could afford to buy back per his contract - and it would be unreasonable for him to do so anyway.  But that's what his contract promises - and some part of the price rise MAY be due to that, with people realising that per the contract if they can inflate the price then even if it shuts down they get to keep whatever rise they've managed to achieve.

Buy-backs should be based on what's received for assets - other than for bonds where a fixed price should be determined in advance (or a formula provided allowing calculation of the price).

His contract APPEARS to say that shares will be bought back at 105% AND investors will receive proceeds from selling assets.

[ThickAsThieves]

-- Regarding your worst-case scenario where Mr. Mutch can't "buy back" the shares in the event of dissolution, one one hand this is a risk for most assets. However, in this case, dissolution should involve the liquidation of assets on behalf of the shareholders, not a buyback.

It's a different risk here than for most funds.

Most funds promise in the event they cant continue to sell off assets and share it out to investors.

Sandstorm promises :

"If on the unlikely chance that Sandstorm can't continue:
Shareholders will be fully informed and a suitable replacement for management will be sought after. If this attempt is unsuccessful, shares will be purchased back at 105% of the 7 day average. All remaining assets will be liquidated and distributed to shareholders through dividends."

So he promises to by buy back based on market price - which is horrible for a fund to do.  Having made that promise I think korbman's perfectly valid point is that he should be demonstrating that he has the assets to do so (NOT just the assets the fund holds) otherwise the fund is backed by a promised buyback value which can't be delivered.

Buy-backs based on market price are widely used - and are bad in pretty much every case.  They either allow the issuer to talk (or flood) the price down first OR they expose the issuer to having to pay an excessive amount.

With the current trading price for Sandstorm I have no idea whether the issuer could afford to buy back per his contract - and it would be unreasonable for him to do so anyway.  But that's what his contract promises - and some part of the price rise MAY be due to that, with people realising that per the contract if they can inflate the price then even if it shuts down they get to keep whatever rise they've managed to achieve.

Buy-backs should be based on what's received for assets - other than for bonds where a fixed price should be determined in advance (or a formula provided allowing calculation of the price).

His contract APPEARS to say that shares will be bought back at 105% AND investors will receive proceeds from selling assets.

Yep, he definitely set it up poorly. I hadn't even considered that it could cause the price to inflate, but I'm skeptical that is what's going on anyway. Pumping the price long-term is unsustainable, unless Mutch works some real magic with increasing the actual value of the fund.

[Deprived]

Yep, he definitely set it up poorly. I hadn't even considered that it could cause the price to inflate, but I'm skeptical that is what's going on anyway. Pumping the price long-term is unsustainable, unless Mutch works some real magic with increasing the actual value of the fund.

Yeah it's unlikely it had much to do with the inflation to date.  But consider if he announced he was closing down and looking for a replacement manager.  At that point if you held a significant number it would be worth selling to yourself at progressively higher prices just to inflate the buy-back if no replacement manager was found.  With enough shares (or enough people cooperating) you could block any vote to approve a new manager anyway and force a buy-back.

It's one of the reasons why nothing I run (or will run) has a buy-back clause related to market price - those allow manipulation in both directions (down by issuer IF issuer is allowed to sell new shares and up by investors).

[Peter Lambert]

Sandstorm promises :

"If on the unlikely chance that Sandstorm can't continue:
Shareholders will be fully informed and a suitable replacement for management will be sought after. If this attempt is unsuccessful, shares will be purchased back at 105% of the 7 day average. All remaining assets will be liquidated and distributed to shareholders through dividends."

His contract APPEARS to say that shares will be bought back at 105% AND investors will receive proceeds from selling assets.

Whoa, so you just buy and sell the stock to yourself until it gets so high it is unreal, then convince him he should shut down the fund and he is contractually obligated to give you 105% of the market price and additionally whatever assets the fund holds. That is a great way to get all the issuer's money, when are we starting?

[freedomno1]

Sandstorm promises :

"If on the unlikely chance that Sandstorm can't continue:
Shareholders will be fully informed and a suitable replacement for management will be sought after. If this attempt is unsuccessful, shares will be purchased back at 105% of the 7 day average. All remaining assets will be liquidated and distributed to shareholders through dividends."

His contract APPEARS to say that shares will be bought back at 105% AND investors will receive proceeds from selling assets.

Whoa, so you just buy and sell the stock to yourself until it gets so high it is unreal, then convince him he should shut down the fund and he is contractually obligated to give you 105% of the market price and additionally whatever assets the fund holds. That is a great way to get all the issuer's money, when are we starting?

I must agree that this is a good point even if hypothetical the Terms of Service should address this

[damiano]

I just did a big dump

 

[Korbman]

Korbman, you raise some good points, and some that are a little off the mark.

-- The Sandstorm Description does not "promise" or "guarantee" profits, last I checked. He states the yield as goals. I agree that his methods and strategy are left to mystery though...
-- When a fund issues new shares, it does not necessarily dilute the value because the bitcoins gained all belong to the fund. While they may not dilute things, it's possible for him to push down the price if they are overvalued however. Maybe the answer is that he should have included exactly how he will price future releases, and what will trigger him to do so, etc.
-- Regarding your worst-case scenario where Mr. Mutch can't "buy back" the shares in the event of dissolution, one one hand this is a risk for most assets. However, in this case, dissolution should involve the liquidation of assets on behalf of the shareholders, not a buyback.
-- Yes, Mr. Mutch could easily share his BitFunder wallet address so we can verify his holdings via the Public Asset list. He should also make public his BTCT.co portfolio since the allow this. Only Havelock does not have this feature, ironically...

Hi TAT, allow me to retort

1% dividends -- I sort of took it as an implied promise, based on the quote:

Sandstorm's Goals:
-Release weekly dividends of at least 1% of the capital gathered from public offerings. This is a minimum expectation.

Since it is a "minimum" expectation, I should be able to look forward to 1% per week. What happens if it goes below 1%? I dunno.

Dilution -- If I remember correctly (and anyone feel free to correct me on this), but dilution happens when additional shares are introduced into the market, which can not only have an effect on the price, but also voting control as well. In this case, 100,000 shares are currently issues and dividends / voting power are divided as such. With the introduction of additional shares (up to 1,000,000), both dividends and voting power are diluted (including stock value, depending on how they're priced).

Repurchases -- Yup, pretty right about that...but it's still really quite odd that you'd promise to repurchase stock when things go sour. It's normal for Bonds and Notes, but certainly not Stocks.

Public Asset List -- Wholly agree with you here. If Sandstorm is hosted on multiple exchanges, I'd like to see holdings on each one complied for Investors. That would be pretty cool

[jmutch]

Hey guys thanks for taking an interest in Sandstorm. I'd really appreciate if people would read the first 5 or 6 pages of this thread. It would save answering a few things previously addressed.

OK page 11,

Then someone will simply use two or three or four accounts.

If you're running an exchange, you need to be fair. If someone wants to buy all their shares available, then let them. Do not create artificial limitations.

A better IPO would have been launched in batches anyways.

+1

I don't think there should be limits on how much of an IPO can be purchased.

Also, I think the IPO could have been advertised better. I talk to James all the time, and I am on Havelock's website all the time, but I had no idea the IPO was at 1am EST.

I just happened to not be subscribed to this thread.

I probably wasn't going to buy anyway, but if I had known it was so soon, I would've read the prospectus and known right away the 100btc IPO would sell out and could be flipped.

If I'd had an account/funds on Havelock I'd have tried to buy a chunk to flip.  This always happens with any IPO which has a small market cap - a few people buy it out then try to resell it at a huge markup.  Some of them actively try to manipulate the market as well.

To see it really in practice, LTC-GLobal is the place to look - would guesstimate half the securities there are, or at some point have been, manipulated up by one or two people holding a lot of the shares, bidding it up, buying off themselves to make the inflated price look like an active trading range etc.

As TAT said, limiting how much one account can buy is NOT the solution.  Solutions, such that they are include:

1.  Giving significant notice of IPOs (a week plus)
2.  Issuer ensuring that the real underlying value is well publicised - unfortunately many issuers prefer their shares to trade at inflated prices (as they can then sell personal holdings and/or issue new ones at the inflated prices).
3.  Educating investors.

#1 is important - not so much because it'll change who gets the shares but because:

a)  It ensures investors are aware of the IPO price for a period of time.  That reduces the problem of ones who never realised it was happening and aren't properly aware of just how inflated a post-pump price is.
b)  It maximises sales revenue for the Issuer.
c)  It reduces whining afterwards - as well as legitimate complaints of not being aware because of short notice.

#2 is tricky as, on the face of it, it acts against the issuer's own interests - most issuers seem to believe that their share price rising is automatically a good thing.  I disagree with that belief but it appears widely held.  It's also very hard to get the message through anyway - I repeatedly said noone should buy my LTC-ATF.B2 at much of a markup (as it's a fixed rate bond only paying about 17% per year) yet within an hour of selling the first batch someone had bought them at over 80% markup to face despite it being callable at 105% of face.

#3 is the best solution (to the extent that there is one).  The problem right now is that investors over-react to anything they perceive as good or bad news.  An IPO is considered good news - as is the arrival of an ASIC - and both are seen as a valid reason for a price to absolutely sky-rocket.  When both should have already been largely priced in already - the former by the issuer and the latter by the market.  We're in the silly situation where as soon as mining companies receive ASICs their price inflates making them even worse that over-priced PMBs.  And where any time anything with a small market cap IPOs it's pumped by speculators/flippers/traders (or actual market manipulators) and the actual investors happily play along.

The solution isn't trying to stop the speculators/flippers etc - it's trying to inform investors so they don't play along other than where it's actually warranted.

I think you've taken a very unbiased approach here deprived. I appreciate the neutral critical feedback. All i can say is that I did try to make it clear to investors the value of the units. This is the purpose of the weekly reports and the excel spread sheet. I did try to make it known that Sandstorm was moving to Havelock. However, it was only official confirmed a day or two before the event. This seems to have been an error and I'm sure Havelock will take this on board.

Also, i agree that this event has made it extremely difficult to issue further shares in a fair manner at a fair price point. I'll be looking into a solution to this, but right now I'm sticking to the original plan and won't be raising any more capital at this time.

(wall of text)

Korbman, you raise some good points, and some that are a little off the mark.

-- The Sandstorm Description does not "promise" or "guarantee" profits, last I checked. He states the yield as goals. I agree that his methods and strategy are left to mystery though...
-- When a fund issues new shares, it does not necessarily dilute the value because the bitcoins gained all belong to the fund. While they may not dilute things, it's possible for him to push down the price if they are overvalued however. Maybe the answer is that he should have included exactly how he will price future releases, and what will trigger him to do so, etc.
-- Regarding your worst-case scenario where Mr. Mutch can't "buy back" the shares in the event of dissolution, one one hand this is a risk for most assets. However, in this case, dissolution should involve the liquidation of assets on behalf of the shareholders, not a buyback.
-- Yes, Mr. Mutch could easily share his BitFunder wallet address so we can verify his holdings via the Public Asset list. He should also make public his BTCT.co portfolio since the allow this. Only Havelock does not have this feature, ironically...

Thanks for addressing some of the points which i think are misleading in Korbman's post. I'll take an in-depth look at his post and make a response later. Please refer to the Havelock for a more refined description/contract.

I've previously made my btct.co account public and posted it on this thread at Burnsides request. I posted this in week 2 or 3 of the IPO. btct is where the majority of Sandstorms trading takes place.
https://btct.co/portfolio/gLk7Eg==

[jmutch]

And page 12,

-- Regarding your worst-case scenario where Mr. Mutch can't "buy back" the shares in the event of dissolution, one one hand this is a risk for most assets. However, in this case, dissolution should involve the liquidation of assets on behalf of the shareholders, not a buyback.

It's a different risk here than for most funds.

Most funds promise in the event they cant continue to sell off assets and share it out to investors.

Sandstorm promises :

"If on the unlikely chance that Sandstorm can't continue:
Shareholders will be fully informed and a suitable replacement for management will be sought after. If this attempt is unsuccessful, shares will be purchased back at 105% of the 7 day average. All remaining assets will be liquidated and distributed to shareholders through dividends."

So he promises to by buy back based on market price - which is horrible for a fund to do.  Having made that promise I think korbman's perfectly valid point is that he should be demonstrating that he has the assets to do so (NOT just the assets the fund holds) otherwise the fund is backed by a promised buyback value which can't be delivered.

Buy-backs based on market price are widely used - and are bad in pretty much every case.  They either allow the issuer to talk (or flood) the price down first OR they expose the issuer to having to pay an excessive amount.

With the current trading price for Sandstorm I have no idea whether the issuer could afford to buy back per his contract - and it would be unreasonable for him to do so anyway.  But that's what his contract promises - and some part of the price rise MAY be due to that, with people realising that per the contract if they can inflate the price then even if it shuts down they get to keep whatever rise they've managed to achieve.

Buy-backs should be based on what's received for assets - other than for bonds where a fixed price should be determined in advance (or a formula provided allowing calculation of the price).

His contract APPEARS to say that shares will be bought back at 105% AND investors will receive proceeds from selling assets.

When creating the contract I was looking at the "if i die" strategy of bASIC and other security's and this seemed like a fair approach at the time. Would it better to change it to something like "all remaining assets from the last weekly report will be liquidated and distributed to shareholders at a per unit basis"? This would require a vote of course.

I really do plan on making this a long term thing, but of course it is diligent to to have an exit strategy which is fair to everyone.

Korbman, you raise some good points, and some that are a little off the mark.

-- The Sandstorm Description does not "promise" or "guarantee" profits, last I checked. He states the yield as goals. I agree that his methods and strategy are left to mystery though...
-- When a fund issues new shares, it does not necessarily dilute the value because the bitcoins gained all belong to the fund. While they may not dilute things, it's possible for him to push down the price if they are overvalued however. Maybe the answer is that he should have included exactly how he will price future releases, and what will trigger him to do so, etc.
-- Regarding your worst-case scenario where Mr. Mutch can't "buy back" the shares in the event of dissolution, one one hand this is a risk for most assets. However, in this case, dissolution should involve the liquidation of assets on behalf of the shareholders, not a buyback.
-- Yes, Mr. Mutch could easily share his BitFunder wallet address so we can verify his holdings via the Public Asset list. He should also make public his BTCT.co portfolio since the allow this. Only Havelock does not have this feature, ironically...

Hi TAT, allow me to retort

1% dividends -- I sort of took it as an implied promise, based on the quote:

Sandstorm's Goals:
-Release weekly dividends of at least 1% of the capital gathered from public offerings. This is a minimum expectation.

Since it is a "minimum" expectation, I should be able to look forward to 1% per week. What happens if it goes below 1%? I dunno.

Dilution -- If I remember correctly (and anyone feel free to correct me on this), but dilution happens when additional shares are introduced into the market, which can not only have an effect on the price, but also voting control as well. In this case, 100,000 shares are currently issues and dividends / voting power are divided as such. With the introduction of additional shares (up to 1,000,000), both dividends and voting power are diluted (including stock value, depending on how they're priced).

Repurchases -- Yup, pretty right about that...but it's still really quite odd that you'd promise to repurchase stock when things go sour. It's normal for Bonds and Notes, but certainly not Stocks.

Public Asset List -- Wholly agree with you here. If Sandstorm is hosted on multiple exchanges, I'd like to see holdings on each one complied for Investors. That would be pretty cool

1% isn't a promise but if you were to an analysis of the current assets of Sandstorm it's clear that this goal can easily be sustained for a long time. The weekly reports make it clear to anyone the state of affairs at Sandstorm. This transparency is there so investors can make informed trading decisions.

Sandstorm won't be listed on multiple exchanges by myself. This would be far to much work for one person.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

For disclosure I didn't sell any of my 40,000 units at the inflated prices of yesterday. I thought this would be unethical of me. I haven't given anyone a reason to distrust me so far. I plan to keep it that way. I think I will keep these 40,000 units long term.

Happy trading

[Korbman]

Quick interjection here..

1% isn't a promise but if you were to an analysis of the current assets of Sandstorm it's clear that this goal can easily be sustained for a long time.

You're going for a Masters in Economics, and you're trying to tell us that you seriously believe you can sustain a 52% annual ROI for a long time?

The weekly reports make it clear to anyone the state of affairs at Sandstorm. This transparency is there so investors can make informed trading decisions.

Clear to who, exactly? The newbies who bought on hype on page 7?

As I said before, I (and many others) look for details on your investments..not just a typed up asset list. Purchase and sale prices, dates of purchase, quantities purchased on those dates, weighted share value per asset, profit / losses modeled over time..hell, if you're feeling frisky model out a CAPM for your portfolio. The more data I see, the more likely I am to put in my BTC50, BTC100, or BTC200, etc.


EDIT: Where's MPOE? She's usually all over this stuff..

[canth]

Quick interjection here..

1% isn't a promise but if you were to an analysis of the current assets of Sandstorm it's clear that this goal can easily be sustained for a long time.

You're going for a Masters in Economics, and you're trying to tell us that you seriously believe you can sustain a 52% annual ROI for a long time?

The weekly reports make it clear to anyone the state of affairs at Sandstorm. This transparency is there so investors can make informed trading decisions.

Clear to who, exactly? The newbies who bought on hype on page 7?

As I said before, I (and many others) look for details on your investments..not just a typed up asset list. Purchase and sale prices, dates of purchase, quantities purchased on those dates, weighted share value per asset, profit / losses modeled over time..hell, if you're feeling frisky model out a CAPM for your portfolio. The more data I see, the more likely I am to put in my BTC50, BTC100, or BTC200, etc.


EDIT: Where's MPOE? She's usually all over this stuff..

It should be very clear to newbies that Sandstorm only is investing 100BTC (~$10,000) worth of capital. What fantasy would those newbs be imagining that would make these investments worth 10x that amount? Even if Sandstorm guaranteed (which is not the case) the 1% dividend minimum, there's no way anyone can think the valuaion should be $100,000+. There's no excuse for people buying at that value if they even skimmed the prospectus.

[Peter Lambert]

It should be very clear to newbies that Sandstorm only is investing 100BTC (~$10,000) worth of capital. What fantasy would those newbs be imagining that would make these investments worth 10x that amount? Even if Sandstorm guaranteed (which is not the case) the 1% dividend minimum, there's no way anyone can think the valuaion should be $100,000+. There's no excuse for people buying at that value if they even skimmed the prospectus.

But if I buy in at a higher price, that just means he has more capital to work with, so he can make me an even higher percent yield! [/noob]

[canth]

It should be very clear to newbies that Sandstorm only is investing 100BTC (~$10,000) worth of capital. What fantasy would those newbs be imagining that would make these investments worth 10x that amount? Even if Sandstorm guaranteed (which is not the case) the 1% dividend minimum, there's no way anyone can think the valuaion should be $100,000+. There's no excuse for people buying at that value if they even skimmed the prospectus.

But if I buy in at a higher price, that just means he has more capital to work with, so he can make me an even higher percent yield! [/noob]

As I understand it, you only contribute to working capital perhaps if the OP is selling HIS shares and chooses to put those funds into the pool. Otherwise, you make an existing shareholder wealthier.

[yimfinity]

It should be very clear to newbies that Sandstorm only is investing 100BTC (~$10,000) worth of capital. What fantasy would those newbs be imagining that would make these investments worth 10x that amount? Even if Sandstorm guaranteed (which is not the case) the 1% dividend minimum, there's no way anyone can think the valuaion should be $100,000+. There's no excuse for people buying at that value if they even skimmed the prospectus.

But if I buy in at a higher price, that just means he has more capital to work with, so he can make me an even higher percent yield! [/noob]

+1 for everyone who actually might believe this. He said he wasn't planning well his 40k shares so you are making other shareholders and/or speculators wealthier, not him or his funds assets per se.

[bitmillion]

It should be very clear to newbies that Sandstorm only is investing 100BTC (~$10,000) worth of capital. What fantasy would those newbs be imagining that would make these investments worth 10x that amount? Even if Sandstorm guaranteed (which is not the case) the 1% dividend minimum, there's no way anyone can think the valuaion should be $100,000+. There's no excuse for people buying at that value if they even skimmed the prospectus.

But if I buy in at a higher price, that just means he has more capital to work with, so he can make me an even higher percent yield! [/noob]

+1 for everyone who actually might believe this. He said he wasn't planning well his 40k shares so you are making other shareholders and/or speculators wealthier, not him or his funds assets per se.

He will be utilizing all the capital, or it would make zero sense to have it traded on a bid/ask scenario.
no different than if the shares totaled only 100 btc and he took a small decline he would than trade with less, he is likely now going to have well over 1000 and will trade with that. i will believe that until he mentions otherwise , which im sure he will not.

[canth]

It should be very clear to newbies that Sandstorm only is investing 100BTC (~$10,000) worth of capital. What fantasy would those newbs be imagining that would make these investments worth 10x that amount? Even if Sandstorm guaranteed (which is not the case) the 1% dividend minimum, there's no way anyone can think the valuaion should be $100,000+. There's no excuse for people buying at that value if they even skimmed the prospectus.

But if I buy in at a higher price, that just means he has more capital to work with, so he can make me an even higher percent yield! [/noob]

+1 for everyone who actually might believe this. He said he wasn't planning well his 40k shares so you are making other shareholders and/or speculators wealthier, not him or his funds assets per se.

He will be utilizing all the capital, or it would make zero sense to have it traded on a bid/ask scenario.
no different than if the shares totaled only 100 btc and he took a small decline he would than trade with less, he is likely now going to have well over 1000 and will trade with that. i will believe that until he mentions otherwise , which im sure he will not.

There's a fundamental misunderstanding here about how an IPO works. Jason IPOed 60K shares at 0.001 per share. It doesn't matter these shares resold for > .01 per share; Jason doesn't benefit from that until he sells his own at the higher price. He has only has 100BTC (60BTC raised from the IPO + 40BTC for his own stake) to work with plus whatever his 40K shares earn from dividends to reinvest.

I don't think that there's any scam going on here and in fact I'll be happy to buy shares at or near .001 / share. I just don't see how it's valued at 10x that amount.

[bitmillion]

well either way, thats decent motivation to do well having 40000 shares potentially worth more than $40,000 dollars.

and 10x evaluation is nothing compared to stocks and funds with P/E ratios of MUCH MUCH higher,

seeing as i personally made close to 1000% in one of my best months daytrading cryptos, 10x evaluation doesn't seem so high,  in fact potentially very cheap

ps: im not biased as of yet, but am purchasing this week when funds arrive.  as i dont want to sell my ltc

[freedomno1]

An average of 2.5% of equity growth a day on 100 Bitcoins is 2.5 BTC
So assuming 1 BTC a week at minimum is fairly fair.
That said the valuation and the capital amounts are a bit unusual.
4.4916 bitcoins in a week on a capital of 100 BTC is around 4.5% and should be about the true average for traders.
Based on my data it should be plausible but would require consistent profit trading