[TAT.VIRTUALMINE]

[Lytse]

OK, but what is the fair price for the issuer, issuing new shares?

The market drops were caused by you issueing new bonds. Yesterday it caused a 0.0007 drop and today a 0.0003 drop on btct.co.

I think with current difficulty rises a fair price should not be higher than 0.0027 BTC (oops market will drop   )

By the way, where are the BTC going of the new bonds issued?

If I issued new units at what the community has determined as currently "fair" it would be too low for my risk analysis. My issuance of new units has been pretty slow since the BTCT.co IPO of TAT.VM, and is likely to be very very small now that DMS is around.

The BTC so far has mostly gone to buying more backing. However, the usage of TATI income isn't exactly relevant in this discussion.

Ok, you are having problems in answering what you think is a "fair" price? Try to answer it not in general terms like market, buyer,seller or community

I know that you are selling a virtual alternative for real hardware. However the income is relevant because there is a possibility of manipulating the "market" price by issuing more shares.

Is there a way to see how many new shares were issued?

[1714846575]

1714846575

[1714846575]

1714846575

[PsychoticBoy]

All of this considered, I want to tell you that there is not one absolute "fair" market price for a hash, there are virtually three.
1. Fair price to the Buyer
2. Fair price to the seller
3. Fair price to the market

The Buyer will see fair price as one that is nearly guaranteed to meet his profit standards.

The Seller will see fair price as one that is nearly guaranteed to meet his profit standards.

The Market will see fair price as and the push-and-pull between the risk profiles and analysis of Sellers vs. Buyers.

OK, but what is the fair price for the issuer, issuing new shares?

The market drops were caused by you issueing new bonds. Yesterday it caused a 0.0007 drop and today a 0.0003 drop on btct.co.

I think with current difficulty rises a fair price should not be higher than 0.0027 BTC (oops market will drop   )

By the way, where are the BTC going of the new bonds issued?

To his own coffers. There is NO PLAN to increase the hash rates of the existing bonds, they will only go DOWN in value. PMB's are a sucker's bet. You have a better chance of making more money with S. Dice, honestly.

E voorhees/ sdice is one of the biggest scammers/ fuckups in the history of bitcoin.
Selling share way beyond market price.
I certainly would not trust that dickhead of a E Voorhees.

[Lytse]

E voorhees/ sdice is one of the biggest scammers/ fuckups in the history of bitcoin.
Selling share way beyond market price.
I certainly would not trust that dickhead of a E Voorhees.

What does he have to do with TAT.VIRTUALMINE?

[PsychoticBoy]

E voorhees/ sdice is one of the biggest scammers/ fuckups in the history of bitcoin.
Selling share way beyond market price.
I certainly would not trust that dickhead of a E Voorhees.

What does he have to do with TAT.VIRTUALMINE?

Nothing, just saying investing in sdice is even worse than a PMB.

[ranlo]

Yes, if lending you 1 BTC will produce me 0.2 BTC this week and 0.18 BTC next week, etc. PMBs (or PMTs) can be profitable if the price is low enough, but so far no PMB on the market (not even DMS.MINING) is.

This right here.

I was actually questioning around a week ago why people were buying into this and what I was missing, based on the math that proved that if you bought in now you would never see your return. People continued saying it was a good deal and I almost jumped in on it, but I decided to go with my own mathematical instinct and went against it.

I don't think TaT has done anything wrong. This is like someone coming up with a business idea that is bound to fail, you investing, and getting pissed off at them because your money was lost. There is always a risk. Always. Even if you were able to invest in a new Wal-Mart being built, there is still a risk.

As far as I can tell, TaT has followed through with everything he said he would. Does that make it a good investment? Not necessarily. But it's not like he hid information or anything. It was clearly laid out that each bond was worth 1 MH/s. Anyone who knows even the basics about mining knows that 1 MH/s, with difficulty constantly climbing, will keep getting less and less valuable.

[Entropy-uc]

Yes, if lending you 1 BTC will produce me 0.2 BTC this week and 0.18 BTC next week, etc. PMBs (or PMTs) can be profitable if the price is low enough, but so far no PMB on the market (not even DMS.MINING) is.

This right here.

I was actually questioning around a week ago why people were buying into this and what I was missing, based on the math that proved that if you bought in now you would never see your return. People continued saying it was a good deal and I almost jumped in on it, but I decided to go with my own mathematical instinct and went against it.

I don't think TaT has done anything wrong. This is like someone coming up with a business idea that is bound to fail, you investing, and getting pissed off at them because your money was lost. There is always a risk. Always. Even if you were able to invest in a new Wal-Mart being built, there is still a risk.

As far as I can tell, TaT has followed through with everything he said he would. Does that make it a good investment? Not necessarily. But it's not like he hid information or anything. It was clearly laid out that each bond was worth 1 MH/s. Anyone who knows even the basics about mining knows that 1 MH/s, with difficulty constantly climbing, will keep getting less and less valuable.

There is a fiduciary duty in issuing securities.  In simple english, the issuer, and the exchange have a responsibility to a) have a reasonable expectation that buyers will make a capital gain in the issued security and b) work diligently to ensure that a) actually comes to pass.

Both TAT and Uyko violated this principle.  It certainly isn't illegal.  It is dishonorable.  I won't ever deal with either person again since they are clearly untrustworthy.

Bitcoin investors are missing fundamentals here.  You need to look at price to book value before buying.  TAT.V had no assets, only a promise that he would use asicminer stocks that buyers had no claim on to fund dividends.  That made the price to book value infinite.  The latest mining bond is being issued at $400 / GH/s when the issuer ordered the hashpower at $20 / GH/s. Price to book is 20, a terrible deal.  AMC is much worse than that!

[ranlo]

Yes, if lending you 1 BTC will produce me 0.2 BTC this week and 0.18 BTC next week, etc. PMBs (or PMTs) can be profitable if the price is low enough, but so far no PMB on the market (not even DMS.MINING) is.

This right here.

I was actually questioning around a week ago why people were buying into this and what I was missing, based on the math that proved that if you bought in now you would never see your return. People continued saying it was a good deal and I almost jumped in on it, but I decided to go with my own mathematical instinct and went against it.

I don't think TaT has done anything wrong. This is like someone coming up with a business idea that is bound to fail, you investing, and getting pissed off at them because your money was lost. There is always a risk. Always. Even if you were able to invest in a new Wal-Mart being built, there is still a risk.

As far as I can tell, TaT has followed through with everything he said he would. Does that make it a good investment? Not necessarily. But it's not like he hid information or anything. It was clearly laid out that each bond was worth 1 MH/s. Anyone who knows even the basics about mining knows that 1 MH/s, with difficulty constantly climbing, will keep getting less and less valuable.

There is a fiduciary duty in issuing securities.  In simple english, the issuer, and the exchange have a responsibility to a) have a reasonable expectation that buyers will make a capital gain in the issued security and b) work diligently to ensure that a) actually comes to pass.

Both TAT and Uyko violated this principle.  It certainly isn't illegal.  It is dishonorable.  I won't ever deal with either person again since they are clearly untrustworthy.

Bitcoin investors are missing fundamentals here.  You need to look at price to book value before buying.  TAT.V had no assets, only a promise that he would use asicminer stocks that buyers had no claim on to fund dividends.  That made the price to book value infinite.  The latest mining bond is being issued at $400 / GH/s when the issuer ordered the hashpower at $20 / GH/s. Price to book is 20, a terrible deal.  AMC is much worse than that!

I was under the impression that people who jumped on this soon after it came out made profit. If this is true, then TaT is still not responsible because he did not raise the prices; the security holders did. He has no control over whether or not someone wants to buy a security at a higher price. If someone offered $10,000 per share right now, that is none of his business. So how can he possibly be held responsible if their $10k share did not earn that much in dividends?

I may be missing something big here... as I'm seeing this there is still not any problem.

[Entropy-uc]

Yes, if lending you 1 BTC will produce me 0.2 BTC this week and 0.18 BTC next week, etc. PMBs (or PMTs) can be profitable if the price is low enough, but so far no PMB on the market (not even DMS.MINING) is.

This right here.

I was actually questioning around a week ago why people were buying into this and what I was missing, based on the math that proved that if you bought in now you would never see your return. People continued saying it was a good deal and I almost jumped in on it, but I decided to go with my own mathematical instinct and went against it.

I don't think TaT has done anything wrong. This is like someone coming up with a business idea that is bound to fail, you investing, and getting pissed off at them because your money was lost. There is always a risk. Always. Even if you were able to invest in a new Wal-Mart being built, there is still a risk.

As far as I can tell, TaT has followed through with everything he said he would. Does that make it a good investment? Not necessarily. But it's not like he hid information or anything. It was clearly laid out that each bond was worth 1 MH/s. Anyone who knows even the basics about mining knows that 1 MH/s, with difficulty constantly climbing, will keep getting less and less valuable.

There is a fiduciary duty in issuing securities.  In simple english, the issuer, and the exchange have a responsibility to a) have a reasonable expectation that buyers will make a capital gain in the issued security and b) work diligently to ensure that a) actually comes to pass.

Both TAT and Uyko violated this principle.  It certainly isn't illegal.  It is dishonorable.  I won't ever deal with either person again since they are clearly untrustworthy.

Bitcoin investors are missing fundamentals here.  You need to look at price to book value before buying.  TAT.V had no assets, only a promise that he would use asicminer stocks that buyers had no claim on to fund dividends.  That made the price to book value infinite.  The latest mining bond is being issued at $400 / GH/s when the issuer ordered the hashpower at $20 / GH/s. Price to book is 20, a terrible deal.  AMC is much worse than that!

I was under the impression that people who jumped on this soon after it came out made profit. If this is true, then TaT is still not responsible because he did not raise the prices; the security holders did. He has no control over whether or not someone wants to buy a security at a higher price. If someone offered $10,000 per share right now, that is none of his business. So how can he possibly be held responsible if their $10k share did not earn that much in dividends?

I may be missing something big here... as I'm seeing this there is still not any problem.

The problem is that the security was designed to lose money, and overpriced.  TAT knew exactly what he was doing when he offered this security.  He was collecting money to buy more ASICMINER shares for himself by selling an asset that decays.  Every issuer of PMBs knows they are a bad deal, that is why they sell them.

As an example Giga sold over 120 GH/s of bonds when he only had 40 GH/s of actual miners.  If there was any way for the bonds to be profitable he would have been putting himself at tremendous risk.  But of course there was no risk for him.  He was so certain that his bonds were junk he sold triple what he could actually back!  TAT has taken this to a new level.  He didn't have any hashpower.

[ThickAsThieves]

I absolutely had and have hashpower. In fact, my hashpower backing came at greater expense than hardware. ALL hashes sold are backed before they are issued, not after. I have committed to always maintaining this backing just like any hardware-backed mining fund or bond.

There are no tricks here. To accuse me of such is to accuse all hash providers, whether it be DMS, Pajka, JAH, BASICMINING, Avalon, or even ASICMINER. Selling hashes isn't the problem here. It's that participating in mining is betting that difficulty will remain low enough for the buyer to profit, and that act requires a savvy and agile trader.

Make no mistake, every IPO purchaser had opportunity to profit before DMS came along.

The future of mining has not yet unfolded, and people will make money trading PMBs regardless. Just don't get trapped thinking that trading mining assets is a mindless or risk-free practice.

[Entropy-uc]

I absolutely had and have hashpower. In fact, my hashpower backing came at greater expense than hardware. ALL hashes sold are backed before they are issued, not after. I have committed to always maintaining this backing just like any hardware-backed mining fund or bond.

There are no tricks here. To accuse me of such is to accuse all hash providers, whether it be DMS, Pajka, JAH, BASICMINING, Avalon, or even ASICMINER. Selling hashes isn't the problem here. It's that participating in mining is betting that difficulty will remain low enough for the buyer to profit, and that act requires a savvy and agile trader.

Make no mistake, every IPO purchaser had opportunity to profit before DMS came along.

The future of mining has not yet unfolded, and people will make money trading PMBs regardless. Just don't get trapped thinking that trading mining assets is a mindless or risk-free practice.

Assets owned by yourself is not hashpower.  If the ASICMINER shares were owned by this security then you would have an argument.  But they are not.  You have sold a security with zero assets for a finite price.  That is an infinite price to book value.

A few lucky traders will make a profit.  The security itself will profit no one but yourself.  You were making good progress setting yourself up as a parasite on Bitcoin with your passthroughs.  But you have forgotten the first rule of being a parasite - Don't kill your host.

Your greed has betrayed your true character.  I can't imagine why anyone would use you as an escrow agent.

[odolvlobo]

The problem is that the security was designed to lose money, and overpriced.

I curious why people choose to buy PMBs if they are overpriced?

If someone bought TAT.VIRTUALMINE at 0.007 BTC, it was because they believed that the difficulty was going up by less than 6.9% every two weeks. They might be right in the end, but so far they have been wrong and that is why they are losing money.


Edit: This is not directed at Entropy-uc so I changed it from 2nd person to 3rd person.

[Entropy-uc]

The problem is that the security was designed to lose money, and overpriced.

I curious why you choose to buy PMBs if they are overpriced?

If you bought TAT.ASICMINER at 0.007 BTC, it was because you believed that the difficulty was going up by less than 6.9% every two weeks. You might be right in the end, but so far you have been wrong and that is why you have lost money.

I am curious why you think I buy PMBs.  

I considered issuing them, until I did enough analysis to understand how completely unethical it is to sell such a product.

You should be ashamed of yourself for supporting the issue of such securities on BTCT.co.  It is clear from your comments on the votes that you understand what a ripoff the securities actually are.  Why would you want to allow the users of BTCT to be exploited in this way?

And your calculations are still bogus.  You must apply a discount for the time value of money in addition to the growth rate of the network.

[odolvlobo]

I am curious why you think I buy PMBs.  
I considered issuing them, until I did enough analysis to understand how completely unethical it is to sell such a product.
You should be ashamed of yourself for supporting the issue of such securities on BTCT.co.  It is clear from your comments on the votes that you understand what a ripoff the securities actually are.  Why would you want to allow the users of BTCT to be exploited in this way?
And your calculations are still bogus.  You must apply a discount for the time value of money in addition to the growth rate of the network.

Well, I assumed that you did, but it is obvious from your previous posts you did not. Regardless, by "you", I really meant anyone that bought them. I'll fix that.

As for the ethics ...

I have been struggling to educate people about PMBs for months. I have consistently voted NO on every one (except BFMINES) and have posted in their threads. I voted NO on TAT.VIRTUALMINE. My main concern is the huge misconception brought about by the name "perpetual mining bond". These are neither perpetual nor bonds, and it is not obvious from the contract that all the risk is borne by the investor and the operator risks nothing.

I am not concerned about people making poor investment decisions -- as long as they are fully informed. Nothing in the TAT.VIRTUALMINE about the payment of dividends is deceptive, misleading, or false. I don't believe these are a "ripoff" because of this. To me, overpriced is not the same as ripoff.

Now, I am not supporting TAT as much as I am trying to get people to really understand where they screwed up. If they don't understand why they have lost money, then nothing has really been accomplished. If you convince people that they lost money only because they have been exploited, then you are doing a disservice to them.

As for my "bogus calculations" ...

Perhaps they lack important factors, but at least everyone reading my posts now has rudimentary understanding of the valuation of PMBs. I consider that to be a valuable contribution. I am not afraid to learn why you consider them to be bogus. Please show me how they are bogus. Please show me how to do it properly.

[TECHICENINE]

The problem is that the security was designed to lose money, and overpriced.

I curious why you choose to buy PMBs if they are overpriced?

If you bought TAT.ASICMINER at 0.007 BTC, it was because you believed that the difficulty was going up by less than 6.9% every two weeks. You might be right in the end, but so far you have been wrong and that is why you have lost money.

I am curious why you think I buy PMBs.  

I considered issuing them, until I did enough analysis to understand how completely unethical it is to sell such a product.

You should be ashamed of yourself for supporting the issue of such securities on BTCT.co.  It is clear from your comments on the votes that you understand what a ripoff the securities actually are.  Why would you want to allow the users of BTCT to be exploited in this way?

And your calculations are still bogus.  You must apply a discount for the time value of money in addition to the growth rate of the network.

how refreshing someone finally making sense here!...well said [CONFIRMED;]

[Entropy-uc]

As for the ethics ...

I have been struggling to educate people about PMBs for months. I have consistently voted NO on every one (except BFMINES) and have posted in their threads. I voted NO on TAT.VIRTUALMINE. My main concern is the huge misconception brought about by the name "perpetual mining bond". These are neither perpetual nor bonds, and it is not obvious from the contract that all the risk is borne by the investor and the operator risks nothing.

I am not concerned about people making poor investment decisions -- as long as they are fully informed. Nothing in the TAT.VIRTUALMINE about the payment of dividends is deceptive, misleading, or false. I don't believe these are a "ripoff" because of this. To me, overpriced is not the same as ripoff.

Now, I am not supporting TAT as much as I am trying to get people to really understand where they screwed up. If they don't understand why they have lost money, then nothing has really been accomplished. If you convince people that they lost money only because they have been exploited, then you are doing a disservice to them.

As for my "bogus calculations" ...

Perhaps they lack important factors, but at least everyone reading my posts now has rudimentary understanding of the valuation of PMBs. I consider that to be a valuable contribution. I am not afraid to learn why you consider them to be bogus. Please show me how they are bogus. Please show me how to do it properly.

I gave a simple model for considering buying shares vs. buying your own hardware here.  You would have to start from an assumption that mining hardware was a profitable investment at the time for this method to be valid.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=241415.new#new

As a buyer, a fair price would have to be competitive with the cost of buying your own hardware and operating it.  Once you come up with a value for that, you then have to discount the price to account for default risk on the part of the operator of the bond.  That discounted value is an actual fair price for a mining bond.  But, such a price would be less than the hardware value, as operations costs are minimal, and the default risk is very high (I know this very well, having operating an FPGA farm that was over 1% of the total network last fall).  Since no one would offer a bond for less than the cost of the hardware there is actually no possibility of mining bonds ever being offered at a fair price.

If you want to use your method of calculating the present value of the dividend stream coming from the bonds you would need to multiply your network growth factor by (1+discount rate) where the discount rate should be a risk wieghted time value of money.  A good baseline would be the interest paid by Graet, and then scaled up by the relative credit worthiness of the mining bond issuer.

EDIT: actually the present value calculation of a mining bond is a lot messier than this.  You need to create a stream of declining payments at the rate of network growth, and then discount each one by an appropriate amount.  I think the first method of comparing use of capital is a cleaner analysis, and it yields a very obvious result.

[SOSLOVE868]

I am curious why you think I buy PMBs.  
I considered issuing them, until I did enough analysis to understand how completely unethical it is to sell such a product.
You should be ashamed of yourself for supporting the issue of such securities on BTCT.co.  It is clear from your comments on the votes that you understand what a ripoff the securities actually are.  Why would you want to allow the users of BTCT to be exploited in this way?
And your calculations are still bogus.  You must apply a discount for the time value of money in addition to the growth rate of the network.

Well, I assumed that you did, but it is obvious from your previous posts you did not. Regardless, by "you", I really meant anyone that bought them. I'll fix that.

As for the ethics ...

I have been struggling to educate people about PMBs for months. I have consistently voted NO on every one (except BFMINES) and have posted in their threads. I voted NO on TAT.VIRTUALMINE. My main concern is the huge misconception brought about by the name "perpetual mining bond". These are neither perpetual nor bonds, and it is not obvious from the contract that all the risk is borne by the investor and the operator risks nothing.

I am not concerned about people making poor investment decisions -- as long as they are fully informed. Nothing in the TAT.VIRTUALMINE about the payment of dividends is deceptive, misleading, or false. I don't believe these are a "ripoff" because of this. To me, overpriced is not the same as ripoff.

Now, I am not supporting TAT as much as I am trying to get people to really understand where they screwed up. If they don't understand why they have lost money, then nothing has really been accomplished. If you convince people that they lost money only because they have been exploited, then you are doing a disservice to them.

As for my "bogus calculations" ...

Perhaps they lack important factors, but at least everyone reading my posts now has rudimentary understanding of the valuation of PMBs. I consider that to be a valuable contribution. I am not afraid to learn why you consider them to be bogus. Please show me how they are bogus. Please show me how to do it properly.

Why did you voted yes on BFMINES? this issuer and his PMB is more worse than all other PMBs currently in the market...I am not saying that other PMBs are good ,just BFMINES is the worsest of it...

The issuer is just exploiting those poor investor, he sell his PMB at 20 times more than what he paid to Metabank , and set a trap on it...
 also there are huge possibility that Metabank itself can be a scam, but you are going to approving it???

I do not know what you think, I think this just ridiculous , you should be ashamed on it , and fell sorry to those poor investors who are going to cheated by his PMB.

According to Metabank ,they are going to deliver their orders on August 2013, but Furuknap put September 2013 on his contract, this one months difference give him a opportunity to mining at most profitable time without issuing dividends.This just a pitfall that  exploiting those poor investors~ and if Metabank are scam, then those poor investors are been fucked because of your wrong decision!

I think BTCT should not issuing more perpetual mining bond, at least if only the issuer promise a maturity date ,like most of bond in real world, or else you are helping to the wrong people to cheating those poor investors.




 

[Queezy]

Not that I want to derail all this great discussion  but alot of people are ignoring (or at least not talking about) a major factor. The whole point of TAT.VM was a way to simulate buying hashing power instead of buying the hardware itself....now I'm not trying to say that mining hardware is at a reasonable price right now, as I think it definitely will come down once more supply is available....but let's say for a moment that you wanted to start "mining" but you don't have enough money for a suitable machine. Just for the sake of an argument, lets say you decide that you want to try a USB miner.
Most USB miners are being sold for around 2BTC if not a little more. (as i said, i think this is too high)
For 330 shares of TAT.VM (the equivalent of a USB miner) i would have to pay 1.15BTC right now.
Not only is this cheaper, but the dividends would pay out the next day instead of waiting for shipping and setup. Not to mention dealing with internet downtime, power outtages, etc. And there is no overhead to keep TAT.VM shares.

Yes, you have to watch your investments if you are worried about losing value. No one is saying you should go and buy blindly. But to say that no one should ever buy any of these types of shares, and that they are overvalued pieces of crap is just dishonest, shortsighted, or ignorant.

With the line of thinking that some people have you should just never buy any mining hardware either unless you are "promised" to get a ROI in less than 2 weeks.

If you think something is overpriced, fine, that is a fair point to make. But to say there is no reason at all to own this type of asset is the same as saying you should never buy any mining hardware. Yes, it's a risk to buy into something, everything about bitcoin is risky. Decide if it's a risk for you or not, and if not don't buy it. But don't rage at everyone else that does know how to watch their money just because they can succeed while you are scared of failure.

[TECHICENINE]

I am curious why you think I buy PMBs.  
I considered issuing them, until I did enough analysis to understand how completely unethical it is to sell such a product.
You should be ashamed of yourself for supporting the issue of such securities on BTCT.co.  It is clear from your comments on the votes that you understand what a ripoff the securities actually are.  Why would you want to allow the users of BTCT to be exploited in this way?
And your calculations are still bogus.  You must apply a discount for the time value of money in addition to the growth rate of the network.

Well, I assumed that you did, but it is obvious from your previous posts you did not. Regardless, by "you", I really meant anyone that bought them. I'll fix that.

As for the ethics ...

I have been struggling to educate people about PMBs for months. I have consistently voted NO on every one (except BFMINES) and have posted in their threads. I voted NO on TAT.VIRTUALMINE. My main concern is the huge misconception brought about by the name "perpetual mining bond". These are neither perpetual nor bonds, and it is not obvious from the contract that all the risk is borne by the investor and the operator risks nothing.

I am not concerned about people making poor investment decisions -- as long as they are fully informed. Nothing in the TAT.VIRTUALMINE about the payment of dividends is deceptive, misleading, or false. I don't believe these are a "ripoff" because of this. To me, overpriced is not the same as ripoff.

Now, I am not supporting TAT as much as I am trying to get people to really understand where they screwed up. If they don't understand why they have lost money, then nothing has really been accomplished. If you convince people that they lost money only because they have been exploited, then you are doing a disservice to them.

As for my "bogus calculations" ...

Perhaps they lack important factors, but at least everyone reading my posts now has rudimentary understanding of the valuation of PMBs. I consider that to be a valuable contribution. I am not afraid to learn why you consider them to be bogus. Please show me how they are bogus. Please show me how to do it properly.

Why did you voted yes on BFMINES? this issuer and his PMB is more worse than all other PMBs currently in the market...I am not saying that other PMBs are good ,just BFMINES is the worsest of it...

The issuer is just exploiting those poor investor, he sell his PMB at 20 times more than what he paid to Metabank , and set a trap on it...
 also there are huge possibility that Metabank itself can be a scam, but you are going to approving it???

I do not know what you think, I think this just ridiculous , you should be ashamed on it , and fell sorry to those poor investors who are going to cheated by his PMB.

According to Metabank ,they are going to deliver their orders on August 2013, but Furuknap put September 2013 on his contract, this one months difference give him a opportunity to mining at most profitable time without issuing dividends.This just a pitfall that  exploiting those poor investors~ and if Metabank are scam, then those poor investors are been fucked because of your wrong decision!

I think BTCT should not issuing more perpetual mining bond, at least if only the issuer promise a maturity date ,like most of bond in real world, or else you are helping to the wrong people to cheating those poor investors.




 

why in the world restrict the number of companies who want to play the game?..afraid of the coin con bond monopoly i suspect..lol

[Queezy]

Not that I want to derail all this great discussion   but alot of people are ignoring (or at least not talking about) a major factor. The whole point of TAT.VM was a way to simulate buying hashing power instead of buying the hardware itself....now I'm not trying to say that mining hardware is at a reasonable price right now, as I think it definitely will come down once more supply is available....but let's say for a moment that you wanted to start "mining" but you don't have enough money for a suitable machine. Just for the sake of an argument, lets say you decide that you want to try a USB miner.
Most USB miners are being sold for around 2BTC if not a little more. (as i said, i think this is too high)
For 330 shares of TAT.VM (the equivalent of a USB miner) i would have to pay 1.15BTC right now.
Not only is this cheaper, but the dividends would pay out the next day instead of waiting for shipping and setup. Not to mention dealing with internet downtime, power outtages, etc. And there is no overhead to keep TAT.VM shares.

Yes, you have to watch your investments if you are worried about losing value. No one is saying you should go and buy blindly. But to say that no one should ever buy any of these types of shares, and that they are overvalued pieces of crap is just dishonest, shortsighted, or ignorant.

With the line of thinking that some people have you should just never buy any mining hardware either unless you are "promised" to get a ROI in less than 2 weeks.

If you think something is overpriced, fine, that is a fair point to make. But to say there is no reason at all to own this type of asset is the same as saying you should never buy any mining hardware. Yes, it's a risk to buy into something, everything about bitcoin is risky. Decide if it's a risk for you or not, and if not don't buy it. But don't rage at everyone else that does know how to watch their money just because they can succeed while you are scared of failure.

You're a little behind the news.  USB miners are 0.99 BTC now.

And you shouldn't buy mining bonds at 20x the hardware price.  Or, as in this case, bonds that are backed by no hardware at all.

I haven't been looking around the past few days, i guess they have gone down some in price, but my point stands the same that it is not a useless asset. It might be overpriced, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't exist.
And for the point of the bonds not being backed by physical hardware, that is another issue altogether =P
I am fairly sure it was said from the beginning that it wasn't backed by physical hardware. Personally I think this is better, if it is a person you can trust..He is not saying you are buying 1MH of a specific piece of hardware that could fail, he is saying he will pay you for a days worth of hashing. Now if you want to say TAT isn't trustworthy to pay this, I won't even get into that argument as I haven't been around these forums long enough to see what all he has done. But from what I have seen, I have no problem buying these shares if they are what I see as a good price. Which is basically what I would be willing to pay for physical hardware too. I'm not trying to claim a certain price point, I'm simply saying there is a price point where this can make it as good if not a better investment than physical hardware.

And are they .99BTC for just a single one? I know that you can get this price for a bulk shipment, I was talking about a single (not that it matters much)
Where are you getting 20x the hardware price?

[Aryetsok]

should i sell my tat.virtualmine bonds right now or what? seems this isn't going anywhere :S