[BTC-TC] Deprived Mining Speculation (DMS)

[Rannasha]

Deprived, are you planning to offer any services where an individual might exchange a SELLING+MINING for NAV/U price (or slight discount)? I mainly ask this because you seem to be leaning towards going to another exchange while I am currently feeling way too spooked to hold any sort of bitcoin security.

Right now I'm personally willing to buy up pairs of MINING+SELLING at .0075 in decent quantites (10+ BTC worth)

Can you create a tradebot that pays out when sending in a MINING+SELLING pair?

Anything is possible, but extending the current transfer-bot to handle MINING+SELLING conversions is highly non-trivial. The current transfer-bot (which I created for Deprived) is pretty simple in function: Keep track of the timestamp of the most recent item the trade-history, periodically pull a new trade-history from BTCT and for every incoming PURCHASE transfer that occurred past the aforementioned timestamp send out equal amounts of M & S.

A transfer the other way around is more complicated, since the software has to pair up transfers and keep track of which ones have already been handled. For the most common case, a user sending equal amounts of M & S with a few minutes at most in between, is relatively easy, but there are many different alternative cases that may occur that are more complicated to deal with properly. What if there's an hour between the two transfers? What if someone accidentally sends unequal amounts? What if that someone fixes that by sending another transfer a few minutes later? Etc...

While it's perfectly doable to create an algorithm that handles this process correctly, it would require quite some testing to ensure that all fringe cases are handled properly. With only 2 weeks of BTCT-trading left, I have great doubts whether it is worthwhile to put any effort into this.

edit:
On a completely different subject: I'm curious how the motion-results will differ between MINING and SELLING as some kind of weird sociological experiment

[Deprived]

Deprived, are you planning to offer any services where an individual might exchange a SELLING+MINING for NAV/U price (or slight discount)? I mainly ask this because you seem to be leaning towards going to another exchange while I am currently feeling way too spooked to hold any sort of bitcoin security.

Right now I'm personally willing to buy up pairs of MINING+SELLING at .0075 in decent quantites (10+ BTC worth)

Can you create a tradebot that pays out when sending in a MINING+SELLING pair?

Anything is possible, but extending the current transfer-bot to handle MINING+SELLING conversions is highly non-trivial. The current transfer-bot (which I created for Deprived) is pretty simple in function: Keep track of the timestamp of the most recent item the trade-history, periodically pull a new trade-history from BTCT and for every incoming PURCHASE transfer that occurred past the aforementioned the timestamp send out equal amounts of M & S.

A transfer the other way around is more complicated, since the software has to pair up transfers and keep track of which ones have already been handled. For the most common case, a user sending equal amounts of M & S with a few minutes at most in between, is relatively easy, but there are many different alternative cases that may occur that are more complicated to deal with properly. What if there's an hour between the two transfers? What if someone accidentally sends unequal amounts? What if that someone fixes that by sending another transfer a few minutes later? Etc...

While it's perfectly doable to create an algorithm that handles this process correctly, it would require quite some testing to ensure that all fringe cases are handled properly. With only 2 weeks of BTCT-trading left, I have great doubts whether it is worthwhile to put any effort into this.

Indeed - by the time everything was tested the need would be over.

And we still end up (if the bot traded pairs for PURCHASE) with 0.2% on each side being lost in transaction fees in a market trade.  Or I then have to make the payments manually.  If the bot tried to do payments then I run into the problem that it's a pain verifying them as wallet transfers don't show up in the same lists as share transfers.  So I end up spending loads of time manually verifying even in the best case.

I'll do them manually - accepting any number of transfers over a certain size ( a few BTC) plus ONE transfer per person for those who just want to cash out.  What I won't do is process loads of tiny transfers from people trying to arb dust - those will be considered to be donations.

[Lohoris]

A tactical voting small problem: since the motions are both up and its current results are already public, if I prefer to be listed on Exchange B, while Exchange A is clearly winning, it might be convenient for me on the other motion to vote to close the fund (even if I actually wanted to keep it open).

Not that it can be solved now, nor that it is really important to solve it.

(just for the record, using Condorcet might have solved this, but it wasn't possible of course; also this could have been theoretically solved by either posting the "which exchange" motion after the other one, or by hiding the votes)

[Deprived]

A tactical voting small problem: since the motions are both up and its current results are already public, if I prefer to be listed on Exchange B, while Exchange A is clearly winning, it might be convenient for me on the other motion to vote to close the fund (even if I actually wanted to keep it open).

Not that it can be solved now, nor that it is really important to solve it.

(just for the record, using Condorcet might have solved this, but it wasn't possible of course; also this could have been theoretically solved by either posting the "which exchange" motion after the other one, or by hiding the votes)

It's not that big a deal.  And if the "which exchange" motion shows X and you'd absolutely not want to get shares on X then voting for closing is actually valid anyway.

If a majority want exchange X and also all vote to relist then they'd win both votes whatever you do.

Neither motion has a meaningful end date - so the expressed view could well change over time anyway if and when more information becomes available.  It's just a way for me to get a very crude idea of sentiment - and see if there's an overwhelming demand for any particular course of action.

[baloo_kiev]

BitFunder trading fee: 1%

[thy]

BitFunder trading fee: 1%

Bitfunder have 0% trading fee for buying and 1% for selling(at least last time i looked) so 0,5% on avg if you intend to do both and 0% if you only intend to buy, they also have discounts if you trade(sell) big volumes.

[Progressive]

In theory the DMS could run both at BF and HVL, just the price of PURCHASE would be adjusted for different sale fees (0.4% HVL, 1.-0.5% BF).
I'm not sure if it's possible, just a thought.

[Deprived]

BTC Balance (BTC-TC)   1137.742277
9071 LTC-ATF.B1    90.71000000
CIPHERMINE Bonds    360.61000000
Coinlenders CD 27/9   203.3303975
Coinlenders Cash   0
Just-Dice Balance    153.86146722
TOTAL ASSETS    1,946.25414142
   
Outstanding MINING   210981
Outstanding SELLING   210981
Outstanding PURCHASE   14397
Effective Units   225378
   
Block reward   25
Difficulty   112,628,549
Hashes per MINING   5000000
   
Daily Dividend    0.00002233
50 days (Min Liquid)    0.00111629
100 days (Forced Close)    0.00223259
365 days (Buyback)    0.00814895
405 days (IPO)    0.00904199
400 days (Post SELLING div)    0.00893036
410 days (Pre SELLING div)    0.00915361
   
NAV Post MINING Div    1,941.22237700
NAV/U Post MINING Div    0.00861318
Days Dividend Post Div   385.79
SELLING Dividend    -         
NAV Post SELLING Div    1,941.22237700
NAV/U Post Selling Div    0.00861318

Have stopped posting the PURCHASE buying/selling prices for now as they could possibly confuse when, right now, NAV/U is what matters when considering prices.

[twentyseventy]

Will you still be buying back at NAV/U -2%?

[Deprived]

In theory the DMS could run both at BF and HVL, just the price of PURCHASE would be adjusted for different sale fees (0.4% HVL, 1.-0.5% BF).
I'm not sure if it's possible, just a thought.

Yeah it's definitely possible - either with one as main and the other as a pass-through or as a dual listing (where both are considered to be of equal standing).

One of the next securities I'd been planning to list was going to be dual listed (on BTC-TC and LTC-Global) with bot-managed transfers possible between the exchanges.  That would allow both markets to effectively share liquidity and would have also allowed use of the securities to arbitrage on the LTC/BTC exchange-rate.

Unfortunately if we relist on either of Bitfunder/Havelock then there's need to be unavoidable changes to the contract.  There's no way around that - as neither exchange has the functionality to support all aspects of the current contract.  Specific problem areas (some of which may only relate to one of them) are :

1.  Lack of API support for transfers - meaning PURCHASE splits would have to be done manually so I'd have to impose limits on them to kep the workload bearable.
2.  No direct transfer of BTC - so redemption of MINING+SELLING pairs wouldn't be possible (or would have to be restricted only to large bundles with the BTC paid off-exchange).
3.  No voting system - so investment approval would have to be simplified.  This also raises problems with the shutdown vote - which is a more serious concern that investment approval really.

None of this is insurmountable - but do be aware that in the event of a move I WOULD have to change the contract to reflect what was actually practical.  Which I hate - as contracts shouldn't get changed by an issuer.  But the alternative - moving with a contract that couldn't be followed because of platform limitations - is even worse.

Which is a large part of why my initial view was that closure was preferable.  However that has its own issues - specifically that I then have to decide on settlement prices and people holding BOTH of MINING/SELLING are then going to feel aggrieved that they bought at a price they believed would be profitable and are now being forced to sell off without even a chance to realise that profit.

Voting at present indicates a strong preference to relist and also a strong preference for Bitfunder over Havelock.  Ownership of both MINING and SELLING is pretty broad - noone owns more than 10% of SELLING, one person owns just over 10% of MINING - so those results aren't just a few large investors.

[ThickAsThieves]

Specific problem areas (some of which may only relate to one of them) are :

1.  Lack of API support for transfers - meaning PURCHASE splits would have to be done manually so I'd have to impose limits on them to kep the workload bearable.
2.  No direct transfer of BTC - so redemption of MINING+SELLING pairs wouldn't be possible (or would have to be restricted only to large bundles with the BTC paid off-exchange).
3.  No voting system - so investment approval would have to be simplified.  This also raises problems with the shutdown vote - which is a more serious concern that investment approval really.

1. Havelock does have custom ability to allow pushing shares directly to the issuer for shareholders. It also allows issuers to push shares directly to accounts. You would probably need to talk to James to get any specific API needs addressed, as their issuer system is unique in how it works.
2. Correct, Havelock does not have this feature.
3. Also correct, however....

In my experience, Havelock has been the most responsive to feature requests from issuers. If you take the time to set a meeting with them, and explain your intention to run multiple sets of assets like this (DMS, and the one you have planned), it is not unlikely they will try to accommodate some or all of your feature and API needs.

[Deprived]

Will you still be buying back at NAV/U -2%?

Once we know what actual NAV/U is, yes.

At present I'm reporting NAV/U as though our last investments were at full value - however I don't actually know if that is the case:

1.  I don't yet know what the plan going forward is for CIPHERMINE.B1.
2.  Until we actually have the cash from the last Coinlenders CD I can't in good conscience do redemptions as though it were repaid.  There have been significant reports of problems getting cash out of it since BTC-TC closure.

No way I can buy back some people's holdings based on full face value - and risk everyone else getting screwed badly by that if either/both of those last 2 investments turn bad.

The Coinlenders CD matures on 27th - at which point we'll find out very promptly what the situation there is.  Hopefully by then I'll also have enough information to produce a more accurate valuation for the CIPHERMINE.B1 and can then start offering redemption again.

There's no queue to join for redemption - once I know the status of those investments for sure then any/all redemptions will be processed (everything other than the CIPHERMINE.B1 would be in actual BTC).

[twentyseventy]

Will you still be buying back at NAV/U -2%?

Once we know what actual NAV/U is, yes.

At present I'm reporting NAV/U as though our last investments were at full value - however I don't actually know if that is the case:

1.  I don't yet know what the plan going forward is for CIPHERMINE.B1.
2.  Until we actually have the cash from the last Coinlenders CD I can't in good conscience do redemptions as though it were repaid.  There have been significant reports of problems getting cash out of it since BTC-TC closure.

No way I can buy back some people's holdings based on full face value - and risk everyone else getting screwed badly by that if either/both of those last 2 investments turn bad.

The Coinlenders CD matures on 27th - at which point we'll find out very promptly what the situation there is.  Hopefully by then I'll also have enough information to produce a more accurate valuation for the CIPHERMINE.B1 and can then start offering redemption again.

There's no queue to join for redemption - once I know the status of those investments for sure then any/all redemptions will be processed (everything other than the CIPHERMINE.B1 would be in actual BTC).

Well, I'm asking because I purchased a number of MINING and SELLING on the market and sent them to you for redemption about an hour ago, as the last update before that time (yesterday's) still did show a PURCHASE buyback rate. Will you still honor that buyback at the rate, as this new update had not yet been announced?

In any case, if I'm understanding, you will now suspend buybacks of PURCHASE until the redemption value of the Coinlenders CD and CIPHERMINE bonds is known?

[Rannasha]

The Coinlenders CD matures on 27th - at which point we'll find out very promptly what the situation there is.  Hopefully by then I'll also have enough information to produce a more accurate valuation for the CIPHERMINE.B1 and can then start offering redemption again.

There were problems with Inputs.io being ddosed and moving to another IP (a CloudFlare IP), this caused some connectivity issues to Inputs, followed by some problem with external websites (including CL) not being able to connect with Inputs properly. I withdrew some funds from CL this morning and it didn't show up in my Inputs account. However, the situation was resolved very quickly by TradeFortress after I mentioned the issue.

[Deprived]

Will you still be buying back at NAV/U -2%?

Once we know what actual NAV/U is, yes.

At present I'm reporting NAV/U as though our last investments were at full value - however I don't actually know if that is the case:

1.  I don't yet know what the plan going forward is for CIPHERMINE.B1.
2.  Until we actually have the cash from the last Coinlenders CD I can't in good conscience do redemptions as though it were repaid.  There have been significant reports of problems getting cash out of it since BTC-TC closure.

No way I can buy back some people's holdings based on full face value - and risk everyone else getting screwed badly by that if either/both of those last 2 investments turn bad.

The Coinlenders CD matures on 27th - at which point we'll find out very promptly what the situation there is.  Hopefully by then I'll also have enough information to produce a more accurate valuation for the CIPHERMINE.B1 and can then start offering redemption again.

There's no queue to join for redemption - once I know the status of those investments for sure then any/all redemptions will be processed (everything other than the CIPHERMINE.B1 would be in actual BTC).

Well, I'm asking because I purchased a number of MINING and SELLING on the market and sent them to you for redemption about an hour ago, as the last update before that time (yesterday's) still did show a PURCHASE buyback rate. Will you still honor that buyback at the rate, as this new update had not yet been announced?

In any case, if I'm understanding, you will now suspend buybacks of PURCHASE until the redemption value of the Coinlenders CD and CIPHERMINE bonds is known?

Here's the first post I made after noticing the announcement of BTC-TC closure:

Will need to consider carefully how to proceed from here.

In principle the options are :

1.  Move to another exchange,
2.  Close down - and distribute funds approximately in ratio to what market prices were just before the announcement.

Problem with #2 is it's going to be hard to have any sort of rational discussion over how much should go to mining and selling as everyone with an opinion likely has a lot of one and not much of the other so isn't unbiased.  Market prices is the only way to go - as those represent the prices people were happy to hold at (noone was trying hard to buy more of whichever they held or was desperate to sell into bids - or they'd have done so).

If problems arise with recovering investments then loss/delay from that MUST go to SELLING not MINING as SELLING were always getting the benefit from investment.

A few things seem pretty obvious immediately:

1.  No new investments should be made.
2.  Where investments can be cashed out they should be - so there's no further changes in NAV/U.
3.  Debatably I should withdraw all funds to a BTC wallet under my control and only return them when distribution is to occur.
4.  Trading will be disabled on PURCHASE - I won't sell more shares now obviously and also I can't redeem them until I'm sure all investments are safe and will be recoverable.  It would be bad form if I allowed sale back of PURCHASE then found we couldn't get one investment back and so those who had sold back had received more than their fair share.
5.  Similar to 4 I won't be redeeming pairs of MINING+SELLING.

This isn't a situation explicitly covered in the contract - but rest assured I'll resolve it in the fairest way I can.

The emboldened line clarifies the exact point you're asking about.  There's no way I can cash some people out as though all investments would be recovered at a 100% rate - as if some invetsments fully/partially default the other investors would then have to bear not just their own portion of losses but also the losses that should have been taken by the people who cashed out.

I later made an offer to PERSONALLY buy back pairs (with a value of 10 BTC+) at .0075 each - which represents full value for the Coinlenders bond and a sizable discount on CIPHERMINE.B1 (or full full value of CIPHERMINE and nothing for CL).  That should give a view of how I personally believe things will pan out - I expect us to get back the CL bond  totally and not take a massive loss on the CIPHERMINE.B1.  But I can't value either at over 0 (for the purpose of fund buybacks) as I'd then be gambling with all other investors' funds.

Will return your shares to you for now.

If you (or anyone else) want to sell pairs of MINING+SELLING to me personally for .0075 then you can send them to my personal account (DeprivedPersonal) on BTC-TC.  I believe you're likely better off waiting (obviously - I wouldn't be offering to pay more than what I think a pair will end up at) but the offer's there for anyone who needs cash fast and can't get more via the market.

[Deprived]

The Coinlenders CD matures on 27th - at which point we'll find out very promptly what the situation there is.  Hopefully by then I'll also have enough information to produce a more accurate valuation for the CIPHERMINE.B1 and can then start offering redemption again.

There were problems with Inputs.io being ddosed and moving to another IP (a CloudFlare IP), this caused some connectivity issues to Inputs, followed by some problem with external websites (including CL) not being able to connect with Inputs properly. I withdrew some funds from CL this morning and it didn't show up in my Inputs account. However, the situation was resolved very quickly by TradeFortress after I mentioned the issue.

Yeah - since posting I've been PMed that some other outstanding withdrawals also were sorted out.  As I've repeatedly said I expect us to get that cash back in full - but I can't start issuing buybacks on that assumption.

[twentyseventy]

The emboldened line clarifies the exact point you're asking about.  There's no way I can cash some people out as though all investments would be recovered at a 100% rate - as if some invetsments fully/partially default the other investors would then have to bear not just their own portion of losses but also the losses that should have been taken by the people who cashed out.

I later made an offer to PERSONALLY buy back pairs (with a value of 10 BTC+) at .0075 each - which represents full value for the Coinlenders bond and a sizable discount on CIPHERMINE.B1 (or full full value of CIPHERMINE and nothing for CL).  That should give a view of how I personally believe things will pan out - I expect us to get back the CL bond  totally and not take a massive loss on the CIPHERMINE.B1.  But I can't value either at over 0 (for the purpose of fund buybacks) as I'd then be gambling with all other investors' funds.

Will return your shares to you for now.

If you (or anyone else) want to sell pairs of MINING+SELLING to me personally for .0075 then you can send them to my personal account (DeprivedPersonal) on BTC-TC.  I believe you're likely better off waiting (obviously - I wouldn't be offering to pay more than what I think a pair will end up at) but the offer's there for anyone who needs cash fast and can't get more via the market.

Well, hell. I thought that I'd been paying enough attention to this security, but it seems not - it was my fault for not reading enough. It was, however, the explicitly listed PURCHASE buy-back rate that made me assume this was still a valid move.

Since you were in possession of the pair when MINING divs were issued, can you send those to me?

EDIT: Just received - thanks.

[Deprived]

The emboldened line clarifies the exact point you're asking about.  There's no way I can cash some people out as though all investments would be recovered at a 100% rate - as if some invetsments fully/partially default the other investors would then have to bear not just their own portion of losses but also the losses that should have been taken by the people who cashed out.

I later made an offer to PERSONALLY buy back pairs (with a value of 10 BTC+) at .0075 each - which represents full value for the Coinlenders bond and a sizable discount on CIPHERMINE.B1 (or full full value of CIPHERMINE and nothing for CL).  That should give a view of how I personally believe things will pan out - I expect us to get back the CL bond  totally and not take a massive loss on the CIPHERMINE.B1.  But I can't value either at over 0 (for the purpose of fund buybacks) as I'd then be gambling with all other investors' funds.

Will return your shares to you for now.

If you (or anyone else) want to sell pairs of MINING+SELLING to me personally for .0075 then you can send them to my personal account (DeprivedPersonal) on BTC-TC.  I believe you're likely better off waiting (obviously - I wouldn't be offering to pay more than what I think a pair will end up at) but the offer's there for anyone who needs cash fast and can't get more via the market.

Well, hell. I thought that I'd been paying enough attention to this security, but it seems not - it was my fault for not reading enough. It was, however, the explicitly listed PURCHASE buy-back rate that made me assume this was still a valid move.

Since you were in possession of the pair when MINING divs were issued, can you send those to me?

Sent.

[Deprived]

There's one other option I may be able to offer once we have the Coinlenders cash back.

We have 36031 CIPHERMINE.B1 bonds and 225378 effective outstanding units of PURCHASE (or MINING+SELLING pairs).

That means for every 6.255113652132886 PURCHASE (or MINING+SELLING) we have 1 CIPHERMINE.B1.

I could therefore calculate NAV/U IGNORING CIPHERMINE.B1 and offer the following:

99% of NAV/U + 1 CIPHERMINE.B1 for 7 PURCHASE (or MINING+SELLING)
99% of NAV/U + 10 CIPHERMINE.B1 for 63 PURCHASE (or MINING+SELLING)
99% of NAV/U +100 CIPHERMINE.B1 for 626 PURCHASE (or MINING+SELLING)
99% of NAV/U +1000 CIPHERMINE.B1 for 6256 PURCHASE (or MINING+SELLING)

At present the CIPHERMINE.B1 can be sold straight into bids for 80% of full value (though only for the first to do it) so that would give an exit route with very small losses.

Until we get the CL cash back I can't offer that - but I'll offer something along those lines as soon as I can.

Unfortunately I can't do the selling of them myself and value them at 80% as I then risk either:

1.  If I sell first and noone buys I just dumped 20% of value of what I sold for no good reason.
2.  If I don't sell until I receive transfers in then I can't guarnatee the bids will still be there when I need them.

By transferring the CIPHERMINE.B1 to those redeeming I lose all risk like that so could give an absolute fixed rate.

[BitThink]

Thanks for the offer. That's a great idea for those who want quick exit. For me, still prefer relisting.