While I appreciate your openness, I object your using DMS as your personal bank. There is a conflict of interest. Also, I'm concerned that you are becoming more like usagi, willing to take unnecessary risks with other people's money.
I'm too lazy to look it up: can you loan DMS money without investor approval?
On the last point I can only loan funds to people approved by a vote of SELLING investors. Pre-approved such lendees are myself/burnside - any other exposure needs a vote to pass.
Looks like the sale went through, have transferred back 350 BTC, 70 BTC left. Could have transferred more but it would have cancelled bids. Will send back the other 70 btc in morning when I'm sober.
The accusation of being usagi-like hurts. Deeply. Please appreciate that my promises/guarantees aren't usagi-like ones (where 6 months later you haven't been paid - see Nyan.A where not only does he not pay what he promised he also keeps dividends from shares they already own). If I'd noticed this IPO a few hours earlier I could have moved 400 of my own BTC in no problem - but I noticed it under an hour before official IPO time so couldn't be at all confident of getting funds in from elsewhere on time (BTC-TC was timing out most of the time by then).
It's effectively a free 20 BTC for SELLING/PURCHASE. The amount is within what I can comfortably repay within a day even if the actual loan vanished. 5% per day seems a reasonable rate - by which I mean one that you can't really turn down when there's no default risk. I DO agree that I'm sort of stretching the bounds of the contract by doing it - as short-term loans were never the intention. But I'm not seeing who the victim is when there's no risk of default/delay (other than delay in IPO execution where extra interest would be paid).
Only 'risk' was if BTC-TC stole the funds (and everything else deposited there) - but in that situation DMS was no worse of as the cash would have been on BTC-TC anyway (though have to admit that particular scenario makes me shudder).
My overall strategy has always been to avoid risks - that's why I rarely invest (most BTC stocks are total shit - goof for flipping for a profit and leaving some sucker carrying the losses a year later). To believe what I did is somehow aginst DMS' interests you need to conclude TWO things:
1. That what I was doing could go wrong (this was definitely possible though unlikely)
2. That I'd have problems repaying 420 BTC if it DID go wrong.
The 2nd point is where the case against loses. If (as was the case) the IPO gos smoothly then total exposure is trivial anyway (under 100 BTC). Even if it went wrong 420 BTC is NOT an amount I'd need more than 24 hours to raise. That's why I dislike the usagi comparison - I don't say I'll pay something when I lack the funds to do so in a reasonable time-scale (i.e. days). My expecteed exposure on this was under 100 BTC - but even if burnside fucked up his script and the while 420 BTC got spent AND the share price crashed I'd just sell a few things and move 420 BTC in.
There's no scenario in which DMS could have bought the IPO shares itself. So the choice was between getting nothing and getting a safe 20 BTC. You COULD argue that 5% for a <24 hour loan was weak - but then you COULD argue that the moon is made of blue cheese. Conflict of interest? Well - think of it as I offered DMS 20 BTC to borrow 400 BTC for under a day. If I'd said NO I think that would have been a far worse decision for investors. There was under an hour to decide in - so a vote was out of the question (had it been much over an hour I'd have been confident of moving funds in from elsewhere).
I take the view that ignoring the possibility (because some people would be butt-hurt that I made some profit) would be far worse for investors than a 5% return for ~16 hours loan. But maybe you or someone else can explain to me how investors' interests would have been served by me saying no?
This sort of opportunity is VERY rare. I can only think of 3 IPOs in the last 6 months I'd have borrowed cash to buy into - and the other 2 I didn't need to as I spotted them early enough. This one got approved much faster than I expected AND with a strange IPO procedure (they left cash on the table so as to piss off ALL investors a bit rather than the cheap-skate ones a LOT). I decided I was happy to pay DMS 20 BTC to leverage my position - and that was allowed under the contract. Principle's fine - but turning down 20 BTC just because it's me? We lend 300 BTC to TradeFortress for under 30% per year. I don't have a clue what his name is, what assets he has etc. I know precisely what my name is - and what my assets are - but I should reject myself as a loan target because 'bitcoin'?
Having said all that I DO actually sort of agree with you. Problem I have is simply that although I know there was no risk to DMS there's no way I can prove that easily. All I can advise to investors is that if you think there's ANY risk (even a small one) that DMS investors could end up worse from making that loan than from not making it then you should NOT invest in ANY security I offer. The loan was taken on the basis of being a secured loan (that's the only basis on which it COULD be made by contract) - if you believe it wasn't properly secured then you should not trust me with ANYTHING.
Personally I can't see any scenario in which the loan wasn't repaid - other than if burnside stole everything deposited on BTC-TC in which case it would have been lost anyway. I just have too many sources I can pull relatively small BTC amounts from.
