[BTC-TC] Deprived Mining Speculation (DMS)

[twentyseventy]

Price swings can be fast, just look at the last days 86€ -> 100€ in a matter of days if not hours. If luck is against us we could possibly lose a lot of money if Deprived is not there for a day or two to adequately react. That's not exactly the safest investment. To me this looks like possible infinite losses and a max of 50% gain.

This is the link to Kate's thread CIPHERBOND btw. Deprived could have linked it

Basically, the main risk is that the BTC price spikes and then the rate of return isn't great (in BTC), correct?

[1714738679]

1714738679

[1714738679]

1714738679

[1714738679]

1714738679

[1714738679]

1714738679

[1714738679]

1714738679

[1714738679]

1714738679

[fuggedit]

This idea needs to be turned into a Bitcoin game.

Satoshi'sGreatMeta-MindF&ck.com Low Rakes under .00008895689384962%!!

[fuggedit]

Significant for what? To get a dividend or to be profitable? To get a (small) dividend for SELLING, the diff jump only needs to be around 5-6%

I was just picking out this part:

that these PBMs are all essentially gussied up ponzies with an extremely slight element of chance based on the infinitesimally small fluctuations of the difficulty factor each week? Sorry if I worded the post like a giant pretzel of fuzzy words, it's just easier for me to wrap my head around when I use abstractions with big words

'Infinitesimally small' changes won't do much to the values here. I agree that 5-6% isn't a huge amount, I was just saying 'significant' compared to 'infinitesimally small'

I think I meant that the room for significant variance is not there. Im not sure what I meant TBH lol just trying to grasp this whole web of related interactions that seem-- at least on paper-- to have quite a muted variance, yet at face value they are seeing tons of speculation on both sides. Doesn't seem to jive unless one of the groups is being force fed disinformation.

[fuggedit]

I mean, when we break it down, the issuers or managers orwhat ever you call these PBM founders, are they adding other controls to this market by possibly  colluding with the hardware manufacturers to keep delaying the shipment of the neccessary hardware so as to coincide with the date which would yield the shareholders the lowest amount over the break even point that they can possibly get? Or even more, could some enterprising gent working as a hardware maker have been the 1st to invent this methodology having seen an opportunity to "fleece the sheep twice" in a sense by becoming the 1st person to control this market explicitly by creating the hardware and then selling it as an investment, and even on top, keeping all monies by manipulating the market since they control it totally. Then it became standard market protocol when the competitors discovered this phenomenon and jumped on the bandwagon adopting these methods along the way? Is this a plausible scenario or am I in total tin-foil hat land here? Seemed that way to me from watching all those threads about X company doing this, and then a bit later Y company does a eerily similar sequence of events... From observing these companies, it certainly seems like standard protocol to decieve the investors by promising "1 more week, 2 more weeks!" etc.. and just goading them on until the sham gets to be untenable by all estimates. The gall and greed of these people if this is true... Money is no reason to become a bottom feeding integrity-devoid chiseler

[Deprived]

Price swings can be fast, just look at the last days 86€ -> 100€ in a matter of days if not hours. If luck is against us we could possibly lose a lot of money if Deprived is not there for a day or two to adequately react. That's not exactly the safest investment. To me this looks like possible infinite losses and a max of 50% gain.

This is the link to Kate's thread CIPHERBOND btw. Deprived could have linked it

The bonds' face value is fixed in BTC so unaffected by exchange-rate moves.   It's only the interest that is calculated in EUR.  So we don't face losses if exchange-rate moves, just a change in the interest paid.

[junkonator]

Price swings can be fast, just look at the last days 86€ -> 100€ in a matter of days if not hours. If luck is against us we could possibly lose a lot of money if Deprived is not there for a day or two to adequately react. That's not exactly the safest investment. To me this looks like possible infinite losses and a max of 50% gain.

This is the link to Kate's thread CIPHERBOND btw. Deprived could have linked it

The bonds' face value is fixed in BTC so unaffected by exchange-rate moves.   It's only the interest that is calculated in EUR.  So we don't face losses if exchange-rate moves, just a change in the interest paid.

Ah I misunderstood that part. All is well then.

[Deprived]

Due to J-D losing a bit in the last day and few sales of PURCHASE yesterday, the SELLING dividend is very slightly lower than my estimate yesterday.

Sold   62
Swapped   0
Total   62
Price   0.01574
Total   0.97588
Less Fee   0.97392824
Man Fee   0.029217847

BTC Balance (BTC-TC)   2166.450008
9071 LTC-ATF.B1    90.71000000
Coinlenders CD 27/9   201.0287618
Coinlenders CD 12/9   101.5172132
Coinlenders Cash   3.94598648
Just-Dice Balance    244.25000000
TOTAL ASSETS    2,807.90196933
   
Outstanding MINING   176908
Outstanding SELLING   176908
Outstanding PURCHASE   10433
Effective Units   187341
   
Block reward   25
Difficulty   86,933,018
Hashes per MINING   5000000
   
Daily Dividend    0.00002892
50 days (Min Liquid)    0.00144625
100 days (Forced Close)    0.00289249
365 days (Buyback)    0.01055760
405 days (IPO)    0.01171460
400 days (Post SELLING div)    0.01156998
410 days (Pre SELLING div)    0.01185923
   
NAV Post MINING Div    2,802.48314159
NAV/U Post MINING Div    0.01495926
Days Dividend Post Div   517.18
SELLING Dividend    0.00338929
NAV Post SELLING Div    2,167.53109645
NAV/U Post Selling Div    0.01156998
PURCHASE selling price    0.01215
PURCHASE buy-back price    0.01134
   
J-D House profit at report   5574

[Deprived]

Sold   1125
Swapped   0
Total   1125
Price   0.01215
Total   13.66875
Less Fee   13.6414125
Man Fee   0.409242375

BTC Balance (BTC-TC)   1539.311341
9071 LTC-ATF.B1    90.71000000
Coinlenders CD 27/9   201.1498005
Coinlenders CD 12/9   101.581735
Coinlenders Cash   3.94820938
Just-Dice Balance    244.90000000
TOTAL ASSETS    2,181.60108565
   
Outstanding MINING   179191
Outstanding SELLING   179191
Outstanding PURCHASE   9275
Effective Units   188466
   
Block reward   25
Difficulty   86,933,018
Hashes per MINING   5000000
   
Daily Dividend    0.00002892
50 days (Min Liquid)    0.00144625
100 days (Forced Close)    0.00289249
365 days (Buyback)    0.01055760
405 days (IPO)    0.01171460
400 days (Post SELLING div)    0.01156998
410 days (Pre SELLING div)    0.01185923
   
NAV Post MINING Div    2,176.14971735
NAV/U Post MINING Div    0.01154664
Days Dividend Post Div   399.19
SELLING Dividend    -         
NAV Post SELLING Div    2,176.14971735
NAV/U Post Selling Div    0.01154664
PURCHASE selling price    0.01212
PURCHASE buy-back price    0.01132
   
J-D House profit at report   5706

[Deprived]

I'd just like to remind all SELLING holders that the vote on whether or not to approve CIPHERMINE bonds for investment ends today.

At present only a minority of investors have voted at all.  If you don't want to approve it for investment (I know some don't want to invest at all - which is a perfectly valid stance) then vote NO.  If you don't care either way then Abstain.  And if you want to approve it as a valid investment then vote YES.

But please vote - as I don't want to have to keep putting the motion back up until it finally gets settled one way or the other (or it becomes irrelevant).

[Deprived]

Sold   250
Swapped   0
Total   250
Price   0.01212
Total   3.03
Less Fee   3.02394
Man Fee   0.0907182

BTC Balance (BTC-TC)   1536.794144
9071 LTC-ATF.B1    90.71000000
Coinlenders CD 27/9   201.271302
Coinlenders CD 12/9   101.6465035
Coinlenders Cash   3.95043354
Just-Dice Balance    244.82000000
TOTAL ASSETS    2,179.19238306
   
Outstanding MINING   180154
Outstanding SELLING   180154
Outstanding PURCHASE   8562
Effective Units   188716
   
Block reward   25
Difficulty   86,933,018
Hashes per MINING   5000000
   
Daily Dividend    0.00002892
50 days (Min Liquid)    0.00144625
100 days (Forced Close)    0.00289249
365 days (Buyback)    0.01055760
405 days (IPO)    0.01171460
400 days (Post SELLING div)    0.01156998
410 days (Pre SELLING div)    0.01185923
   
NAV Post MINING Div    2,173.73378352
NAV/U Post MINING Div    0.01151855
Days Dividend Post Div   398.22
SELLING Dividend    -         
NAV Post SELLING Div    2,173.73378352
NAV/U Post Selling Div    0.01151855
PURCHASE selling price    0.01209
PURCHASE buy-back price    0.01129
   
J-D House profit at report   5689

[Deprived]

The motion to allow investment in CIPHERMINE bonds didn't receive enough votes for an outcome to be determined (although a clear majority of those voted went for YES it needs to break the 50% mark to be a valid result).  Basically there wasn't a valid quorum.

I've put the motion up again for slightly longer this time - but if the majority of investors aren't around then obviously it'll not receive sufficient votes again.  In which case at least I know not to spend time trying to find investment opportunities (suitable investments are generally not going to available at face price for too long - so leaving a motion up for weeks isn't a viable option).

[twentyseventy]

The last time you did this (with J-D), I received an email from BTCT; this time a few days with CIPHERMINE, however, I didn't get one. My have just been an issue on my end; however, you may want to check and ensure shareholders are getting those motion notification emails.

[Rannasha]

I didn't receive an email notification for either of the CIPHERMINE motions. Can't remember whether I got one for the JD & CL motions a while back.

[Lohoris]

The motion to allow investment in CIPHERMINE bonds didn't receive enough votes for an outcome to be determined (although a clear majority of those voted went for YES it needs to break the 50% mark to be a valid result).  Basically there wasn't a valid quorum.

I've put the motion up again for slightly longer this time - but if the majority of investors aren't around then obviously it'll not receive sufficient votes again.  In which case at least I know not to spend time trying to find investment opportunities (suitable investments are generally not going to available at face price for too long - so leaving a motion up for weeks isn't a viable option).

I'm sorry, I know how much it is frustrating when something like that happens :/

How about lowering the quorum?
I mean, lowering it a lot, like 15% instead of 50%.

Furthermore a quorum of 50% is plain wrong, since it splits the "no" votes in "plain no" + "didn't vote", so that if you want to say "no", you have to game the system and try to guess if it's better not to vote or to vote "no".

[ThickAsThieves]

I'm going to chime in and say that I do not support investing in the CIPHERMINE bonds, but I do support pursuit of relatively safe investments for the coins.

[Rannasha]

The motion to allow investment in CIPHERMINE bonds didn't receive enough votes for an outcome to be determined (although a clear majority of those voted went for YES it needs to break the 50% mark to be a valid result).  Basically there wasn't a valid quorum.

I've put the motion up again for slightly longer this time - but if the majority of investors aren't around then obviously it'll not receive sufficient votes again.  In which case at least I know not to spend time trying to find investment opportunities (suitable investments are generally not going to available at face price for too long - so leaving a motion up for weeks isn't a viable option).

I'm sorry, I know how much it is frustrating when something like that happens :/

How about lowering the quorum?
I mean, lowering it a lot, like 15% instead of 50%.

Furthermore a quorum of 50% is plain wrong, since it splits the "no" votes in "plain no" + "didn't vote", so that if you want to say "no", you have to game the system and try to guess if it's better not to vote or to vote "no".

As far as I know, the requirement for a DMS motion to pass is for more than 50% of the shares voting "yes". So a "no" vote, an "abstain" vote or simply not voting all have the same effect.

[junkonator]

I'm going to chime in and say that I do not support investing in the CIPHERMINE bonds, but I do support pursuit of relatively safe investments for the coins.

Care to elaborate on what you don't like about CIPHERBOND?

[ThickAsThieves]

I'm going to chime in and say that I do not support investing in the CIPHERMINE bonds, but I do support pursuit of relatively safe investments for the coins.

Care to elaborate on what you don't like about CIPHERBOND?

I am not convinced of their ability to profit as a company, nor of their ability to manage their finances in such a way as to ensure the fulfillment of obligations and expectations of their shareholders and bondholders.

[xuanxuan3317]

The motion to allow investment in CIPHERMINE bonds didn't receive enough votes for an outcome to be determined (although a clear majority of those voted went for YES it needs to break the 50% mark to be a valid result).  Basically there wasn't a valid quorum.

I've put the motion up again for slightly longer this time - but if the majority of investors aren't around then obviously it'll not receive sufficient votes again.  In which case at least I know not to spend time trying to find investment opportunities (suitable investments are generally not going to available at face price for too long - so leaving a motion up for weeks isn't a viable option).

I dont think the way you talk is suitable to your investors ,  It's much more like a Threaten. like if we dont agree with you,we will lose the suitable investments.  Also To my opinion and most company and government did, If a motion of vote to reinvest cant get enough "YES" means disagree, you should not compel us to vote it again.

[Deprived]

The motion to allow investment in CIPHERMINE bonds didn't receive enough votes for an outcome to be determined (although a clear majority of those voted went for YES it needs to break the 50% mark to be a valid result).  Basically there wasn't a valid quorum.

I've put the motion up again for slightly longer this time - but if the majority of investors aren't around then obviously it'll not receive sufficient votes again.  In which case at least I know not to spend time trying to find investment opportunities (suitable investments are generally not going to available at face price for too long - so leaving a motion up for weeks isn't a viable option).

I'm sorry, I know how much it is frustrating when something like that happens :/

How about lowering the quorum?
I mean, lowering it a lot, like 15% instead of 50%.

Furthermore a quorum of 50% is plain wrong, since it splits the "no" votes in "plain no" + "didn't vote", so that if you want to say "no", you have to game the system and try to guess if it's better not to vote or to vote "no".

As far as I know, the requirement for a DMS motion to pass is for more than 50% of the shares voting "yes". So a "no" vote, an "abstain" vote or simply not voting all have the same effect.

Well the contract says "For the first two of these only a simple majority of DMS.SELLING is required".

There's no quorum defined in the contract but in practical terms at least 50% of shares have to vote for a simple majority to be achieved.  No votes, abstains and not voting don't have exactly the same effect.

Abstains reduce the number of Yes votes required - it's a means by which someone can indicate that their shares don't count towards the vote at all.

A large number of NO votes means I abandon whatever was being voted on.  If the same shares didn't vote instead then I'd put the motion back up again (as may have happened here) as there wasn't any indication of opposition to the motion.  So voting NO and not voting has identical impact on the outcome of a motion - but a different impact on how I interpret the results and thus act going forward.

There's no point even discussing changing the voting rules - as that would require a vote to pass by an even larger majority (and not just on SELLING but on MINING as well).   And any change that requires less than a proper majority would need other changes as well - such as defined minimum voting periods (which would have to be significantly longer).