Bitcoin Forum
September 21, 2018, 10:53:21 PM *
News: ♦♦ New info! Bitcoin Core users absolutely must upgrade to previously-announced 0.16.3 [Torrent]. All Bitcoin users should temporarily trust confirmations slightly less. More info.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  

Warning: Moderators do not remove likely scams. You must use your own brain: caveat emptor. Watch out for Ponzi schemes. Do not invest more than you can afford to lose.

Pages: « 1 ... 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 [64] 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [BTC-TC] Deprived Mining Speculation (DMS)  (Read 198087 times)
This is a self-moderated topic. If you do not want to be moderated by the person who started this topic, create a new topic.
Deprived
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


View Profile
September 25, 2013, 09:17:06 AM
 #1261

If this does move to another exchange (which is looking he most likely outcome) can we transfer all shares or only MINING+SELLING pairs?

All of MINING/SELLING would be transferred exactly as they are.

Pairs of MINING/SELLING and PURCHASE would be able to be cashed out before the move (either all in cash or in cash + CIPHERMINE.B1).

PURCHASE may or may not get transferred - depending on what support the new exchange has.  If there's no way to automate transfers then its likely the new PURCHASE would be at a multiple (so 1 PURCHASE might equal 500 MINING + 500 SELLING) to get the manual swap level down to a managable level.  If that happened then all PURCHASE that weren't a multiple of that new value would be transferred over split into MINING + SELLING already (I'd edit the export file from BTC-TC to do it - so new exchange could just import it).
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1537570401
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1537570401

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1537570401
Reply with quote  #2

1537570401
Report to moderator
1537570401
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1537570401

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1537570401
Reply with quote  #2

1537570401
Report to moderator
1537570401
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1537570401

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1537570401
Reply with quote  #2

1537570401
Report to moderator
BitThink
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 882
Merit: 1000



View Profile
September 25, 2013, 09:17:28 AM
 #1262

If we haven't managed to move by the end of October when BTC-TC closes then we'd shut down.  At that stage mining would be paid thier amount in full immediately, SELLING would get whatever was left.  If there was still CIPHERMINE.B1 not sold then I'd have to do a final dividend manually when we sold them.

But Deprived has clearly said mining would be paid their amount in full immediately.
Rannasha
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728
Merit: 500


View Profile
September 25, 2013, 09:21:55 AM
 #1263

If we haven't managed to move by the end of October when BTC-TC closes then we'd shut down.  At that stage mining would be paid thier amount in full immediately, SELLING would get whatever was left.  If there was still CIPHERMINE.B1 not sold then I'd have to do a final dividend manually when we sold them.

But Deprived has clearly said mining would be paid their amount in full immediately.

In case of a split of the asset funds, the amount that MINING has been assigned would be paid immediately from BTC being held. Since part of the funds are still tied up in Ciphermine bonds, SELLING would only receive their full amount once those have been liquidated. In his post Deprived makes no statements on what "their amount" would be for MINING, only that it would be paid immediately.

Which by the way makes it contradict with the assumption that MINING gets 365 of days of dividend, since Ciphermine makes up ~20% of the funds capital, while 365 days of dividend is close to 90% of the NAV. So there isn't enough BTC to pay MINING in full if they receive 365 dividend days.
BitThink
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 882
Merit: 1000



View Profile
September 25, 2013, 09:26:17 AM
 #1264

If we haven't managed to move by the end of October when BTC-TC closes then we'd shut down.  At that stage mining would be paid thier amount in full immediately, SELLING would get whatever was left.  If there was still CIPHERMINE.B1 not sold then I'd have to do a final dividend manually when we sold them.

But Deprived has clearly said mining would be paid their amount in full immediately.

In case of a split of the asset funds, the amount that MINING has been assigned would be paid immediately from BTC being held. Since part of the funds are still tied up in Ciphermine bonds, SELLING would only receive their full amount once those have been liquidated. In his post Deprived makes no statements on what "their amount" would be for MINING, only that it would be paid immediately.

Which by the way makes it contradict with the assumption that MINING gets 365 of days of dividend, since Ciphermine makes up ~20% of the funds capital, while 365 days of dividend is close to 90% of the NAV. So there isn't enough BTC to pay MINING in full if they receive 365 dividend days.

Ok, fair enough. So how to split between Selling and Mining remains a secret, right? But anyway, I think most likely it will be relisted, so it does not matter.
Deprived
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


View Profile
September 25, 2013, 09:27:13 AM
 #1265

If we haven't managed to move by the end of October when BTC-TC closes then we'd shut down.  At that stage mining would be paid thier amount in full immediately, SELLING would get whatever was left.  If there was still CIPHERMINE.B1 not sold then I'd have to do a final dividend manually when we sold them.

But Deprived has clearly said mining would be paid their amount in full immediately.

Right - but you seem confused over what "their amount" is.

As Rannasha pointed out, any closure would be because DMS can't  continue - not because of a vote by SELLING.  Under the contract the option I have (ignoring finding a new manager which obviously isn't practical) is to put up a vote with a proposed split and try to get both MINING and SELLING to agree it.

But if I do that, then I also have to stop paying dividends - as I can't have a 7 day long vote up with proposals that may not even be relevant a week later (if difficulty rises or falls by a lot).  And I can't even propose a split until I know what's happening with CL and CIPHERMINE.B1 - as I don't know how much there is to be split (though in theory I could get around that one by proposing an amount for MINING with SELLING getting the rest).

So at present we end up falling back on the final clause - that I have to decide the split myself.  Because the problem is that if I put up a proposal and it fails there won't be time to do a second one anyway.  So I'd end up having to decide myself - at which point I'd likely go with what I proposed (but was voted down on) anyway.  Which makes the vote pointless - as there's no way to act on (and get approval for) any revision to it.

IF the vote had indiciated most wanted to close then I MAY have considered halting all dividends and putting up a proposal for vote.  But as a clear majority wants to relist it seems rather silly to screw the market up and cause confusion when most likely we'll just be moving anyway.

EDIT: Just to be asolutely clear, no split I proposed or unilaterally imposed would be giving MINING anywhere NEAR 365 days of dividends.  And it won't be susceptible to market manipulation (by someone trying to move the price on low volume) either.  Once we've relisted (if we do) someone feel free to ask me how I was going to do it - and I'll explain it in detail.
SleepyRhino
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 10
Merit: 0


View Profile
September 25, 2013, 09:27:42 AM
 #1266

If this does move to another exchange (which is looking he most likely outcome) can we transfer all shares or only MINING+SELLING pairs?

All of MINING/SELLING would be transferred exactly as they are.

Pairs of MINING/SELLING and PURCHASE would be able to be cashed out before the move (either all in cash or in cash + CIPHERMINE.B1).

PURCHASE may or may not get transferred - depending on what support the new exchange has.  If there's no way to automate transfers then its likely the new PURCHASE would be at a multiple (so 1 PURCHASE might equal 500 MINING + 500 SELLING) to get the manual swap level down to a managable level.  If that happened then all PURCHASE that weren't a multiple of that new value would be transferred over split into MINING + SELLING already (I'd edit the export file from BTC-TC to do it - so new exchange could just import it).

Thanks for the clarification will leave my MINING and SELLING alone and not sell anything.
Rannasha
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728
Merit: 500


View Profile
September 25, 2013, 09:28:04 AM
 #1267

If we haven't managed to move by the end of October when BTC-TC closes then we'd shut down.  At that stage mining would be paid thier amount in full immediately, SELLING would get whatever was left.  If there was still CIPHERMINE.B1 not sold then I'd have to do a final dividend manually when we sold them.

But Deprived has clearly said mining would be paid their amount in full immediately.

In case of a split of the asset funds, the amount that MINING has been assigned would be paid immediately from BTC being held. Since part of the funds are still tied up in Ciphermine bonds, SELLING would only receive their full amount once those have been liquidated. In his post Deprived makes no statements on what "their amount" would be for MINING, only that it would be paid immediately.

Which by the way makes it contradict with the assumption that MINING gets 365 of days of dividend, since Ciphermine makes up ~20% of the funds capital, while 365 days of dividend is close to 90% of the NAV. So there isn't enough BTC to pay MINING in full if they receive 365 dividend days.

Ok, fair enough. So how split between Selling and Mining is still a secret, right? But anyway, I think most likely it will be relisted, so it does not matter.

Yes, it doesn't make sense to announce what a split would be before the final decission to close the fund has been made and trading has been locked.
BitThink
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 882
Merit: 1000



View Profile
September 25, 2013, 09:35:51 AM
 #1268

If we haven't managed to move by the end of October when BTC-TC closes then we'd shut down.  At that stage mining would be paid thier amount in full immediately, SELLING would get whatever was left.  If there was still CIPHERMINE.B1 not sold then I'd have to do a final dividend manually when we sold them.

But Deprived has clearly said mining would be paid their amount in full immediately.

Right - but you seem confused over what "their amount" is.

As Rannasha pointed out, any closure would be because DMS can't  continue - not because of a vote by SELLING.  Under the contract the option I have (ignoring finding a new manager which obviously isn't practical) is to put up a vote with a proposed split and try to get both MINING and SELLING to agree it.

But if I do that, then I also have to stop paying dividends - as I can't have a 7 day long vote up with proposals that may not even be relevant a week later (if difficulty rises or falls by a lot).  And I can't even propose a split until I know what's happening with CL and CIPHERMINE.B1 - as I don't know how much there is to be split (though in theory I could get around that one by proposing an amount for MINING with SELLING getting the rest).

So at present we end up falling back on the final clause - that I have to decide the split myself.  Because the problem is that if I put up a proposal and it fails there won't be time to do a second one anyway.  So I'd end up having to decide myself - at which point I'd likely go with what I proposed (but was voted down on) anyway.  Which makes the vote pointless - as there's no way to act on (and get approval for) any revision to it.

IF the vote had indiciated most wanted to close then I MAY have considered halting all dividends and putting up a proposal for vote.  But as a clear majority wants to relist it seems rather silly to screw the market up and cause confusion when most likely we'll just be moving anyway.

EDIT: Just to be asolutely clear, no split I proposed or unilaterally imposed would be giving MINING anywhere NEAR 365 days of dividends.  And it won't be susceptible to market manipulation (by someone trying to move the price on low volume) either.  Once we've relisted (if we do) someone feel free to ask me how I was going to do it - and I'll explain it in detail.

Thanks. That makes sense totally.

Just wonder why DMS.MINING dropped so much. Maybe all people think the split will be beneficial to SELLING? But now it is quite clear relisting is almost decided, so I think the MINING price is a little bit under-priced.   Smiley (Admit now I am trying to push the MINING price up. Just a little effort to reduce the lost caused by my confusion, upon which I rushed to buy the MINING and pushed the price to a high level. Smiley )
Deprived
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


View Profile
September 25, 2013, 09:36:58 AM
 #1269

Yes, it doesn't make sense to announce what a split would be before the final decission to close the fund has been made and trading has been locked.

Yeah, at this stage if it becomes apparent we won't be able to relist then I'd wipe the order books, announce the split (and explain how I got the numbers), make MINING their full payment and SELLING a partial payment.

If it reaches a stage where relisting looks unlikely then I MAY:

1.  WIpe order books,
2.  Explain how I'd split if the fund closes,
3.  Reopen order books

Then people can make their own call on whether they want to trade based on what they believe the shares are worth if we continue or on what they believe they'll get if we close.

Right now I rate closure as unlikely - so it would do more harm than good for me to give numbers that most likely have no meaning.  But if closure becomes likely I'll definitely reconsider.

Comments on that general approach are definitely welcome - I don't want to distort the market, but nor would I want people buying one or the other of MINING/SELLING if I knew there was a high chance they'd get a lot less back from an imminent closure.  Right now I rate closure as low enough probability that the harm from disclosure outweighs the benefits.
Rannasha
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728
Merit: 500


View Profile
September 25, 2013, 09:40:22 AM
 #1270

If we haven't managed to move by the end of October when BTC-TC closes then we'd shut down.  At that stage mining would be paid thier amount in full immediately, SELLING would get whatever was left.  If there was still CIPHERMINE.B1 not sold then I'd have to do a final dividend manually when we sold them.

But Deprived has clearly said mining would be paid their amount in full immediately.

Right - but you seem confused over what "their amount" is.

As Rannasha pointed out, any closure would be because DMS can't  continue - not because of a vote by SELLING.  Under the contract the option I have (ignoring finding a new manager which obviously isn't practical) is to put up a vote with a proposed split and try to get both MINING and SELLING to agree it.

But if I do that, then I also have to stop paying dividends - as I can't have a 7 day long vote up with proposals that may not even be relevant a week later (if difficulty rises or falls by a lot).  And I can't even propose a split until I know what's happening with CL and CIPHERMINE.B1 - as I don't know how much there is to be split (though in theory I could get around that one by proposing an amount for MINING with SELLING getting the rest).

So at present we end up falling back on the final clause - that I have to decide the split myself.  Because the problem is that if I put up a proposal and it fails there won't be time to do a second one anyway.  So I'd end up having to decide myself - at which point I'd likely go with what I proposed (but was voted down on) anyway.  Which makes the vote pointless - as there's no way to act on (and get approval for) any revision to it.

IF the vote had indiciated most wanted to close then I MAY have considered halting all dividends and putting up a proposal for vote.  But as a clear majority wants to relist it seems rather silly to screw the market up and cause confusion when most likely we'll just be moving anyway.

EDIT: Just to be asolutely clear, no split I proposed or unilaterally imposed would be giving MINING anywhere NEAR 365 days of dividends.  And it won't be susceptible to market manipulation (by someone trying to move the price on low volume) either.  Once we've relisted (if we do) someone feel free to ask me how I was going to do it - and I'll explain it in detail.

Thanks. That makes sense totally.

Just wonder why DMS.MINING dropped so much. Maybe all people think the split will be beneficial to SELLING? But now it is quite clear now relisting is almost decided, so I think the MINING price is a little bit under-priced.   Smiley (Admit now I am trying to push the MINING price up. Just a little effort to reduce the lost caused by my confusion, upon which I rushed to buy the MINING and pushed the price to a high level. Smiley )

If you look at the graph of MINING, you'll see that it was already in strong decline before the BTCT announcement hit. The BTCT announcement mostly hurt the price of SELLING (which dropped to 0.0045 at some point, thanks for that btw!), which has mostly recovered since.

I think that the drop of MINING is more due to people readjusting their view on how things are to be valued than anything to do with the BTCT closure.
BitThink
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 882
Merit: 1000



View Profile
September 25, 2013, 09:52:01 AM
 #1271

If we haven't managed to move by the end of October when BTC-TC closes then we'd shut down.  At that stage mining would be paid thier amount in full immediately, SELLING would get whatever was left.  If there was still CIPHERMINE.B1 not sold then I'd have to do a final dividend manually when we sold them.

But Deprived has clearly said mining would be paid their amount in full immediately.

Right - but you seem confused over what "their amount" is.

As Rannasha pointed out, any closure would be because DMS can't  continue - not because of a vote by SELLING.  Under the contract the option I have (ignoring finding a new manager which obviously isn't practical) is to put up a vote with a proposed split and try to get both MINING and SELLING to agree it.

But if I do that, then I also have to stop paying dividends - as I can't have a 7 day long vote up with proposals that may not even be relevant a week later (if difficulty rises or falls by a lot).  And I can't even propose a split until I know what's happening with CL and CIPHERMINE.B1 - as I don't know how much there is to be split (though in theory I could get around that one by proposing an amount for MINING with SELLING getting the rest).

So at present we end up falling back on the final clause - that I have to decide the split myself.  Because the problem is that if I put up a proposal and it fails there won't be time to do a second one anyway.  So I'd end up having to decide myself - at which point I'd likely go with what I proposed (but was voted down on) anyway.  Which makes the vote pointless - as there's no way to act on (and get approval for) any revision to it.

IF the vote had indiciated most wanted to close then I MAY have considered halting all dividends and putting up a proposal for vote.  But as a clear majority wants to relist it seems rather silly to screw the market up and cause confusion when most likely we'll just be moving anyway.

EDIT: Just to be asolutely clear, no split I proposed or unilaterally imposed would be giving MINING anywhere NEAR 365 days of dividends.  And it won't be susceptible to market manipulation (by someone trying to move the price on low volume) either.  Once we've relisted (if we do) someone feel free to ask me how I was going to do it - and I'll explain it in detail.

Thanks. That makes sense totally.

Just wonder why DMS.MINING dropped so much. Maybe all people think the split will be beneficial to SELLING? But now it is quite clear now relisting is almost decided, so I think the MINING price is a little bit under-priced.   Smiley (Admit now I am trying to push the MINING price up. Just a little effort to reduce the lost caused by my confusion, upon which I rushed to buy the MINING and pushed the price to a high level. Smiley )

If you look at the graph of MINING, you'll see that it was already in strong decline before the BTCT announcement hit. The BTCT announcement mostly hurt the price of SELLING (which dropped to 0.0045 at some point, thanks for that btw!), which has mostly recovered since.

I think that the drop of MINING is more due to people readjusting their view on how things are to be valued than anything to do with the BTCT closure.

Yes, you are right SELLING dropped more upon the announcement.
Regards MINING, I think one reason could be that a lot of hashing power is supposed to be deployed in October and November. Another reason is that previously MINING price is mainly driven high by the speculation, so now the price decreases with the liquidity together. I still think it will recover once it is re-listed on an exchange with enough liquidity.
vandinn
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 83
Merit: 10



View Profile
September 25, 2013, 11:32:19 AM
 #1272

Deprived, I really do not understand, why we should only get 99% of NAV/U? It's ok if people want to continue, but the ones who do not should be given the chance to get a fair deal.

The contract is quite explicit in terms of what will happen in unforseen circumstances.

Cease making new investments,
Liquidate investments where possible,
Cease selling new DMS.PURCHASE
Offer redemption at 100% (less any exchange fees) of NAV/U for DMS.PURCHASE and bundles of equal numbers of DMS.MINING and DMS.SELLING where it is possible to do so whilst retaining at least 50 days dividend cover in liquid BTC for the remaining DMS.MINING.


Either way, the fund is closing down. It may reopen on a different exchange, with very similar contract (but not quite the same), it may offer the redemption of Mining and Selling for Mining and Selling on the new exchange. That is all fine with me. You have proceeded with the first three steps, I believe you should with the last one as well. (I have read everything up until now and agree that we wait for the CL coins.)



Disclaimer: I own slightly above 6% of Mining and Selling. I bought the overpriced Mining only after the BTCT announcement of its closure, exactly because of this part of the contract.)
Deprived
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


View Profile
September 25, 2013, 11:46:07 AM
 #1273

Deprived, I really do not understand, why we should only get 99% of NAV/U? It's ok if people want to continue, but the ones who do not should be given the chance to get a fair deal.

The contract is quite explicit in terms of what will happen in unforseen circumstances.

Cease making new investments,
Liquidate investments where possible,
Cease selling new DMS.PURCHASE
Offer redemption at 100% (less any exchange fees) of NAV/U for DMS.PURCHASE and bundles of equal numbers of DMS.MINING and DMS.SELLING where it is possible to do so whilst retaining at least 50 days dividend cover in liquid BTC for the remaining DMS.MINING.


Either way, the fund is closing down. It may reopen on a different exchange, with very similar contract (but not quite the same), it may offer the redemption of Mining and Selling for Mining and Selling on the new exchange. That is all fine with me. You have proceeded with the first three steps, I believe you should with the last one as well. (I have read everything up until now and agree that we wait for the CL coins.)



Disclaimer: I own slightly above 6% of Mining and Selling. I bought the overpriced Mining only after the BTCT announcment of its closure, exactly because of this part of the contract.)


In theory I agree with you - and if ALL investments were 100% BTC then I'd do that.  Problem is that it's highly unlikely we'll have the option to convert CIPHERMINE.B1 into BTC by then.  Even if we're promised it'll later become liquid it still can't truly be valued at full face value whlst it isn't tradable.  So some discount to its value has to be applied.

Easiest way around it to be totally fair would be to do all redemptions by sending cash plus a portion of CIPHERMINE.B1 - but we still have the problem of very small holdings too low to give even 1 CIPHERMINE.B1.

If I have the option of liquidiating it then yes - I'd give 100% NAV/U.  If I don't have that option then I'd probably have to give cash + some of them and then slightly under NAV/U for tiny holdings.

As you correctly point out - if the contract changes then it MUST be considered as being an effective closure/reopening, so the general rule is that anyone choosing to sell out should get precisely their fair share of NAV/U.  The 99% NAV/U was intended as a means to pay in all cash whilst reflecting the fact that a significant portion of assets weren't actually liquid (assuming I was satisifed there was every intent to honour the bond commitments).  Any time risk is passed to someone else there MUST be a cost associated with it.

EDIT:  Just realised in a previous post I'd referred to paying 99% of NAV/U + some bonds.  That is incorrect - if everything bar the bonds is in cash then one-time redemptions before moving would be at 100% NAV/U (excluding bonds) + bonds.  That much is definite.
vandinn
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 83
Merit: 10



View Profile
September 25, 2013, 12:56:23 PM
 #1274

Quote
EDIT:  Just realised in a previous post I'd referred to paying 99% of NAV/U + some bonds.  That is incorrect - if everything bar the bonds is in cash then one-time redemptions before moving would be at 100% NAV/U (excluding bonds) + bonds.  That much is definite.

Thanks, that's what I was refering to. (Should have quoted it.)
Deprived
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


View Profile
September 25, 2013, 01:29:30 PM
 #1275

BTC Balance (BTC-TC)   1132.709586
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    1,941.22145068
   
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    1,936.18968626
NAV/U Post MINING Div    0.00859085
Days Dividend Post Div   384.79
SELLING Dividend    -         
NAV Post SELLING Div    1,936.18968626
NAV/U Post Selling Div    0.00859085

Posting report slightly early as I have to go out later and may not be aorund at usual time.  Dividends are set for usual time of course.  As I don't have to update PURCHASE orders I can post the reports in advance now - other than when it's SELLING dividend day (which is tomorrow).
twentyseventy
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1386
Merit: 1000


View Profile
September 25, 2013, 01:33:09 PM
 #1276

I've been very happy with the operation of this asset until this time. Deprived, you stated that you had a good idea that the closure of BTCT was coming - why did you still continue to pursue an investment in CIPHERMINE if the liquidity of these bonds could have been such an issue, especially at such an early date?

SELLING did approve the investment, so a significant amount of responsibility lies there, but this investment is only 1-2 weeks old and there is already talk of liquidation value.
Rannasha
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728
Merit: 500


View Profile
September 25, 2013, 02:44:04 PM
 #1277

Difficulty just jumped by 32%. Tomorrows SELLING dividend will be 1.189 mBTC, the new MINING dividend will be 1690 satoshi per day.
FloatesMcgoates
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 238
Merit: 100


View Profile
September 25, 2013, 04:56:36 PM
 #1278

Deprived, the offer of exchanging MINING+SELLING for some of NAV/U and then a certain amount of CIPHERMINE bonds that could be sold into the market represents a loss of 23% off of original NAV/U. This is made worse by the statements that Kate has given regarding her lack of interest in dealing with small owners of her securities. As you are a major holder, I and i'm sure many of the other individuals who want to exchange MINING+SELLING for NAV/U*.99 would like to see you continue to try and get the bonds redeemed at face value as quickly as possible.
twentyseventy
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1386
Merit: 1000


View Profile
September 25, 2013, 05:35:53 PM
 #1279

Deprived, the offer of exchanging MINING+SELLING for some of NAV/U and then a certain amount of CIPHERMINE bonds that could be sold into the market represents a loss of 23% off of original NAV/U. This is made worse by the statements that Kate has given regarding her lack of interest in dealing with small owners of her securities. As you are a major holder, I and i'm sure many of the other individuals who want to exchange MINING+SELLING for NAV/U*.99 would like to see you continue to try and get the bonds redeemed at face value as quickly as possible.

I second this motion. IF it's necessary to liquidate the bonds at this time, DMS shouldn't be taking any discount off of the face value. Nothing about BTCT closing has affected the underlying business that the bond payments were relying on.

If Kate decides to move to another exchange, I don't see any reason not to continue to hold the bonds.
Deprived
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


View Profile
September 25, 2013, 09:40:47 PM
 #1280

I've been very happy with the operation of this asset until this time. Deprived, you stated that you had a good idea that the closure of BTCT was coming - why did you still continue to pursue an investment in CIPHERMINE if the liquidity of these bonds could have been such an issue, especially at such an early date?

SELLING did approve the investment, so a significant amount of responsibility lies there, but this investment is only 1-2 weeks old and there is already talk of liquidation value.

I only became confident that was the case within the last week - after the CIPHERMINE.B1 investment.  I wouldn't have proposed it or done it if I'd believed at the time that there was a significant likelihood of BTC-TC's imminent demise.  My belief changed from "he's having to pay lawyers to tidy up the TOS and/or get rid of US customers" to "This looks like closure is a real likelihood" at the point where signups and asset creation were disabled and he didn't respond to the initial queries about it whilst answering other questions.

That belief is why, the evening before BTC-TC close, I sold back 1K CIPHERMINE.B1 at about .0103.  Until then I'd only been trickling them out at .0105+.  At that point, whilst I still rated closure as a fairly likely outcome. I DID expect there to be significantly more time until the shit hit the fan : so I didn't want to scare the market down.
Pages: « 1 ... 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 [64] 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!