[BTC-TC] BMF -- ALERT: BTC-TC SHUTDOWN

[Rannasha]

Yes, I know, this doesn't make sense. But I've learned the hard way from GLBSE closure how to handle this situation. So there it is, BMF is now worth 0.033 per share, and I will prove it by buying back every share on the market at that price.

If you don't believe me, then you're crazy. But go ahead. If Deprived executes his warrants, or not, every share will be bought back at 0.033 or above.

So to confirm: This means that you'll be placing market bids at 0.033 BTC/unit on BTCT to fill up any open asks at that price or below? If so, when do you plan on doing this?

[1714831632]

1714831632

[usagi]

Yes, I know, this doesn't make sense. But I've learned the hard way from GLBSE closure how to handle this situation. So there it is, BMF is now worth 0.033 per share, and I will prove it by buying back every share on the market at that price.

If you don't believe me, then you're crazy. But go ahead. If Deprived executes his warrants, or not, every share will be bought back at 0.033 or above.

So to confirm: This means that you'll be placing market bids at 0.033 BTC/unit on BTCT to fill up any open asks at that price or below? If so, when do you plan on doing this?

Ehh? Didn't I give a date in my last post? I just got home from work, I'll have to check that in a bit. For now please re-read my previous post, I am pretty sure there's a date in there.

[Rannasha]

Yes, I know, this doesn't make sense. But I've learned the hard way from GLBSE closure how to handle this situation. So there it is, BMF is now worth 0.033 per share, and I will prove it by buying back every share on the market at that price.

If you don't believe me, then you're crazy. But go ahead. If Deprived executes his warrants, or not, every share will be bought back at 0.033 or above.

So to confirm: This means that you'll be placing market bids at 0.033 BTC/unit on BTCT to fill up any open asks at that price or below? If so, when do you plan on doing this?

Ehh? Didn't I give a date in my last post? I just got home from work, I'll have to check that in a bit. For now please re-read my previous post, I am pretty sure there's a date in there.

Well, the two posts are slightly confusing about the exact terms of the change of the fund into a bond. You first say that one unit is worth 0.033 and that you'll prove that by buying any share on the market for this price. By market do you refer to BTCT or to the market in general? You then mention redemptions at 95% of NAV as per the contract for redemptions that are "off-market". Finally, your second, larger post details how BMF will operate as a bond and there you do specify a date for the redemption at face value of the bond. However, your first post implies that the units are already worth 0.033 and will be bought back on the market, which I assumed to be BTCT, which is due to close in <2 weeks.

My precise situation is that I have some units of BMF that I am seeking to liquidate as I have decided to reduce my exposure to securities (at least for now) because of the BTCT closure. And my question is whether this will happen via the market/BTCT for the price of 0.033 or "off-market" at the price of 0.0315.

[usagi]

Yes, I know, this doesn't make sense. But I've learned the hard way from GLBSE closure how to handle this situation. So there it is, BMF is now worth 0.033 per share, and I will prove it by buying back every share on the market at that price.

If you don't believe me, then you're crazy. But go ahead. If Deprived executes his warrants, or not, every share will be bought back at 0.033 or above.

So to confirm: This means that you'll be placing market bids at 0.033 BTC/unit on BTCT to fill up any open asks at that price or below? If so, when do you plan on doing this?

Ehh? Didn't I give a date in my last post? I just got home from work, I'll have to check that in a bit. For now please re-read my previous post, I am pretty sure there's a date in there.

Well, the two posts are slightly confusing about the exact terms of the change of the fund into a bond. You first say that one unit is worth 0.033 and that you'll prove that by buying any share on the market for this price. By market do you refer to BTCT or to the market in general? You then mention redemptions at 95% of NAV as per the contract for redemptions that are "off-market". Finally, your second, larger post details how BMF will operate as a bond and there you do specify a date for the redemption at face value of the bond. However, your first post implies that the units are already worth 0.033 and will be bought back on the market, which I assumed to be BTCT, which is due to close in <2 weeks.

My precise situation is that I have some units of BMF that I am seeking to liquidate as I have decided to reduce my exposure to securities (at least for now) because of the BTCT closure. And my question is whether this will happen via the market/BTCT for the price of 0.033 or "off-market" at the price of 0.0315.

The basic idea here is that it's not BMF's fault, nor our problem, that BTC-TC is closing. We have lots of BTC we can invest in stuff like Ukyo.Loan or XBOND, or to hold with people like coinlenders or just-dice. That means there is no rush for me to repurchase anyone's shares. What I am doing now is adding a "don't panic" guarantee that I will a) pay fixed interest and b) buy back shares for 0.033, at a date in the future. Both of those guarantees did not exist before.

Unfortunately a lot of people will still want to liquidate their shares because they are afraid about BTC-TC closing. So it is my duty to stand by the contract and place bids at 95% of NAV. That means about 0.023 per share right now, maybe 0.024. If that's what you would like to do just xfer your shares to usagiBMF and I will send along the coins.

OTOH, if you want to stick it out with BMF and maybe buy some more shares, I will give you a special guarantee for 0.033/share (or 0.035/share) and 15.7% interest for 1 year (then repurchase). I will probably end up running a vote on this before BTC-TC shuts down. It is the right thing to do to allow shareholders to vote on what is going on, so I don't think it would be proper to allow mass redemptions until people are made aware of their choices. After all, i've sold out almost everything we own and I am holding bitcoins. We're not going to lose any more money, so it's ok to be patient and wait a couple more days.

What I am looking for is to use this crisis to strengthen BMF. If Deprived and the other shareholders (like you) agree, I will tie BMF to the real estate deal I am working on, and we can all make a lot of money. It's either that or 95% of NAV.

I wish burnside didn't do this to us. Especially to us, given the crap I had to go thru to get approved. But it's really out of my hands. Offering my investors these special guarantees and an option to get a profit out of this is really the best I can do.

[Rannasha]

Yes, I know, this doesn't make sense. But I've learned the hard way from GLBSE closure how to handle this situation. So there it is, BMF is now worth 0.033 per share, and I will prove it by buying back every share on the market at that price.

If you don't believe me, then you're crazy. But go ahead. If Deprived executes his warrants, or not, every share will be bought back at 0.033 or above.

So to confirm: This means that you'll be placing market bids at 0.033 BTC/unit on BTCT to fill up any open asks at that price or below? If so, when do you plan on doing this?

Ehh? Didn't I give a date in my last post? I just got home from work, I'll have to check that in a bit. For now please re-read my previous post, I am pretty sure there's a date in there.

Well, the two posts are slightly confusing about the exact terms of the change of the fund into a bond. You first say that one unit is worth 0.033 and that you'll prove that by buying any share on the market for this price. By market do you refer to BTCT or to the market in general? You then mention redemptions at 95% of NAV as per the contract for redemptions that are "off-market". Finally, your second, larger post details how BMF will operate as a bond and there you do specify a date for the redemption at face value of the bond. However, your first post implies that the units are already worth 0.033 and will be bought back on the market, which I assumed to be BTCT, which is due to close in <2 weeks.

My precise situation is that I have some units of BMF that I am seeking to liquidate as I have decided to reduce my exposure to securities (at least for now) because of the BTCT closure. And my question is whether this will happen via the market/BTCT for the price of 0.033 or "off-market" at the price of 0.0315.

The basic idea here is that it's not BMF's fault, nor our problem, that BTC-TC is closing. We have lots of BTC we can invest in stuff like Ukyo.Loan or XBOND, or to hold with people like coinlenders or just-dice. That means there is no rush for me to repurchase anyone's shares. What I am doing now is adding a "don't panic" guarantee that I will a) pay fixed interest and b) buy back shares for 0.033, at a date in the future. Both of those guarantees did not exist before.

Unfortunately a lot of people will still want to liquidate their shares because they are afraid about BTC-TC closing. So it is my duty to stand by the contract and place bids at 95% of NAV. That means about 0.023 per share right now, maybe 0.024. If that's what you would like to do just xfer your shares to usagiBMF and I will send along the coins.

OTOH, if you want to stick it out with BMF and maybe buy some more shares, I will give you a special guarantee for 0.033/share (or 0.035/share) and 15.7% interest for 1 year (then repurchase). I will probably end up running a vote on this before BTC-TC shuts down. It is the right thing to do to allow shareholders to vote on what is going on, so I don't think it would be proper to allow mass redemptions until people are made aware of their choices. After all, i've sold out almost everything we own and I am holding bitcoins. We're not going to lose any more money, so it's ok to be patient and wait a couple more days.

What I am looking for is to use this crisis to strengthen BMF. If Deprived and the other shareholders (like you) agree, I will tie BMF to the real estate deal I am working on, and we can all make a lot of money. It's either that or 95% of NAV.

I wish burnside didn't do this to us. Especially to us, given the crap I had to go thru to get approved. But it's really out of my hands. Offering my investors these special guarantees and an option to get a profit out of this is really the best I can do.

This is not what you said in your earlier post.

But, if you need me to force buyback your shares off-market, you will get 95% of 0.033 (which is in the contract) or 0.03135. So basically, if you have to send me a PM or e-mail because you can't sell your shares on the market, you are guaranteed to get a minimum of 0.03135. That's the long and short of it. It makes no sense to involve BMF in any other company or bond issue. This way things are kept exceedingly simple.

But!

There is a new way forward. BMF isn't closing. We are still here, and we have a special plan for those who choose not to redeem their shares.

I will now discuss that plan.

Here you first offer a redemption at 0.0315 BTC per share and then you follow up with stating that "for those who choose not to redeem their shares" there is a new plan for the future. This implies that there is first a possibility at redemption for 0.0315 BTC per share for those that want out and those that chose to stay in, will be part of the altered offering that you detail in the post that follows.

In your post of september 22, you mention that a new batch of shares may be sold "below NAV (0.032)".

So I am slightly confused by your statement that the current NAV is significantly less:

So it is my duty to stand by the contract and place bids at 95% of NAV. That means about 0.023 per share right now, maybe 0.024.

I can accept that the 0.033 buyback guarantee applies to the new bond-structure, but the way I see it, investors that do not want to opt to move over into this new structure should be able to redeem their shares at 0.0315 BTC as per your recent posts.

[usagi]

The basic idea here is that it's not BMF's fault, nor our problem, that BTC-TC is closing. We have lots of BTC we can invest in stuff like Ukyo.Loan or XBOND, or to hold with people like coinlenders or just-dice. That means there is no rush for me to repurchase anyone's shares. What I am doing now is adding a "don't panic" guarantee that I will a) pay fixed interest and b) buy back shares for 0.033, at a date in the future. Both of those guarantees did not exist before.

Unfortunately a lot of people will still want to liquidate their shares because they are afraid about BTC-TC closing. So it is my duty to stand by the contract and place bids at 95% of NAV. That means about 0.023 per share right now, maybe 0.024. If that's what you would like to do just xfer your shares to usagiBMF and I will send along the coins.

OTOH, if you want to stick it out with BMF and maybe buy some more shares, I will give you a special guarantee for 0.033/share (or 0.035/share) and 15.7% interest for 1 year (then repurchase). I will probably end up running a vote on this before BTC-TC shuts down. It is the right thing to do to allow shareholders to vote on what is going on, so I don't think it would be proper to allow mass redemptions until people are made aware of their choices. After all, i've sold out almost everything we own and I am holding bitcoins. We're not going to lose any more money, so it's ok to be patient and wait a couple more days.

What I am looking for is to use this crisis to strengthen BMF. If Deprived and the other shareholders (like you) agree, I will tie BMF to the real estate deal I am working on, and we can all make a lot of money. It's either that or 95% of NAV.

I wish burnside didn't do this to us. Especially to us, given the crap I had to go thru to get approved. But it's really out of my hands. Offering my investors these special guarantees and an option to get a profit out of this is really the best I can do.

This is not what you said in your earlier post.

No? Well let's take a look; I have not added or deleted any words, just highlighted what you quoted:

But, if you need me to force buyback your shares off-market, you will get 95% of 0.033 (which is in the contract) or 0.03135. So basically, if you have to send me a PM or e-mail because you can't sell your shares on the market, you are guaranteed to get a minimum of 0.03135. That's the long and short of it. It makes no sense to involve BMF in any other company or bond issue. This way things are kept exceedingly simple.

But!

There is a new way forward. BMF isn't closing. We are still here, and we have a special plan for those who choose not to redeem their shares.

I will now discuss that plan.

Here you first offer a redemption at 0.0315 BTC per share and then you follow up with stating that "for those who choose not to redeem their shares" there is a new plan for the future. This implies that there is first a possibility at redemption for 0.0315 BTC per share for those that want out and those that chose to stay in, will be part of the altered offering that you detail in the post that follows.

I believe I was very clear when I stated "we have a special plan for those who choose not to redeem their shares". The issue is that this really has to go to vote before I can start making these kinds of sweeping changes. If you are going to vote NO, you might as well redeem your shares for 95% of NAV now. Trouble is, that will almost certainly become a mistake, as everyone who stays is bound to vote YES because it is "free money".

I know it would be very convenient for shareholders if I took on all the risk for only a fraction of the reward, but that would be extremely unfair to me. I only get 5% of dividend income -- less than $50 a month for a 300 BTC fund. I can't possibly be expected to step in and cover the losses of a fund over something like this. That's why I was very clear in the contract that I will not be made liable for damage caused to the fund by actions of the exchange. OTOH, if I made a stupid investment decision, then you could vote me out as the fund manager. That's your option, it's in the contract. I accept full responsibility for stuff that is my fault.

However, as I stated, there is a way we can move forward. It depends on shareholders not redeeming their shares and supporting the move to invest into a real estate project (as explained elsewhere). If everyone redeems their shares there won't be any capital left to invest anywhere and all I will be able to do is give NAV, because that's all we will have left.

In your post of september 22, you mention that a new batch of shares may be sold "below NAV (0.032)".

So I am slightly confused by your statement that the current NAV is significantly less:

So it is my duty to stand by the contract and place bids at 95% of NAV. That means about 0.023 per share right now, maybe 0.024.

I can accept that the 0.033 buyback guarantee applies to the new bond-structure, but the way I see it, investors that do not want to opt to move over into this new structure should be able to redeem their shares at 0.0315 BTC as per your recent posts.

Why should I give 80 BTC to BMF investors merely because BTC-TC closed? That does not make sense.

I haven't even taken this to vote yet.

But I will say this. If people are going to stick with the fund and support what I am doing then I will do everything I can (including guaranteeing a face value and fixed interest by securing the fund with my house). But to ask me to do that for nothing, well, I'm not sure that is really fair to me.

I understand your frustration. I share it. It took me 10 months to get listed and literally the next month the exchange shuts down. I've poured a lot of blood and tears into this. So I want to keep fighting, and make this a good deal for shareholders. I'm not giving up yet.

[Rannasha]

Ok, after reading your posts carefully and giving the matter some thought, I get what you're trying to convey. I still place high value in the liquidity of my investments, but in this case that may come at a high cost. In addition, I don't like being exposed to JPY, with funds that were meant to be exposed to BTC. I expect BTC to appreciate against my local fiat-currencies (EUR & CHF) and recently JPY has gone down considerably against EUR & CHF.

I do have a few additional questions (apologies for being so bothersome ):
- You first mention "I do not mind paying 24% (at 2%/month)." and after that you mention an interest rate of 15.6%. Which one is it? I assume 15.6% since it's mentioned several times.
- What happens if the motion to approve this plan fails?
- What happens if only part of the new batch of 10000 bonds is sold and there is insufficient funds to finance the second property? Other than the mentioned increase in in face value to 0.035 not going through? (you forgot a 0 in the "instant 0.03 profit" part by the way) Are there different outcomes depending on how much is sold (e.g. if 50% is sold, then ..., if 80% is sold, then ...)?
- What is the precise NAV/U that current investors can use for the 95% redemption clause?

[usagi]

Ok, after reading your posts carefully and giving the matter some thought, I get what you're trying to convey. I still place high value in the liquidity of my investments, but in this case that may come at a high cost. In addition, I don't like being exposed to JPY, with funds that were meant to be exposed to BTC. I expect BTC to appreciate against my local fiat-currencies (EUR & CHF) and recently JPY has gone down considerably against EUR & CHF.

I do have a few additional questions (apologies for being so bothersome ):
- You first mention "I do not mind paying 24% (at 2%/month)." and after that you mention an interest rate of 15.6%. Which one is it? I assume 15.6% since it's mentioned several times.
- What happens if the motion to approve this plan fails?
- What happens if only part of the new batch of 10000 bonds is sold and there is insufficient funds to finance the second property? Other than the mentioned increase in in face value to 0.035 not going through? (you forgot a 0 in the "instant 0.03 profit" part by the way) Are there different outcomes depending on how much is sold (e.g. if 50% is sold, then ..., if 80% is sold, then ...)?
- What is the precise NAV/U that current investors can use for the 95% redemption clause?

Q: I don't like being exposed to JPY, with funds that were meant to be exposed to BTC.
Of course when investing in a security you are giving up your exposure to bitcoins, for exposure in the security. If that security invests (or otherwise represents) non-bitcoin denominated assets, such as computer hardware, gold, or real estate (or for example, IP such as BTC-TC) that asset determines the value you have. At some future point (now) when you want your exposure to bitcoins back, you need to give up your exposure to the asset you've invested in. That's totally fine with me, I don't mind giving you your share of the NAV of the company as it stands right now.

Q: I expect BTC to appreciate against my local fiat-currencies (EUR & CHF) and recently JPY has gone down considerably against EUR & CHF.
It doesn't have to be tied to Yen. I'd tie it to Euros if you prefer. The idea is not to make or gain 10 or 20% on yen-eur. It's to stop a 200% gain in BTC from forcing me to default. Bitcoins are like any other asset in that they have value or utility, as does gold, computer hardware, Euros or and Yen. But the main difference between BTC and, say, yen, is that yen is much more stable since it is traded billions of times a day -- and more importantly, it represents trillions in assets such as real estate, clothing, and food. That means that when considering value for value's sake -- guaranteeing a return tied to yen is actually a clearer and more interesting deal than guaranteeing a return in BTC. You have to remember that if you invest with BMF (or anyone) you are no longer exposed to BTC.

Even if you invest in mining hardware, you are not exposed to BTC. Your return is based on the value of the mining hardware but merely transacted in BTC. This is easy to understand; when difficulty drops so do the total bitcoins you will ever get out of your hardware. But a higher difficulty does not increase the number of bitcoins mined over time (in general) and therefore does not really affect the cost of BTC. So I'd point out that having your return in BTC is not actually better than having it in BTC/fiat -- it's just more volatile. I dunno, some people like that volatility. Personally, after watching BTC-TC and GLBSE blow up with half my money I prefer something a little less volatile.

The very guarantees I want to give, such as a fixed face value tied to a currency, and a fixed interest rate with a guaranteed rate of return, do not exist in your current investment and I feel they may provide a solution to the volatility.

Q: You first mention "I do not mind paying 24% (at 2%/month)."
Sure, I could do that. Please see the response to Progressive.  A higher interest rate means that there will be less chance to redeem the bonds, and that the term may be longer. The essential numbers are, if I can pay 5 BTC a week at 1% interest, that means I can float 5/0.01 or 500 BTC in bonds. If I lower the interest rate to 0.5%, then I can float twice as much capital. So I need around 350 BTC max, and if I pay ~24% (0.462%/week or 2%/month) that means I need to afford 1.615 BTC a week to pay the interest on the bond. But this is not a perpetual bond, and 24% is a very high interest rate. Typically you would see 10% or less on this kind of bond. So for 24% I would ask for something like being irredeemable for 2 years. Investors said they didn't really want that so I offered lower numbers as well. I think we need to discuss it here and then make a vote. Do you prefer something like 24% a year or 10% but being able to sell back at any time, or a combination, something like 16% but only being able to sell back at 95%, etc?

Q: What happens if the motion to approve this plan fails?
If investors are voting NO for me to lock down the funds into real estate for a year, then they are voting to get their share of what's left of the BMF pie "now". They are free to redeem their shares for 95% or to wait and see what else I do. This needs to go to vote because it will change the contract. If I invest the money into a real estate deal I cannot place a bid for 95% and that would violate my contract. I want to change the fund so that you can't sell back to me at 95% on demand. For that, I will guarantee a face value of at least 0.033 and so forth.

Q: What happens if only part of the new batch of 10000 bonds is sold and there is insufficient funds to finance the second property?
Good question, because I didn't think of that. It would be easy to allow a refund or buyback since we wouldn't need the money. That's interesting, I will put that in, thanks. That way, people who buy in expecting to get a face value increase to 0.035 won't be disappointed.

Q: What is the precise NAV/U that current investors can use for the 95% redemption clause?
I don't know what is going on with BTC-BOND. It would be unfair for me to write his asset to zero, so I will have to give you a share of cash and of BTC-BOND. Unfortunately BTC-BOND and several other assets we hold have been locked by the issuer, so we can't sell out even at a significant loss.

The floor is about 0.02, but if Namworld pays us back and there's no other losses I can say 0.0245 right now.

[Deprived]

In response to your very last point, namworld is back - he's on holiday at present but will be redeeming bonds at face value if you return them to him.  Check his thread for details: he made a post then locked the security to prevent people selling on the market cheap (I actually disagree with that - security should only be locked when you're about to make a final full settlement).

I don't have time to go over the proposal in detail but here's a few pointers on how I look at things:

1.  If any motion is being made for a massive change like this (which is effectively to use the cash for a brand new security) then, if the motion passes, anyone who wants out should be bought out at full NAV/U.  i.e. They shouldn't be worse off then if the security had closed in accordance with the contract.  I'm obviously not thinking of myself here - as I can sell back at .032 later anyway.  When I say bought out at full NAV/U I mean immediately - not in the future.

2.  Normally where I have a (near) controlling interest I vote down any motion with significant opposition (e.g. on LTC-ATF my position was always that if there were 10% NO votes I'd vote against my own proposal).  So long as point 1 is very clear I wouldn't do that - as they suffer no disadvantage then if the motion passes compared to if it fails.

3.  Even if I disagree with the motion I'd vote yes if the majority of other votes (excluding those controlled by yourself) voted yes - as my warrants/redemption rights give me personally protection.

4.  For me to even consider giving up my warrants/right to sell back for 6 months at .032 would need some very good offer.  As it stands I could approve any motion then have 6 months to see which way the exchange-rate moves.  That sort of ability is worth a lot more than a few extra points on an interest rate.  With my warrants/sellback rights if the change occurs as proposed I can effectively pick whichever is worth the more of .032 BTC or the current fiat value of .032 BTC converted back into BTC in 6 months.

5.  One issue I see is that because of my sellback rights NAV/U for everyone else could be adversely effected if you close down - as they end up footing the bill for the excess of .033 over actual NAV/U.  If you end up closing now then, in principle, I'm fine with just taking an equal share the same as everyone else and surrendering the sellback rights (the warrants would be worthless anyway as with no NAV left buying at .033 would be futile).

6.  I'm not opposed in general to fiat-denominated investments.  In fact I believe anyone whose entire investment portfolio are 'pure' BTC is making a serious error.  Of course many (most?) will have their fiat-denominated investments elsewhere already - which is why there's fairly widespread opposition/resistance to them.

Easiest way forward by far is just to close BMF down - then start a new fund.  No arguments from anyone over fairness or feeling pressured into accepting the change - and no need to get voting approval or worry about the thorny issue of my warrants.  But I won't stand in the way if the majority of investors want to go for it - and will make my own decision on what to do when I see what exactly is on the table.

Right now my focus is on working out what to do with DMS and also where I can get another security listed.  Not one of my own - but one I'd helped with the prospectus/contract for and which HAD been scheduled to be IPOing tomorrow (well, opening for bids) - if the ability to create new securities on BTC-TC hadn't been shut off a week or so back.

[usagi]

In response to your very last point, namworld is back - he's on holiday at present but will be redeeming bonds at face value if you return them to him.  Check his thread for details: he made a post then locked the security to prevent people selling on the market cheap (I actually disagree with that - security should only be locked when you're about to make a final full settlement).

I don't have time to go over the proposal in detail but here's a few pointers on how I look at things:

1.  If any motion is being made for a massive change like this (which is effectively to use the cash for a brand new security) then, if the motion passes, anyone who wants out should be bought out at full NAV/U.  i.e. They shouldn't be worse off then if the security had closed in accordance with the contract.  I'm obviously not thinking of myself here - as I can sell back at .032 later anyway.  When I say bought out at full NAV/U I mean immediately - not in the future.

Nowhere in the contract does it say I have to invest exclusively on BTC-TC. In fact I was invested all over the place. The reason why I am trying to change the contract is only to lock people in for about a year, so I can invest into a real estate project. To compensate I am offering to guarantee a face value for the bond about 50% more than what it's worth right now. But there's no special need to liquidate our assets just because we are running a motion. If the motion doesn't pass, life will go on as usual for BMF. There will be special considerations made for you of course, explained in greater detail below.

2.  Normally where I have a (near) controlling interest I vote down any motion with significant opposition (e.g. on LTC-ATF my position was always that if there were 10% NO votes I'd vote against my own proposal).  So long as point 1 is very clear I wouldn't do that - as they suffer no disadvantage then if the motion passes compared to if it fails.

If the motion passes the disadvantage is that the shares would not be redeemable upon demand for a certain period of time, like six months or a year. I am guessing that the advantages will outweigh the disadvantage and investors will choose to take the 0.033 vs. the 0.022. Yourself included. But you are right in guessing if you vote no the motion will not pass.

3.  Even if I disagree with the motion I'd vote yes if the majority of other votes (excluding those controlled by yourself) voted yes - as my warrants/redemption rights give me personally protection.

Ok so you're going to wait for the other shareholders to make up their mind? Hmm, ok, however be aware that this motion is designed to benefit you personally (and take the other shareholders along for the ride, of course).

4.  For me to even consider giving up my warrants/right to sell back for 6 months at .032 would need some very good offer.  As it stands I could approve any motion then have 6 months to see which way the exchange-rate moves.  That sort of ability is worth a lot more than a few extra points on an interest rate.  With my warrants/sellback rights if the change occurs as proposed I can effectively pick whichever is worth the more of .032 BTC or the current fiat value of .032 BTC converted back into BTC in 6 months.

Sure, except if you don't vote yes you will not get more than 0.032. The big problem here is if you vote no, your money will not be participating in the real estate deal and I won't have any incentive to offer you a higher face value. That's why we will run a motion. Either you vote yes, or you vote no. If you don't vote and it doesn't pass, that's the same as if you voted no. So it is important that you vote.

That way I am not faced with closing the fund (ex. closure clauses I and II which permit me to simply close and liquidate given 30 days notice). Of course were I to do that you would redeem at 0.032 immediately, and I wouldn't mind you doing so. You wouldn't loose anything. You could just hold the 0.032 bitcoins for 6 months and decide what to do with them then. So, all things considered, it kind of feels like I'm buying your vote, doesn't it? No matter what happens, you get more money if this motion passes. Especially if your planning to wait around 6 months anyways.

5.  One issue I see is that because of my sellback rights NAV/U for everyone else could be adversely effected if you close down - as they end up footing the bill for the excess of .033 over actual NAV/U.  If you end up closing now then, in principle, I'm fine with just taking an equal share the same as everyone else and surrendering the sellback rights (the warrants would be worthless anyway as with no NAV left buying at .033 would be futile).

The only situation in which I would close down is to force you to redeem. That won't happen since we're going to vote on it. You're either in or out. If you want to redeem, it's ok, I have the BTC sitting in my wallet right now. But don't you want more money?

Easiest way forward by far is just to close BMF down - then start a new fund.  No arguments from anyone over fairness or feeling pressured into accepting the change - and no need to get voting approval or worry about the thorny issue of my warrants.  But I won't stand in the way if the majority of investors want to go for it - and will make my own decision on what to do when I see what exactly is on the table.

Starting a new issue might be better. It depends. I've spoken with a few exchange owners, and we will see what happens. Essentially I would run a FIMB/CIPHERMINE.B1 style issue -- tied to EUR, guaranteed buyback date, good interest rate. But where to list?

Given that I only need 300 BTC and the fund won't trade for a year, it might be better to just try to come up with the funding here or on the lending forum.

[Deprived]

Said shareholder is me.

I'm waiting for an updated NAV/U and holdings list - plus there's some details in the motion which need to be clarified before I can vote YES on it.  I'd expect an amended motion to be needed before I could vote YES.  I'll explain in more detail why I voted NO later - some reasons were for self-interest (e.g. issuing new warrants diluting my own), others because the posted motion is too vague on things I believe have to be clear.

But most of all I need to see where all the money went to before I can vote at all (current NAV represented by the bid indicates more value was lost than the total of all assets before I invested - which is pretty hard to do when a lot of it was in safe bonds with redemption at face value).  Unfortunately at around the time BTC-TC annoucned closure the web-page with the assets list for BMF stopped working.  Hopefully that will be corrected soon.

[Rannasha]

I am also a bit puzzled by the current top bid, considering that my question regarding the NAV/U yesterday was answered with 0.02 being a floor if BTC-BOND defaulted or 0.0245 if it didn't. Since then, Namworld has posted in the BTC-BOND thread that he is currently on vacation but will handle redemptions and possible transfer to a different exchange soon, so we can assume that BTC-BOND will be redeemable at face value.

Additionally, 1 minute (assuming BTCT and bitcointalk clocks are in sync) before Usagis post, 1500 units were sold into a 0.016 bid on BTCT, a timing and volume which caused me to raise an eyebrow.

[usagi]

I am freezing the fund until Deprived and I can hammer out some sort of deal. It's too volatile now and until Deprived makes a decision I cannot value the fund. (edit: as he ended up confirming the next day).

Ideally I want to have BMF trading at 0.030 again within 1 or 2 months, and I have faith that the plan I am presenting to Deprived will get us there. But he's in the driver's seat right now with more than 50% of the shares, so it's up to him. Hopefully he will see what the benefits of this are and we can move forward.

[Deprived]

Part of the confusion is that NAV/U isn't being clearly presented.

As soon as NAV/U fell below .032 the fund has a liability in respect of my warrants.  At that stage there are two ways to calculate NAV/U :

1.  Total assets / number of shares - 'High' NAV/U representing NAV/U if I don't sell back.
2.  Total assets - ((.032-High NAV/U)*my warrants) - 'Low' NAV/U represeting what NAV/U would be if I DO sell back.

Which one is correct to use is situational - but in broad terms usagi shouldn't sell below #1 and shouldn't buy back above #2, as doing either makes the situation worse.

Having these 2 ways to value means a massive spread - and is ONE of the reasons why selling warrants/put rights is very dangerous and should only be done where there's very clear benefit to existing investors.

But that's why usagi's having problems saying what NAV/U is - as there's 2 different values for it, neither of which is correct in all situations.  Technically #2 is the correct one - the N in NAV/U stands for 'Net' meaning after deduction of liabilities, which my warrants are (actually it's the sellback right that's presently the liability).

The same thing exists if NAV/U rose over .032 as well.  As then there's a liability which has to be accounted for in respect of my right to buy at .032 (which lowers NAV/U) - the calculation for that one is actually a bit trickier.

As my warrants are half the outstanding share count, it only needs a loss of 25% to knock 50% off actual NAV/U after liabilities.  Assuming 30 BTC of near total losses on LTC-Global shares accounts for almost half that.

[usagi]

Deprived and I appear to have hammered out a deal in PM, and we will be posting a new motion shortly -- likely after the weekend (let's relax and have a barbecue or something this weekend and stop fretting over internet spaceships).

The new motion is expected to be extra fair (Deprived has gone over it with a fine toothed comb) and I expect that I will be able to repair much of the damage caused by BTC-TC shutting down. So there you have it, everybody wins. If you do not want to be a part of this merger, I can only advise you to sell out now, because this motion is going to pass. I've refreshed bids at the maximum I can pay people who do not come along for the merger. Get it while you can.

[supermono]

Any updates?

+1

[usagi]

still no update..

Why do you expect there would be one? Everyone has been mailed, and anyone is free to contact me. I check my messages and respond to all of them.

I'm in the middle of processing TU.SILVER holders right now, in fact I just handled a 10 oz and a 40oz redemption (the 40 is shipping out today if the post office is open). No one's silver is missing.

Just send me a message signed with your public withdrawal address and I'll get back to you. As you can imagine going to the post office 40 or 50 times is a little time consuming with everything else I have to do. Thx ^^