[Bit Funder] [btcquick] [Rising profits]

[Deprived]

But surely, increased revenues from new users, which is what we are seeing, negates/off sets a possible rise in BTC. Together with the option to sell, means even more revenue. I get the conversion conundrum.....RentalStarter is another good example, but what am i over looking here, if the goal is to keep increasing revenues/dividends?....which is being achieved in style, btw.

Unfortunately not the case here.  Revenue is limited by capital - increasing revenue means capital has to increase (either by retaining profits to expand or by issuing new shares).

If revenue wasn't constrained by capital then a case could be made that the security wasn't USD-denominated (as although capital would still drop that wouldn't impact revenue).  But that's not the case here - as revenue is very directly limited by capital (because of the delay in receiving payments in a usable form).  And so a rise in BTC/USD rate doesn't just reduce capital (measured in BTC) but also reduces the amount of revenue that can be supported (again measured in BTC) and so the profits (in BTC).  All of those things that reduce when measured in BTC stay the same when measured in USD - which is as clear a demonstration as you can get that the security is, in practice, USD-denominated.

If BTC rises significantly vs USD what you'll see happen is one of two things - either:

Profits will fall.
or
More shares will have to sold to get capital (in BTC) back to where it was - allowing profits to be the same but diluting them when measured in BTC/share terms.

If accounts were being produced then this would be pretty obvious (and I could explain it with actual numbers) - but they aren't, so it isn't.

[1714908251]

1714908251

[1714908251]

1714908251

[Ascension]

But surely, increased revenues from new users, which is what we are seeing, negates/off sets a possible rise in BTC. Together with the option to sell, means even more revenue. I get the conversion conundrum.....RentalStarter is another good example, but what am i over looking here, if the goal is to keep increasing revenues/dividends?....which is being achieved in style, btw.

Unfortunately not the case here.  Revenue is limited by capital - increasing revenue means capital has to increase (either by retaining profits to expand or by issuing new shares).

If revenue wasn't constrained by capital then a case could be made that the security wasn't USD-denominated (as although capital would still drop that wouldn't impact revenue).  But that's not the case here - as revenue is very directly limited by capital (because of the delay in receiving payments in a usable form).  And so a rise in BTC/USD rate doesn't just reduce capital (measured in BTC) but also reduces the amount of revenue that can be supported (again measured in BTC) and so the profits (in BTC).  All of those things that reduce when measured in BTC stay the same when measured in USD - which is as clear a demonstration as you can get that the security is, in practice, USD-denominated.

If BTC rises significantly vs USD what you'll see happen is one of two things - either:

Profits will fall.
or
More shares will have to sold to get capital (in BTC) back to where it was - allowing profits to be the same but diluting them when measured in BTC/share terms.

If accounts were being produced then this would be pretty obvious (and I could explain it with actual numbers) - but they aren't, so it isn't.

This is a false premise "And so a rise in BTC/USD rate doesn't just reduce capital (measured in BTC) but also reduces the amount of revenue that can be supported (again measured in BTC) and so the profits (in BTC)." You are assuming that as a business we sell X BTC a day, when in fact if BTC value goes up we still sell around our daily USD average and the # of total BTC sold actually goes down. Also the increase in BTC price does not reduce revenue or capital because a customer is limited to the amount of USD they have on hand and in turn will buy the same amount in USD whether the price is up or down. The reason for us holding USD is to reduce the risk of btcQuick to price volatility.

Theory of running a business and actually running one are two different things.

[stereotype]

But surely, increased revenues from new users, which is what we are seeing, negates/off sets a possible rise in BTC. Together with the option to sell, means even more revenue. I get the conversion conundrum.....RentalStarter is another good example, but what am i over looking here, if the goal is to keep increasing revenues/dividends?....which is being achieved in style, btw.

Unfortunately not the case here.  Revenue is limited by capital - increasing revenue means capital has to increase (either by retaining profits to expand or by issuing new shares).

If revenue wasn't constrained by capital then a case could be made that the security wasn't USD-denominated (as although capital would still drop that wouldn't impact revenue).  But that's not the case here - as revenue is very directly limited by capital (because of the delay in receiving payments in a usable form).  And so a rise in BTC/USD rate doesn't just reduce capital (measured in BTC) but also reduces the amount of revenue that can be supported (again measured in BTC) and so the profits (in BTC).  All of those things that reduce when measured in BTC stay the same when measured in USD - which is as clear a demonstration as you can get that the security is, in practice, USD-denominated.

If BTC rises significantly vs USD what you'll see happen is one of two things - either:

Profits will fall.
or
More shares will have to sold to get capital (in BTC) back to where it was - allowing profits to be the same but diluting them when measured in BTC/share terms.

If accounts were being produced then this would be pretty obvious (and I could explain it with actual numbers) - but they aren't, so it isn't.

Then its an issue of how you manage the capital, because as you rightly say, capital cannot be held as BTC anyway.

I have no idea how Acsension manages and moves funds around, but im assuming held capital can be $-averaged or hedged in some way??

Again, i understand the valid explanation to a large degree, but when we have seen BTC crash, and then double again, against BTCQuick's consistent figures, we are not seeing the above being played out.

Would/could the 'sell' facility negate this issue?  

[TheSwede75]

Now trading over 0.00050 and rising. Still a company valued at around $3 million that is on track to 20% monthly dividends with 20%+ month over month growth. Should probably conservatively be valued at around 5x current share price.

Disclaimer: Obviously I am a share holder and still buying. More a guppy than a whale but this one is just printing money. If August finishes as it started we should see share price over 0.0001 within a week and a lot higher as reports come in weekly.

0.0001 OR 0.001 ?

Fat fingered a zero, obviously I meant 0.001, though at the pace people are opening their eyes to the growth, dividend and future potential I don't think that is enough anymore. $20 million would be a "fair" valuation based on $400k sales @ 5% margin for August and I think we are about to see just that.

Would mean around 0.004 for the stock from current 0.0007

The thing a lot of the optimists are forgetting is that this is a USD-denominated security not a BTC-denominated one.  If BTC rises sharply vs USD then this ends up losing value fast (measured in BTC).  That's because:

1.  The assets of the company are held in USD - so drop in BTC value when BTC rises.
2.  The capital needed to maintain same profitability rises when BTC rises - and either more capital has to be raised (by selling more shares) or profits (in BTC) fall (despite remaining same in USD).  Both ways has the impact of reducing dividend/share.

So whilst this security performs very well when BTC/USD rate is fairly stable that will cease to be the case if BTC rises significantly vs USD.  And that reduces its value massively to anyone who believes BTC WILL rise vs USD - as profits have to outstrip the likely growth in price of BTC for it to even be worth considering.

As a means of shorting BTC it's great though - decent income AND a very solid short on BTC (if BTC falls vs USD then the opposite to the above applies - and share value in BTC should go through the roof).

Just be very careful not to make the mistake of believing this to be (in practice) a BTC-denominated investment.  If you buy dollars with BTC your investment does NOT become BTC-denominated.

This is not entirely true for btcquick as this is kinda unique kind a "USD/BTC-denominated" security. You always get your cut from the actual rate and not fixed one that you would have payed at the IPO and converted in into USD. Think about it as this if we would take our cut from BTC the same exact thing as you described would happen to USD-denominated security would happen to us. Because if price of BTC/USD rises naturally the amount of BTC bought/traded would go down.

It has nothing to do with where the cut is taken from, but from which currency capital is held in.  For this security that's USD not BTC (confirmed by the issuer not too many posts back) - BTC are only held briefly when needed to fill an order.  So when the exchange-rate moves, the USD value of capital remains stable and the BTC value changes.

I'm not criticising the decision to do that - in fact there's no way capital COULD be held as BTC (because when a purchaser places an order there's no way to immediately convert their USD into BTC - those funds are locked in USD for a while until received from the payment processor and moved to an exchange).

If BTC were to double against USD then the effect would be to halve capital when measured in BTC (in USD it would be unchanged).  That means that whilst the same trade volume could be supported in USD, only half the volume could be supported in BTC.  Which means profit in BTC would be halved (though would be same in USD).  Trade volume is constrained by capital due to payments from purchasers having a delay imposed on them before they're available for use - and we know volume is already near/at that limit.

But surely, increased revenues from new users, which is what we are seeing, negates/off sets a possible rise in BTC. Together with the option to sell, means even more revenue. I get the conversion conundrum.....RentalStarter is another good example, but what am i over looking here, if the goal is to keep increasing revenues/dividends?....which is being achieved in style, btw.

With as high turnaround as BTCQuick is showing (inventory literally being sold as it comes in) I really don't see a rise/drop in BTC affecting the overall business model at all. Sure there might be days when a quick rise or drop offsets profit but over time this should even out nicely and not really affect the business.

[TheSwede75]

But surely, increased revenues from new users, which is what we are seeing, negates/off sets a possible rise in BTC. Together with the option to sell, means even more revenue. I get the conversion conundrum.....RentalStarter is another good example, but what am i over looking here, if the goal is to keep increasing revenues/dividends?....which is being achieved in style, btw.

Unfortunately not the case here.  Revenue is limited by capital - increasing revenue means capital has to increase (either by retaining profits to expand or by issuing new shares).

If revenue wasn't constrained by capital then a case could be made that the security wasn't USD-denominated (as although capital would still drop that wouldn't impact revenue).  But that's not the case here - as revenue is very directly limited by capital (because of the delay in receiving payments in a usable form).  And so a rise in BTC/USD rate doesn't just reduce capital (measured in BTC) but also reduces the amount of revenue that can be supported (again measured in BTC) and so the profits (in BTC).  All of those things that reduce when measured in BTC stay the same when measured in USD - which is as clear a demonstration as you can get that the security is, in practice, USD-denominated.

If BTC rises significantly vs USD what you'll see happen is one of two things - either:

Profits will fall.
or
More shares will have to sold to get capital (in BTC) back to where it was - allowing profits to be the same but diluting them when measured in BTC/share terms.

If accounts were being produced then this would be pretty obvious (and I could explain it with actual numbers) - but they aren't, so it isn't.

This is a false premise "And so a rise in BTC/USD rate doesn't just reduce capital (measured in BTC) but also reduces the amount of revenue that can be supported (again measured in BTC) and so the profits (in BTC)." You are assuming that as a business we sell X BTC a day, when in fact if BTC value goes up we still sell around our daily USD average and the # of total BTC sold actually goes down. Also the increase in BTC price does not reduce revenue or capital because a customer is limited to the amount of USD they have on hand and in turn will buy the same amount in USD whether the price is up or down. The reason for us holding USD is to reduce the risk of btcQuick to price volatility.

Theory of running a business and actually running one are two different things.

Best explanation right there. "One does not simply build a million dollar business without knowing what one talks about"

[stereotype]

Oh, i see whats happened here now. 

Academic theorizing vs Real world application.

Being a practical man myself, im going with the latter.

 

[Pale Phoenix]

Oh, i see whats happened here now.  

Academic theorizing vs Real world application.

Being a practical man myself, im going with the latter.

It's not that at all. It's really just basic mathematics.

You are assuming that as a business we sell X BTC a day, when in fact if BTC value goes up we still sell around our daily USD average and the # of total BTC sold actually goes down.

I believe that is exactly what Deprived is pointing out. When the price of BTC goes up, you sell LESS BTC, even if your USD sales are the same or growing.

Your profits may look the same (or better) in USD, but dividends (shareholder portion of profits) are paid out in BTC, so you will end up paying out less BTC to shareholders.

In his post, Ascension seems to be looking at this only from the standpoint of profits in USD, but shareholders only care about the amount of profit once it's converted back to BTC and paid out. Therefore, as with all businesses earning USD and paying dividends in BTC, shareholders must weigh the potential returns against simply holding BTC.

Once everyone is on board with this concept, it might be worthwhile to discuss possible ways to protect shareholders by hedging against the currency risk.

[Deprived]

Oh, i see whats happened here now.  

Academic theorizing vs Real world application.

Being a practical man myself, im going with the latter.

It's not that at all. It's really just basic mathematics.

You are assuming that as a business we sell X BTC a day, when in fact if BTC value goes up we still sell around our daily USD average and the # of total BTC sold actually goes down.

I believe that is exactly what Deprived is pointing out. When the price of BTC goes up, you sell LESS BTC, even if your USD sales are the same or growing.

Your profits may look the same (or better) in USD, but dividends (shareholder portion of profits) are paid out in BTC, so you will end up paying out less BTC to shareholders.

In his post, Ascension seems to be looking at this only from the standpoint of profits in USD, but shareholders only care about the amount of profit once it's converted back to BTC and paid out. Therefore, as with all businesses earning USD and paying dividends in BTC, shareholders must weigh the potential returns against simply holding BTC.

Once everyone is on board with this concept, it might be worthwhile to discuss possible ways to protect shareholders by hedging against the currency risk.

Yes - a rise in price won't reduce profit in USD, but it will in BTC.

Ascension proves my point when he says if BTC value rises they still sell same USD average - meaning BTC sales have dropped.  If BTC price doubles then USD value of sales would need to double to keep BTC profits at same level.  And that's not possible when sales are constrained by capital and the capital is in USD (with the exception noted in next paragraph).

The exception is where capital is not already being fully utilised - in that situation a rise doesn't necessarily reduce BTC profits.  That was likely the case during the previous bubble/crash of BTC.  But we know it's no longer the case as Ascension has mentioned having to sell more shares to increase capital - which wouldn't make sense if there was already sufficient capital for a significant expansion in sales.

Pretty sad if the issuer doesn't even realise that the asset is actually USD denominated in practice - guess it'll take BTC rising and divdends falling for him to work out that if BTC rises vs USD then the same amount of USD becomes worth less BTC (which is all you actually need to know to realise that any asset whose revenue is constrained by capital and where capital is in USD MUST be USD-denominated in practice).

[stereotype]

Oh, i see whats happened here now.  

Academic theorizing vs Real world application.

Being a practical man myself, im going with the latter.

It's not that at all. It's really just basic mathematics.

You are assuming that as a business we sell X BTC a day, when in fact if BTC value goes up we still sell around our daily USD average and the # of total BTC sold actually goes down.

I believe that is exactly what Deprived is pointing out. When the price of BTC goes up, you sell LESS BTC, even if your USD sales are the same or growing.

Your profits may look the same (or better) in USD, but dividends (shareholder portion of profits) are paid out in BTC, so you will end up paying out less BTC to shareholders.

In his post, Ascension seems to be looking at this only from the standpoint of profits in USD, but shareholders only care about the amount of profit once it's converted back to BTC and paid out. Therefore, as with all businesses earning USD and paying dividends in BTC, shareholders must weigh the potential returns against simply holding BTC.

Once everyone is on board with this concept, it might be worthwhile to discuss possible ways to protect shareholders by hedging against the currency risk.

Yes - a rise in price won't reduce profit in USD, but it will in BTC.

Ascension proves my point when he says if BTC value rises they still sell same USD average - meaning BTC sales have dropped.  If BTC price doubles then USD value of sales would need to double to keep BTC profits at same level.  And that's not possible when sales are constrained by capital and the capital is in USD (with the exception noted in next paragraph).

The exception is where capital is not already being fully utilised - in that situation a rise doesn't necessarily reduce BTC profits.  That was likely the case during the previous bubble/crash of BTC.  But we know it's no longer the case as Ascension has mentioned having to sell more shares to increase capital - which wouldn't make sense if there was already sufficient capital for a significant expansion in sales.

Pretty sad if the issuer doesn't even realise that the asset is actually USD denominated in practice - guess it'll take BTC rising and divdends falling for him to work out that if BTC rises vs USD then the same amount of USD becomes worth less BTC (which is all you actually need to know to realise that any asset whose revenue is constrained by capital and where capital is in USD MUST be USD-denominated in practice).

So you say Ascension proves your point, and then you end by saying he doesn't realise your point. Over-explanatory, inconsistent, and childish. Nice. 

[Dropthebass]

Whatever, let's see what profit has to say :p Time will tell.

[HeRetiK]

Yes - a rise in price won't reduce profit in USD, but it will in BTC.

Ascension proves my point when he says if BTC value rises they still sell same USD average - meaning BTC sales have dropped.  If BTC price doubles then USD value of sales would need to double to keep BTC profits at same level.  And that's not possible when sales are constrained by capital and the capital is in USD (with the exception noted in next paragraph).

The exception is where capital is not already being fully utilised - in that situation a rise doesn't necessarily reduce BTC profits.  That was likely the case during the previous bubble/crash of BTC.  But we know it's no longer the case as Ascension has mentioned having to sell more shares to increase capital - which wouldn't make sense if there was already sufficient capital for a significant expansion in sales.

Pretty sad if the issuer doesn't even realise that the asset is actually USD denominated in practice - guess it'll take BTC rising and divdends falling for him to work out that if BTC rises vs USD then the same amount of USD becomes worth less BTC (which is all you actually need to know to realise that any asset whose revenue is constrained by capital and where capital is in USD MUST be USD-denominated in practice).

So you say Ascension proves your point, and then you end by saying he doesn't realise your point. Over-explanatory, inconsistent, and childish. Nice. 

Doesn't matter, he's still got a point.

Rising BTC + Same sales volume in USD = Same dividends in USD but lower dividends in BTC.

Not saying that btcQuick will pay lower dividends anytime soon, but it's something to be aware of.

[stereotype]

Yes - a rise in price won't reduce profit in USD, but it will in BTC.

Ascension proves my point when he says if BTC value rises they still sell same USD average - meaning BTC sales have dropped.  If BTC price doubles then USD value of sales would need to double to keep BTC profits at same level.  And that's not possible when sales are constrained by capital and the capital is in USD (with the exception noted in next paragraph).

The exception is where capital is not already being fully utilised - in that situation a rise doesn't necessarily reduce BTC profits.  That was likely the case during the previous bubble/crash of BTC.  But we know it's no longer the case as Ascension has mentioned having to sell more shares to increase capital - which wouldn't make sense if there was already sufficient capital for a significant expansion in sales.

Pretty sad if the issuer doesn't even realise that the asset is actually USD denominated in practice - guess it'll take BTC rising and divdends falling for him to work out that if BTC rises vs USD then the same amount of USD becomes worth less BTC (which is all you actually need to know to realise that any asset whose revenue is constrained by capital and where capital is in USD MUST be USD-denominated in practice).

So you say Ascension proves your point, and then you end by saying he doesn't realise your point. Over-explanatory, inconsistent, and childish. Nice. 

Doesn't matter, he's still got a point.

Rising BTC + Same sales volume in USD = Same dividends in USD but lower dividends in BTC.

Not saying that btcQuick will pay lower dividends anytime soon, but it's something to be aware of.

....and those dividends will increase in value because BTC will be worth more. 

[Deprived]

Yes - a rise in price won't reduce profit in USD, but it will in BTC.

Ascension proves my point when he says if BTC value rises they still sell same USD average - meaning BTC sales have dropped.  If BTC price doubles then USD value of sales would need to double to keep BTC profits at same level.  And that's not possible when sales are constrained by capital and the capital is in USD (with the exception noted in next paragraph).

The exception is where capital is not already being fully utilised - in that situation a rise doesn't necessarily reduce BTC profits.  That was likely the case during the previous bubble/crash of BTC.  But we know it's no longer the case as Ascension has mentioned having to sell more shares to increase capital - which wouldn't make sense if there was already sufficient capital for a significant expansion in sales.

Pretty sad if the issuer doesn't even realise that the asset is actually USD denominated in practice - guess it'll take BTC rising and divdends falling for him to work out that if BTC rises vs USD then the same amount of USD becomes worth less BTC (which is all you actually need to know to realise that any asset whose revenue is constrained by capital and where capital is in USD MUST be USD-denominated in practice).

So you say Ascension proves your point, and then you end by saying he doesn't realise your point. Over-explanatory, inconsistent, and childish. Nice. 

Doesn't matter, he's still got a point.

Rising BTC + Same sales volume in USD = Same dividends in USD but lower dividends in BTC.

Not saying that btcQuick will pay lower dividends anytime soon, but it's something to be aware of.

....and those dividends will increase in value because BTC will be worth more. 

Point is that if btc rises a lot vs usd then holding the shares will perform worse than just holding btc.  Thats why this and all other usd denominated investments have to be considered as a short on btc.  That doesnt mean theyre bad investments just that investors need to be aware that theyre betting against btc by investing in a manner that will perform worse than just holding btc if btc rises vs usd faster thsn the business grows profits.

Apologies for miissing apostrophes am on phone and too lazy to swap to symbols.

[stereotype]

Yes - a rise in price won't reduce profit in USD, but it will in BTC.

Ascension proves my point when he says if BTC value rises they still sell same USD average - meaning BTC sales have dropped.  If BTC price doubles then USD value of sales would need to double to keep BTC profits at same level.  And that's not possible when sales are constrained by capital and the capital is in USD (with the exception noted in next paragraph).

The exception is where capital is not already being fully utilised - in that situation a rise doesn't necessarily reduce BTC profits.  That was likely the case during the previous bubble/crash of BTC.  But we know it's no longer the case as Ascension has mentioned having to sell more shares to increase capital - which wouldn't make sense if there was already sufficient capital for a significant expansion in sales.

Pretty sad if the issuer doesn't even realise that the asset is actually USD denominated in practice - guess it'll take BTC rising and divdends falling for him to work out that if BTC rises vs USD then the same amount of USD becomes worth less BTC (which is all you actually need to know to realise that any asset whose revenue is constrained by capital and where capital is in USD MUST be USD-denominated in practice).

So you say Ascension proves your point, and then you end by saying he doesn't realise your point. Over-explanatory, inconsistent, and childish. Nice. 

Doesn't matter, he's still got a point.

Rising BTC + Same sales volume in USD = Same dividends in USD but lower dividends in BTC.

Not saying that btcQuick will pay lower dividends anytime soon, but it's something to be aware of.

....and those dividends will increase in value because BTC will be worth more. 

Point is that if btc rises a lot vs usd then holding the shares will perform worse than just holding btc.  Thats why this and all other usd denominated investments have to be considered as a short on btc.  That doesnt mean theyre bad investments just that investors need to be aware that theyre betting against btc by investing in a manner that will perform worse than just holding btc if btc rises vs usd faster thsn the business grows profits.

Apologies for miissing apostrophes am on phone and too lazy to swap to symbols.

We get it. Thanks.

[Pale Phoenix]

....and those dividends will increase in value because BTC will be worth more. 

LOL, OK you've obviously made up your mind, but I would urge you to run some numbers. Consider everything! :-)

Anyway, none of this detracts from the fact that these guys have a great business and seem to have executed really well. Personally, I'm impressed with their growth and think there is a big opportunity to pick up a lot more market share. So, considering all of that potential, there's no reason to gloss over risks that might not be apparent to everyone on first glance.

[Deprived]

Oh, i see whats happened here now.  

Academic theorizing vs Real world application.

Being a practical man myself, im going with the latter.

It's not that at all. It's really just basic mathematics.

You are assuming that as a business we sell X BTC a day, when in fact if BTC value goes up we still sell around our daily USD average and the # of total BTC sold actually goes down.

I believe that is exactly what Deprived is pointing out. When the price of BTC goes up, you sell LESS BTC, even if your USD sales are the same or growing.

Your profits may look the same (or better) in USD, but dividends (shareholder portion of profits) are paid out in BTC, so you will end up paying out less BTC to shareholders.

In his post, Ascension seems to be looking at this only from the standpoint of profits in USD, but shareholders only care about the amount of profit once it's converted back to BTC and paid out. Therefore, as with all businesses earning USD and paying dividends in BTC, shareholders must weigh the potential returns against simply holding BTC.

Once everyone is on board with this concept, it might be worthwhile to discuss possible ways to protect shareholders by hedging against the currency risk.

Yes - a rise in price won't reduce profit in USD, but it will in BTC.

Ascension proves my point when he says if BTC value rises they still sell same USD average - meaning BTC sales have dropped.  If BTC price doubles then USD value of sales would need to double to keep BTC profits at same level.  And that's not possible when sales are constrained by capital and the capital is in USD (with the exception noted in next paragraph).

The exception is where capital is not already being fully utilised - in that situation a rise doesn't necessarily reduce BTC profits.  That was likely the case during the previous bubble/crash of BTC.  But we know it's no longer the case as Ascension has mentioned having to sell more shares to increase capital - which wouldn't make sense if there was already sufficient capital for a significant expansion in sales.

Pretty sad if the issuer doesn't even realise that the asset is actually USD denominated in practice - guess it'll take BTC rising and divdends falling for him to work out that if BTC rises vs USD then the same amount of USD becomes worth less BTC (which is all you actually need to know to realise that any asset whose revenue is constrained by capital and where capital is in USD MUST be USD-denominated in practice).

So you say Ascension proves your point, and then you end by saying he doesn't realise your point. Over-explanatory, inconsistent, and childish. Nice. 

If you look back in the main thread youll find I raised this issue back when the security launched.  If 6 months later he still hasnt understood it then maybe my position is a bit more undrstandable.

Or maybe he does understand it and just doesnt want to confirm to investors that if btc rises a lot vs usd theyll end up a lot worse off than if they just held btc.

[Deprived]

....and those dividends will increase in value because BTC will be worth more. 

LOL, OK you've obviously made up your mind, but I would urge you to run some numbers. Consider everything! :-)

Anyway, none of this detracts from the fact that these guys have a great business and seem to have executed really well. Personally, I'm impressed with their growth and think there is a big opportunity to pick up a lot more market share. So, considering all of that potential, there's no reason to gloss over risks that might not be apparent to everyone on first glance.

Yeah this is one of the better investments to use as a hedge against btc falling or staying in same price area.

[stereotype]

Oh, i see whats happened here now.  

Academic theorizing vs Real world application.

Being a practical man myself, im going with the latter.

It's not that at all. It's really just basic mathematics.

You are assuming that as a business we sell X BTC a day, when in fact if BTC value goes up we still sell around our daily USD average and the # of total BTC sold actually goes down.

I believe that is exactly what Deprived is pointing out. When the price of BTC goes up, you sell LESS BTC, even if your USD sales are the same or growing.

Your profits may look the same (or better) in USD, but dividends (shareholder portion of profits) are paid out in BTC, so you will end up paying out less BTC to shareholders.

In his post, Ascension seems to be looking at this only from the standpoint of profits in USD, but shareholders only care about the amount of profit once it's converted back to BTC and paid out. Therefore, as with all businesses earning USD and paying dividends in BTC, shareholders must weigh the potential returns against simply holding BTC.

Once everyone is on board with this concept, it might be worthwhile to discuss possible ways to protect shareholders by hedging against the currency risk.

Yes - a rise in price won't reduce profit in USD, but it will in BTC.

Ascension proves my point when he says if BTC value rises they still sell same USD average - meaning BTC sales have dropped.  If BTC price doubles then USD value of sales would need to double to keep BTC profits at same level.  And that's not possible when sales are constrained by capital and the capital is in USD (with the exception noted in next paragraph).

The exception is where capital is not already being fully utilised - in that situation a rise doesn't necessarily reduce BTC profits.  That was likely the case during the previous bubble/crash of BTC.  But we know it's no longer the case as Ascension has mentioned having to sell more shares to increase capital - which wouldn't make sense if there was already sufficient capital for a significant expansion in sales.

Pretty sad if the issuer doesn't even realise that the asset is actually USD denominated in practice - guess it'll take BTC rising and divdends falling for him to work out that if BTC rises vs USD then the same amount of USD becomes worth less BTC (which is all you actually need to know to realise that any asset whose revenue is constrained by capital and where capital is in USD MUST be USD-denominated in practice).

So you say Ascension proves your point, and then you end by saying he doesn't realise your point. Over-explanatory, inconsistent, and childish. Nice. 

If you look back in the main thread youll find I raised this issue back when the security launched.  If 6 months later he still hasnt understood it then maybe my position is a bit more undrstandable.

Or maybe he does understand it and just doesnt want to confirm to investors that if btc rises a lot vs usd theyll end up a lot worse off than if they just held btc.

Dont really understand what the agenda is Deprived. Its getting boring now.

[Deprived]

Oh, i see whats happened here now.  

Academic theorizing vs Real world application.

Being a practical man myself, im going with the latter.

It's not that at all. It's really just basic mathematics.

You are assuming that as a business we sell X BTC a day, when in fact if BTC value goes up we still sell around our daily USD average and the # of total BTC sold actually goes down.

I believe that is exactly what Deprived is pointing out. When the price of BTC goes up, you sell LESS BTC, even if your USD sales are the same or growing.

Your profits may look the same (or better) in USD, but dividends (shareholder portion of profits) are paid out in BTC, so you will end up paying out less BTC to shareholders.

In his post, Ascension seems to be looking at this only from the standpoint of profits in USD, but shareholders only care about the amount of profit once it's converted back to BTC and paid out. Therefore, as with all businesses earning USD and paying dividends in BTC, shareholders must weigh the potential returns against simply holding BTC.

Once everyone is on board with this concept, it might be worthwhile to discuss possible ways to protect shareholders by hedging against the currency risk.

Yes - a rise in price won't reduce profit in USD, but it will in BTC.

Ascension proves my point when he says if BTC value rises they still sell same USD average - meaning BTC sales have dropped.  If BTC price doubles then USD value of sales would need to double to keep BTC profits at same level.  And that's not possible when sales are constrained by capital and the capital is in USD (with the exception noted in next paragraph).

The exception is where capital is not already being fully utilised - in that situation a rise doesn't necessarily reduce BTC profits.  That was likely the case during the previous bubble/crash of BTC.  But we know it's no longer the case as Ascension has mentioned having to sell more shares to increase capital - which wouldn't make sense if there was already sufficient capital for a significant expansion in sales.

Pretty sad if the issuer doesn't even realise that the asset is actually USD denominated in practice - guess it'll take BTC rising and divdends falling for him to work out that if BTC rises vs USD then the same amount of USD becomes worth less BTC (which is all you actually need to know to realise that any asset whose revenue is constrained by capital and where capital is in USD MUST be USD-denominated in practice).

So you say Ascension proves your point, and then you end by saying he doesn't realise your point. Over-explanatory, inconsistent, and childish. Nice. 

If you look back in the main thread youll find I raised this issue back when the security launched.  If 6 months later he still hasnt understood it then maybe my position is a bit more undrstandable.

Or maybe he does understand it and just doesnt want to confirm to investors that if btc rises a lot vs usd theyll end up a lot worse off than if they just held btc.

Dont really understand what the agenda is Deprived. Its getting boring now.

Accept my apologies then.  It must be frustrating when you cant understand things and so have to waste time worrying about motives rather than just accepting free education.

[stereotype]

Oh, i see whats happened here now.  

Academic theorizing vs Real world application.

Being a practical man myself, im going with the latter.

It's not that at all. It's really just basic mathematics.

You are assuming that as a business we sell X BTC a day, when in fact if BTC value goes up we still sell around our daily USD average and the # of total BTC sold actually goes down.

I believe that is exactly what Deprived is pointing out. When the price of BTC goes up, you sell LESS BTC, even if your USD sales are the same or growing.

Your profits may look the same (or better) in USD, but dividends (shareholder portion of profits) are paid out in BTC, so you will end up paying out less BTC to shareholders.

In his post, Ascension seems to be looking at this only from the standpoint of profits in USD, but shareholders only care about the amount of profit once it's converted back to BTC and paid out. Therefore, as with all businesses earning USD and paying dividends in BTC, shareholders must weigh the potential returns against simply holding BTC.

Once everyone is on board with this concept, it might be worthwhile to discuss possible ways to protect shareholders by hedging against the currency risk.

Yes - a rise in price won't reduce profit in USD, but it will in BTC.

Ascension proves my point when he says if BTC value rises they still sell same USD average - meaning BTC sales have dropped.  If BTC price doubles then USD value of sales would need to double to keep BTC profits at same level.  And that's not possible when sales are constrained by capital and the capital is in USD (with the exception noted in next paragraph).

The exception is where capital is not already being fully utilised - in that situation a rise doesn't necessarily reduce BTC profits.  That was likely the case during the previous bubble/crash of BTC.  But we know it's no longer the case as Ascension has mentioned having to sell more shares to increase capital - which wouldn't make sense if there was already sufficient capital for a significant expansion in sales.

Pretty sad if the issuer doesn't even realise that the asset is actually USD denominated in practice - guess it'll take BTC rising and divdends falling for him to work out that if BTC rises vs USD then the same amount of USD becomes worth less BTC (which is all you actually need to know to realise that any asset whose revenue is constrained by capital and where capital is in USD MUST be USD-denominated in practice).

So you say Ascension proves your point, and then you end by saying he doesn't realise your point. Over-explanatory, inconsistent, and childish. Nice.  

If you look back in the main thread youll find I raised this issue back when the security launched.  If 6 months later he still hasnt understood it then maybe my position is a bit more undrstandable.

Or maybe he does understand it and just doesnt want to confirm to investors that if btc rises a lot vs usd theyll end up a lot worse off than if they just held btc.

Dont really understand what the agenda is Deprived. Its getting boring now.

Accept my apologies then.  It must be frustrating when you cant understand things and so have to waste time worrying about motives rather than just accepting free education.

You apologise, and then attempt to belittle. Bit childish don't you think?

Wait, you need to do that because of my lack of insight, intellect, and experience, right? Your over-consuming agenda has discombobulated your judgement/s, me ole fruit-cake.  

Anyway, no more from me.