[BitFunder] IceDrill.ASIC IPO (235 Thash Mining Operation powered by HashFast)

[Dexter770221]

Ask has been removed,
A announcement will go out tonight with the final numbers in terms of amount of shares and hashing power.
//DeaDTerra

And the lucky numbers are.... ?

[DeaDTerra]

Ask has been removed,
A announcement will go out tonight with the final numbers in terms of amount of shares and hashing power.
//DeaDTerra

And the lucky numbers are.... ?

I am waiting for a second team members to double check my calculations but I should have the announcement out soon
It is basically just wrapping up all the information given before making it a bit more digestible.
Once the announcement is out, I will also update all information spreadsheets and the contract on Bitfunder to reflect the final changes.
//DeaDTerra

[rtt]

This looks like good news.
I suppose that Sierra units for IceDrill are being built at the same time as the BabyJets here for the public.

Posted on September 27, 2013     by Erin HashFast       in Uncategorized   

Hey HashFasters!!!

We wanted to check in with all of you out there in the world and let you know how things are going.

The wafers destined for our Baby Jets are working their way through our Foundry. They are still on schedule; and we’re obsessively following their progress each day. TSMC’s transparency puts FedEx to shame!

Since we are still on schedule for our original estimate to begin shipping our Batch One Baby Jet’s, that means we are a mere 5 WEEKS OUT TO SHIP YOU YOUR BATCH ONE BABY JET!! Awesome, right? Well, we think so. Soon you’ll be minting Bitcoin’s

https://hashfast.com/fpgayousay/

[JohnyBigs]

Ask has been removed,
A announcement will go out tonight with the final numbers in terms of amount of shares and hashing power.
//DeaDTerra

And the lucky numbers are.... ?

I am waiting for a second team members to double check my calculations but I should have the announcement out soon
It is basically just wrapping up all the information given before making it a bit more digestible.
Once the announcement is out, I will also update all information spreadsheets and the contract on Bitfunder to reflect the final changes.
//DeaDTerra

Any updates? How much longer you think?

[will]

Sorry for the delay guys, my bad. Keen to look over the numbers as well. Travelling today so please hang tight for a while longer.

Conference was great. Was really cool to take a couple of days off and meet some of you in person. Was good to attach some faces to usernames.

[molecular]

Sorry for the delay guys, my bad. Keen to look over the numbers as well. Travelling today so please hang tight for a while longer.

Conference was great. Was really cool to take a couple of days off and meet some of you in person. Was good to attach some faces to usernames.

I second it was a great conference. Maybe we should invest in that quantum miner :-)

[will]

Sorry for the delay guys, my bad. Keen to look over the numbers as well. Travelling today so please hang tight for a while longer.

Conference was great. Was really cool to take a couple of days off and meet some of you in person. Was good to attach some faces to usernames.

I second it was a great conference. Maybe we should invest in that quantum miner :-)

Had nice chat with Jordan Ash on the topic. Whooooosh, over my head. That said, if I were in a position to pay that (small) research grant I'd probably go for it.

[DeaDTerra]

Hi guys!
We have now cancelled the last batch and we can hence start finalizing the numbers surrounding the mine.



Each IceDrill share is currently worth 10 mhash at startup (public+private), calculating in the public investor protection clause each public share reaches 12.72 mhash (only public). One share is equal to (1/23,529,411) of the profit this is  roughly 4.25/10^6 % of the farms profit per share. One share will generate 9,54 Mhash in dividend at the farms start and 3.18 mhash of reinvestments, to bring each share to a total of 12.72 Mhash.
Please note that all these numbers are made with assumptions we have been given by HashFast, these should be taken as estimates and not exact number.

18,500,452 shares are public and will receive 75% (the other 25% will be kept for further reinvestment) of the farms profit until 0.0015 BTC has been paid to each share. Each share will at this stage receive 1/18,500,452 *0.75 of the farms profit and 25% will be reinvested.

We’ve decided to lower the investor protection clause from 0.0016 BTC payback to 0.0015 BTC payback as no share has ever been sold (from anyone) for higher than 0.0015 BTC. This is a 6.25% decrease. We believe this remains within the spirit of the clause: to provide 100% principal investment ROI in dividends, before private shares attain value upon entering the market.

When each public share has been paid 0.0015 BTC, the public protection clause naturally expires and the private shares will start receiving dividend (The private shares will become public shares). Once this stage is initiated the private shares will be converted into public shares and start receiving dividends accordingly. An announcement will be made when this happens. The owners of these private shares may then do as they wish with them, sell them, keep them etc. At this stage each share will be worth 1/23,529,411 of the farms profit (75% in dividend and 25% reinvested), for the exact way the farms profit is calculated please look back into the main information sheet.
//DeaDTerra

[pedrog]

Great, let the hashing begin!

It will begin in November, right?

[Dexter770221]

Great, let the hashing begin!

It will begin in November, right?

If everything will goes as expected.

[rtt]

We’ve decided to lower the investor protection clause from 0.0016 BTC payback to 0.0015 BTC payback as no share has ever been sold (from anyone) for higher than 0.0015 BTC. This is a 6.25% decrease. We believe this remains within the spirit of the clause: to provide 100% principal investment ROI in dividends, before private shares attain value upon entering the market.
...
//DeaDTerra

I don't think you should be making changes to your promises now. You appear to be a decent set of people unlike many in the business.
You are making a mistake massaging the payback number in this manner, and here's why:

I bought into the deal based on the promise of the 0.0016 guaranteed return from these shares.
My decision was not driven by my purchase price.
My decision was not driven by the initial .0014 offer price, nor the next .0015 + exchange fees.
My decision was not driven by the BTC/USD conversion rate at the time or anything else.

I bought into the deal because of this 0.0016 div/share protection clause in the original contract. Clearly stated as such (!)
The 6.5% difference in the guaranteed payback is quite noticeable to those who were weighing risk/reward of this offer.

[hd060053]

We’ve decided to lower the investor protection clause from 0.0016 BTC payback to 0.0015 BTC payback as no share has ever been sold (from anyone) for higher than 0.0015 BTC. This is a 6.25% decrease. We believe this remains within the spirit of the clause: to provide 100% principal investment ROI in dividends, before private shares attain value upon entering the market.
...
//DeaDTerra

I don't think you should be making changes to your promises now. You appear to be a decent set of people unlike many in the business.
You are making a mistake massaging the payback number in this manner, and here's why:

I bought into the deal based on the promise of the 0.0016 guaranteed return from these shares.
My decision was not driven by my purchase price.
My decision was not driven by the initial .0014 offer price, nor the next .0015 + exchange fees.
My decision was not driven by the BTC/USD conversion rate at the time or anything else.

I bought into the deal because of this 0.0016 div/share protection clause in the original contract. Clearly stated as such (!)
The 6.5% difference in the guaranteed payback is quite noticeable to those who were weighing risk/reward of this offer.

agreed

0.0016 was guaranteed. Now its too late to change the contract / promises.

Also, i bought > 0.0015 and did it, becuase 0.0016 was promised.

[iCEBREAKER]

We’ve decided to lower the investor protection clause from 0.0016 BTC payback to 0.0015 BTC payback as no share has ever been sold (from anyone) for higher than 0.0015 BTC. This is a 6.25% decrease. We believe this remains within the spirit of the clause: to provide 100% principal investment ROI in dividends, before private shares attain value upon entering the market.
...
//DeaDTerra

I don't think you should be making changes to your promises now. You appear to be a decent set of people unlike many in the business.
You are making a mistake massaging the payback number in this manner, and here's why:

I bought into the deal based on the promise of the 0.0016 guaranteed return from these shares.
My decision was not driven by my purchase price.
My decision was not driven by the initial .0014 offer price, nor the next .0015 + exchange fees.
My decision was not driven by the BTC/USD conversion rate at the time or anything else.

I bought into the deal because of this 0.0016 div/share protection clause in the original contract. Clearly stated as such (!)
The 6.5% difference in the guaranteed payback is quite noticeable to those who were weighing risk/reward of this offer.

agreed

0.0016 was guaranteed. Now its too late to change the contract / promises.

It's a gray area, depends on parsing the guaranteed figure as a string variable or integer constant.

0.0016 assumed shares sold higher than 0.0015, which didn't happen. 

I'd expect ukyo to side with the shareholders on this one, given his firmness with the terms of ACTM's IPO.

[Deprived]

0.0016 assumed shares sold higher than 0.0015, which didn't happen. 

I'd expect ukyo to side with the shareholders on this one, given his firmness with the terms of ACTM's IPO.

.0016 didn't assume anything - it's a number.

If they meant that the guarantee would be "The highest price at which shares were sold, subject to a maximum of .0016" then that's what would (or should) have been in the contract.

[iCEBREAKER]

0.0016 assumed shares sold higher than 0.0015, which didn't happen. 

I'd expect ukyo to side with the shareholders on this one, given his firmness with the terms of ACTM's IPO.

.0016 didn't assume anything - it's a number.

If they meant that the guarantee would be "The highest price at which shares were sold, subject to a maximum of .0016" then that's what would (or should) have been in the contract.

Yes, .0016 certainly is a number, but not a random one.

The question is whether ukyo will give IceDrill some wiggle room to allow for the imprecise language in the contract.

He probably won't because the fault was IceDrill's but a decent argument may be made that he could or even should.

[Jutarul]

We’ve decided to lower the investor protection clause from 0.0016 BTC payback to 0.0015 BTC payback as no share has ever been sold (from anyone) for higher than 0.0015 BTC.

Is there a way to validate that claim? If so, a case could be made that the protection clause can be lowered to 0.0015 (since it's a protection clause, not a profit clause).

[rtt]

We’ve decided to lower the investor protection clause from 0.0016 BTC payback to 0.0015 BTC payback as no share has ever been sold (from anyone) for higher than 0.0015 BTC.

Is there a way to validate that claim? If so, a case could be made that the protection clause can be lowered to 0.0015 (since it's a protection clause, not a profit clause).

Here's the quote from the 1st page of this thread:

Clause added in benefit of public shareholders
No dividends will be paid to the holders of private shares until holders of public shares have received an accumulated dividend of 0.0016 BitCoin per share. After which, proceeds from mining will be distributed proportionally such that there would be no difference between floating shares or private shares.
Private shares can be converted into floating shares after all public shares have received an accumulated dividend of 0.0016 BitCoin per share.

holders of public shares have received an accumulated dividend of 0.0016 -- no mention of any other terms. Pretty clear to me.

[rtt]

0.0016 assumed shares sold higher than 0.0015, which didn't happen. 

I'd expect ukyo to side with the shareholders on this one, given his firmness with the terms of ACTM's IPO.

.0016 didn't assume anything - it's a number.

If they meant that the guarantee would be "The highest price at which shares were sold, subject to a maximum of .0016" then that's what would (or should) have been in the contract.

Yes, .0016 certainly is a number, but not a random one.

The question is whether ukyo will give IceDrill some wiggle room to allow for the imprecise language in the contract.

He probably won't because the fault was IceDrill's but a decent argument may be made that he could or even should.

Why even wiggle?
The 0.0016 / share clause was used to sell shares at IPO prices back then. How can it be taken away now???

[Jutarul]

We’ve decided to lower the investor protection clause from 0.0016 BTC payback to 0.0015 BTC payback as no share has ever been sold (from anyone) for higher than 0.0015 BTC.

Is there a way to validate that claim? If so, a case could be made that the protection clause can be lowered to 0.0015 (since it's a protection clause, not a profit clause).

Here's the quote from the 1st page of this thread:

Clause added in benefit of public shareholders
No dividends will be paid to the holders of private shares until holders of public shares have received an accumulated dividend of 0.0016 BitCoin per share. After which, proceeds from mining will be distributed proportionally such that there would be no difference between floating shares or private shares.
Private shares can be converted into floating shares after all public shares have received an accumulated dividend of 0.0016 BitCoin per share.

holders of public shares have received an accumulated dividend of 0.0016 -- no mention of any other terms. Pretty clear to me.

I concur. If you take that clause out of context, there is no way to deduce any relationship to ROI, just a target profit. I bet this whole experience has been an educational exercise in contract writing for DeaDTerra. It would be unfair to load the burden of misinterpretation onto public shareholders. However, dependent on the risk/reward schemes the difference between 0.0015 and 0.0016 can be a significant difference for private shareholders, while it is less than 10% for public shareholders. Unfortunately only DeaDTerra and team members can evaluate the fairness of such an adjustment without disclosing more information about the funding structure.

[cryptojoe]

I too made purchases and calculations specifically with the promise of 0.0016 in mind.  I'm not particularly inspired by the "spirit of the original promise" argument.  I wasn't aware of that spirit. i was aware of a number and i thought that number was promised.  Better keep that number.  Otherwise, shareholders are left to wonder what else may be in the spirit of the contract that they're not aware of.  What else supposedly justifies a change in the letter of the contract?  Nobody knows in advance.  Not even those offering the shares, i imagine.  There is no principled way for only one party to change the terms of an agreement after the fact.  That is the whole point of a contract!  I fear trust is dissipating.