[BTC-TC] CryptX introduces the PETA-MINE - 18,000 CHIPS IN SEPTEMBER/UPDATE

[SebastianJu]

So the 30000 changed to 10000? And btct.co approved? And regardless of the income of IPO it will move on the same way like it was planned before? So for what was the IPO-Investment needed then?

Im not feeling very well with this. I mean theoretically if i would like to scam i claim i will create the biggest mining farm ever, i make many shares so i can get much money and when IPO works i take the money and run. Now the IPO didnt work so take the less money that will be available and run with this instead. Im not feeling very well with this now. And i wonder how the IPO can be changed one sided.

[mumung]

UPDATE 31/08/2013

CryptX is pleased to announce the deployment of 20 TerraHash as early as end September (BitFury chips). The net mining revenue of this 20 TH/s will be divided over the shareholders until their total investment is recovered.

CryptX will also limit the sale of shares to a maximum of 10,000. This means that no more than 10,000 shares will be sold and mining revenue will be divided over those shares. Shares will be sold in batches of 2,000 shares each, starting at 0.65BTC. Price with each new batch will increase with 0.01BTC.

As stated in the initial shareholder agreement, for each share sold, 10 GH/s of hashpower, based on CoinTerra systems, will also be deployed in December, this equals to an additional 100 TerraHash by December for 10,000 shares.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am confused!!
Does this update only talk about 10,000 shares for the 20TH or was the total amount of shares decreased from 100,000 to 10,000?

I do understand from what you are writing that 1,000,000 GH (1PH) will now be distributed over 10,000 shares.
1,000,000 / 10,000 = 100GH/Share. That would also mean that with that update you just decreased the value of your IPO by about the factor 10 (not accounting for the 0.01btc increase every 2000 shares), correct? So instead of hauling in 100,000*0,65=65,000BTC your IPO is now worth only 6,500btc, right?
On the other end, you are offering 10 times the value for the same price, speaking of 100GH/Share for 0.65btc, I am right?

Thanks for clarification.

PS: It says at btct under outstanding shares 1349 (as of writing) - shouldn't it be 10,000. In the details about your mine it still talks about 100,000 shares to be issued. So either your update is confusing and missing some information, or the details on btct are out of date...

[AM4Bitcoin]

As stated in the initial shareholder agreement, for each share sold, 10 GH/s of hashpower, based on CoinTerra systems, will also be deployed in December, this equals to an additional 100 TerraHash by December for 10,000 shares.


Shares are decreased to 10k. They dont offer 100ghs for 0,65 BTC.

[SebastianJu]

So in fact now what happening is that the shares the issuers are holding are more and the investment in hardware will be less naturally because of less bitcoins from IPO right? Otherwise, if its still the same investment i dont see why an IPO was needed at all. This doesnt make much sense to me yet. I shouldnt rush with investing i guess... now i can only hope this turns out well.

[dhenson]

Let me explain what's happening to those too stupid to work it out for themselves (i.e. most of you).

BTC is rising vs USD.  If BTC rises vs USD by X% then the BTC paid for shares in this buy X% more hashes than they did when the IPO listed.  But the amount promised to investors isn't rising by X% - the gain gos straight to the issuer.  Yeah - you've been given 20% extra but that didn't even use up the hidden markup built into the IPO at the original price.

BTC rising vs USD is what makes most mining investments useless anyway.  When BTC rises, the price of hardware (in BTC) falls making the apparent profitabilty of mining rise.  That spurs more purchase of hardware - causing difficulty to rise.  Although USD-profit may slightly increase even afterwards this wipes out most of the benefit of the rate increase leaving you worse off than if you just held BTC during the rise.

Once you add in hidden levels of markup in the sales price plus a visible cut being taken via shares you end up lucky to make anything in USD terms and out of pocket in BTC terms.

What the issuer is doing is trying to bribe everyone into ignoring the IPO terms - by giving back a part of the increase in hashing power that your BTC could buy as a result of the exchange-rate change.  Which would leave them with not just the markup they'd originally planned to take - but also a bonus in keeping the extra USD generated by the exchange-rate move whilst guaranteeing that investors end up with a loss in BTC terms (i.e. worse off than if they just held their BTC).

What you need from an issuer if the exchange-rate is rising is a commitment that all BTC raised (or the same proportion as would have been the case if exchange-rate hadn't moved) will be used to purchase hashing power for investors.  But as they've never tried to be transparent in the first place there's little likelihood of it starting now.  And by the looks of it, little chance that they intend to honour the contract and return your funds if they fail to sell the 30k target stated in their contract.

Which kind of serves you all right for investing in such a pile of shite in the first place tbh.

Deprived, you should be stating your conflict of interest when spreading FUD against a competing security.  I find it a little underhanded that you would post this on a direct competitors thread without at least attempting disclosure.

That being said, thank you for your views.  There does seem to be a gap in information re: the exchange rate and how much is exactly being invested of IPO funds.

[FloatesMcgoates]

Let me explain what's happening to those too stupid to work it out for themselves (i.e. most of you).

BTC is rising vs USD.  If BTC rises vs USD by X% then the BTC paid for shares in this buy X% more hashes than they did when the IPO listed.  But the amount promised to investors isn't rising by X% - the gain gos straight to the issuer.  Yeah - you've been given 20% extra but that didn't even use up the hidden markup built into the IPO at the original price.

BTC rising vs USD is what makes most mining investments useless anyway.  When BTC rises, the price of hardware (in BTC) falls making the apparent profitabilty of mining rise.  That spurs more purchase of hardware - causing difficulty to rise.  Although USD-profit may slightly increase even afterwards this wipes out most of the benefit of the rate increase leaving you worse off than if you just held BTC during the rise.

Once you add in hidden levels of markup in the sales price plus a visible cut being taken via shares you end up lucky to make anything in USD terms and out of pocket in BTC terms.

What the issuer is doing is trying to bribe everyone into ignoring the IPO terms - by giving back a part of the increase in hashing power that your BTC could buy as a result of the exchange-rate change.  Which would leave them with not just the markup they'd originally planned to take - but also a bonus in keeping the extra USD generated by the exchange-rate move whilst guaranteeing that investors end up with a loss in BTC terms (i.e. worse off than if they just held their BTC).

What you need from an issuer if the exchange-rate is rising is a commitment that all BTC raised (or the same proportion as would have been the case if exchange-rate hadn't moved) will be used to purchase hashing power for investors.  But as they've never tried to be transparent in the first place there's little likelihood of it starting now.  And by the looks of it, little chance that they intend to honour the contract and return your funds if they fail to sell the 30k target stated in their contract.

Which kind of serves you all right for investing in such a pile of shite in the first place tbh.

Deprived, you should be stating your conflict of interest when spreading FUD against a competing security.  I find it a little underhanded that you would post this on a direct competitors thread without at least attempting disclosure.

That being said, thank you for your views.  There does seem to be a gap in information re: the exchange rate and how much is exactly being invested of IPO funds.

I really dont see how there is a conflict of interest, much less that this is somehow a "direct competitor".

[dhenson]

I really dont see how there is a conflict of interest, much less that this is somehow a "direct competitor".

Seriously?  There really is no point in even responding to that.  You're being either willfully ignorant, or willfully deceitful.

[FloatesMcgoates]

I really dont see how there is a conflict of interest, much less that this is somehow a "direct competitor".

Seriously?  There really is no point in even responding to that.  You're being either willfully ignorant, or willfully deceitful.

I'm being serious, I do not see how DMS.Purchase and PETA-Hash are in any way competitive against each other.

[iCEBREAKER]

I really dont see how there is a conflict of interest, much less that this is somehow a "direct competitor".

Seriously?  There really is no point in even responding to that.  You're being either willfully ignorant, or willfully deceitful.

I'm being serious, I do not see how DMS.Purchase and PETA-Hash are in any way competitive against each other.

Cognitive is selling COG.F3 to buy Cointerra chips.

I got four shares instead of CryptX's thing. 

[FloatesMcgoates]

I really dont see how there is a conflict of interest, much less that this is somehow a "direct competitor".

Seriously?  There really is no point in even responding to that.  You're being either willfully ignorant, or willfully deceitful.

I'm being serious, I do not see how DMS.Purchase and PETA-Hash are in any way competitive against each other.

Well, half of DMS.PURCHASE is a mining bond. Still, I doubt that Deprived's comments in this case are influenced by competition, what little there might be.

Yeah but the other half is basically the exact opposite of a mining bond, negating it completely

[FloatesMcgoates]

I really dont see how there is a conflict of interest, much less that this is somehow a "direct competitor".

Seriously?  There really is no point in even responding to that.  You're being either willfully ignorant, or willfully deceitful.

I'm being serious, I do not see how DMS.Purchase and PETA-Hash are in any way competitive against each other.

Well, half of DMS.PURCHASE is a mining bond. Still, I doubt that Deprived's comments in this case are influenced by competition, what little there might be.

Yeah but the other half is basically the exact opposite of a mining bond, negating it completely

Getting totally off topic here, but let me point this out: If that were true, then the value of DMS.PURCHASE would be 0, but it's not.

Continuing to derail the train - As you well know, the value of DMS.PURCHASE is completely unrelated to what we are arguing over. There exists demand because people bet on both sides of the aisle.

[stereotype]

Let me explain what's happening to those too stupid to work it out for themselves (i.e. most of you).
...

Deprived, is this another drunkmail?

I knew i wasnt the only one who saw a pattern emerging..... https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=246228.msg2995220#msg2995220

He is on an awareness crusade against the evil forces of exchange rates, and he is only taking the righteous few with him on his conquest. He's off to RentalStarter next, i guess. 

[cryptx]

Your terminology is confusing. I just want to be sure.
TerraHash is a company: "TerraHash is a Silicon Valley based company. We make ASIC Bitcoin Mining Gear using the Avalon ASIC chips made by BitSyncom. "

You mean 20 terahash, as in 20,000 gigahash, right?

20,000 gigahash, that's correct

[Deprived]

Let me explain what's happening to those too stupid to work it out for themselves (i.e. most of you).
...

Deprived, is this another drunkmail?

Nope, that post was made just before I went to the pub not afterwards.

Funds were being raised that would not be spent or converted into USD for at least a month (as a full refund was promised at end of September if less than 30k were sold).

If BTC fell heavily vs USD then the issuer would be unable to provide what was promised as either:

a) The price they were quoted was in USD and they'd no longer be able to buy enough USD
OR
b) The price they were quoted was in BTC and if they went to purchase they'd be told the quote was no longer valid as the exchange-rate had moved.

Conversely if (as is so far the case) BTC rose heavily vs USD then the deal would represent far worse value to investors as they'd be giving away all the extra USD they could have bought.

An exchange-rate senstive IPO needs to either:

a) Only run for a very short period of time
OR
b) Be denominated in USD with the BTC price changing as the exchange-rate moves
OR
c) Have some other clear provision to address any such exchange-rate move.

This had none of those.  Which is one of the reasons it was horrible from the start - as its behaviour is undefined when exchange-rate moves heavily in EITHER direction.

I don't think saying most people are too stupid to even notice that is inaccurate.

[cryptx]

I can see that our last update has created some confusion.

This is the situation:

We are still offering 10 GH of hashpower for each share sold. CryptX is still investing an extra 20% of hashpower on top of that.
So each share does have 10 GH + 2 GH of hashing power. All mining revenue from this additional 2 GH will go to public shareholders until the initial investment of 0.65 BTC/share is recovered in dividends.

For the first 10,000 shares, the extra free 20% of hashpower will not be deployed in december BUT already end September.

The future:

When the first 10,000 shares are sold, we can repeat this offering. This means we can offer an additional batch of 10,000 shares with 20TH end September and 100TH in December.

[cryptx]

As stated in the initial shareholder agreement, for each share sold, 10 GH/s of hashpower, based on CoinTerra systems, will also be deployed in December, this equals to an additional 100 TerraHash by December for 10,000 shares.

This is correct + we offer the additional 20% free at the end of September.

[cryptx]

An exchange-rate senstive IPO needs to either:

a) Only run for a very short period of time
OR
b) Be denominated in USD with the BTC price changing as the exchange-rate moves
OR
c) Have some other clear provision to address any such exchange-rate move.

This is one of the reasons we are offering smaller batches.

[Deprived]

An exchange-rate senstive IPO needs to either:

a) Only run for a very short period of time
OR
b) Be denominated in USD with the BTC price changing as the exchange-rate moves
OR
c) Have some other clear provision to address any such exchange-rate move.

This is one of the reasons we are offering smaller batches.

The time to make changes to the contract is BEFORE you sell any shares or AFTER the IPO has sold out (after a shareholder vote).

Making changes to contract in the middle of an IPO should be totally banned.  You certainly don't have the right do so unilaterally - debatably (from the BTC-TC terms) you can do so if the change is approved by a shareholder vote (which has to last at least a week).  The BTC-TC terms don't explicitly ban changes to contract during IPO (though they should) but there's zero provision for changes being made by editing a forum post.

From past discussions on this issue if you DO change the contract now (after a vote) burnside would insist that you refund at full price any investor who no longer wanted to stay in.

My view (likely NOT the same as burnside's) is that if there's a mistake/flaw in the contract so serious it needs to be fixed before the IPO has even ended then a full refund should be made to everyone, the asset put back to awaiting-approval status then the issuer allowed to change whatever they want before seeking moderator approval again.  The contract is meant to be finished before asking for funds - not some 'under development' thing that changes in an attempt to stumble on a formula that will attract investment.

[cryptx]

I also want to add that we will deploy the 20TH in September even if the 10,000 shares are not sold.

For example:

If only 4000 shares are sold, the revenue of the 20TH will be divided over these shares until 0.65 BTC is received in dividend.
Of course in December an additional 40TH of Cointerra systems will be deployed for these 4000 shares

[cryptx]

Then why are you saying that Bitfury chips won't provide any profit to shareholders beyond the .65B initial investment?  Why is there a reinvestment fund in the first place if your investorcustomers don't see the benefit beyond .65B?

The deployment of Bitfury chips in September is an extra incentive we give to shareholders to recover their investment sooner.
The reinvestment policy applies to the 10 GH/s for each share that will be deployed in December.