Bitcoin Forum
December 14, 2017, 03:36:02 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  

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

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: [BTC-TC] CIPHERMINE.B1 - a virtual corporate bond with a 22% fixed-fiat APR  (Read 27264 times)
woodrake
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 153



View Profile WWW
September 02, 2013, 08:56:17 PM
 #1

I am pleased to announce that CipherMine shall be issuing a virtual corporate bond on BTC Trading Co in order to raise growth capital.

Herein all EUR/BTC valuations refer to the 30-day weighted moving average of BitStamp's USD/BTC price converted to EUR at the current rates according to XE.com. For the purposes of the examples below we have used a price of €85.00 EUR/BTC.

100,000 bonds are to be created priced at 0.01 BTC each. The terms of the bond are as follows:

  • An interest rate of ~22%/year (0.38%/week) based on EUR/BTC value at time of issue (eg. ~€0.0032 / bond / week).
  • Dividends to be paid weekly.
  • All 100,000 bonds to be issued at the first opportunity, at which time the interest yield will be set.
  • Bond proceeds shall be spent discretion of CipherMine management, and only if they are satisfied that the funds can be repaid and that there is a useful way to spend them. Unspent funds shall be held as BTC to mitigate appreciation risks.
  • After 12 months, each bond may be redeemed at any time by bondholder for 0.01 BTC.
  • If before 12 months, three months notice is required to redeem bonds and rights to interest waived during that period.
  • Bonds may be sold on the market at any time with no penalty.
  • CipherMine has the right to redeem any bond in full with one month's notice to the bond holder at face value plus 12% less the number of months since issue.
  • For example, after three months the redemtion value would be 0.0109 BTC/bond, and after 12 months the redemption value would be 0.010 BTC/bond. The redemption value will always be at least 0.010 BTC/bond.
  • The bonds shall ultimately be secured against the assets purchased with the funds, but this security would only be needed in dire circumstances where CipherMine had completely run out of cash.
  • Changes to the bond's shareholder contract would require approval both by a majority of CIPHERBOND bondholders and a majority of CIPHERMINE shareholders.
  • Only CIPHERMINE shareholders would have the power to veto a motion (>25% voting against).

For further details please see CIPHERMINE.B1 on BTC TC.

Edited to bring inline with changes to main listing following feedback below.

Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1513222563
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513222563

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513222563
Reply with quote  #2

1513222563
Report to moderator
1513222563
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513222563

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513222563
Reply with quote  #2

1513222563
Report to moderator
1513222563
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513222563

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513222563
Reply with quote  #2

1513222563
Report to moderator
Deprived
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


View Profile
September 02, 2013, 09:01:50 PM
 #2

Two things immediately spring to mind:

1. If it's valued in euro then the face value has to be in euro.  You can't sell all 100k at same BTC price as if they don't sell quickly and the exchange-rate moves it would be impossible for you to honour the contract to investors who bought at different exchange-rates.

2.  You can't issue a bond which is only secured against the assets purchased with capital raised from the bonds:
a)  That would necessitate you keeping seperate accounts in respect of the bonds - with all purchases recorded as being purchased with bond-capital or purchased with other capital.
b)  It's grossly unfair to purchasers of the bonds.  They take all losses associated with the bonds but have profits capped at 22% growth expressed in euros.

Bonds are issued by the company and secured against ALL its assets.  Bond-holders have senior claim over equity holders.

EDIT: It occurs to me that when you say "based on EUR/BTC value at time of issue" you may mean at time dividend is paid rather than at time the bonds were issued.  In that case my point 1 doesn't apply - though it then makes no sense as the interest would be based on BTC face value anyway (just with two currency conversions to get back to where you started from).
ThickAsThieves
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518



View Profile
September 02, 2013, 09:06:14 PM
 #3

Admitting some ignorance to the finer details of CIPHERMINE's history, haven't you already issued shares of CIPHERMINE on numerous occasions to raise funds?

You still need more? For what?
superduh
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 602


View Profile
September 02, 2013, 09:06:15 PM
 #4

Makes sense to secure bond with all assets. Should be changed to this as deprived mentioned

ok
pascal257
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 471


View Profile
September 02, 2013, 09:09:20 PM
 #5


I am pleased to announce that CipherMine shall be issuing a virtual corporate bond on BTC Trading Co in order to raise growth capital.

Herein all EUR/BTC valuations refer to the 30-day weighted moving average of BitStamp's USD/BTC price converted to EUR at the current rates according to XE.com. For the purposes of the examples below we have used a price of €85.00 EUR/BTC.

100,000 bonds are to be created priced at 0.01 BTC each. The terms of the bond are as follows:

  • An interest rate of ~22%/year (0.38%/week) based on EUR/BTC value at time of issue (eg. ~€0.0032 / bond / week).
  • Dividends to be paid weekly.
  • Bonds to be issued in tranches at discretion of CipherMine management; they shall only be issued if the management is satisfied that they can be repaid and that there is a useful way to spend them.
  • After 12 months, each bond may be redeemed at any time by bondholder for 0.01 BTC.
  • If before 12 months, three months notice is required to redeem bonds and rights to interest waived during that period.
  • Bonds may be sold on the market at any time with no penalty.
  • CipherMine has the right to redeem any bond in full with one month's notice to the bond holder at face value plus 12% less the number of months since issue.
  • For example, after three months the redemtion value would be 0.0109 BTC/bond, and after 12 months the redemption value would be 0.010 BTC/bond. The redemption value will always be at least 0.010 BTC/bond.
  • The bonds shall be secured against the assets purchased with the funds.
  • Changes to the bond's shareholder contract would require approval both by a majority of CIPHERBOND bondholders and a majority of CIPHERMINE shareholders.
  • Only CIPHERMINE shareholders would have the power to veto a motion (>25% voting against).

For further details please see CIPHERMINE.B1 on BTC TC.


For reference
Deprived
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


View Profile
September 02, 2013, 09:16:14 PM
 #6

  • An interest rate of ~22%/year (0.38%/week) based on EUR/BTC value at time of issue (eg. ~€0.0032 / bond / week).
  • Bonds to be issued in tranches at discretion of CipherMine management; they shall only be issued if the management is satisfied that they can be repaid and that there is a useful way to spend them.

To clarify my point 2 above, the clash is between the two items quoted above.

If you sell the bonds in tranches then there'll be a different exchange-rate when each tranche is sold.  You then can't honour the contract in respect of all tranches as there's no way to pay different amounts of interest to different tranches of bonds.  Unless you wanted to pay 22% of of face value at the most beneficial (to bondholders) exchange-rate at which you'd ever sold bonds.  That pretty much negates the whole point (for you) if exchange-rate moves significantly in EITHER direction between the placement of tranches (as, depending on direction of the move, you'd either have to pay new bondholders a far higher rate than you wanted or upgrade heavily the rate paid to existing ones).
woodrake
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 153



View Profile WWW
September 03, 2013, 12:05:16 PM
 #7

Two things immediately spring to mind:

1. If it's valued in euro then the face value has to be in euro.  You can't sell all 100k at same BTC price as if they don't sell quickly and the exchange-rate moves it would be impossible for you to honor the contract to investors who bought at different exchange-rates.

You misunderstand; the face value will always be 0.01 BTC. Originally it was my intention to cap any value increase at 50% but having modeled the situation it became apparent that since we intend to invest it in SHA256 mining hardware we will be generating more anyway; the bond will be repaid by the yield from those machines.

If difficulty is rising too fast then we will take the option to repay the bonds early. Even in my worst case scenarios we can repay the bond early. However, paying interest linked to might BTC would become too risky, hence the fixed-fiat yield.

However, you also assume that BTC will rise. Personally I think there is a fair chance it will crash again soon, in which case the bond holders would be in a better position in terms of yield than they would be if it were BTC-linked. Personally I see this feature as quite a nice bonus for the investor - their returns are stable regardless of BTC's price.

Quote
2.  You can't issue a bond which is only secured against the assets purchased with capital raised from the bonds:
a)  That would necessitate you keeping seperate accounts in respect of the bonds - with all purchases recorded as being purchased with bond-capital or purchased with other capital.

I fail to see how this is any different to a hire purchase agreement or other secured loan? At Memset we regularly take out loans against rapidly-depreciating hardware? We are more than capable of the necessary accounts administration to record which assets belong to the bondholders. Again, we do this at Memset and I shall with Wood Tech (the legal entity which will own the tangible assets).

Quote
b)  It's grossly unfair to purchasers of the bonds.  They take all losses associated with the bonds but have profits capped at 22% growth expressed in euros.

This is not how the principal investor we have lined up views it. There should be no losses associated with the bond. CipherMine will take all necessary measures to ensure that it is repaid, as any company would in such a situation. The ultimate back-stop would be to sell the assets themselves, though by then even in a dire scenario we should have been able to repay most if not all the face value from the mining yields. That they are secured by the assets purchased should only ever come into play if something went disastrously wrong (ie. CipherMine had completely exhausted its funds attempting to honor the loan).

Further, the first tranche of this bond will actually go towards paying me back for eight HashFast BabyJets I've purchased with my personal overdraft, so the bond holders and CipherMine shareholders have the additional surety that we'll be pumping out the cash necessary for repayments within two months (20th-30th Oct).

Quote
Bonds are issued by the company and secured against ALL its assets.  Bond-holders have senior claim over equity holders.

Not necessarily. As mentioned I would compare this to a hire purchase agreement, but such vehicles do not fit neatly into BTC TC's categories. Burnside specified that the only difference between a BOND and a LOAN is that the latter is issued by an individual. This could therefore be considered secured loan, and one one at an extremely high interest rate at that!

Quote
EDIT: It occurs to me that when you say "based on EUR/BTC value at time of issue" you may mean at time dividend is paid rather than at time the bonds were issued.


No, I meant at time of issue. In other words, if I issue the first 25,000 bonds next Monday the price dividend price would be set at that point. I cannot keep track of exactly when they get purchased, but I've realised my mistake now which you describe here:

  • An interest rate of ~22%/year (0.38%/week) based on EUR/BTC value at time of issue (eg. ~€0.0032 / bond / week).
  • Bonds to be issued in tranches at discretion of CipherMine management; they shall only be issued if the management is satisfied that they can be repaid and that there is a useful way to spend them.

To clarify my point 2 above, the clash is between the two items quoted above.

If you sell the bonds in tranches then there'll be a different exchange-rate when each tranche is sold.  You then can't honour the contract in respect of all tranches as there's no way to pay different amounts of interest to different tranches of bonds.  Unless you wanted to pay 22% of of face value at the most beneficial (to bondholders) exchange-rate at which you'd ever sold bonds.  That pretty much negates the whole point (for you) if exchange-rate moves significantly in EITHER direction between the placement of tranches (as, depending on direction of the move, you'd either have to pay new bondholders a far higher rate than you wanted or upgrade heavily the rate paid to existing ones).

I now see that I cannot differentiate between bonds in terms of issue either, a silly oversight. I could adjust the dividend yield as more bonds are issued, making it the average, but that would be complex and confusing for the investors. Alternatively it might be more sensible to issue the lot all at once and then just keep the BTC that we didn't need and take the hit on a slightly higher-than-necessary interest payment while we hold the funds. We can certainly afford to do this with minimal risk (ie. if we don't want to spend it all at once, just hold the BTC and pay the EUR interest).

This second approach would also support keeping the interest at a fiat-fixed rate. Editing the security now...

Quote
In that case my point 1 doesn't apply - though it then makes no sense as the interest would be based on BTC face value anyway (just with two currency conversions to get back to where you started from).

See above re. both points.

Kate.

EDIT: I've updated the security listing to address some of the issues raised.

woodrake
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 153



View Profile WWW
September 03, 2013, 12:07:11 PM
 #8

Admitting some ignorance to the finer details of CIPHERMINE's history, haven't you already issued shares of CIPHERMINE on numerous occasions to raise funds?

You still need more? For what?

Please see our main thread and news. The shareholders do not wish to have further dilution, but most businesses like ours would seek other means of raising growth capital, most obviously debt. Indeed, we arguably did things a bit backwards; raising funds through equity would normally be the last method a company used to raise capital, not the first - that would usually be a loan of some sort.

As for what for: To grow faster - simple as that. In practice this will mean buying additional mining hardware.

Kate.

Deprived
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


View Profile
September 03, 2013, 06:09:39 PM
 #9

My point 1 has been addressed - my point 2 (secured only against the assets actually purchased with raised capital) may just be a case of talking at cross-purposes.

You gave the example of hire purchase agreements and secured loans.  My point was that your liability for the debt in those cases doesn't extend just to the value of whatever you borrowed the cash for.  If you take out a loan on a car, you don't get to limit repayments only to the value of the car.

From your response it seems you agree - and accept that Ciphermines is liable for repaying the bonds regardless of what happens with specific hardware purchased with the capital raised.  Which raises the question of what "secured against" means in the context used.

With personal loans the only way out of repayment (other than through negotiation) is bankruptcy.  With a company loan the equivalent is insolvency - hence my point that in practical terms the bond is secured against ALL of ciphermine's assets: if it isn't then it's not the company issuing the paper.  And in the event Ciphermine closed bonds would have to be repaid before shareholders received anything - debt is always paid before equity in liquidation.

So long as you agree with those principles I don't really care if you want to claim it's somehow specifically secured against unspecified assets that will depreciate without principal being paid down (which would be the case in genuinely secured loans - the capital gets repaid as fast or faster than the backing assets lose value).

The only other point would be that at the time you issue the bonds you should disclose any debt held by Ciphermine which has seniority over the bonds and commit not to taking on new debt unless it is junior.
woodrake
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 153



View Profile WWW
September 04, 2013, 08:41:01 AM
 #10

My point 1 has been addressed - my point 2 (secured only against the assets actually purchased with raised capital) may just be a case of talking at cross-purposes.

You gave the example of hire purchase agreements and secured loans.  My point was that your liability for the debt in those cases doesn't extend just to the value of whatever you borrowed the cash for.  If you take out a loan on a car, you don't get to limit repayments only to the value of the car.

From your response it seems you agree - and accept that Ciphermines is liable for repaying the bonds regardless of what happens with specific hardware purchased with the capital raised.  Which raises the question of what "secured against" means in the context used.

With personal loans the only way out of repayment (other than through negotiation) is bankruptcy.  With a company loan the equivalent is insolvency - hence my point that in practical terms the bond is secured against ALL of ciphermine's assets: if it isn't then it's not the company issuing the paper.  And in the event Ciphermine closed bonds would have to be repaid before shareholders received anything - debt is always paid before equity in liquidation.

So long as you agree with those principles I don't really care if you want to claim it's somehow specifically secured against unspecified assets that will depreciate without principal being paid down (which would be the case in genuinely secured loans - the capital gets repaid as fast or faster than the backing assets lose value).

The only other point would be that at the time you issue the bonds you should disclose any debt held by Ciphermine which has seniority over the bonds and commit not to taking on new debt unless it is junior.

Thanks for clarifying and I see what you are getting at now.

Yes, the bond would be secured against all the assets except that in a liquidation scenario our shareholder contract states that shareholders have the rights to funds released from the sale of CipherMine's hardware in a winding up.

My intention is to clearly delineate the two; in that situation I see the following as the process (in order of seniority):

  • All available means are used to repay CIPHERMINE.B1 bond holders from operating revenues and cash reserves. Assuming this proves inadequate:
  • The assets purchased with the bond funds are sold and proceeds distributed to the bondholders.
  • The remaining assets (original ones I put in, ones bought with CIPHERMINE shareholder funds and the ones I've "donated") are sold and the proceeds distributed to the CIPHERMINE shareholders.
We could make it so that 2 and 3 require a successful motion of the respective parties, but exclude CIPHERMINE shareholders' ability to veto the bondholders in that scenario?

The issue with giving the bondholders seniority over everything is that it would (I think) require a change to the shareholder contract, and to be honest I can't see that motion passing unless I forced it through myself (which would piss off a lot of people).

I would sincerely value your thoughts on the above and thank you ever-so-much for your considered input thus far. It is very appreciated! Smiley

Kate.

Deprived
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


View Profile
September 04, 2013, 12:28:54 PM
 #11

My point 1 has been addressed - my point 2 (secured only against the assets actually purchased with raised capital) may just be a case of talking at cross-purposes.

You gave the example of hire purchase agreements and secured loans.  My point was that your liability for the debt in those cases doesn't extend just to the value of whatever you borrowed the cash for.  If you take out a loan on a car, you don't get to limit repayments only to the value of the car.

From your response it seems you agree - and accept that Ciphermines is liable for repaying the bonds regardless of what happens with specific hardware purchased with the capital raised.  Which raises the question of what "secured against" means in the context used.

With personal loans the only way out of repayment (other than through negotiation) is bankruptcy.  With a company loan the equivalent is insolvency - hence my point that in practical terms the bond is secured against ALL of ciphermine's assets: if it isn't then it's not the company issuing the paper.  And in the event Ciphermine closed bonds would have to be repaid before shareholders received anything - debt is always paid before equity in liquidation.

So long as you agree with those principles I don't really care if you want to claim it's somehow specifically secured against unspecified assets that will depreciate without principal being paid down (which would be the case in genuinely secured loans - the capital gets repaid as fast or faster than the backing assets lose value).

The only other point would be that at the time you issue the bonds you should disclose any debt held by Ciphermine which has seniority over the bonds and commit not to taking on new debt unless it is junior.

Thanks for clarifying and I see what you are getting at now.

Yes, the bond would be secured against all the assets except that in a liquidation scenario our shareholder contract states that shareholders have the rights to funds released from the sale of CipherMine's hardware in a winding up.

My intention is to clearly delineate the two; in that situation I see the following as the process (in order of seniority):

  • All available means are used to repay CIPHERMINE.B1 bond holders from operating revenues and cash reserves. Assuming this proves inadequate:
  • The assets purchased with the bond funds are sold and proceeds distributed to the bondholders.
  • The remaining assets (original ones I put in, ones bought with CIPHERMINE shareholder funds and the ones I've "donated") are sold and the proceeds distributed to the CIPHERMINE shareholders.
We could make it so that 2 and 3 require a successful motion of the respective parties, but exclude CIPHERMINE shareholders' ability to veto the bondholders in that scenario?

The issue with giving the bondholders seniority over everything is that it would (I think) require a change to the shareholder contract, and to be honest I can't see that motion passing unless I forced it through myself (which would piss off a lot of people).

I would sincerely value your thoughts on the above and thank you ever-so-much for your considered input thus far. It is very appreciated! Smiley

Kate.

You may be surprised at what shareholders will pass - if the benefits of it are explained clearly.

I faced a similar situation with LTC-ATF - I wanted to raise further capital by issuing bonds rather than selling more units.  LTC-ATF is fund rather than a mining operation - so the assets are securities and crypto-currency rather than mining hardware and fiat currency.  But otherwise the situation is very similar (the bonds LTC-ATF sold have a face value in BTC despite the fund operating in LTC).

I raised a motion to allow sale of the bonds.  I believe a motion has to be raised as significant debt/liability is being incurred when bonds are sold - and even without a specific clause in the contract saying so debts have to be paid before anything is paid to equity holders.  I made it explicit in the motion that bondholders would be shielded from trading loss (though there is an exception if an exchange we operate on defaults) and the bond contracts are explicit in bondholders senior claim on assets.  That seniority was also discussed before and after the motion.

The motion passed with 84.3% Yes votes and no No votes/abstains (it was only up for a day - back then there was no 7 day minimum for contract changes as there is now).  Whilst I was (and still am) the majority holder the Yes votes included a majority of all shares NOT owned by me - i.e. it would have passed if I'd abstained.

So long as you can convince your investors that the capital raised will generate more profit than it costs to service the bonds (and that the risk of significant loss on that capital is low) you should have no problem obtaining approval from them - as they end up making more profit themselves if the bonds are allowed than if they aren't.  The key is just explaining the benefits to them.

The idea of a bond with a BTC face value but interest tied to USD is an interesting one (now you've sorted the issue with multiple batches).  With no possible loss of face value from exchange-rate movement I can see it having uses for investors that a pure USD-denominated or pure BTC-denominated bond wouldn't - as it allows for hedging income whilst maintaining capital as being pure BTC-denominated.
woodrake
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 153



View Profile WWW
September 05, 2013, 02:57:37 PM
 #12

After a bit of worst-case scenario modelling I've decided we may not issue the entire amount. I have therefore changed the contract as follows:

  • Bonds to be issued at the first opportunity, at which time the interest yield will be set.
  • Number of bonds to be issued to be determined by CipherMine management based on a risk assessment at time of issue; we will likely not issue all 100,000.
  • Unissued bonds (the remainder) shall never be issed. E.g. if we issue 75,000 bonds in the first tranche we shall never issue the remaining 25,000.

The decision will be based on my forecasts of difficulty and other market conditions when the asset finally gets approved. I have no desire to be in a situation where we end up excessively leveraged and risk defaulting.

Kate.

Progressive
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 181


View Profile
September 05, 2013, 03:32:41 PM
 #13

Will the first tranche be isssued as soon as the asset is approved, or will be there any notification (e.g. 24h before start)?
woodrake
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 153



View Profile WWW
September 06, 2013, 06:33:31 PM
 #14

Will the first tranche be isssued as soon as the asset is approved, or will be there any notification (e.g. 24h before start)?

There will only be one tranche; otherwise as Deprived pointed out it would be too difficult to determine value.

I would be happy to pre-announce it, and that seems like a fair approach. Thanks for the suggestion.

Kate.

Smidge
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 218


View Profile
September 09, 2013, 07:18:54 PM
 #15

Interesting. It's on my watchlist, good luck!

BTC: 19dB148YewttZRVwF7WF8ZuT7uqnnjibkC
LTC: LPBi1LPqs1MY1tQKQ4wGG6gjwrcszFek6s
inspiredinvestor
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 616



View Profile WWW
September 10, 2013, 03:52:13 AM
 #16

Kate, what is the estimated time for this to be released? as i am currently sourcing good beginner investments for newbies to bitcoins and this is perfect for them.
Smiley

▄█████
▄█████████████▄
▄█████████████████████▄
▄█████████████████████████████▄
███████████████████████████████████
█████████████▀       ▀██████████████
██████████▀   ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄  ▀███████████
██████████    █████████    ██████████
█████████    ███▀▀▀▀▀▀▀     █████████
████████     ███▄▄▄▄▄▄       ███████
███████      █████████      ███████
███████       ▀▀▀▀▀▀███     ████████
█████████     ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄███    █████████
██████████    ████████    ██████████
███████████▄  ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀   ██████████
██████████████▄       ▄█████████████
███████████████████████████████████
▀█████████████████████████████▀
▀█████████████████████▀
▀█████████████▀
█████▀
   
 
.The Issuance of Tokenized Equity.
▬▬▬ ●  Twitter  Facebook  |  Telegram  ● ▬▬▬
 
 
coco23
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 622



View Profile
September 10, 2013, 04:08:54 PM
 #17

Whoever picked up 2500 shares for 0.30 BTC: congratulations  Roll Eyes

         ▄███████████████▄
       ▄██▀             ▀██▄
    ▄▄██▀                 ▀██▄▄
█████▀▀       ▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄▄    ▀▀█████
██          ▄▀ ▄▄▄▀▀▀▀▄▀█▄▄      ██
▐█▌       ▄▀ ▄▀ ▄▄▄▀▀▀▄▀▀▀███   ▐█▌
 ██      ▄▀▄▀▄▀▀▄▄▄▀▀▀▀▀█ ▄█▀   ██
 ▐█▌    █▄▀▄▀▄█▀▀▀ ▀█▀ ▄▀▄▀█   ▐█▌
  ██    █▄▀▄▀▄▄█▀ ▄▀ ▄▀▄▀▄▀█   ██
  ▐█▌ ▀▄█████▀▄▄▀▀▄▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀█  ▐█▌
   ██▌▀████▀██▄▄▀▀▄▄▀▄▀▄▀▄█▀ ▐██
    ██▌▀█▀▀█▄▀▀▄▀▀▄▄▀▄█▄▄█▀ ▐██
     ██▌ ▀  ▀███▄▄▄█████▀  ▐██
      ██▄      ▀▀▀▀▀      ▄██
       ▀██▄             ▄██▀
         ▀██▄         ▄██▀
           ▀██▄     ▄██▀
             ▀███▄███▀
               ▀███▀
.DeepOnion.
★ ★ ★ ★ ★  .❱❱❱ JOIN AIRDROP NOW!.
TOR INTEGRATED & SECURED
★  Your Anonymity Guaranteed
★  Your Assets Secured by TOR
★  Guard Your Privacy!
|Bitcointalk
Reddit
Telegram
|                        ▄▄▀▄▄▀▄▄▀▄▀▀
                    ▄▄██▀█▀▄▀▀▀
                  ▄██▄█▄██▀
                ▄██████▀
              ▄██████▀
  ▄█▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄██████▀
██████▀▀▀▀▀██████▀
 ▀█████  ▄███████
  ████████████▀██
  ██▀███████▀  ██
  ██ ▀████▀    ██
  ██   ▀▀      ██
  ▀█████████████▀
junkonator
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 149


View Profile
September 10, 2013, 04:11:01 PM
 #18

Released. Thanks for the discount, Kate...
coco23
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 622



View Profile
September 10, 2013, 04:15:48 PM
 #19

Oh wow, so it was Kate herself.

I was lucky (or stupid) enough to pick up (only) 10 shares for the low price.

I'd be willing to send you 90% (i.e. 9 shares) back, you can PM me your account Kate.

         ▄███████████████▄
       ▄██▀             ▀██▄
    ▄▄██▀                 ▀██▄▄
█████▀▀       ▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄▄    ▀▀█████
██          ▄▀ ▄▄▄▀▀▀▀▄▀█▄▄      ██
▐█▌       ▄▀ ▄▀ ▄▄▄▀▀▀▄▀▀▀███   ▐█▌
 ██      ▄▀▄▀▄▀▀▄▄▄▀▀▀▀▀█ ▄█▀   ██
 ▐█▌    █▄▀▄▀▄█▀▀▀ ▀█▀ ▄▀▄▀█   ▐█▌
  ██    █▄▀▄▀▄▄█▀ ▄▀ ▄▀▄▀▄▀█   ██
  ▐█▌ ▀▄█████▀▄▄▀▀▄▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀█  ▐█▌
   ██▌▀████▀██▄▄▀▀▄▄▀▄▀▄▀▄█▀ ▐██
    ██▌▀█▀▀█▄▀▀▄▀▀▄▄▀▄█▄▄█▀ ▐██
     ██▌ ▀  ▀███▄▄▄█████▀  ▐██
      ██▄      ▀▀▀▀▀      ▄██
       ▀██▄             ▄██▀
         ▀██▄         ▄██▀
           ▀██▄     ▄██▀
             ▀███▄███▀
               ▀███▀
.DeepOnion.
★ ★ ★ ★ ★  .❱❱❱ JOIN AIRDROP NOW!.
TOR INTEGRATED & SECURED
★  Your Anonymity Guaranteed
★  Your Assets Secured by TOR
★  Guard Your Privacy!
|Bitcointalk
Reddit
Telegram
|                        ▄▄▀▄▄▀▄▄▀▄▀▀
                    ▄▄██▀█▀▄▀▀▀
                  ▄██▄█▄██▀
                ▄██████▀
              ▄██████▀
  ▄█▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄██████▀
██████▀▀▀▀▀██████▀
 ▀█████  ▄███████
  ████████████▀██
  ██▀███████▀  ██
  ██ ▀████▀    ██
  ██   ▀▀      ██
  ▀█████████████▀
woodrake
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 153



View Profile WWW
September 10, 2013, 04:16:12 PM
 #20

Whoever picked up 2500 shares for 0.30 BTC: congratulations  Roll Eyes

Sad I cannot believe I just did that. I should probably spin it as "giving back to the community" or something, lol.

Kate.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

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