[HAVELOCK] PETAMINE - 1,150 TH/S HASH RATE (1GH/S per Unit)

[Elvis Trout]

Well this should be interesting. Please bear in mind that trying to keep up with difficulty is impossible for the foreseeable future, vote for dividends, the mine will pay out more with 0% reinvestment than it ever would if we tried to keep it alive.

How do you reconcile that with the fact that we had a tenfold increase in difficulty since PETA-MINE started about 7 months ago (at least on havelock), yet the shareprice during that timeframe increased by more than 50% and is about to increase again with the recent deployment of new hardware?

edit: voted 50/50

You're linking share price and difficulty? Weird but ok, the share price went up because Cryptx bought new hardware. But this wasn't keeping up with the difficulty, if anything it is proof that we can't keep up. Our reinvestment fund didn't buy the new hardware, Cryptx loaned the money to Peta, we are in the red at the moment because we couldn't keep our network share with our reinvestment so we were forcefully lent money to try and stay in the game a bit longer.

[Puppet]

I'm very serious. I get, but don't accept your argument, simply because not everyone re-invests.

So what? The hypothetical doesnt work even if you are the only one reinvesting.

In fact your argument supports the empirical pattern we see in other high growth industries

Which other zero sum industries would that be?

PETA's game is to be one of those final few players.

And what do you think the odds are of a company that has to buy its hardware on the open market to unseat companies that produce their own hardware at cost? Bitfury, Cointerra, KnC, etc are all setting up their mega farms. They will sell their hardware to cryptx, then use the money to grow their own farm by a far larger amount. You dont win that sort of arms race unless you are an arms dealer.

[MonkeyBear68]

I also voted 35/65 (35 Dividend / 65 Reinvest). I also think this ratio should be reviewed at least every couple of months. I would be open to a floating dividend/reinvestment ratio between 10/90 and 90/10. At least for me, the idea is to maintain a relatively constant dividend per share over time. If this does indeed become zero sum in the future (IE The BTC mined only pays for the electricity and hosting fees), then we would need to think about a vote on liquidating the assets.

Ultimately areas with low electricity costs will be more conducive to Bitcoin mining. As mining farms move to those areas I expect that it could actually cause the price of power to go up in those areas as huge BTC mines eat up surplus power. You can work out the details for yourself, but if hash rate continues to increase at 25 - 30% per month, by the time of the next block reward halving the Bitcoin network will be using the total power output of a medium sized nuclear power plant. 

[_biO_]

Well this should be interesting. Please bear in mind that trying to keep up with difficulty is impossible for the foreseeable future, vote for dividends, the mine will pay out more with 0% reinvestment than it ever would if we tried to keep it alive.

How do you reconcile that with the fact that we had a tenfold increase in difficulty since PETA-MINE started about 7 months ago (at least on havelock), yet the shareprice during that timeframe increased by more than 50% and is about to increase again with the recent deployment of new hardware?

edit: voted 50/50

You're linking share price and difficulty? Weird but ok, the share price went up because Cryptx bought new hardware. But this wasn't keeping up with the difficulty, if anything it is proof that we can't keep up. Our reinvestment fund didn't buy the new hardware, Cryptx loaned the money to Peta, we are in the red at the moment because we couldn't keep our network share with our reinvestment so we were forcefully lent money to try and stay in the game a bit longer.

What's weird about it? Your argument is that you can't keep up with difficulty, meaning the investment will lose value, since mining yields less and less. Yet the shares gained value, way above 50%. All the while dividends were paid. Yes, we are in the red, but after 2 weeks auf 100% reinvest (or rather payback) not by much, I guess? At least not compared to the hashing power we gained.

Anyone got numbers?

[nwfella]

50/50 safest bet imho as well.  Vote cast

[NotLambchop]

...
What's weird about it? Your argument is that you can't keep up with difficulty, meaning the investment will lose value, since mining yields less and less. Yet the shares gained value, way above 50%. ...

Dividends paid, shares gaining value...  Why would you want to mess with such a winning combination by issuing another IPO and cutting divs?  Or...

*Are you a wizard?

[_biO_]

At any point in the future? Only during (I)POs, you mean? (regarding reinvestment in cryptx)

You could just buy more existing shares at market price at any point, but indeed for peta to grow, they should simply issue new shares representing new hashrate regularly.

But then you don't know who's going to invest how much and how much hardware that buys. Then it becomes too risky to reinvest at all. Knowing upfront how much reinvestment we'll have is key to success?

[_biO_]

...
What's weird about it? Your argument is that you can't keep up with difficulty, meaning the investment will lose value, since mining yields less and less. Yet the shares gained value, way above 50%. ...

Dividends paid, shares gaining value...  Why would you want to mess with such a winning combination by issuing another IPO and cutting divs?

Higher dividends after and further increased value?

[IPO Magic]

...
What's weird about it? Your argument is that you can't keep up with difficulty, meaning the investment will lose value, since mining yields less and less. Yet the shares gained value, way above 50%. ...

Dividends paid, shares gaining value...  Why would you want to mess with such a winning combination by issuing another IPO and cutting divs?

Higher dividends after and further increased value?

B.but the "value" was increasing before the IPO, and now it's ... decreasing



Whahappened?

[_biO_]

...
What's weird about it? Your argument is that you can't keep up with difficulty, meaning the investment will lose value, since mining yields less and less. Yet the shares gained value, way above 50%. ...

Dividends paid, shares gaining value...  Why would you want to mess with such a winning combination by issuing another IPO and cutting divs?

Higher dividends after and further increased value?

B.but the "value" was increasing before the IPO, and now it's ... decreasing



Whahappened?

supply > demand happened. let's see what happens when the new dividend shows up on havelock and what that does to demand.

[NotLambchop]

Lol, OK.  Seems the second initial public offering killed teh demand  
In other news, Active Mining gets B& and V&:  http://www.news-leader.com/story/news/local/ozarks/2014/06/02/secretary-state-halts-springfield-bitcoin-business/9871263/

[Puppet]

But then you don't know who's going to invest how much and how much hardware that buys. Then it becomes too risky to reinvest at all. Knowing upfront how much reinvestment we'll have is key to success?

I dont understand how this is so hard for almost all of you. Investing is the exact same thing as reinvesting, all that differs is the source of the funds, and the choice you no longer have. If reinvesting is a good move, then so is investing. And if investing (in new shares) isnt a good move and doesnt happen because the market thinks its a bad move, just how happy will you be that a large part of your revenue is being "re"-invested anyway?

Seriously IM going to start selling "100% reinvesting mining rigs" with a custom firmware. They wont produce a single BTC for you, but once in a while, whenever I say you mined 5 BTC for me, I will send you another miner at whatever hashrate I decide is reasonable at that time. Mind you, not that the new rigs will earn you a single satoshi, but you will be able to glance at the statistics and feel rich. After a few years, you may well have 5 mining rigs all from buying just one. All of them generating just bitcoin dust, but what a deal!

[Elvis Trout]

Well this should be interesting. Please bear in mind that trying to keep up with difficulty is impossible for the foreseeable future, vote for dividends, the mine will pay out more with 0% reinvestment than it ever would if we tried to keep it alive.

How do you reconcile that with the fact that we had a tenfold increase in difficulty since PETA-MINE started about 7 months ago (at least on havelock), yet the shareprice during that timeframe increased by more than 50% and is about to increase again with the recent deployment of new hardware?

edit: voted 50/50

You're linking share price and difficulty? Weird but ok, the share price went up because Cryptx bought new hardware. But this wasn't keeping up with the difficulty, if anything it is proof that we can't keep up. Our reinvestment fund didn't buy the new hardware, Cryptx loaned the money to Peta, we are in the red at the moment because we couldn't keep our network share with our reinvestment so we were forcefully lent money to try and stay in the game a bit longer.

What's weird about it? Your argument is that you can't keep up with difficulty, meaning the investment will lose value, since mining yields less and less. Yet the shares gained value, way above 50%. All the while dividends were paid. Yes, we are in the red, but after 2 weeks auf 100% reinvest (or rather payback) not by much, I guess? At least not compared to the hashing power we gained.

Anyone got numbers?

The shares gained value when it was announced the hash rate was tripling. This was paid for NOT by our reinvestment but by a loan. This was an engineered rise in share price influenced by outside factors. Cryptx won't always be able to loan Peta a huge amount of money, and even if they are always willing to do that the amount they can loan will eventually be dwarfed by the difficulty.

[_biO_]

Well this should be interesting. Please bear in mind that trying to keep up with difficulty is impossible for the foreseeable future, vote for dividends, the mine will pay out more with 0% reinvestment than it ever would if we tried to keep it alive.

How do you reconcile that with the fact that we had a tenfold increase in difficulty since PETA-MINE started about 7 months ago (at least on havelock), yet the shareprice during that timeframe increased by more than 50% and is about to increase again with the recent deployment of new hardware?

edit: voted 50/50

You're linking share price and difficulty? Weird but ok, the share price went up because Cryptx bought new hardware. But this wasn't keeping up with the difficulty, if anything it is proof that we can't keep up. Our reinvestment fund didn't buy the new hardware, Cryptx loaned the money to Peta, we are in the red at the moment because we couldn't keep our network share with our reinvestment so we were forcefully lent money to try and stay in the game a bit longer.

What's weird about it? Your argument is that you can't keep up with difficulty, meaning the investment will lose value, since mining yields less and less. Yet the shares gained value, way above 50%. All the while dividends were paid. Yes, we are in the red, but after 2 weeks auf 100% reinvest (or rather payback) not by much, I guess? At least not compared to the hashing power we gained.

Anyone got numbers?

The shares gained value when it was announced the hash rate was tripling. This was paid for NOT by our reinvestment but by a loan. This was an engineered rise in share price influenced by outside factors. Cryptx won't always be able to loan Peta a huge amount of money, and even if they are always willing to do that the amount they can loan will eventually be dwarfed by the difficulty.

It gained value way before the announcement and was rarely below IPO price since launch. I'd also say we did a bit more than just "keeping up with the difficulty" in the last upgrade.

[_biO_]

But then you don't know who's going to invest how much and how much hardware that buys. Then it becomes too risky to reinvest at all. Knowing upfront how much reinvestment we'll have is key to success?

I dont understand how this is so hard for almost all of you. Investing is the exact same thing as reinvesting, all that differs is the source of the funds, and the choice you no longer have.

Doesn't the lack of choice make it more predictable? If I knew it would be a good investment if they'd at least raise some amount X (to get a good deal with the supplier, hosting, etc.), but cannot know if they're able to hit that target, I'm more inclined to stay away? Potentially killing a good investment opportunity?

You must admit, so far it worked. I don't think the project will survive any kind of difficulty increase, but so far so good?

[spartan82]

But then you don't know who's going to invest how much and how much hardware that buys. Then it becomes too risky to reinvest at all. Knowing upfront how much reinvestment we'll have is key to success?

I dont understand how this is so hard for almost all of you. Investing is the exact same thing as reinvesting, all that differs is the source of the funds, and the choice you no longer have. If reinvesting is a good move, then so is investing. And if investing (in new shares) isnt a good move and doesnt happen because the market thinks its a bad move, just how happy will you be that a large part of your revenue is being "re"-invested anyway?

Seriously IM going to start selling "100% reinvesting mining rigs" with a custom firmware. They wont produce a single BTC for you, but once in a while, whenever I say you mined 5 BTC for me, I will send you another miner at whatever hashrate I decide is reasonable at that time. Mind you, not that the new rigs will earn you a single satoshi, but you will be able to glance at the statistics and feel rich. After a few years, you may well have 5 mining rigs all from buying just one. All of them generating just bitcoin dust, but what a deal!

Is it cheaper to buy 100 mining units or 1?  if you so desire to receive all the dividends go to cex.io buy a mining rig whatever. This is pretty much the future of bitcoin mining.  0% reinvestment == collapse of PETA, so you end up having 1000s of shares that can mine no more... I much prefer a stablish share price, 50% going to the reinvestment and 50% given to me. For me this is a long term investment. 

Agreed! What's the point of this mining fund if we aren't growing? If you want max return now then buy gh from cex or similar. If cryptx can secure well priced contracts for mining chips and have its own development team working on making these miners at a price that will most definitely find ROI and then some then that is what will keep this fund being successful. I really don't think it is hard to do and if that means sacrificing most of my divs to be successful in future then I vote all for it.

[Collider]

I would support a higher reinvestment percentage, as it is the biggest advantage of this fund.

As a group with substantial buying power, we will have even better access to top-of-the-line mining hardware, beating competitors with our high efficiency, cheap hardware prices and low hosting costs.

At cex every GH is trading for around 0.07 and each of our shares represent atleast 15GH. We also have a much lower hosting cost than cex AND the big advantage of continous reinvestment.

Therefore, the shares are currently undervalued imo.

[Aireun]

But then you don't know who's going to invest how much and how much hardware that buys. Then it becomes too risky to reinvest at all. Knowing upfront how much reinvestment we'll have is key to success?

I dont understand how this is so hard for almost all of you. Investing is the exact same thing as reinvesting, all that differs is the source of the funds, and the choice you no longer have. If reinvesting is a good move, then so is investing. And if investing (in new shares) isnt a good move and doesnt happen because the market thinks its a bad move, just how happy will you be that a large part of your revenue is being "re"-invested anyway?

Seriously IM going to start selling "100% reinvesting mining rigs" with a custom firmware. They wont produce a single BTC for you, but once in a while, whenever I say you mined 5 BTC for me, I will send you another miner at whatever hashrate I decide is reasonable at that time. Mind you, not that the new rigs will earn you a single satoshi, but you will be able to glance at the statistics and feel rich. After a few years, you may well have 5 mining rigs all from buying just one. All of them generating just bitcoin dust, but what a deal!

Is it cheaper to buy 100 mining units or 1?  if you so desire to receive all the dividends go to cex.io buy a mining rig whatever. This is pretty much the future of bitcoin mining.  0% reinvestment == collapse of PETA, so you end up having 1000s of shares that can mine no more... I much prefer a stablish share price, 50% going to the reinvestment and 50% given to me. For me this is a long term investment. 

Agreed! What's the point of this mining fund if we aren't growing? If you want max return now then buy gh from cex or similar. If cryptx can secure well priced contracts for mining chips and have its own development team working on making these miners at a price that will most definitely find ROI and then some then that is what will keep this fund being successful. I really don't think it is hard to do and if that means sacrificing most of my divs to be successful in future then I vote all for it.

+1

I agree!

[Puppet]

Agreed! What's the point of this mining fund if we aren't growing?

You prefer growth in meaningless numbers over BTC denominated profitability ? Or you think profitability would not lead to growth? If you are so sure cryptx will do or continue to do a good job, why would it not grow and be able to sell more shares, representing more hashrate,  without its current shareholders being forced to increase their investment over time on terms they can not dictate, in circumstances they can not foresee?

[howardb]

Lol, OK.  Seems the second initial public offering killed teh demand  
In other news, Active Mining gets B& and V&:  http://www.news-leader.com/story/news/local/ozarks/2014/06/02/secretary-state-halts-springfield-bitcoin-business/9871263/

Yeah i'm pretty sure that if Cryptx was in US I would not be risking investing in PETA, thankfully other states are not quite as draconian, that being said, it's totally unregulated so caveat emptor.