[Havelock] Bitcoin Difficulty Derivative (BDD)

[twentyseventy]

Period 15 End Report - July 26, 2014


Previous Units              11660
EXCH Sold                   1064
Less Buybacks              209
New Total Units            12515

Previous Balance          327.17907460
Price per EXCH             0.02890175
Gross Sales of EXCH      30.75146200

Less Fees                    0.12400584
Less Dividends              23.27645432
Less Buybacks              5.65284309
Less Mgmt Fee              0.61502392
Net Balance                  328.26220943

End of Period NAV/U     0.02622950

New Difficulty                  18,736,441,558
New Daily Dividend         0.00013420
New Reserve per Unit        0.02684000

NAV/U Less New Reserve = 0.02622950 - 0.02684000 = -0.00061050

SELL Dividend                 None (Because NAV/U is less than the new Reserve (200 Days of Dividends))

You'll notice that I calculate the new Dividend to eight digits and multiply that times 200 Days to get the new Reserve. Those of you that did your own calculations may come up with a slightly different number if you chose not to round or to round elsewhere.

New EXCH Sales Price          0.02701639

[1714620211]

1714620211

[twentyseventy]

Period 16, Day 0 Report - July 26, 2014

Balance Post Divs: BTC 326.58269643

Total Units: 12515

NAV/U: BTC 0.02609530

[Draino]

i avoid using my brain when i can

anyone know roughly what the next diff increase % has to be for a sell div?

thanks/sry

[jjdub7]

i avoid using my brain when i can

anyone know roughly what the next diff increase % has to be for a sell div?

thanks/sry

If the 2.3% deficit is right, then 8.8%

[jjdub7]

Period 15 End Report - July 26, 2014


...

NAV/U Less New Reserve = 0.02622950 - 0.02684000 = -0.00061050

Yep according what I have: deficit (-0.00061050) over new reserve (0.02684000)= 2.27459% ~ 2.275% + the 6.5% needed for the fund to be in excess should equal 8.775% or 8.775%/0.5% per day paid = 4.55 days' worth of deficit (essentially, this is debt that SELL owes MINE) + 13 days required for payments.

[twentyseventy]

Period 16, Day 1 Report - July 27, 2014

Balance Post Divs: BTC 326.84564897

Total Units: 12589

NAV/U: BTC 0.02596279

[twentyseventy]

Period 15 End Report - July 26, 2014


...

NAV/U Less New Reserve = 0.02622950 - 0.02684000 = -0.00061050

Yep according what I have: deficit (-0.00061050) over new reserve (0.02684000)= 2.27459% ~ 2.275% + the 6.5% needed for the fund to be in excess should equal 8.775% or 8.775%/0.5% per day paid = 4.55 days' worth of deficit (essentially, this is debt that SELL owes MINE) + 13 days required for payments.

Yeah, I'm coming up with right about 9.05%, so we're not too far off from each other.

For each incremental increase of ~7% in the Difficulty, the Period shortens by 1 Day (i.e. if there was an increase of 49% then the period would be about 7 Days long). So if it increases between 7% to 14% (where is where we fall here), we're only going to have to pay out 12 days of dividends instead of 13, which is where I think the (small) difference is.

[twentyseventy]

Period 16, Day 2 Report - July 28, 2014

Balance Post Divs: BTC 325.41870050

Total Units: 12599

NAV/U: BTC 0.02582893

[sillywhim]

This has probably been talked about before, but I'd be interested to know if this could apply to B.EXCH. The full release does reveal that the US Securities Commission actively monitors BITCOINTALK Forum. Most nations have a similar US Securities Enforcement counterpart. You might be of interest to them 20's as it appears you are offering THREE unregistered securities not just two like Voorhees. And this business with the daily NAVs makes things look like mutual funds. You are digging your own grave. Do seek legal advice before writing anymore (but I fear it is too late.)

No one is beyond the law.

And I'm extremely interested in this "full disgorgement" process i.e. does the disgorged money go to the "shareholders" or to the Feds? (We all know the answer.) So then, how many "shareholders" would actually petition the Fed for redress?

 http://www.sec.gov/News/PressRelease/Detail/PressRelease/1370541972520#.U9b6rY1dUtQ:


Washington D.C., June 3, 2014 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged the co-owner of two Bitcoin-related websites for publicly offering shares in the two ventures without registering them.
An SEC investigation found that Erik T. Voorhees published prospectuses on the Internet and actively solicited investors to buy shares in SatoshiDICE and FeedZeBirds.  But he failed to register the offerings with the SEC as required under the federal securities laws.  Investors paid for their shares using Bitcoin, a virtual currency that can be used to purchase real-world goods and services and exchanged for fiat currencies on certain online exchanges.  The profits ultimately earned by Voorhees through the unregistered offerings totaled more than $15,000.

Voorhees agreed to settle the SEC’s charges by paying full disgorgement of the $15,843.98 in profits plus a $35,000 penalty for a total of more than $50,000.

“All issuers selling securities to the public must comply with the registration provisions of the securities laws, including issuers who seek to raise funds using Bitcoin,” said Andrew J. Ceresney, director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement.  “We will continue to focus on enforcing our rules and regulations as they apply to digital currencies.”

[twentyseventy]

I'm very aware of the current regulatory environment regarding the issuance of stocks, bonds, and other types of securities in the US.

I'm equally aware of the Erik Voorhees case; in my opinion, that was simply a slap on the wrist for him. He ran the largest (at the time) BTC gambling operation in the world, netting him millions in profits. The SEC charged him with securities violations due to his issuance of stock in FeedZeBirds and S.DICE, much like the IRS arresting Al Capone for tax evasion.

People here fail to realize that the US Gov't didn't set out to get Big Bad Voorhees for issuing stock; they wanted to get him on gambling charges, but that was proving too difficult.

That all being said, B.MINE, B.SELL, and B.EXCH are all linked contracts issued by and on HavelockInvestments.com - I am the Manager, for which I take a percentage of the sales of EXCH and a percentage of Havelock's trading fees generated by the trading of the three contracts. The daily NAV/U listings are exactly that - just the Fund's net asset value divided by the total number of units. All of the assets are liquid (BTC).

I've never called BDD anything but exactly what it is and have certainly never positioned as like a mutual fund or other investment vehicle. Regarding your 'disgorgement' scare tactics - I don't have direct control of the funds, Havelock does, so that's a non-starter. To be candid, I believe that Havelock and the companies/contracts/etc. listed there are pretty small-fry for the SEC; they're looking to go after the big boys and the big scammers (not that I think that any of the listed funds are scams - the SEC just has better reason to try and get those actively scamming people versus those acting in good faith, but simply outside the constraints of securities laws).

In addition to that, I believe that I've proven myself to be one of the most trustworthy members in this subforum during my time here. I'm here literally every day posting the NAV/U, issuing full reports after every ~12 day period, and answering questions. Finally, if Wall Street has shown us anything in the last decade, it's that the real innovation often gets done more quickly than regulation does; at this point, the laws surrounding Bitcoin and BTC-linked activities are sparse, at best, unless you're running a simple MSB. Until there are some clear guidelines regarding a US resident managing the day-to-day operations for a set of derivative contracts issued by a Bitcoin-based exchange based in Panama, I'm going to keep managing BDD as is. In the absolute worst case scenario, I can relinquish control of BDD to Havelock (though this isn't news to anyone that's been paying attention over the past six months).

Your concern is appreciated and noted.

[havelock]

All of our Funds and our Exchange are registered, regulated and approved by the regulatory body in our jurisdication.The Funds are administered by a law firm and an accounting firm. Please do not assume that the SEC is the only regulatory body. Every country has their own regulators.  Erik  a great person that has always done his best to help move bitcoin forward, did not register his offering at the time, our Funds however are registered. TwentySeventy position in the BDD fund is to manage the front end day to day investor relations.  Havelock Investment provides an open platform for the Bitcoin community to exchange units of our Funds in a safe secure way. The free market determines the value of those Funds.   

We have worked hard over the past couple of years to evolve with the Bitcoin Eco system. We thank everyone in the community that have supported our efforts. 

Thank you,
Havelock Investments

[NotLambchop]

All of our Funds and our Exchange are registered, regulated and approved by the regulatory body in our jurisdication.The Funds are administered by a law firm and an accounting firm. Please do not assume that the SEC is the only regulatory body. Every country has their own regulators.  Erik  a great person that has always done his best to help move bitcoin forward, did not register his offering at the time, our Funds however are registered. TwentySeventy position in the BDD fund is to manage the front end day to day investor relations.  Havelock Investment provides an open platform for the Bitcoin community to exchange units of our Funds in a safe secure way. The free market determines the value of those Funds.  

We have worked hard over the past couple of years to evolve with the Bitcoin Eco system. We thank everyone in the community that have supported our efforts.  

Thank you,
Havelock Investments

Twentysevent is a US national,* using your services in breach of your stated TOS.**

So now you know

P.S: Any good news from Mr. Galfry Puechavy of MintSpare (8894 Southwest 129th Terrace, Miami, FL 33176-5945)?  Any plans for the 100 BTC you're "holding" for him?

*https://localbitcoins.com/ad/99436/buy-bitcoins-with-cash-winder-ga-usa
** https://www.havelockinvestments.com/havelock-tos.pdf

[twentyseventy]

P.S: Any good news from Mr. Galfry Puechavy of MintSpare (8894 Southwest 129th Terrace, Miami, FL 33176-5945)?  Any plans for the 100 BTC you're "holding" for him?

Please take your battle with Havelock to the HIF thread or the Mintspare thread, this is the BDD thread.

[NotLambchop]

^You have a propensity for popping up in my threads, offering your opinion regarding my true identity.
I feel it's only right to return the favor

Re. Mr. Galfry:  Just another US national like yourself whose fine offering was vetted by Havelock.

[twentyseventy]

Period 16, Day 3 Report - July 29, 2014

Balance Post Divs: BTC 324.77789604

Total Units: 12639

NAV/U: BTC 0.02569648

[jjdub7]

Washington D.C., June 3, 2014 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged the co-owner of two Bitcoin-related websites for publicly offering shares in the two ventures without registering them.
An SEC investigation found that Erik T. Voorhees published prospectuses on the Internet and actively solicited investors to buy shares in SatoshiDICE and FeedZeBirds.  But he failed to register the offerings with the SEC as required under the federal securities laws.  Investors paid for their shares using Bitcoin, a virtual currency that can be used to purchase real-world goods and services and exchanged for fiat currencies on certain online exchanges.  The profits ultimately earned by Voorhees through the unregistered offerings totaled more than $15,000.

Voorhees agreed to settle the SEC’s charges by paying full disgorgement of the $15,843.98 in profits plus a $35,000 penalty for a total of more than $50,000.

“All issuers selling securities to the public must comply with the registration provisions of the securities laws, including issuers who seek to raise funds using Bitcoin,” said Andrew J. Ceresney, director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement.  “We will continue to focus on enforcing our rules and regulations as they apply to digital currencies.”

What you utterly fail to recognize is that the penalty is chump change for issuing unregistered securities anyway?  Furthermore the SEC doesn't want to start a fight in the Supreme Court right now, which will happen in this scenario until they clarify crowdsourcing regulations set forth by the JOBS Act.

[NotLambchop]

What falsehood did you discover in my post, specifically?  Or do you just need to vent?

[twentyseventy]

Period 16, Day 4 Report - July 30, 2014

Balance Post Divs: BTC 325.81169381

Total Units: 12743

NAV/U: BTC 0.02556789

[jjdub7]

What falsehood did you discover in my post, specifically?  Or do you just need to vent?

Washington D.C., June 3, 2014 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged the co-owner of two Bitcoin-related websites for publicly offering shares in the two ventures without registering them.
An SEC investigation found that Erik T. Voorhees published prospectuses on the Internet and actively solicited investors to buy shares in SatoshiDICE and FeedZeBirds.  But he failed to register the offerings with the SEC as required under the federal securities laws.  Investors paid for their shares using Bitcoin, a virtual currency that can be used to purchase real-world goods and services and exchanged for fiat currencies on certain online exchanges.  The profits ultimately earned by Voorhees through the unregistered offerings totaled more than $15,000.

Voorhees agreed to settle the SEC’s charges by paying full disgorgement of the $15,843.98 in profits plus a $35,000 penalty for a total of more than $50,000.

“All issuers selling securities to the public must comply with the registration provisions of the securities laws, including issuers who seek to raise funds using Bitcoin,” said Andrew J. Ceresney, director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement.  “We will continue to focus on enforcing our rules and regulations as they apply to digital currencies.”

What you utterly fail to recognize is that the penalty is chump change for issuing unregistered securities anyway?  Furthermore the SEC doesn't want to start a fight in the Supreme Court right now, which will happen in this scenario until they clarify crowdsourcing regulations set forth by the JOBS Act.

For once, you weren't the one I was arguing with. 

[NotLambchop]

^Huh.  OK.
BTW, there are two possible explanations as to why Voorhees got off so easy.
Perhaps, as you've suggested, the SEC didn't want to to come down hard on a gambling operator flagrantly ignoring SEC's own regulations.  Because ~pause for effect~ ...bad publicity.
Or Voorhees genuinely cooperated
I have no idea.