NOTE: Please accept our apology for a low trust score. It is the result of a bogus trust report from trusted members we have not done business with at all.
Please know that we were approached by a number of people who have very high trust scores and said they could post for us on this forum and that would help us going forward. They wanted money for this and control. The control aspect more than the money concerned us. So, we declined their offer. We began posting as a new entity with zero score.
As a result, we have been attacked by trusted parties in retribution apparently to have us revisit our earlier decision, since we have been getting messages from those trusted parties to 'fix the problem' that has emerged. We have yet to resolve this situation and are working through it at the time of this writing.
What you're proposing is an extremely risky, theoretical and long-term investment model. This is not suitable for cryptocurrency.
The risk is reasonable given the return offered. Fact is, there have been over twenty asteroid missions and many sample return missions. All techniques used in the proposed mining method are TRL 7 or better. Development timelines and costs quoted by qualified vendors range from 18 to 36 months to flight ready systems and return of gold is estimated to be within 60 months of funding.
The system is automated and solar powered. For this reason we accept mission plans only for Apollo type asteroids that fly between the Earth and the sun and return every 1, 2 or 3 years precisely, and for which the spectral analysis of the asteroid shows a high level of platinum group metals (type O). There are thousands of these known.
Costs are $2.3 million per tonne for vehicle construction and testing. SpaceX Falcon Heavy has by far the most payload for the least cost $1.4 million per tonne. These specific launch costs are matched only for small secondary satellites which are limited to 5 tonnes or less (see ULA Rideshare program) -but they are matched. Given that a typical asteroid return mission involves the use of solar powered ion engines with a relatively high delta vee (Dawn Spacecraft visited several asteroids for example) - secondary payload status is not really an issue. Given the rise of nano-satellite technology using Micro-Electro-Mechanical Systems, smaller payloads are not an issue either. High schools and colleges have orbited satellites as secondary payloads on every commercial launch provider platform.
The statement 'This is not suitable for cryptocurency' is balderdash. Made up.
Has no basis in reality. Fact is, SGOLD is a smart commodity contract that gives the owner the right to demand 1 milligram of gold per month of funded production at 25% the market price for gold AT TIME OF DELIVERY. This is similar to other gold streaming contracts for terrestrial mines being planned. The discount rate is very high, unlikely to be matched in the future, despite the low production costs involved.
https://medium.com/@codetractio/codetract-partners-with-bullionstar-for-their-gold-smart-contract-41cead03fbc8It benefits the vendors by having a client who agrees to buy a fixed amount of their product, it benefits the contract (token) holder in that they have something of value the day they purchase their contract.
The value of any such contract is the value of the notional revenue stream discounted for risk. Let's look at the benefit to the vendor first, and then the buyer.
Each SGOLD sold at 0.0041 ETH today provides $0.3662 directly to the qualified vendor. It also promises a revenue stream against future production valued at 25% London Precious Metal Price. This is $2.49 per SGOLD sold, received as gold is produced. In this case at a rate of $0.0104 per month.
Now the value of a revenue stream is discounted by the risk involved.
Value of Notional Revenue to the VendorFor the vendor all they have to do is produce gold, and they are pretty sure they will receive $0.0104 PER MONTH for each SGOLD in circulation - for a period of production up to 240 months. This is a guaranteed market on top of the $0.3662 cash they get directly from each SGOLD sold. Applying 6.3% (the rate the Vanguard fund says they have achieved in the market) over 240 monthly payments obtains a NET PRESENT VALUE at time of sale for the vendor of $1.438 - netting a total value of $1.8042 FOR THE VENDOR.
There are 2 billion SGOLD in existence there will not be more until these are all contracted out with both vendor and buyer. New SGOLD if issued, will not have the extremely high discount rates of present SGOLD on offer because once gold contracts are delivered on, the discount rate will drop radically increasing the value of any new SGOLD planned, supporting higher prices for SGOLD already issued.
2 billion SGOLD represents a revenue stream valued at $3.6084 billion for the twelve vendors in addition to netting them $732.4 million immediate cash and a BANKABLE contract for product, that does not dilute their future earnings or share position. Sufficient to launch 1000 tonnes of mining engines at the prices indicated and returning 1.82x the gold needed to support this issue under the terms offered.
Value of Notional Revenue to the BuyerFor the buyer they are buying SGOLD and receive the token the day they pay 0.0041 ETH which is $0.5568 at the moment. Each SGOLD gives them a claim on 240 milligrams of gold production FROM SPACE using sponsored mining engines. This is of interest to all who want to see this happen. The value of this is of course 75% of the London Precious Metal price going forward of the 240 milligrams of the commodity purchased. This is $7.488 for each SGOLD purchased at $0.5568 delivered at a rate of $0.0312 per month. This has an implied discount rate AT TIME OF PURCHASE of 80.88% COMPOUND ANNUAL RETURN. The HIGH DISCOUNT RATE PROVIDES FOR THE HIGH RISK. Despite this high discount rate 1.82x the gold needed to support the contracts offered is produced.
Obviously as our vendors report receiving contracts and begin filing plans with the relevant agencies that regulate spaceflight, news articles will appear, and the perceived risk will drop to something a TRL 7 mission deserves and the value of SGOLD will rise to its fair market price (12% discount) $2.94718 prior to first delivery, or within 36 months. Which is a compound annual rate of return of 74.26%. After first delivery which occurs in 60 months after funding, ANNUAL RETURN drops to 50.68% as value rises to $4.314 - assuming today's price for gold, and assuming space gold is valued as a commodity, not a specialty or rarity.
Dear Nutildah, I have certain difficulty and if you can help me, I'll really appreciate it.
I presume this is real and not something made up just to continue your trolling campaign. They ask good question in any event and good questions deserve good answer - regardless of the source.
There is this questionable project,
Any statement gratuitously made can be gratuitously denied. This is a solid real and quite valuable project. Nutildah is obviously setting the stage to continue troll attacks. There is NO basis at this point to say asteroid mining is questionable. It may be a prejudice. The prejudice may be widely shared. However it is a prejudice only given the current state of the art among qualified vendors.
proposing to mine gold from space meteorites etc.
This is not questionable at all. A dozen qualified vendors have been identified as deserving of funds. As a buyer of willing to place streaming contracts with qualified vendors SGOLD has an EARLY MOVER ADVANTAGE over those who place such contracts with terrestrial mining operations.
While we knows that golds and other precious metals are abundant in space,
It depends on where you land. Carbonaceous chondrites (type C) asteroids are not particularly rich in platinum group metals and gold. Platinum iron-nickel asteroids, ARE rich in gold. In fact astronomers estimate gold abundance in these type asteroids exceed the abundance in most of Earth's gold ore. This is what makes the automated mining engine so productive.
I still would like to know more about their project. But, as I consult to their WP, I saw that they're not really careful (or perhaps didn't care at all) with their WP, where they have certain typo, and can't even locate it despite claiming have been reading their own WP carefully.
We wanted to have a start date that occured on 2 February 2019 for technical reasons. This rushed the development of the site. Any errors pointed out are welcome. We were rushed and we hired consultants to help us put together the site and paper. We have had several bitcointalk legendary members who have offered to help us for a fee, noting the errors, but not providing anything. When we refused their offer, not for the fee in btc they asked for, but for the control we thought wasn't needed over our operation. Following this Nutildah and Miike took it upon themselves to troll this site mercilessly. To be fair they were not the parties we were dealing with, but the timing was such that it seemed clear to us this attack was coordinated as retribution - since the original parties came back and asked if we had changed our minds. Fact is, it solifified our opinion that none of these parties is worth dealing with - despite their high trust score and the disparity with ours.
You would perhaps familiar with how they didn't realize their WP is.plagiarizing articles. This problem (simple typo aside) as I see, will rather have certain possibility of stirring problems as their line of works revolve around a situation where they act as an entity that lend funds (investors fund) to "space-miners", and they should review the loan application carefully. The idea is, if they can't even review their own WP, how could investors be sure they'll be extra careful with future loan applications?
https://cointelegraph.com/news/wsj-hundreds-of-crypto-projects-show-signs-of-plagiarism-fraud-and-improbable-returnsI apologise that the consultant I hired used the sources he did unattributed. He did not wish to be identified publicly, so I cannot say more about that until we come so some agreement. It is a problem, but fraud and unattributed sources are two different things. Quite frankly I was unaware that specific pointers had been made. Had that been made cleare to us in all your posts, our response would have been different. As it stands, we've elided all things we could find in the WP and will continue to work on it since the writer did not wish to be publicly outed at this time for us.
But when I pointed this out, instead of simply admitting the mistakes and explaining how these typos happen (and the lack of knowledge of plagiarism) and how to prevent it on future case of loan application, the community manager act rather uncooperatively by keep evading direct answer with his infamous "logical fallacies".
You got the response you did because you presumed a separate post had been read (it had not) and your previous trolling behavior in combination with off line communications with other high trust parties made it clear to us that we were being subject of meaningless attacks. I am giving you a chance, as I presume you are giving me a chance, to clear the air. So, I will be looking at your response with that hope in mind.
I would assume this very CM, which turns out to be a very rich and successful CEO (please don't ask me how his employee feels working for him, I don't want to "attack personally") is rather a fallacy-aholic, judging from how he always respond everything that against his project by breaking down sentences into several words and label them neatly with imaginative fallacy (a good member codenamed cool-bowtie rises a speculation that it perhaps his way of deflecting responsibility from mistakes) and accuse people who tries to prove the legitimacy of his project as Troll.
Again, you are setting yourself up for a troll attack - and those will not be responded to. You are not a psychotherapist, and even if you were, you have not done the work to support the conclusions you erroneously make above. I am responding to you in good faith, and hope you will do likewise.
Now, the problem is he decided to refuse answering me
Don't take it personally, your behaviour elicited a low trust score with us, even though we don't publish it! lol. We are giving you a chance here, because I see this as a chance for both of us to clear the air.
(which for a while, I conclude as a lost case as I didn't see how should I bother spending time asking someone who refuse to answer),
Now you are just ranting defending yourself. My only useful response, is off-topic, but is this; You should take the master reference to logical fallacies I provided, and realise when you are engaging in that activity.
but then I realized that, perhaps I can ask someone else to ask for me and see if he'll answer or he'll cling to his ultimate weapon of troll and fallacies despite the legit and crucial questions.
Again, this is setting you up to continue your troll attacks, or perhaps defending yourself in your own mind for your own bad behavior. We all get what we deserve in the end. I am giving you a chance to clear the air. I will be very sensitive if you use this as an opportunity to continue your baseless attacks.
If you don't mind, kindly ask (for me and for the future investors) about how long is his payback period, and how will this PP be affected by the very long ICO of five YEARS.
The very long ICO of five years means the prices will be STABLE during our initial period. This means that returns will be high, and rise higher as we approach launch dates. Prices will reflect the value of gold and ETH. As I said earlier I wanted 2 February 2019 to be the start date for technical reasons. This led to the problems we've had thus far.
NOTE: Basically I used wavelet and long-term analysis of ETH to determine that 2 Feb would be a long-term low for ETH - and wanted to have the ICO start at that date for technical reasons.
More here;
https://www.quora.com/If-you-could-only-invest-in-2-cryptocurrencies-in-2019-which-would-you-choose/answer/William-Mook
If he label you as troll as well and refuse to answer, I think the community may start to wonder why he kept evading answers and can begin to conclude how good is this project is.
I am not refusing to answer. I am refusing to feed trolls. There's a difference. The good news is I read your stuff. The better news is, I found some real questions in what you wrote here. Not that I believe for a minute you represent some serious deep pocket investors. That's just positioning yourself as a 'very serious person' (read the reference I provided on fallacies) and your hope to put SGOLD in a bad light. I will not respond well to that. The fact you took the trouble to point this detail out here counted against me answering this at all, I would have trouble trusting you enough to give you any more information than is available online. However, you DID ask good questions, and where you did ask good questions, I gave answers because all good questions deserve good answers.
I quit reading at the highlighted text above cuz the sGOLD dude nailed the overwhelming sentiment.
