[GLBSE] PureMining: Infinite-term, deterministic mining bond

[Meni Rosenfeld]

You can see the divided on the puremining asset page.

That's kind of the problem, there is an entry in the asset page but we don't know if it was deducted and credited properly.

Is 0.2BTC a normal dividend payment or a test one?

If you mean the 0.72943025 BTC total paid, it's a real payment. I'm guessing it was registered when I first tried to pay dividend. But instead of paying 0.00206637 each to 353 shares, it should have paid 0.00145886 each to 500 shares.

It would be ideal if you can make sure the other 147 shares get paid. If all else fails I can do another 0.72943025 BTC payment, but I want to be reasonably assured that it will be distributed to everyone, including those who haven't migrated yet.

Was a dividend really paid at all? I'm not sure it was deducted at all from my account. If not I'll just try again to make a payment.

Code:

Payment date         | 	Total paid | 	Shares paid | 	Payment per share
2012-03-25 10:33	0.72943025 	353            	0.00206637

Perhaps 353 is actually the number of shareholders, many of whom own more than one share?

I doubt it.

I did not receive your dividend.

Did you import your account to 2.0? When?

[mila]

can it be that not migrated accounts are holding the 500 - 353 shares and that screws up the dividend payment?

[Meni Rosenfeld]

can it be that not migrated accounts are holding the 500 - 353 shares and that screws up the dividend payment?

That's my guess too.

[Nefario]

You can see the divided on the puremining asset page.

That's kind of the problem, there is an entry in the asset page but we don't know if it was deducted and credited properly.

Is 0.2BTC a normal dividend payment or a test one?

If you mean the 0.72943025 BTC total paid, it's a real payment. I'm guessing it was registered when I first tried to pay dividend. But instead of paying 0.00206637 each to 353 shares, it should have paid 0.00145886 each to 500 shares.

It would be ideal if you can make sure the other 147 shares get paid. If all else fails I can do another 0.72943025 BTC payment, but I want to be reasonable assured that it will be distributed to everyone, including those who haven't migrated yet.

Was a dividend really paid at all? I'm not sure it was deducted at all from my account. If not I'll just try again to make a payment.

Code:

Payment date         | 	Total paid | 	Shares paid | 	Payment per share
2012-03-25 10:33	0.72943025 	353            	0.00206637

Perhaps 353 is actually the number of shareholders, many of whom own more than one share?

I doubt it.

I did not receive your dividend.

Did you import your account to 2.0? When?

I'll send you the same amount in BTC to make another payment. It's going to mean that some users get a double payment but no one misses oemail me a bitcoin address to send to.

Nefario

[server]

I did not receive your dividend.

Did you import your account to 2.0? When?

GLBSE1MIGRATION    2012-03-25 07:40:29

[edit]
Claimed my old GLBSE 1.0 account again with the code and now I received your dividend.

Amount    Asset    Date
xxxxxxxx    PUREMINING    2012-03-26 06:32:38

I received 0.00145886 per share.

[/edit]

[Meni Rosenfeld]

I'll send you the same amount in BTC to make another payment. It's going to mean that some users get a double payment but no one misses oemail me a bitcoin address to send to.

As far as I can tell I wasn't charged the first time, so a refund is not necessary. It also doesn't seem anyone got paid.

I've made a payment again. Seems to be working now, reports on receiving the coupon are welcome.

[alexmat]

I've received a dividend and it was credited correctly.

Thanks to all involved for getting this resolved. Although I am a little uneasy about the reliability of the system, I am at least happy I can rely on the willingness of the people involved to work towards finding resolutions.

Cheers   

[organofcorti]

Just moved over my account now - not sure what's been paid since I can't acces the history on glbse1, and there's no history in glbse2, just the change over amount. I'm sure exactly the amount that was in there, so I can't shed any light on the subject of the 'missing payouts.

[Meni Rosenfeld]

If all goes well, I will issue 500 new bonds early next week.

The issue price is to be determined, but it will almost certainly be significantly lower than the current highest bid of 0.5 BTC. If the issue functionality will work similarly to how it was in 1.0, high bidders may end up paying more than they could have, so please take this into consideration.

[mila]

If all goes well, I will issue 500 new bonds early next week.

The issue price is to be determined, but it will almost certainly be significantly lower than the current highest bid of 0.5 BTC. If the issue functionality will work similarly to how it was in 1.0, high bidders may end up paying more than they could have, so please take this into consideration.

I was asking myself the same question, how will be buy orders filled if you issue new shares at lower price?
it might be also the case that they would trade at the issuing price.

edit: I should probably read some theory book about trading and how market should work

[Meni Rosenfeld]

If all goes well, I will issue 500 new bonds early next week.

The issue price is to be determined, but it will almost certainly be significantly lower than the current highest bid of 0.5 BTC. If the issue functionality will work similarly to how it was in 1.0, high bidders may end up paying more than they could have, so please take this into consideration.

I was asking myself the same question, how will be buy orders filled if you issue new shares at lower price?
it might be also the case that they would trade at the issuing price.

edit: I should probably read some theory book about trading and how market should work

I don't know how it works in the traditional world. In GLBSE 1.0 new issued bonds are sold normally from my account, so they will be matched against existing bids. I asked Nefario once for a feature to force the bonds to be sold at the lower price (which I think is fairer, as bidders will no longer have to worry about new issues); if this is not how it already is in 2.0, I'll remind him of this.

[Nefario]

If all goes well, I will issue 500 new bonds early next week.

The issue price is to be determined, but it will almost certainly be significantly lower than the current highest bid of 0.5 BTC. If the issue functionality will work similarly to how it was in 1.0, high bidders may end up paying more than they could have, so please take this into consideration.

I was asking myself the same question, how will be buy orders filled if you issue new shares at lower price?
it might be also the case that they would trade at the issuing price.

edit: I should probably read some theory book about trading and how market should work

I don't know how it works in the traditional world. In GLBSE 1.0 new issued bonds are sold normally from my account, so they will be matched against existing bids. I asked Nefario once for a feature to force the bonds to be sold at the lower price (which I think is fairer, as bidders will no longer have to worry about new issues); if this is not how it already is in 2.0, I'll remind him of this.

When you say "force sell at a lower price" do you mean you want to sell only for the price that is speicifed? i.e., that if you sell for 0.5BTC, and someone offers 1BTC that the transaction will still go through for 0.5BTC?

Sorry I've been offline the last few hours, I'm just after arriving back from Latvia.

[alexmat]

I asked Nefario once for a feature to force the bonds to be sold at the lower price (which I think is fairer, as bidders will no longer have to worry about new issues); if this is not how it already is in 2.0, I'll remind him of this.

Just curious, why do you care if the price is "fair", shouldn't you let the market price the asset? As long as you are upfront about new shares being issued ahead of time, people have all the information they need to make a bid.

[Meni Rosenfeld]

When you say "force sell at a lower price" do you mean you want to sell only for the price that is speicifed? i.e., that if you sell for 0.5BTC, and someone offers 1BTC that the transaction will still go through for 0.5BTC?

Yes.

I asked Nefario once for a feature to force the bonds to be sold at the lower price (which I think is fairer, as bidders will no longer have to worry about new issues); if this is not how it already is in 2.0, I'll remind him of this.

Just curious, why do you care if the price is "fair", shouldn't you let the market price the asset? As long as you are upfront about new shares being issued ahead of time, people have all the information they need to make a bid.

I don't think the current system allows the market to be efficient in setting the price. Each issue upsets the balance and bidders need to worry that if there's an issue their bids will be much more lossy than with normal market movements.

There's information disparity in announcing new issues in advance based on when people browse the forums. If someone learns of the issue before the bidders, he can execute their bid planning to buy back at the issue. This still means that bidders can't safely bid when future issues are a big unknown.

It is slightly better than if I hadn't announced in advance with the current system; but ideally, I should be able to issue new shares without any prior announcement.

[Nefario]

From what I understand, what meni wants is to be able to set a fixed sale price and not have buyers pay more for it.

[mila]

From what I understand, what meni wants is to be able to set a fixed sale price and not have buyers pay more for it.

exactly.

if new shares (bonds) are about to be released and somebody places a buy @100 btc, he should pay only .40 or what the actual new shares IPO would be.

not sure that merging shares has been discussed already. Kind of like the idea.
also split shares would be nice feature (replace 1 old with X new)

and I can think of some more options how to issue new shares ...

[Meni Rosenfeld]

From what I understand, what meni wants is to be able to set a fixed sale price and not have buyers pay more for it.

Why not make a second IPO with a different ticker and
then merge it with the first one once all shares are sold ?

Is that possible? And more importantly, why on earth would I want to do that? Making an IPO is cumbersome and costly. Having to keep track of two equivalent tickers until they are merged, and the merger itself, are sources of difficulty and confusion.

PS Ways to split and merge assets are going to be useful for an unrelated asset I have in mind.

[mila]

@fees for issuing new shares for existing assets, that would be free of charge

[Nefario]

@fees for issuing new shares for existing assets, that would be free of charge

That'd be nice, but probably Nefario's call.

No, mila is correct, there won't be any fees for issuing more shares.

What I will also do, specifically for bonds is allow new sub assets to be created for free (or very little).

So for example, an asset named BOND would be able to create a BOND.12.JAN, then BOND.12.FEB etc.
I'll probably even put a special interface just for bonds.

[mila]

@fees for issuing new shares for existing assets, that would be free of charge

That'd be nice, but probably Nefario's call.

Nefario wrote that elsewhere and I was merely quoting him

I may not know the difference between bond and share but reading & writing about stuff I read I can

I'd welcome cheaper creation of sub-assets in general
does glbse know / recognize ticker.sub as a sub-asset or is that concatenated automatically if the new asset is issued by an asset manager (instead of general user)?