|
RaggedMonk
|
 |
April 06, 2012, 05:54:16 PM |
|
Why is there more than one account anyway?
with each asset created there is a sub-account created to manage that asset. that means you should see an account labeled BTC - this is your main user account and accounts labeled as your assets. those are asset management accounts. every account has a btc balance and potfolio (can trade shares, receive dividends and so on) when you issue new shares, they appear in the asset management account and from there you can sell/transfer them etc. and only shares outside the asset management account are entitled for dividends & can vote. thus if you issued 1500 shares for tygrr mining and own part of it, make sure it is in your personal account. switching between accounts is done in the portfolio page, by clicking on the account name ... Are the funds of your different assets are mixed together? Or do some of your assets have ownership stakes in other ones? Seems like there is some mixing going on... :-/ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Your bitcoin is secured in a way that is physically impossible for others to access, no matter for what reason, no matter how good the excuse, no matter a majority of miners, no matter what." -- Greg Maxwell
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
dollartrader
|
|
April 07, 2012, 06:25:39 AM |
|
I sold 500 in panic myself at 0.0999 or something ..
Thanks for the shares by the way..  Just hate I didn't get any at .05.. |
|
|
|
|
rdponticelli
Sr. Member
 Offline
Activity: 325
Merit: 250
Our highest capital is the Confidence we build.
|
|
April 10, 2012, 03:04:29 PM |
|
I sold 500 in panic myself at 0.0999 or something ..
Thanks for the shares by the way.. Just hate I didn't get any at .05.. Me too. I missed them by a few inches. I removed a couple of orders around 0.07 and bought @0.089 just before the big dump... Anyway, was a great deal... |
|
|
|
|
|
mila
|
|
April 10, 2012, 03:54:05 PM |
|
Are the funds of your different assets are mixed together? Or do some of your assets have ownership stakes in other ones? Seems like there is some mixing going on... :-/
this was not implied. it's just an explanation how assets are managed in 2.0 and there might be issues from the claim process from 1.0 to 2.0 i did not test this particular part as i did not have any asset created in 1.0 and the claim worked anyway only in prod i wrote that to clarify where to look for shares (check each account portfolio) and make sure that shares not issued are in fact in asset manager account and vice versa, if user (person) should have any shares in his private account and they were for any reason imported in the asset manager sub-account that they should be transferred to the personal account. not sure if that was obvious from the previous post of mine. this is afaik a newish concept and a little detail worth checking and paying attention to for the record it is possible and desired that a sub account has it's own portfolio, p.ex. if it is a 'fund' and it's aim is to own shares in other companies and also needs to collect dividends or coupons from them and needs them in the asset bitcoin account. i'm mixing user 101 with asset manager 101 but hope you get the idea edit: even at 1% weekly this would be a good thing to own. better than bitcoins sitting in the wallet : ) |
your ad here:
|
|
|
|
RaggedMonk
|
|
April 10, 2012, 04:46:21 PM |
|
It sounds like he has used funds from one asset to pay dividends on another.
Now, I think Goat is pretty trustworthy, and don't think he is deliberately misleading investors or trying to make a ponzi scheme. But mixing funds from multiple sources (that are separate) creates the slippery slope that can turn innocent accounting mistakes into the need to either use fraudulent accounting measures or fold. I don't want to see that happen, so I hope Goat gets his books in order before it comes to that.
If he has a portfolio for one asset that contains the other, he needs to be managing dividend payments between assets just like dividends to investors. Mixing funds creates a serious moral hazard.
|
|
|
|
|
|
mila
|
|
April 10, 2012, 06:14:50 PM |
|
It can be also true that he holds btc balance in his personal account, that is the root account of all assets he created. Or where he sent funds to cover dividends and only then realized that dividends must be (can only be) paid from the sub-account of the asset manager and need to be either deposited there or sent there from any other account that has positive balance.
As long as his books keep the right info, it's not really my concern. 2.0 glbse started less then a month ago (2 and half weeks to be precise?) and we're still learning. I have no idea how to advise asset managers on proper accounting and is most probably none of my business. All I want to accomplish is to document the features and move forward with the user guides for both users and managers to smooth the experience (and learn my share).
for the mining it's pretty straightforward, he sends in the share of mining income.
for the bank it's probably the pirate's coupon share
for the bot, no idea
disclaimer ^^ wild guesswork
btw generous exchange rate for bitcoins to pay for the electricity. did anyone else noticed the 5$ in the formula?
|
your ad here:
|
|
|
|
filharvey
|
|
April 10, 2012, 08:17:26 PM |
|
I see the payment went out today. Just a note, has the number of shares / bonds gone down? I see that 14093 were paid out, when previously 16810 were paid out.
Phil
|
|
|
|
|
mila
|
|
April 10, 2012, 08:23:40 PM |
|
I see the payment went out today. Just a note, has the number of shares / bonds gone down? I see that 14093 were paid out, when previously 16810 were paid out.
that's correct observation. goat must have regained some shares, there's no other explanation |
your ad here:
|
|
|
|
stochastic
|
|
April 11, 2012, 05:58:40 AM |
|
I talked to the CEO of Bitcoin Savings and Trust a while ago and he says it is now okay for members to sub lend/borrow. This means I am now able to send BTC to pirates bank and thus able to pay a much higher rate than 2.5% a week. However if I were to do this the risk would be passed on to the investors. Right now if Bitcoin Savings and Trust goes down for what ever reason, do not worry because your coin is back up in real assets I have. However if I were to say move rates to 4% or something a week and get 5,000 BTC in there is no way I could cover that.
So before I hold a motion I would like your thoughts. Raise rates and increase risk, or leave it how it is now?
Also if I moved up rates significantly higher would there be a large inflow of coin? Just trying to see how the wind is blowing.
Thanks, Chaang-Noi
Personally, I think you should detail your plans with staying or leaving GLBSE like you stated you would in other threads. A guarantee that you would continue to issue bonds for TyGrr-Bank on GLBSE for the next 6 months is more important to me than if you change it to 4% and then decide to move away from using GLBSE. For your primary topic, what kind of risk are you talking about? What is the probability of an loan on the Pirate bank defaulted. What do people that borrow money from Pirate do with the money? If it is as risky as lending money to you then I see no problem with raising it. |
Introducing constraints to the economy only serves to limit what can be economical.
|
|
|
Kluge
Donator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1015
|
|
April 11, 2012, 05:59:51 AM |
|
I talked to the CEO of Bitcoin Savings and Trust a while ago and he says it is now okay for members to sub lend/borrow. This means I am now able to send BTC to pirates bank and thus able to pay a much higher rate than 2.5% a week. However if I were to do this the risk would be passed on to the investors. Right now if Bitcoin Savings and Trust goes down for what ever reason, do not worry because your coin is back up in real assets I have. However if I were to say move rates to 4% or something a week and get 5,000 BTC in there is no way I could cover that.
So before I hold a motion I would like your thoughts. Raise rates and increase risk, or leave it how it is now?
Also if I moved up rates significantly higher would there be a large inflow of coin? Just trying to see how the wind is blowing.
Thanks, Chaang-Noi
I'd prefer not. I have someone be a middleman for me on Pirate accounts (without insurance) @ 28%/month (very possibly increasing to 30% soon). For insured deposits, 15%/month. You'd be paying ~17-18% factoring in compound interest without insuring the coins. |
|
|
|
|
|
mila
|
|
April 11, 2012, 06:01:42 AM |
|
I talked to the CEO of Bitcoin Savings and Trust a while ago and he says it is now okay for members to sub lend/borrow. This means I am now able to send BTC to pirates bank and thus able to pay a much higher rate than 2.5% a week. However if I were to do this the risk would be passed on to the investors. Right now if Bitcoin Savings and Trust goes down for what ever reason, do not worry because your coin is back up in real assets I have. However if I were to say move rates to 4% or something a week and get 5,000 BTC in there is no way I could cover that.
So before I hold a motion I would like your thoughts. Raise rates and increase risk, or leave it how it is now?
Also if I moved up rates significantly higher would there be a large inflow of coin? Just trying to see how the wind is blowing.
Thanks, Chaang-Noi
U NO split bonds? 2.5 you vs public at tygrr-bank 4.0 you vs public at other-asset i mean i love the fact that you cover the eventual loss now and the higher interest won't convince me, no matter otc rating of pirate and as i wrote even 1% weekly relatively risk free is better than high risk lending venture |
your ad here:
|
|
|
|
brendio
|
|
April 11, 2012, 06:04:28 AM |
|
I am worried about the build up of systemic risk. If BS&T (pirate) goes down, it would now take a large portion of the bitcoin community with it. It is unclear how big this is, but I think the effect would be significant!
For disclosure, I have coins with pirate. I want my other investments to offer diversification. If I wanted to increase my exposure with pirate I would, but I like to manage my risk, and hence would not invest in other sub-lending offers of pirate without a guarantee.
|
|
|
|
coblee
Donator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1653
Merit: 1286
Creator of Litecoin. Cryptocurrency enthusiast.
|
|
April 11, 2012, 06:14:47 AM |
|
What would happen with all the GLBSE shares when you decide to leave it? Will you buy them all back at 0.1?
|
|
|
|
|
|
coblee
Donator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1653
Merit: 1286
Creator of Litecoin. Cryptocurrency enthusiast.
|
|
April 11, 2012, 06:18:58 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
stochastic
|
|
April 11, 2012, 06:34:47 AM |
|
I'm not sure we will leave GLBSE 100% but we will give people other options once we are set up. Also Your bonds will not become worthless if we leave GLBSE do not worry about that! The link above shows what will happen. Thanks. I don't worry about the payback I worry about the uncertainty. As you can see in the TyGrr-Bank graph during last weeks thing, people got nervous from the uncertainty. |
Introducing constraints to the economy only serves to limit what can be economical.
|
|
|
|
The00Dustin
|
|
April 11, 2012, 09:32:02 AM |
|
I'm not sure we will leave GLBSE 100% but we will give people other options once we are set up. Also Your bonds will not become worthless if we leave GLBSE do not worry about that! The link above shows what will happen. Thanks. But right now the buyback would be .1025 instead of .103, right? I know this, but people following that link without context could be confuse and upset later on... |
|
|
|
|
|
stochastic
|
|
April 11, 2012, 09:35:36 AM |
|
I'm not sure we will leave GLBSE 100% but we will give people other options once we are set up. Also Your bonds will not become worthless if we leave GLBSE do not worry about that! The link above shows what will happen. Thanks. But right now the buyback would be .1025 instead of .103, right? I know this, but people following that link without context could be confuse and upset later on... I think anyone investing in TyGrr-Bank should read every post in this tread before making an investment decision. |
Introducing constraints to the economy only serves to limit what can be economical.
|
|
|
|
The00Dustin
|
|
April 11, 2012, 09:58:32 AM |
|
I think anyone investing in TyGrr-Bank should read every post in this tread before making an investment decision. But you should know people are stupid and clearly don't do that, and you provided an answer to a question that was posted (the posting of a question that has already been answered implies the thread wasn't read) without providing context or warning that they need to read the whole thread to understand that post completely. So your behavior only serves to get at least one more person pissed off at goat down the road for no good reason. If you invest with him, you shouldn't want that, and shold have made your point (RTFT) without risking additional damage of public trust to your investments (something like "that has already been answered, read the thread" would have sufficed and I wouldn't have responded to it), if you don't, then my post is still exactly what Goat's should have been after a misleading post by a non-investor. |
|
|
|
|
|
Philj
|
|
April 11, 2012, 10:51:48 AM |
|
If you want to offer a higher unsecured rate that is a direct passthrough to Pirate, then you should create another asset. I'm fairly certain there there would be a lot of interest for those people that don't have a better line for investing with that type of account. You should leave this current asset the way it is now: secured by Goat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
