Bitcoin Forum
December 11, 2016, 04:36:17 AM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  

Warning: Moderators do not remove likely scams. You must use your own brain: caveat emptor. Watch out for Ponzi schemes. Do not invest more than you can afford to lose.

Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: [GLBSE] BFLS - Bitcoin Mining & Sales  (Read 15964 times)
copumpkin
Donator
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 266


I'm actually a pineapple


View Profile
April 09, 2012, 06:51:57 PM
 #41

This looks interesting.
1481430977
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481430977

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481430977
Reply with quote  #2

1481430977
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481430977
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481430977

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481430977
Reply with quote  #2

1481430977
Report to moderator
Vbs
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504


View Profile
April 09, 2012, 06:52:36 PM
 #42

I will likely be offering the same for MiniRig boxes and RigBoxes as well.
Would this all blend together with more BFLS shares per miniRig and RigBox, meaning early adopters would gain from the upgrade / addition, or would those be offered in separate tickers when thie time comes?
Oh, sorry.  No, I'm going to start a different GLSBE offering for that.  I am going to try to get to that today or tomorrow.

Why not?

It would just be a matter of you thinking how many bonds is worth buying+running+etc each equipment and price accordingly. No need to fraction the great idea you have here! Grin
Inaba
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile WWW
April 09, 2012, 07:45:39 PM
 #43

Is it possible to increase the number of shares available on an asset that's already created?

If you're searching these lines for a point, you've probably missed it.  There was never anything there in the first place.
kakobrekla
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714


Psi laju, karavani prolaze.


View Profile
April 09, 2012, 08:29:25 PM
 #44

Is it possible to increase the number of shares available on an asset that's already created?

IIRC nefario can grant this manually.

copumpkin
Donator
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 266


I'm actually a pineapple


View Profile
April 09, 2012, 08:54:47 PM
 #45

Is it possible to increase the number of shares available on an asset that's already created?

Are you increasing them because you've increased your capacity, or are you changing the terms you mentioned earlier?
Inaba
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile WWW
April 09, 2012, 09:06:16 PM
 #46

I was just asking to see if it's feasible to add in MiniRig Boxes to the offering or if creating a new offering is the way to go.  I also plan on increasing capacity beyond 10 at some point as well, so the need would be there also.

If you're searching these lines for a point, you've probably missed it.  There was never anything there in the first place.
tgmarks
Donator
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 490


View Profile
April 09, 2012, 09:44:44 PM
 #47

I feel like the investment into a mini-rig mining company is vert different than into a rent-to-own singles operation. If this current plan changed to add a mini-rig I feel like that could change the dynamic for many.

DILLIGAF
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 168



View Profile
April 09, 2012, 10:23:09 PM
 #48

I feel like the investment into a mini-rig mining company is vert different than into a rent-to-own singles operation. If this current plan changed to add a mini-rig I feel like that could change the dynamic for many.

Different indeed most of the other offers I have seen are priced at about 2-3x more expensive than this one plus you can end up owning the hardware with this as well, not just some promise of you get the hash power forever for your money invested.
Vbs
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504


View Profile
April 09, 2012, 10:40:38 PM
 #49

I feel like the investment into a mini-rig mining company is vert different than into a rent-to-own singles operation. If this current plan changed to add a mini-rig I feel like that could change the dynamic for many.

The investment is based on # shares per equipment value/running costs/etc, as well as the price of each share. Can't really see how the dynamics would change Huh

Not fractioning this seems a really better investment, since you will be able to trade your shares for various equipment types over the long run, instead of your investment being devalued when singles are no more the flavor of the month.

Is it possible to increase the number of shares available on an asset that's already created?

@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.
BinaryMage
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 546


Ad astra.


View Profile
April 09, 2012, 11:12:14 PM
 #50


The investment is based on # shares per equipment value/running costs/etc, as well as the price of each share. Can't really see how the dynamics would change Huh

Not fractioning this seems a really better investment, since you will be able to trade your shares for various equipment types over the long run, instead of your investment being devalued when singles are no more the flavor of the month.


I agree. As a potential investor, having potentiality of trading shares for up-to-date hardware is extremely appealing. I would much prefer it be one stock for everything rather than multiple for each.

On an unrelated note, Inaba, would it be possible for you to verify your identity with Nefario? You certainly have a good reputation here and run your own pool, but it would be nice nonetheless.

-- BinaryMage -- | OTC | PGP
Inaba
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile WWW
April 10, 2012, 01:01:41 AM
 #51

Quote
On an unrelated note, Inaba, would it be possible for you to verify your identity with Nefario? You certainly have a good reputation here and run your own pool, but it would be nice nonetheless.

I can look into it... not sure what needs to be done exactly? 

If I were to combine the two (Singles + MiniRigs) how would the shares be priced, though?  They'd have to be pegged to USD I guess... so what's a good value? $1 USD per share?  More, less?  I'm certainly open to ideas.

If you're searching these lines for a point, you've probably missed it.  There was never anything there in the first place.
JWU42
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1484


View Profile
April 10, 2012, 01:45:37 AM
 #52

$1 per share worked fairly well for someone else recently  Cheesy

Get me a mini-rig pronto Inaba  -- seems you are a more public voice than BFL Grin

GPG PubKey | THREEMA | OTC | HeatWare | 1JWU42QLGFESoQCC4iPzUDTRiC9nx5bi95
BinaryMage
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 546


Ad astra.


View Profile
April 10, 2012, 04:43:40 AM
 #53

Quote
On an unrelated note, Inaba, would it be possible for you to verify your identity with Nefario? You certainly have a good reputation here and run your own pool, but it would be nice nonetheless.

I can look into it... not sure what needs to be done exactly? 

If I were to combine the two (Singles + MiniRigs) how would the shares be priced, though?  They'd have to be pegged to USD I guess... so what's a good value? $1 USD per share?  More, less?  I'm certainly open to ideas.


I'm afraid I haven't issued any assets on GLBSE, so I'm not sure exactly how the verification process works, but AFAIK you just send Nefario proof of phone, proof of email, proof of identity (copy of driver's license or the similar), proof of address, and show him Facebook/LinkedIn accounts if you have them. You can do none to all of that. I don't think it's that complicated; gigavps did it for his similar "perpetual MH/s" offering and seemed satisfied with the process.

As for share layout, I'm always glad to offer suggestions.

My initial thoughts:
- Shares priced at 1 BTC (~5 USD) (If you want higher priced shares, just multiply.  Wink )

Why: Easy round number, not ridiculously small but not too large. (I don't think really anyone would buy less than 1 BTC worth, but speak up if I'm not correct in that assumption.)

- Take the USD new price for a single/box, add ~10-20% depending on your wishes (estimating what you'd be comfortable with based on your previous stated prices) and set that as the trade-in price. (so, say, ~140-150 shares per single, ~3600-3800 shares per mini-rig, equivalent to ~5.5-5.9 MH/s per 1 BTC share)

Why: Flexibility for investors, some profit for you assuming USD/BTC stays fairly stable.


-- BinaryMage -- | OTC | PGP
The00Dustin
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 806


View Profile
April 10, 2012, 10:33:13 AM
 #54

If you don't want to change your original contract, you could start with ($persingle/170/$perbtc).  This gives you a 15% overhead and makes shares .7BTC if a BFL is $600 and a BTC is $5 (and you take in $600 per single in the IPO).  However, I'd be very afraid to do this the way you have suggested and would recommend delaying the IPO and rewording the contract (possibly changing the ticker to make sure everyone is aware of the changes).  Why?  Because unless market price for the shares stays roughly proportional to the current share to USD ratio (or increases vs. that proportional difference), you risk losing money.  I see the following scenarios happening based on watching other shares:

1) $perbtc drops and shareholders who have received payments sell to break even in BTC (or at original purchase value in BTC, which is less $) and switch to a new security that looks better, buyers at the lower $perbtc get shares at a discount and therefore get BFLs at a discount if you are selling them and starting new units, which you publicly re-offer 170 shares for (keeping 30) at market value (meaning the $170 shares don't pay for the newly added unit and 200 coming back might not)

2) shareholders undercut your additional market offerings when they want to sell and they don't want to wait fro the 170btc ask wall to be broken, so either the additional single isn't paid for, or losses from scenario described in one et greater faster as you lower the ask for that offering

3) $perbtc increases and shareholders don't sell lower accordingly, so the share value in BTC is stable, but the $persingle gets higher and the BFL rotation doesn't happen

These are just examples of the problem with share price being in BTC while singles are sold in USD.  Even if the security was for something truly sold in BTC, the value of BTC hasn't ever been stable, so it is still like you are selling a commodity priced on another commodity instead of selling an item based on a currency.  This is just risk, if you are comfortable with it, that is fine.  Another good concern was brought up earlier in the thread though, that there wouldn't be any shares left in the wild after roughly 66 units were sold.  This assumes you don't sell the extra 30 shares you earned rotating BFLs, though, which you could.  Also, in order to keep dividend payments consistent/accurate for shareholders, you need to make sure shares are transferred to the correct account according to the farm's size (if
you sold a unit for 200 shares and didn't get another one started, the shares should go to the issuer account [where they won't receive dividends] until another one is started, but anytime all units are operational, all shares should be in your possession [or in public possession] so that 1 share is always worth the same GH/s until/unless newer better (mini-rigs getting more GH/sperUSD) equipment increases the average GH/s per share [at which point it should be kept stable at the newer GH/s of the bigger/better farm]).
Vbs
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504


View Profile
April 10, 2012, 02:28:36 PM
 #55

The way I see it, you are buying a piece of equipment +cost of operation+maintenance upfront at a fixed price. If it turns more profitable later or not, it doesn't matter, because you already paid for it. You can even give it away for free later, if you'd like, because it's paid for when you bought it. My big question here is if Inaba has his "perpetual" running costs covered if there is no rotation of equipment.

1) New shares must not be sold at market value, but at the equipment+run+etc "perpetual" cost value, at the time of purchase of said equipment, so that 200 shares reflect the current USD price of the "complete package". If someone gets a BFL Single at a discount, then it's because others were willing to, as the Single was paid at the original time of purchase.

2) If needed, new equipment is only bought after Inaba sells the shares for the last equipment.

3) Rotation is really the question here, are you depending on it for this mining op to be profitable Inaba? What happens if people just want to buy shares and let you mine "forever"?
The00Dustin
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 806


View Profile
April 10, 2012, 03:18:04 PM
 #56

3) Rotation is really the question here, are you depending on it for this mining op to be profitable Inaba? What happens if people just want to buy shares and let you mine "forever"?
If Inaba just mines forever, he owns 15% of shares, income from that should cover operating costs.  However, if a unit fails, it won't cover replacement, so it shouldn't be treated as a contract, it should be treated as a company that buys back shares with capital (the singles), but an in production single that fails shouldn't cost Inaba if there is no replacement available.  This woud be the only reason for the GH/s per share to change.  However, the terms of the IPO don't necessarily state that, and they don't really state that the value of a single vs it's USD value will be used to peg (and adjust, if necessary) additional offerings.  That's why I said he may want to change the terms and delay the offering.  Changing the terms now will certainly upset some people whether they have a right to be upset or not (even though technically he holds all shares and can do that, someone with open buy orders might not get the chance to close them if time isn't given).  The other issues solve themselves with these changes, as long as Inaba understands he may hold 200 shares for a while after a rotation if the price is pegged.  He'll get the dividends for the shares, so that is fine.
tgmarks
Donator
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 490


View Profile
April 10, 2012, 03:25:46 PM
 #57

Its totally up to Inaba and I recognize that, but if the terms are going to change right now, their better be a delay of a day or two and the changes made VERY clear for all of us with current open buy orders.

BinaryMage
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 546


Ad astra.


View Profile
April 10, 2012, 03:36:42 PM
 #58

3) Rotation is really the question here, are you depending on it for this mining op to be profitable Inaba? What happens if people just want to buy shares and let you mine "forever"?
If Inaba just mines forever, he owns 15% of shares, income from that should cover operating costs.  However, if a unit fails, it won't cover replacement, so it shouldn't be treated as a contract, it should be treated as a company that buys back shares with capital (the singles), but an in production single that fails shouldn't cost Inaba if there is no replacement available.  This woud be the only reason for the GH/s per share to change.  However, the terms of the IPO don't necessarily state that, and they don't really state that the value of a single vs it's USD value will be used to peg (and adjust, if necessary) additional offerings.  That's why I said he may want to change the terms and delay the offering.  Changing the terms now will certainly upset some people whether they have a right to be upset or not (even though technically he holds all shares and can do that, someone with open buy orders might not get the chance to close them if time isn't given).  The other issues solve themselves with these changes, as long as Inaba understands he may hold 200 shares for a while after a rotation if the price is pegged.  He'll get the dividends for the shares, so that is fine.

I think the intent is that the 15% would cover replacements. BFL offers a 6 month warranty and operating costs are pretty minimal (~$2-3/mo at ~.05 USD per KWH).

-- BinaryMage -- | OTC | PGP
stochastic
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


View Profile
April 10, 2012, 03:38:22 PM
 #59

What time is the IPO?

Introducing constraints to the economy only serves to limit what can be economical.
Inaba
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile WWW
April 10, 2012, 03:41:04 PM
 #60

If you don't want to change your original contract, you could start with ($persingle/170/$perbtc).  This gives you a 15% overhead and makes shares .7BTC if a BFL is $600 and a BTC is $5 (and you take in $600 per single in the IPO).  However, I'd be very afraid to do this the way you have suggested and would recommend delaying the IPO and rewording the contract (possibly changing the ticker to make sure everyone is aware of the changes).  Why?  Because unless market price for the shares stays roughly proportional to the current share to USD ratio (or increases vs. that proportional difference), you risk losing money.  I see the following scenarios happening based on watching other shares:

1) $perbtc drops and shareholders who have received payments sell to break even in BTC (or at original purchase value in BTC, which is less $) and switch to a new security that looks better, buyers at the lower $perbtc get shares at a discount and therefore get BFLs at a discount if you are selling them and starting new units, which you publicly re-offer 170 shares for (keeping 30) at market value (meaning the $170 shares don't pay for the newly added unit and 200 coming back might not)

2) shareholders undercut your additional market offerings when they want to sell and they don't want to wait fro the 170btc ask wall to be broken, so either the additional single isn't paid for, or losses from scenario described in one et greater faster as you lower the ask for that offering

3) $perbtc increases and shareholders don't sell lower accordingly, so the share value in BTC is stable, but the $persingle gets higher and the BFL rotation doesn't happen

These are just examples of the problem with share price being in BTC while singles are sold in USD.  Even if the security was for something truly sold in BTC, the value of BTC hasn't ever been stable, so it is still like you are selling a commodity priced on another commodity instead of selling an item based on a currency.  This is just risk, if you are comfortable with it, that is fine.  Another good concern was brought up earlier in the thread though, that there wouldn't be any shares left in the wild after roughly 66 units were sold.  This assumes you don't sell the extra 30 shares you earned rotating BFLs, though, which you could.  Also, in order to keep dividend payments consistent/accurate for shareholders, you need to make sure shares are transferred to the correct account according to the farm's size (if
you sold a unit for 200 shares and didn't get another one started, the shares should go to the issuer account [where they won't receive dividends] until another one is started, but anytime all units are operational, all shares should be in your possession [or in public possession] so that 1 share is always worth the same GH/s until/unless newer better (mini-rigs getting more GH/sperUSD) equipment increases the average GH/s per share [at which point it should be kept stable at the newer GH/s of the bigger/better farm]).

It's never been my intention to keep shares back for my own personal stock, as it were.  I would resell the additional shares gained, keeping the total amount outstanding constant (or as constant as possible while units are rotated).  

I hate to peg this to USD, what do people think about making the share price dynamic... which is really is going to be anyway if people buy/sell shares for different amounts.  At some point in the future, the "cost" in shares of a Single or MiniRig will be more or less than the original value.  I guess I could post a current "exchange" share amount for hardware.  What are people opinion of doing it like that?  I have to give that some more thought, I'm not sure that's a good way to go about it either.

Yes, the 15% of shares that I keep cover operating costs and has been the intention from the start for the operating costs to be built into the initial buy price - so you can keep mining forever or the initiative is dissolved and hardware sold, etc...  If hardware were to fail, the resulting dividends would be lessened across all share holders, spreading the risk out across everyone until the hardware was replaced.  I actually plan on keeping a number of units in reserve anyway, so it should not be an issue.  The original single that I have has never given me any problems, so I don't anticipate too many issues as far as failed hardware goes if the unit lasts for 6 months, it's unlikely to fail barring accidents.

One problem I see with adding the MiniRigs in at this time or in the future, to this offering, is A) MiniRigs aren't available yet, B) I don't have one so C) Anyone investing will have to invest under the understanding that there will be no resulting returns on that investment until an MR ships, which is a minimum of 16 weeks I would imagine. 

If you're searching these lines for a point, you've probably missed it.  There was never anything there in the first place.
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!