Gigamining / Teramining

[copumpkin]

Wasn't one bond bought for 10 BTC at the IPO?

Yep, it's still fucking up the price chart (to the point of making it useless) on GLBSE

[friedcat]

It is a great deal for Giga, that's for sure.  Buy hashes at $.60/MH (mini-rig and GPU) and sell bonds against it at $1.00-1.50/MH.  Makes for one hell of a profit margin.  Easy to finance expansion this way as well. 

It is a great deal for the buyers too. Because all mining bonds, including Giga's, still have a better return rate than most of the mining stocks. Of course, the shareholders of mining stocks "own" the hardware, but as far as I know only Inaba's BFLS allow the shareholders to trade the shares for the actual hardware, in other companies the concept of "ownership" makes sense only when bankrupting and liquidation.

And consider the difference between liquidation of mining companies and calling back of mining bonds, you couldn't easily conclude that selling used hardware will always result in more Bitcoins than calling back at 105%-120% of the market price. Indeed, the rise of Bitcoin price will make the market price of mining bonds against BTC lower, but it will also make the BTC price of selling old hardware lower. Hardware improvement (GPU -> FPGA -> ASIC) will drive the difficulty up, lowering the yield and the price of mining bonds, but it will also make old hardware more useless, harder to sell, and cheaper.

[sunnankar]

Well considering the second bonds were sold at 1.50.  It sounds like a deal. There are funds being publicly traded on the GLBSE that bought in around that price point.

What difference does it make what other people paid? Really, monkey see monkey do?

You haven't done a discounted future cash flow based on difficulty and exchange rate pro-formas?

Too bad we can't short on GLBSE....

[chunglam]

This week's dividend? 110% PPS?

[ciuciu]

It does matter at what price the last bonds were sold.
If somebody bought the bonds very cheap, they can flood the market at any time and the bond will lose again a lot of value.

Well considering the second bonds were sold at 1.50.  It sounds like a deal. There are funds being publicly traded on the GLBSE that bought in around that price point.

What difference does it make what other people paid? Really, monkey see monkey do?

You haven't done a discounted future cash flow based on difficulty and exchange rate pro-formas?

Too bad we can't short on GLBSE....

[jamesg]

It does matter at what price the last bonds were sold.
If somebody bought the bonds very cheap, they can flood the market at any time and the bond will lose again a lot of value.

Gigamining was originally sold at 1 BTC each.

[redbeans2012]

It does matter at what price the last bonds were sold.
If somebody bought the bonds very cheap, they can flood the market at any time and the bond will lose again a lot of value.

Gigamining was originally sold at 1 BTC each.

Didn't you issue the next round of bonds for 1.50 though?

Did you sell this last round to private investors for 1 btc?  Doesn't seem too cool to do that but whatever I sold right before the price went down

[jamesg]

Didn't you issue the next round of bonds for 1.50 though?

Did you sell this last round to private investors for 1 btc?  Doesn't seem too cool to do that but whatever I sold right before the price went down

The last round was sold to private investors. Usually when their are bulk purchases (greater than 1k bonds) buyers usually insist on slight discounts to the current price.

[ciuciu]

You have to disclose this information. Or to keep the matters separately.

Didn't you issue the next round of bonds for 1.50 though?

Did you sell this last round to private investors for 1 btc?  Doesn't seem too cool to do that but whatever I sold right before the price went down

The last round was sold to private investors. Usually when their are bulk purchases (greater than 1k bonds) buyers usually insist on slight discounts to the current price.

[redbeans2012]

For all we know the investor could be you or a buddy from high school.  I'm not saying that's the case but I guess that's the free market.  Just would have been nice to somehow protect your public investors or warn them before these cheaper bonds flood the market or at least let them know what price they went for.   I'm not a business man so maybe I don't understand how this works. 

[brendio]

Complaining about the "last" price (or assuming it means anything) is stupid in a shallow market, as is often the case on GLBSE. Nobody wants to leave large quantities of bitcoins in GLBSE to keep open bids on there, so there's never any bid depth. It took 24 shares sold to go from 1.34 to 1.01. The degree of panic I see about this just reveals how little people understand about markets around here.

If we want to fix it, we need GLBSE to provide more incentives to people to be market makers, especially on the bid side. Otherwise, why would I keep my bitcoins locked up in GLBSE when I could be making loads of money with it elsewhere?

Working on a (partial?) solution to this. Details in a new thread soon.

[JWU42]

Coupon has been paid - giga missed mentioning it this morning...

Just FYI

[pieppiep]

You have to disclose this information. Or to keep the matters separately.

Didn't you issue the next round of bonds for 1.50 though?

Did you sell this last round to private investors for 1 btc?  Doesn't seem too cool to do that but whatever I sold right before the price went down

The last round was sold to private investors. Usually when their are bulk purchases (greater than 1k bonds) buyers usually insist on slight discounts to the current price.

Why? There is nothing about that in the contract.

[jamesg]

Coupon has been paid - giga missed mentioning it this morning...

Just FYI

Sorry guys, JWU42 is correct that the coupon payment has already gone out.

[piotr_n]

If I understand what is going on here - please correct me if I'm wrong:
GIGAMINING recently sold 13500 new shares to someone, under the counter, at the price below 1.0 and the new "investor" have decided to make some quick profit by dumping a few thousands of his shares onto the market - right?
Well... that's great - knowing that makes me really happy for buying my GIGAMINING shares at ~1.45. Now I know that you really take a good care about all your small investors and their interest

[ciuciu]

This is true. But it will kill the confidence in all mining bonds.
Let's see how the market will react.

You have to disclose this information. Or to keep the matters separately.

Didn't you issue the next round of bonds for 1.50 though?

Did you sell this last round to private investors for 1 btc?  Doesn't seem too cool to do that but whatever I sold right before the price went down

The last round was sold to private investors. Usually when their are bulk purchases (greater than 1k bonds) buyers usually insist on slight discounts to the current price.

Why? There is nothing about that in the contract.

[pieppiep]

Again, why?
The bonds I have are still 5 Mhash/s.
To me it actually gives more confidence because it makes him a bigger player so he can do certain things more efficient than smaller players.

[Sukrim]

I got my shares at something close to 1.50 and that was a good price. I don't want to earn a lot by daytrading anyways, as long as difficulty stays that low and gigavps is paying on time and the correct amounts, I see no reason to sell or panic currently.

[ciuciu]

People do not buy only for the 5Mhash/s.
If it was like this, why the private investor wanted bonds? He could have paid Giga to mine for him and get the dividents without going the bonds route.

Again, why?
The bonds I have are still 5 Mhash/s.
To me it actually gives more confidence because it makes him a bigger player so he can do certain things more efficient than smaller players.

[piotr_n]

Again, why?
The bonds I have are still 5 Mhash/s.
To me it actually gives more confidence because it makes him a bigger player so he can do certain things more efficient than smaller players.

If you are going to be holding them forever - then it indeed doesn't matter.
But some people buy the bonds, hold them for awhile, and then sell back - hopefully for at least a similar price as they paid.

So yes: he is a bigger player now.
But he became bigger by screwing up tens of small players from his own team.
And that is not nice - is it?

I understand that he wanted to grow, but he could have at least found an investor who would not be willing to profit from screwing the previous investors up.