Gigamining / Teramining

[redbeans2012]

Makes sense that if bitcoin goes up in value,  share prices will fall to balance out

[1714181878]

1714181878

[1714181878]

1714181878

[FreeMoney]

Does anyone know why Giga and many other Mining bonds have lost around 20% of there value in the last few weeks.  

Has a large investor pulled out?

Considering that it really didn't take very much volume to lose that much on the price, I doubt it.

The more likely explanation, as I suggested earlier, is that nobody wants to leave their bitcoins locked up in GLBSE to keep open bids. Thus the bid depth on even the biggest markets like gigamining is laughably small. Occasional random fluctuations mean that someone decided to sell a few shares at whatever price, which took the price from the stable 1.50 down to 1.30ish, because there was almost nothing in between. Naive investors and speculators, ignoring the lack of liquidity, thought the new 1.30 number was somehow meaningful despite it taking just a handful of shares sold to get there, panicked, and sold more. Since there still was very little depth, this took us down to 1.01. A few small purchases later, we're in the 1.25 range again.

I'm not saying that 1.50 or even 1.30 is the right price for gigamining, but the kind of panic I've seen over these effectively meaningless price movements over the past few days is laughable. GLBSE really just needs to figure out how to incentivize market makers for stocks. There's not necessarily an incentive for individual issuers to do this, but due to transaction fees there's always an incentive for the exchange itself. Thus if they could get serious market makers into the exchange, the whole economy would be a lot healthier (a liquid market is a happy one), and so would GLBSE's profits.

I suspect a lot of funds that would be doing work like market making are getting sucked up by pirate and the pirate funds. It's a little bit of work to manage market making and some risk and it's not usually going to be as profitable as 28%/month.

The big swings are the incentive. I don't think whatever marginal incentive GLBSE could add is going to make much difference.

[copumpkin]

Does anyone know why Giga and many other Mining bonds have lost around 20% of there value in the last few weeks.  

Has a large investor pulled out?

Considering that it really didn't take very much volume to lose that much on the price, I doubt it.

The more likely explanation, as I suggested earlier, is that nobody wants to leave their bitcoins locked up in GLBSE to keep open bids. Thus the bid depth on even the biggest markets like gigamining is laughably small. Occasional random fluctuations mean that someone decided to sell a few shares at whatever price, which took the price from the stable 1.50 down to 1.30ish, because there was almost nothing in between. Naive investors and speculators, ignoring the lack of liquidity, thought the new 1.30 number was somehow meaningful despite it taking just a handful of shares sold to get there, panicked, and sold more. Since there still was very little depth, this took us down to 1.01. A few small purchases later, we're in the 1.25 range again.

I'm not saying that 1.50 or even 1.30 is the right price for gigamining, but the kind of panic I've seen over these effectively meaningless price movements over the past few days is laughable. GLBSE really just needs to figure out how to incentivize market makers for stocks. There's not necessarily an incentive for individual issuers to do this, but due to transaction fees there's always an incentive for the exchange itself. Thus if they could get serious market makers into the exchange, the whole economy would be a lot healthier (a liquid market is a happy one), and so would GLBSE's profits.

I suspect a lot of funds that would be doing work like market making are getting sucked up by pirate and the pirate funds. It's a little bit of work to manage market making and some risk and it's not usually going to be as profitable as 28%/month.

The big swings are the incentive. I don't think whatever marginal incentive GLBSE could add is going to make much difference.

Market makers make money on lots of movements within a small range, not big directed ones. And the presence of market makers would prevent such swings from existing. I doubt pirate lending and similar ventures is really sucking away the potential market makers, simply because it has such a different kind of risk profile. I know that I'd be a lot more tempted to leave large open bids if there were small liquidity rebates in place to compensate me for my effort and the risk I subject myself to.

[GeoRW]

Does anyone know why Giga and many other Mining bonds have lost around 20% of there value in the last few weeks.  

Has a large investor pulled out?

Lots of people started shorting mining bonds, which is a good sign as the liquidity rises and bond prices get more real. Regarding Giga, small number of investors were holding large number of bonds, so market was frozen around 1.5 for a long time, then gigavps sold/issued 13k more bonds and market started to move.

[EskimoBob]

And only thing he can to now, to show that he actually cares of his investors, is rise the 5Mh/s to 6Mh/s per FRN. Preferably without dumping another assload of bonds to the market.

[copumpkin]

And only thing he can to now, to show that he actually cares of his investors, is rise the 5Mh/s to 6Mh/s per FRN. Preferably without dumping another assload of bonds to the market.

Gigamining does not have investors. These are (perpetual) bonds. We lent him money, and own no equity in gigamining. He owes us nothing beyond the original terms of the contract.

[BurtW]

Does anyone know why Giga and many other Mining bonds have lost around 20% of there value in the last few weeks.  

Has a large investor pulled out?

I believe a large part of our current issues can be explained by the following asymmetry/inefficiency in the GLBSE market:

If I want to sell 1000 GIGAMINING bonds (or any other bond or stock) I can simply put in a sell order and it does not cost me anything.

However, if I want to buy 1000 GIGAMINING bonds (or any other bond or stock) I have to put up the full amount of BTC in order to place the order.  So for the entire time the buy order is in the book I have to tie up that amount of BTC.  So there is a cost, an opportunity cost, to placing buy orders.

So the bottom line is that it is easier to sell than to buy.  Until this issue is fixed the bids will always be lighter than asks and there will be an intrinsic bias toward selling and therefore and intrinsic downward pressure on prices.

[BurtW]

And only thing he can to now, to show that he actually cares of his investors, is rise the 5Mh/s to 6Mh/s per FRN. Preferably without dumping another assload of bonds to the market.

Why not 10Mh/s ?  If you are going to beg - beg big.

[Garr255]

Does anyone know why Giga and many other Mining bonds have lost around 20% of there value in the last few weeks.  

Has a large investor pulled out?

I believe a large part of our current issues can be explained by the following asymmetry/inefficiency in the GLBSE market:

If I want to sell 1000 GIGAMINING bonds (or any other bond or stock) I can simply put in a sell order and it does not cost me anything.

However, if I want to buy 1000 GIGAMINING bonds (or any other bond or stock) I have to put up the full amount of BTC in order to place the order.  So for the entire time the buy order is in the book I have to tie up that amount of BTC.  So there is a cost, an opportunity cost, to placing buy orders.

So the bottom line is that it is easier to sell than to buy.  Until this issue is fixed the bids will always be lighter than asks and there will be an intrinsic bias toward selling and therefore and intrinsic downward pressure on prices.

Someone forward this to Nefario, I nag him enough.

[Daily Anarchist]

Does anyone know why Giga and many other Mining bonds have lost around 20% of there value in the last few weeks.  

Has a large investor pulled out?

I believe a large part of our current issues can be explained by the following asymmetry/inefficiency in the GLBSE market:

If I want to sell 1000 GIGAMINING bonds (or any other bond or stock) I can simply put in a sell order and it does not cost me anything.

However, if I want to buy 1000 GIGAMINING bonds (or any other bond or stock) I have to put up the full amount of BTC in order to place the order.  So for the entire time the buy order is in the book I have to tie up that amount of BTC.  So there is a cost, an opportunity cost, to placing buy orders.

So the bottom line is that it is easier to sell than to buy.  Until this issue is fixed the bids will always be lighter than asks and there will be an intrinsic bias toward selling and therefore and intrinsic downward pressure on prices.

Someone forward this to Nefario, I nag him enough.

There hasn't been any noticeable changes to GLBSE in a while. Perhaps he's implementing a lot of these requests right now and will eventually release GLBSE 3.0 to the public all at once, when it's all ready. Just my guess, or hope.

[mila]

Does anyone know why Giga and many other Mining bonds have lost around 20% of there value in the last few weeks.  

Has a large investor pulled out?

I believe a large part of our current issues can be explained by the following asymmetry/inefficiency in the GLBSE market:

If I want to sell 1000 GIGAMINING bonds (or any other bond or stock) I can simply put in a sell order and it does not cost me anything.

However, if I want to buy 1000 GIGAMINING bonds (or any other bond or stock) I have to put up the full amount of BTC in order to place the order.  So for the entire time the buy order is in the book I have to tie up that amount of BTC.  So there is a cost, an opportunity cost, to placing buy orders.

So the bottom line is that it is easier to sell than to buy.  Until this issue is fixed the bids will always be lighter than asks and there will be an intrinsic bias toward selling and therefore and intrinsic downward pressure on prices.

Someone forward this to Nefario, I nag him enough.

please recall how gigamining was issued. private (otc) sales before ipo bought bonds at 1 btc / bond, thus selling at 1.20-1.30 still represents a 20-30 % profit (plus the dividends from the meantime of holding the bond)

it is not true that selling is easier i.e. it does not cost anything - the sell order blocks the shares and prevents them from being transferred or offered for sale at a different price. thus you can't have fake sale wall the same way as you can't have a fake buy wall. what you see in the order book is what you can have. nothing else.

if you expect bitcoin / shares in the future and want to make the order now, hm, no worky. wait and act after you have the funds in your account.
even if you have a regular income and would like to post a permanent order that would be filled per partes as the funds arrive, can't do it right now.

[xkrikl]

Does anyone know why Giga and many other Mining bonds have lost around 20% of there value in the last few weeks.  

Has a large investor pulled out?

I believe a large part of our current issues can be explained by the following asymmetry/inefficiency in the GLBSE market:

If I want to sell 1000 GIGAMINING bonds (or any other bond or stock) I can simply put in a sell order and it does not cost me anything.

However, if I want to buy 1000 GIGAMINING bonds (or any other bond or stock) I have to put up the full amount of BTC in order to place the order.  So for the entire time the buy order is in the book I have to tie up that amount of BTC.  So there is a cost, an opportunity cost, to placing buy orders.

So the bottom line is that it is easier to sell than to buy.  Until this issue is fixed the bids will always be lighter than asks and there will be an intrinsic bias toward selling and therefore and intrinsic downward pressure on prices.

Someone forward this to Nefario, I nag him enough.

please recall how gigamining was issued. private (otc) sales before ipo bought bonds at 1 btc / bond, thus selling at 1.20-1.30 still represents a 20-30 % profit (plus the dividends from the meantime of holding the bond)

it is not true that selling is easier i.e. it does not cost anything - the sell order blocks the shares and prevents them from being transferred or offered for sale at a different price. thus you can't have fake sale wall the same way as you can't have a fake buy wall. what you see in the order book is what you can have. nothing else.

if you expect bitcoin / shares in the future and want to make the order now, hm, no worky. wait and act after you have the funds in your account.
even if you have a regular income and would like to post a permanent order that would be filled per partes as the funds arrive, can't do it right now.

well you cannot sell shares you don't have on GLBSE and many people would like to have this option ... but it is a little bit more complicated

most of us miss a much more simple thing ... placing multiple buy orders with my balance ... I have the money ... I don't ask for margin trading ...
and simply if any of my buy orders gets filled - all the other are checked imediately and if my new balance isn't sufficient for any of them -> they are or deleted (very simple) or reduced in volume (to max volume my funds fit) or stay in full on my own orderbook but are listed publicly (and thus tradeable) only in reduced volume (but if some of my sell orders gets filled the new higher balance could allow to have them listed publicly again in full)

We don't need to have immediatelly the complex solution ... but the simple one with deleting the orders would be great ... the only condition is that the orders must be executed sequentially by the exchange (which I guess is how GLBSE works now) and with each trade check all buy orders of the buyer and delete those that don't have adequate balance for

[totaleclipseofthebank]

Does anyone know why Giga and many other Mining bonds have lost around 20% of there value in the last few weeks.  

Has a large investor pulled out?

I believe a large part of our current issues can be explained by the following asymmetry/inefficiency in the GLBSE market:

If I want to sell 1000 GIGAMINING bonds (or any other bond or stock) I can simply put in a sell order and it does not cost me anything.

However, if I want to buy 1000 GIGAMINING bonds (or any other bond or stock) I have to put up the full amount of BTC in order to place the order.  So for the entire time the buy order is in the book I have to tie up that amount of BTC.  So there is a cost, an opportunity cost, to placing buy orders.

So the bottom line is that it is easier to sell than to buy.  Until this issue is fixed the bids will always be lighter than asks and there will be an intrinsic bias toward selling and therefore and intrinsic downward pressure on prices.

Great point. In a normal exchange, when you place a buy order, your orders will just not execute when you run out of money, but you can place limit orders on multiple securities at once. Without this, market making is basically impossible unless you are willing to tie up large amounts of capital.

[EskimoBob]

And only thing he can to now, to show that he actually cares of his investors, is rise the 5Mh/s to 6Mh/s per FRN. Preferably without dumping another assload of bonds to the market.

Gigamining does not have investors. These are (perpetual) bonds. We lent him money, and own no equity in gigamining. He owes us nothing beyond the original terms of the contract.

Really? Who told you that? Sure it has investors.
Let me copy paste you a definition: An investor is a party that makes an investment into one or more categories of assets --- equity, debt securities, real estate, currency, commodity, derivatives such as put and call options, etc.
 

[BurtW]

Does anyone know why Giga and many other Mining bonds have lost around 20% of there value in the last few weeks.  

Has a large investor pulled out?

I believe a large part of our current issues can be explained by the following asymmetry/inefficiency in the GLBSE market:

If I want to sell 1000 GIGAMINING bonds (or any other bond or stock) I can simply put in a sell order and it does not cost me anything.

However, if I want to buy 1000 GIGAMINING bonds (or any other bond or stock) I have to put up the full amount of BTC in order to place the order.  So for the entire time the buy order is in the book I have to tie up that amount of BTC.  So there is a cost, an opportunity cost, to placing buy orders.

So the bottom line is that it is easier to sell than to buy.  Until this issue is fixed the bids will always be lighter than asks and there will be an intrinsic bias toward selling and therefore and intrinsic downward pressure on prices.

Someone forward this to Nefario, I nag him enough.

please recall how gigamining was issued. private (otc) sales before ipo bought bonds at 1 btc / bond, thus selling at 1.20-1.30 still represents a 20-30 % profit (plus the dividends from the meantime of holding the bond)

it is not true that selling is easier i.e. it does not cost anything - the sell order blocks the shares and prevents them from being transferred or offered for sale at a different price. thus you can't have fake sale wall the same way as you can't have a fake buy wall. what you see in the order book is what you can have. nothing else.

if you expect bitcoin / shares in the future and want to make the order now, hm, no worky. wait and act after you have the funds in your account.
even if you have a regular income and would like to post a permanent order that would be filled per partes as the funds arrive, can't do it right now.

well you cannot sell shares you don't have on GLBSE and many people would like to have this option ... but it is a little bit more complicated

most of us miss a much more simple thing ... placing multiple buy orders with my balance ... I have the money ... I don't ask for margin trading ...
and simply if any of my buy orders gets filled - all the other are checked imediately and if my new balance isn't sufficient for any of them -> they are or deleted (very simple) or reduced in volume (to max volume my funds fit) or stay in full on my own orderbook but are listed publicly (and thus tradeable) only in reduced volume (but if some of my sell orders gets filled the new higher balance could allow to have them listed publicly again in full)

We don't need to have immediatelly the complex solution ... but the simple one with deleting the orders would be great ... the only condition is that the orders must be executed sequentially by the exchange (which I guess is how GLBSE works now) and with each trade check all buy orders of the buyer and delete those that don't have adequate balance for

Nefario,  How long would it take you to implement the simple version (just delete all other orders ) of this idea?

We/YOU really need this.

[copumpkin]

And only thing he can to now, to show that he actually cares of his investors, is rise the 5Mh/s to 6Mh/s per FRN. Preferably without dumping another assload of bonds to the market.

Gigamining does not have investors. These are (perpetual) bonds. We lent him money, and own no equity in gigamining. He owes us nothing beyond the original terms of the contract.

Really? Who told you that? Sure it has investors.
Let me copy paste you a definition: An investor is a party that makes an investment into one or more categories of assets --- equity, debt securities, real estate, currency, commodity, derivatives such as put and call options, etc.
 

Yes, pick apart definitions while ignoring the obvious point.

[ColdHardMetal]

Does anyone know why Giga and many other Mining bonds have lost around 20% of there value in the last few weeks.  

Has a large investor pulled out?

I believe a large part of our current issues can be explained by the following asymmetry/inefficiency in the GLBSE market:

If I want to sell 1000 GIGAMINING bonds (or any other bond or stock) I can simply put in a sell order and it does not cost me anything.

However, if I want to buy 1000 GIGAMINING bonds (or any other bond or stock) I have to put up the full amount of BTC in order to place the order.  So for the entire time the buy order is in the book I have to tie up that amount of BTC.  So there is a cost, an opportunity cost, to placing buy orders.

So the bottom line is that it is easier to sell than to buy.  Until this issue is fixed the bids will always be lighter than asks and there will be an intrinsic bias toward selling and therefore and intrinsic downward pressure on prices.

Someone forward this to Nefario, I nag him enough.

please recall how gigamining was issued. private (otc) sales before ipo bought bonds at 1 btc / bond, thus selling at 1.20-1.30 still represents a 20-30 % profit (plus the dividends from the meantime of holding the bond)

it is not true that selling is easier i.e. it does not cost anything - the sell order blocks the shares and prevents them from being transferred or offered for sale at a different price. thus you can't have fake sale wall the same way as you can't have a fake buy wall. what you see in the order book is what you can have. nothing else.

if you expect bitcoin / shares in the future and want to make the order now, hm, no worky. wait and act after you have the funds in your account.
even if you have a regular income and would like to post a permanent order that would be filled per partes as the funds arrive, can't do it right now.

well you cannot sell shares you don't have on GLBSE and many people would like to have this option ... but it is a little bit more complicated

most of us miss a much more simple thing ... placing multiple buy orders with my balance ... I have the money ... I don't ask for margin trading ...
and simply if any of my buy orders gets filled - all the other are checked imediately and if my new balance isn't sufficient for any of them -> they are or deleted (very simple) or reduced in volume (to max volume my funds fit) or stay in full on my own orderbook but are listed publicly (and thus tradeable) only in reduced volume (but if some of my sell orders gets filled the new higher balance could allow to have them listed publicly again in full)

We don't need to have immediatelly the complex solution ... but the simple one with deleting the orders would be great ... the only condition is that the orders must be executed sequentially by the exchange (which I guess is how GLBSE works now) and with each trade check all buy orders of the buyer and delete those that don't have adequate balance for

Nefario,  How long would it take you to implement the simple version (just delete all other orders ) of this idea?

We/YOU really need this.

Nefario is on the road for the next few hours, but asked me to post that he agrees with this idea and hopes to have it in place over the weekend.

[teek]

Does anyone know why Giga and many other Mining bonds have lost around 20% of there value in the last few weeks.  

Has a large investor pulled out?

I believe a large part of our current issues can be explained by the following asymmetry/inefficiency in the GLBSE market:

If I want to sell 1000 GIGAMINING bonds (or any other bond or stock) I can simply put in a sell order and it does not cost me anything.

However, if I want to buy 1000 GIGAMINING bonds (or any other bond or stock) I have to put up the full amount of BTC in order to place the order.  So for the entire time the buy order is in the book I have to tie up that amount of BTC.  So there is a cost, an opportunity cost, to placing buy orders.

So the bottom line is that it is easier to sell than to buy.  Until this issue is fixed the bids will always be lighter than asks and there will be an intrinsic bias toward selling and therefore and intrinsic downward pressure on prices.

Someone forward this to Nefario, I nag him enough.

please recall how gigamining was issued. private (otc) sales before ipo bought bonds at 1 btc / bond, thus selling at 1.20-1.30 still represents a 20-30 % profit (plus the dividends from the meantime of holding the bond)

it is not true that selling is easier i.e. it does not cost anything - the sell order blocks the shares and prevents them from being transferred or offered for sale at a different price. thus you can't have fake sale wall the same way as you can't have a fake buy wall. what you see in the order book is what you can have. nothing else.

if you expect bitcoin / shares in the future and want to make the order now, hm, no worky. wait and act after you have the funds in your account.
even if you have a regular income and would like to post a permanent order that would be filled per partes as the funds arrive, can't do it right now.

well you cannot sell shares you don't have on GLBSE and many people would like to have this option ... but it is a little bit more complicated

most of us miss a much more simple thing ... placing multiple buy orders with my balance ... I have the money ... I don't ask for margin trading ...
and simply if any of my buy orders gets filled - all the other are checked imediately and if my new balance isn't sufficient for any of them -> they are or deleted (very simple) or reduced in volume (to max volume my funds fit) or stay in full on my own orderbook but are listed publicly (and thus tradeable) only in reduced volume (but if some of my sell orders gets filled the new higher balance could allow to have them listed publicly again in full)

We don't need to have immediatelly the complex solution ... but the simple one with deleting the orders would be great ... the only condition is that the orders must be executed sequentially by the exchange (which I guess is how GLBSE works now) and with each trade check all buy orders of the buyer and delete those that don't have adequate balance for

Nefario,  How long would it take you to implement the simple version (just delete all other orders ) of this idea?

We/YOU really need this.

Nefario is on the road for the next few hours, but asked me to post that he agrees with this idea and hopes to have it in place over the weekend.

sorry to continue hi-jacking this thread, but this will be a game changer, it's been mentioned many times before, even by myself, this will actually give some much needed liquidity to glbse.

[BurtW]

Nefario is on the road for the next few hours, but asked me to post that he agrees with this idea and hopes to have it in place over the weekend.

HURRAY!  Thanks!

[copumpkin]

And only thing he can to now, to show that he actually cares of his investors, is rise the 5Mh/s to 6Mh/s per FRN. Preferably without dumping another assload of bonds to the market.

Gigamining does not have investors. These are (perpetual) bonds. We lent him money, and own no equity in gigamining. He owes us nothing beyond the original terms of the contract.

Really? Who told you that? Sure it has investors.
Let me copy paste you a definition: An investor is a party that makes an investment into one or more categories of assets --- equity, debt securities, real estate, currency, commodity, derivatives such as put and call options, etc.
 

Copumpkin: You got burned by a thirteen year old with access to Google!

Oh shit, reductio ad wikipedium