Gigamining / Teramining

[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.
 

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

Oh shit, reductio ad wikipedium

ROFLMAO! That must hurt, Copumpkin.
I guess you did deserve it for flapping your gums and using big complicated words without knowing what they mean.
Here is one for the road: http://bit.ly/KqC0jQ 

[1714038655]

1714038655

[1714038655]

1714038655

[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

ROFLMAO! That must hurt, Copumpkin.
I guess you did deserve it for flapping your gums and using big complicated words without knowing what they mean.
Here is one for the road: http://bit.ly/KqC0jQ 

I was actually mocking you, and so was reeses.

[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

ROFLMAO! That must hurt, Copumpkin.
I guess you did deserve it for flapping your gums and using big complicated words without knowing what they mean.
Here is one for the road: http://bit.ly/KqC0jQ  

I'm probably going to regret this, but here goes an attempt to explain what's wrong here:

You pointed out that my implied definition of "investor" does not match the one on wikipedia. You then ignored the rest of my point, which did not depend in the least on the definition I used for the word. I call that the "plug your ears and say lalalala" approach to discussion, which I don't consider a particularly productive or respectable one.

Furthermore, although it is irrelevant to my earlier point, my usage of investor to mean "equity investor" or shareholder is a fairly common one, especially when one is using it in a context that contrasts with other forms of investment. Investment is not a formally defined term and although it has several accepted meanings, in the context I used it, its meaning as shareholder was clear. It was disingenuous for you to harp on that point, and childish for you to gloat about it afterwards. This is why I'm not going to bother to continue arguing about this, but I figured I'd give you and others an opportunity to get better at online discussion. Stupid quips, intellectual laziness, and arrogance are not the way to go.

[imsaguy]

Why are we discussing this anyway?  Mining bonds really aren't "bonds".

[johnlu]

I have a question to all you in this thread. What do you think about this gigamining price "collapse"?

Do you think it will raise or not?

In my opinion it will raise at least between 1.2BTC and 1.3BTC

[Lumpy]

Are you trying to nudge it in that direction?

It's not just Gigamining -- look at:

https://glbse.com/asset/view/YABMC

[totaleclipseofthebank]

Well, gigavps dumped 20000 new bonds onto the market at 1btc/share, without offering previous investors any kind of compensation or gain. (making around $50000 in cash)

Whether he realizes this or not, it demonstrates carelessness and lack of concern for current investors in order to please potential future investors, and to get money up front, mere weeks after selling the initial shares.

I could completely understand why someone would never want to do business with him again, and investors are cutting their losses and exiting what now seems like a pretty questionable business.

[PatrickHarnett]

Well, gigavps dumped 20000 new bonds onto the market at 1btc/share, without offering previous investors any kind of compensation or gain. (making around $50000 in cash)

Whether he realizes this or not, it demonstrates carelessness and lack of concern for current investors in order to please potential future investors, and to get money up front, mere weeks after selling the initial shares.

I could completely understand why someone would never want to do business with him again, and investors are cutting their losses and exiting what now seems like a pretty questionable business.

Thank you for continuing to be ignorant.

Giga did not dump 20,000 onto the market - he made a private placement and employed several people to assist with selling the bonds - that is quite normal, as it takes quite a lot of work.  If you want to see what happens when you simply place it on market, read the howls of anguish over in the YABMC thread.

Second, the price was not 1.0 and depending on how/who you purchased from, it was higher than that.  I am unsure of the eventual weighted price as I didn't buy any, but it was probably in the 1.2 to 1.3 range.

Giga has a sensible business and plan to make things work on a scale most people couldn't conceive of.  If someone wants to panic after thinking they could make a quick buck off these bonds, they were misguided - markets have a way of leveling these things out.

As it is, they are a good buy (@ 1.0 which they are currently) and I look forward to a nice yield.  (and I got some yesterday  at 1.38).

[yochdog]

Well, gigavps dumped 20000 new bonds onto the market at 1btc/share, without offering previous investors any kind of compensation or gain. (making around $50000 in cash)

Whether he realizes this or not, it demonstrates carelessness and lack of concern for current investors in order to please potential future investors, and to get money up front, mere weeks after selling the initial shares.

I could completely understand why someone would never want to do business with him again, and investors are cutting their losses and exiting what now seems like a pretty questionable business.

Thank you for continuing to be ignorant.

Giga did not dump 20,000 onto the market - he made a private placement and employed several people to assist with selling the bonds - that is quite normal, as it takes quite a lot of work.  If you want to see what happens when you simply place it on market, read the howls of anguish over in the YABMC thread.

Second, the price was not 1.0 and depending on how/who you purchased from, it was higher than that.  I am unsure of the eventual weighted price as I didn't buy any, but it was probably in the 1.2 to 1.3 range.

Giga has a sensible business and plan to make things work on a scale most people couldn't conceive of.  If someone wants to panic after thinking they could make a quick buck off these bonds, they were misguided - markets have a way of leveling these things out.

As it is, they are a good buy (@ 1.0 which they are currently) and I look forward to a nice yield.  (and I got some yesterday  at 1.38).

This.

Giga has not ripped off anyone......he has stated the terms of the bond, is living up to those terms, and it makes NO DIFFERENCE how many total bonds are outstanding as long as he continues to meet the obligations to each bondholder.

That is all. 

[yochdog]

Giga has not ripped off anyone......he has stated the terms of the bond, is living up to those terms, and it makes NO DIFFERENCE how many total bonds are outstanding as long as he continues to meet the obligations to each bondholder.
That is all. 

It's true, and I have an order to buy giga at ~1 BTC now. But I feel seriously misled as an investor. That's just how I feel. The shares will probably never recover. People who bought in at 1, yeah, they got a good deal. Nice job. Everyone else, oh well, take your loss like a man huh?

How do you feel misled?  I am honestly curious about this.....

Giga has stated he will pay the PPS on 5 MH/s to holder of every bond.  He has done this, and continues to do so.......how is that misleading? 

[bitfoo]

Hiding behind the notion of a bond is no excuse; bonds are supposed to be fungible, if you issue bonds at a different face value they're a different tranche and trade as a different issue.

We could argue endlessly about the semantics of calling this issue a bond, so let's ignore that for a while.

The face value of this issue was never 1.0 BTC or 1.5 BTC - it represented processing power of 5 Mh/s. Old bonds and newly issued bonds are all still the same 5 Mh/s, and are thus fungible. Gigavps hasn't violated any contract or done anything wrong here. As has been stated many times in this thread - considering Moore's law, new ASIC hashing developments and so on, it's somewhat ridiculous to expect 5 Mh/s to go up in value, or even retain the same value, whatever currency you value it in.

[totaleclipseofthebank]

Well, gigavps dumped 20000 new bonds onto the market at 1btc/share, without offering previous investors any kind of compensation or gain. (making around $50000 in cash)

Whether he realizes this or not, it demonstrates carelessness and lack of concern for current investors in order to please potential future investors, and to get money up front, mere weeks after selling the initial shares.

I could completely understand why someone would never want to do business with him again, and investors are cutting their losses and exiting what now seems like a pretty questionable business.

Thank you for continuing to be ignorant.

Giga did not dump 20,000 onto the market - he made a private placement and employed several people to assist with selling the bonds - that is quite normal, as it takes quite a lot of work.  If you want to see what happens when you simply place it on market, read the howls of anguish over in the YABMC thread.

Second, the price was not 1.0 and depending on how/who you purchased from, it was higher than that.  I am unsure of the eventual weighted price as I didn't buy any, but it was probably in the 1.2 to 1.3 range.

Giga has a sensible business and plan to make things work on a scale most people couldn't conceive of.  If someone wants to panic after thinking they could make a quick buck off these bonds, they were misguided - markets have a way of leveling these things out.

As it is, they are a good buy (@ 1.0 which they are currently) and I look forward to a nice yield.  (and I got some yesterday  at 1.38).

This.

Giga has not ripped off anyone......he has stated the terms of the bond, is living up to those terms, and it makes NO DIFFERENCE how many total bonds are outstanding as long as he continues to meet the obligations to each bondholder.

That is all. 

I agree that giga hasn't broken any of his obligations, just that the supply of available bonds has greatly increased, while demand has remained roughly constant in the near term. For this reason, People who bought in over 1 btc have taken a large loss on their investment.

What if the total supply of bonds went up to 80000 or 160000? The demand can't keep up with the supply, and the price will tank, since there is only so much capital that can flow into the GLBSE at any given time.

Say Chevron issues 100000 bonds and you buy one at a fixed coupon. If they then issue 400000 bonds 2 weeks later with the same coupon, your original bond will probably drop (in this case maybe only slightly) in value due to the increased supply of those bonds.

In any case, I agree that 5MH/s for 1 btc is a good deal--I thought it was a good deal at 1.5btc too. I think people just need to be careful not to flood the market with mining bonds.

[jamesg]

To all gigaminers:

I have been authorized to share some photos of the soon to arrive mini rigs! BFL has informed me that during their testing of the mini rigs, they needed to use a different PSU to make sure the mini rigs are as stable as the singles. Although BFL has delayed the shipment of the mini rigs, I would rather have them deliver a stable product that just works.

Looks like they'll be shipping by the weekend.

Best,
gigavps

[totaleclipseofthebank]

Smells like some numbers are about to get seriously crunched!

[bitfoo]

What if the total supply of bonds went up to 80000 or 160000? The demand can't keep up with the supply, and the price will tank, since there is only so much capital that can flow into the GLBSE at any given time.

Say Chevron issues 100000 bonds and you buy one at a fixed coupon. If they then issue 400000 bonds 2 weeks later with the same coupon, your original bond will probably drop (in this case maybe only slightly) in value due to the increased supply of those bonds.

That's exactly the point. The market price for mining bonds was high, so more and more bonds hit the market. If gigavps didn't issue them, someone else would (and did). On the other extreme, if the market price for bonds was lower than the cost of buying the equivalent hardware, there would be no incentive to issue any more bonds, and supply would naturally be cut off.

[Garr255]

To all gigaminers:

I have been authorized to share some photos of the soon to arrive mini rigs! BFL has informed me that during their testing of the mini rigs, they needed to use a different PSU to make sure the mini rigs are as stable as the singles. Although BFL has delayed the shipment of the mini rigs, I would rather have them deliver a stable product that just works.

Looks like they'll be shipping by the weekend.

Best,
gigavps

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-xPVn8BoseMc/T9qhZ6DDP1I/AAAAAAAAA6M/pbuldT3WWic/s512/photo.JPG

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-PLfk8ccdvvU/T9qfPSkvc-I/AAAAAAAAA6E/1HFGythuh5U/s800/MR-Production_Line.JPG

Looking good, BFL!

[Daily Anarchist]

Well, gigavps dumped 20000 new bonds onto the market at 1btc/share, without offering previous investors any kind of compensation or gain. (making around $50000 in cash)

Whether he realizes this or not, it demonstrates carelessness and lack of concern for current investors in order to please potential future investors, and to get money up front, mere weeks after selling the initial shares.

I could completely understand why someone would never want to do business with him again, and investors are cutting their losses and exiting what now seems like a pretty questionable business.

Thank you for continuing to be ignorant.

Giga did not dump 20,000 onto the market - he made a private placement and employed several people to assist with selling the bonds - that is quite normal, as it takes quite a lot of work.  If you want to see what happens when you simply place it on market, read the howls of anguish over in the YABMC thread.

Second, the price was not 1.0 and depending on how/who you purchased from, it was higher than that.  I am unsure of the eventual weighted price as I didn't buy any, but it was probably in the 1.2 to 1.3 range.

Giga has a sensible business and plan to make things work on a scale most people couldn't conceive of.  If someone wants to panic after thinking they could make a quick buck off these bonds, they were misguided - markets have a way of leveling these things out.

As it is, they are a good buy (@ 1.0 which they are currently) and I look forward to a nice yield.  (and I got some yesterday  at 1.38).

This.

Giga has not ripped off anyone......he has stated the terms of the bond, is living up to those terms, and it makes NO DIFFERENCE how many total bonds are outstanding as long as he continues to meet the obligations to each bondholder.

That is all. 

I agree that giga hasn't broken any of his obligations, just that the supply of available bonds has greatly increased, while demand has remained roughly constant in the near term. For this reason, People who bought in over 1 btc have taken a large loss on their investment.

What if the total supply of bonds went up to 80000 or 160000? The demand can't keep up with the supply, and the price will tank, since there is only so much capital that can flow into the GLBSE at any given time.

Say Chevron issues 100000 bonds and you buy one at a fixed coupon. If they then issue 400000 bonds 2 weeks later with the same coupon, your original bond will probably drop (in this case maybe only slightly) in value due to the increased supply of those bonds.

In any case, I agree that 5MH/s for 1 btc is a good deal--I thought it was a good deal at 1.5btc too. I think people just need to be careful not to flood the market with mining bonds.

This is correct. By increasing the amount of bonds in existence, the price of bonds naturally came down. But that's just like every other consumer product. When Apple puts a new item on the market, they start off only making a "small" number of them and the price is high. But when the early adopters have bought them all up, Apple makes a much larger order and the price comes down. Think about how expensive the first CD players were. They were like $2,000. The early adopters always pay the highest price. Then they get made by the gazillions and everybody else buys them for cheap. Now you can get a CD player for free.

Just because the price of the bonds have come down does not mean that those people who bought them at 1.5 BTC have made poor investments. So long as those bonds yield over 1.5BTC over the course of their lives, it's a winning investment. The people who are buying bonds now at 1 BTC are getting an even better deal.

[sunnankar]

I think people just need to be careful not to flood the market with mining bonds.

Did you really just say that?  

I would love people to flood the market with tons of mining bonds at a price less than I think they are worth. Please, a respectable credit-worthy issuer please sell 10Gh/s weekly coupon perpetual mining bonds for 0.01BTC. Then I would buy them all up.  

That is what supply (seller) and demand (buyer) is all about. Each values what they give up less than what they get. As I have stated before, those who are short mining bonds, like gigavps, wants their price to go to 0 BTC. The current price is called price discovery.

[dottom]

Giga has not ripped off anyone......he has stated the terms of the bond, is living up to those terms, and it makes NO DIFFERENCE how many total bonds are outstanding as long as he continues to meet the obligations to each bondholder.

As I have been saying in my short stay on here, the market is overpriced and would eventually correct.  It is STILL overpriced. 

The nature of bonds is that the bond holder is locked in but the bond issuer benefits from FPGA technology increase.

[Garr255]

It is STILL overpriced. 

I disagree. Keep in mind the cost of hardware, electricity, and most prominently, time.

There are theories that the value of bonds will go down with the block reward drop, which I am also starting to disagree with.
I can easily see Bitcoin trading at $10 at the end of the year, which puts the ROI (if measured in dollars) at the same place.
Even if we're still trading at $5 a coin, without a mass introduction of ASICs by the reward drop in December the difficulty will drop significantly and ROI should remain the same.

Either way, the situation is a win-win for both investors and issuers.