[ANN] SuperNET NXT asset 12071612744977229797, SUPERNET KMD assetchain in summer

[jeezy]

Assuming the Bonus plan is passed, a total of 816061 SuperNET (UNITY)

Where did you get 816061? Shouldn't it be the TOKEN sold (571243) + 10%?

Yeah, a more detailed explanation is needed.  I was not expecting that much total UNITY even after the bonus conditions are met.  That's way more than the 20% max dilution previously proposed.

652849.2402 TOKEN sold.
Of the total UNITY issued, SuperNET gets 10% and another 5+5% are held as James' bonus. So:
652849.2402 = 80% UNITY
652849.2402 / 80 * 100 = 816061.

I just missed out on 0.1%

Edit: 10% for SuperNET, not James!

Ok, now I'm a bit more confused.  I thought the total TOKEN sold was 571243.1402.  Where did the 652849.2402 come from?  And why is the 20% added to this number instead of the 571243.1402?

816061 seems to be 571243.1402 + 30%, right? 10% is put inside itself as working capital? 10% (5% +5%) is kept in reserve for bonus conditions. And the other 10%? Not questioning this, just can't remember the original conditions so just looking for clarity.

10% for me
10% for SuperNET
10% for bonus in reserve
70% for TOKEN owners

TOKEN owners currently own 7/8'th of SuperNET as the 20% for SuperNET and bonus reserve are not dilutive

keep in mind the TOKEN owners put in ~5700 BTC and I put in ~3000 BTC of assets, so on a prorata basis I would have 34%

Thanks for explaining this again. I think most of the Stakeholders got it by now. 

[1715065552]

1715065552

[1715065552]

1715065552

[1715065552]

1715065552

[ShortBTCD]

If that's the case, 571243.1402 + 30% = 742616.08226

Sorry, just not adding up.  Not sure what I'm missing here.

You divide by 0.7, you don't multiply by 1.3

+1

The numbers seem correct to me.

thanks. can you please explain to people. I know it is confusing with all the non-dilutive 20%.

James

It is confusing, but it does appear correct (not having independently verified the underlying numbers regarding BTC-equivalent raised and BTC value of the included assets).  But taking those numbers at face value, TOKEN holders should directly own 70% of UNITY.  So you divide the tokens purchased (571k) by 70% and get 816k total UNITY issuance.

I think the distinction between that and multiplying by 130% was the first big confusion.  The second is the non-dilutive nature of the 20% (10% working capital and 10% held in reserve for potential bonus to James).  This is UNITY that UNITY itself owns.  The working capital portion will become dilutive only as it gets spent (if it gets spent) as currency, in lieu of spending out of the cash raised.  It's somewhat like authorized, but not issued, stock.  The James bonus only becomes dilutive if/when it is awarded, which is a nice problem to have.

Also, regarding the buywall - people should view this both as a courtesy backstop (it shouldn't need to be there if the market is anywhere close to efficient, but it gives peace of mind, and a guaranteed opportunity to cash out if someone really needs liquidity) and as an additional opportunity for those who plan to hold long-term.  Just as companies will buy back their own stock when they feel it is undervalued, you don't want your "company" to always be trying to buy back shares at the fair market price.  If there are temporary market disruptions, or occasional panic sells, UNITY buying back its own shares at a discount is accretive to you the UNITY holder.  It increases your percentage ownership at a favorable price.

[RichardT]

It is confusing, but it does appear correct (not having independently verified the underlying numbers regarding BTC-equivalent raised and BTC value of the included assets).  But taking those numbers at face value, TOKEN holders should directly own 70% of UNITY.  So you divide the tokens purchased (571k) by 70% and get 816k total UNITY issuance.

I think the distinction between that and multiplying by 130% was the first big confusion.  The second is the non-dilutive nature of the 20% (10% working capital and 10% held in reserve for potential bonus to James).  This is UNITY that UNITY itself owns.  The working capital portion will become dilutive only as it gets spent (if it gets spent) as currency, in lieu of spending out of the cash raised.  It's somewhat like authorized, but not issued, stock.  The James bonus only becomes dilutive if/when it is awarded, which is a nice problem to have.

Also, regarding the buywall - people should view this both as a courtesy backstop (it shouldn't need to be there if the market is anywhere close to efficient, but it gives peace of mind, and a guaranteed opportunity to cash out if someone really needs liquidity) and as an additional opportunity for those who plan to hold long-term.  Just as companies will buy back their own stock when they feel it is undervalued, you don't want your "company" to always be trying to buy back shares at the fair market price.  If there are temporary market disruptions, or occasional panic sells, UNITY buying back its own shares at a discount is accretive to you the UNITY holder.  It increases your percentage ownership at a favorable price.

Yes, confusing indeed.  But I got it now.  I was just calculating under the wrong assumptions.  Good explanation, btw.

10% for me
10% for SuperNET
10% for bonus in reserve
70% for TOKEN owners

TOKEN owners currently own 7/8'th of SuperNET as the 20% for SuperNET and bonus reserve are not dilutive

keep in mind the TOKEN owners put in ~5700 BTC and I put in ~3000 BTC of assets, so on a prorata basis I would have 34%

So to put it differently, you contributed 34% to the total UNITY and will only get a maximum of 10% of the total UNITY back if bonus conditions are met.  That sound right?

[PondSea]

10% in addition to the 10% he would get anyway.

[UNO_owner]

Assuming the Bonus plan is passed, a total of 816061 SuperNET (UNITY)

Where did you get 816061? Shouldn't it be the TOKEN sold (571243) + 10%?

Yeah, a more detailed explanation is needed.  I was not expecting that much total UNITY even after the bonus conditions are met.  That's way more than the 20% max dilution previously proposed.

20% is held by SuperNET itself so it is not dilutive. 10% of that is for the bonus and 10% for working capital
This is why it is called NAV (net asset value), for adjustments like this.

just think of it this way. if UNITY value goes up, SuperNET holds 20% of UNITY, so the 20% dilution caused by this is offset by the 20% gain.

James

Can your or someone explain why SuperNET is going to be holding 10%?  You say this amount is not dilutive and should not be considered when calculating value per UNITY, but that only makes sense if it will always be held by SuperNET - and if that is the case, I don't understand the purpose for it to exist in the first place.  You say working capital as if it will be sold when needed.

[RichardT]

10% in addition to the 10% he would get anyway.

Okay, got it, so a maximum of 20% of total UNITY will go to James if bonus conditions are met.

[jl777]

10% in addition to the 10% he would get anyway.

Okay, got it, so a maximum of 20% of total UNITY will go to James if bonus conditions are met.

yes

[jl777]

Assuming the Bonus plan is passed, a total of 816061 SuperNET (UNITY)

Where did you get 816061? Shouldn't it be the TOKEN sold (571243) + 10%?

Yeah, a more detailed explanation is needed.  I was not expecting that much total UNITY even after the bonus conditions are met.  That's way more than the 20% max dilution previously proposed.

20% is held by SuperNET itself so it is not dilutive. 10% of that is for the bonus and 10% for working capital
This is why it is called NAV (net asset value), for adjustments like this.

just think of it this way. if UNITY value goes up, SuperNET holds 20% of UNITY, so the 20% dilution caused by this is offset by the 20% gain.

James

Can your or someone explain why SuperNET is going to be holding 10%?  You say this amount is not dilutive and should not be considered when calculating value per UNITY, but that only makes sense if it will always be held by SuperNET - and if that is the case, I don't understand the purpose for it to exist in the first place.  You say working capital as if it will be sold when needed.

for example, let us assume in a few months a chance to buy 10% of a top10 coin arises. Then this extra 10% could be used for such a swap. Not that all of this will be used for one deal, just an example.

At that point, there would be an extra 10% dilution, but keep in mind there is now 10% worth of this top10 currency
-10% + 10% = 0%
so it doesnt change the value of each of the other UNITY assets
at least at the instant this happens

The goal of course is to create some positive effect from the working capital, so if that works then by doing the deal (only possible with the working capital) it would increase the value of all the UNITY assets.

So as long as the working capital is getting 1:1 value, then it is a neutral effect. If every working capital UNITY is used to get more than it cost, then all existing UNITY holders will benefit.

James

[UNO_owner]

for example, let us assume in a few months a chance to buy 10% of a top10 coin arises. Then this extra 10% could be used for such a swap. Not that all of this will be used for one deal, just an example.

At that point, there would be an extra 10% dilution, but keep in mind there is now 10% worth of this top10 currency
-10% + 10% = 0%
so it doesnt change the value of each of the other UNITY assets
at least at the instant this happens

The goal of course is to create some positive effect from the working capital, so if that works then by doing the deal (only possible with the working capital) it would increase the value of all the UNITY assets.

So as long as the working capital is getting 1:1 value, then it is a neutral effect. If every working capital UNITY is used to get more than it cost, then all existing UNITY holders will benefit.

James

Ok.  That makes sense, but then I thought the point of collecting the NXT and BTC for the IPO was to use for adding new coins to the core.  Isn't that considered working capital?  Buying coinx with BTC will get us a 1:1 value as well, without flooding the market with 10% more UNITY.

What type of guidelines or process will be used to make purchasing decisions like this? 

[jl777]

for example, let us assume in a few months a chance to buy 10% of a top10 coin arises. Then this extra 10% could be used for such a swap. Not that all of this will be used for one deal, just an example.

At that point, there would be an extra 10% dilution, but keep in mind there is now 10% worth of this top10 currency
-10% + 10% = 0%
so it doesnt change the value of each of the other UNITY assets
at least at the instant this happens

The goal of course is to create some positive effect from the working capital, so if that works then by doing the deal (only possible with the working capital) it would increase the value of all the UNITY assets.

So as long as the working capital is getting 1:1 value, then it is a neutral effect. If every working capital UNITY is used to get more than it cost, then all existing UNITY holders will benefit.

James

Ok.  That makes sense, but then I thought the point of collecting the NXT and BTC for the IPO was to use for adding new coins to the core.  Isn't that considered working capital?  Buying coinx with BTC will get us a 1:1 value as well, without flooding the market with 10% more UNITY.

What type of guidelines or process will be used to make purchasing decisions like this? 

that was just an example
the main use for working capital would be to pay for contractors, bounties and other things like that, just a catchall category for expenses.

for anything big, I would post it here. If there is a big controversy over it, then I will certainly listen to feedback
there are times where I need to make some quick decisions, so I think it is good that I have some discretion for doing things like that without needing any sort of elaborate process.

As the largest UNITY holder (I think I would be) it is in my interest to spend it wisely and I currently dont intend to tap into it for a while, certainly not at current low prices!

James

[UNO_owner]

Alright James, thanks.

I for one can say that I'd like to see that 10% never leave SuperNET.  Or at least, not until the valuation is many orders of magnitude higher and we can buy entire companies with it.

[bitranger]

Any idea why the price is exploding on AE when we are not suppose to be trading TOKEN until it changes over to UNITY? AE is 2.00usd higher than BTR??

[Cassius]

Any idea why the price is exploding on AE when we are not suppose to be trading TOKEN until it changes over to UNITY? AE id 2.00usd higher than BTR??

Welcome to the free market. It's now a scarce resource. Supply and demand.

[RichardT]

for example, let us assume in a few months a chance to buy 10% of a top10 coin arises. Then this extra 10% could be used for such a swap. Not that all of this will be used for one deal, just an example.

At that point, there would be an extra 10% dilution, but keep in mind there is now 10% worth of this top10 currency
-10% + 10% = 0%
so it doesnt change the value of each of the other UNITY assets
at least at the instant this happens

The goal of course is to create some positive effect from the working capital, so if that works then by doing the deal (only possible with the working capital) it would increase the value of all the UNITY assets.

So as long as the working capital is getting 1:1 value, then it is a neutral effect. If every working capital UNITY is used to get more than it cost, then all existing UNITY holders will benefit.

James

Ok.  That makes sense, but then I thought the point of collecting the NXT and BTC for the IPO was to use for adding new coins to the core.  Isn't that considered working capital?  Buying coinx with BTC will get us a 1:1 value as well, without flooding the market with 10% more UNITY.

What type of guidelines or process will be used to make purchasing decisions like this?  

that was just an example
the main use for working capital would be to pay for contractors, bounties and other things like that, just a catchall category for expenses.

for anything big, I would post it here. If there is a big controversy over it, then I will certainly listen to feedback
there are times where I need to make some quick decisions, so I think it is good that I have some discretion for doing things like that without needing any sort of elaborate process.

As the largest UNITY holder (I think I would be) it is in my interest to spend it wisely and I currently dont intend to tap into it for a while, certainly not at current low prices!

James

I have the same concern as UNO_owner.  I thought the BTC (and equivalent) raised in the ICO will be used for all the things you mentioned AND to buy 10% of coins joining the core.  So it's actually part of the 10% of UNITY that will be used to buy the 10% of those coins?

[jl777]

for example, let us assume in a few months a chance to buy 10% of a top10 coin arises. Then this extra 10% could be used for such a swap. Not that all of this will be used for one deal, just an example.

At that point, there would be an extra 10% dilution, but keep in mind there is now 10% worth of this top10 currency
-10% + 10% = 0%
so it doesnt change the value of each of the other UNITY assets
at least at the instant this happens

The goal of course is to create some positive effect from the working capital, so if that works then by doing the deal (only possible with the working capital) it would increase the value of all the UNITY assets.

So as long as the working capital is getting 1:1 value, then it is a neutral effect. If every working capital UNITY is used to get more than it cost, then all existing UNITY holders will benefit.

James

Ok.  That makes sense, but then I thought the point of collecting the NXT and BTC for the IPO was to use for adding new coins to the core.  Isn't that considered working capital?  Buying coinx with BTC will get us a 1:1 value as well, without flooding the market with 10% more UNITY.

What type of guidelines or process will be used to make purchasing decisions like this?  

that was just an example
the main use for working capital would be to pay for contractors, bounties and other things like that, just a catchall category for expenses.

for anything big, I would post it here. If there is a big controversy over it, then I will certainly listen to feedback
there are times where I need to make some quick decisions, so I think it is good that I have some discretion for doing things like that without needing any sort of elaborate process.

As the largest UNITY holder (I think I would be) it is in my interest to spend it wisely and I currently dont intend to tap into it for a while, certainly not at current low prices!

James

I have the same concern as UNO_owner.  I thought the BTC (and equivalent) raised in the ICO will be used for all the things you mentioned AND to buy 10% of coins joining the core.  So it's actually part of the 10% of UNITY that will be used to buy the 10% of those coins?

no, i just used that as an easy to use example of getting value for value
i plan to keep the vast majority of the 10% intact until much higher values and use it only when it makes sense to
As it is I will have 57 BTC for the entire operating budget of SuperNET, the 10% working capital gives a bit more breathing room.

James

[jl777]

How to check the voting results?

https://bter.com/article/3023 for the bter portion

not sure what the NXT is up to, but it could be close to 235000 Approve total, not sure
valarmg has been posting interim results

[RichardT]

no, i just used that as an easy to use example of getting value for value
i plan to keep the vast majority of the 10% intact until much higher values and use it only when it makes sense to
As it is I will have 57 BTC for the entire operating budget of SuperNET, the 10% working capital gives a bit more breathing room.

James

Thanks for clearing that up.  And I think you meant 5700 BTC budget not 57, right?  At least I hope. lol

[jl777]

no, i just used that as an easy to use example of getting value for value
i plan to keep the vast majority of the 10% intact until much higher values and use it only when it makes sense to
As it is I will have 57 BTC for the entire operating budget of SuperNET, the 10% working capital gives a bit more breathing room.

James

Thanks for clearing that up.  And I think you meant 5700 BTC budget not 57, right?  At least I hope. lol

There is only 1% available for working capital now!
That is ~57 BTC
The rest of the funds have strict usage guidelines and procedures, hence the request for extra 10% for working capital.

James

[RichardT]

no, i just used that as an easy to use example of getting value for value
i plan to keep the vast majority of the 10% intact until much higher values and use it only when it makes sense to
As it is I will have 57 BTC for the entire operating budget of SuperNET, the 10% working capital gives a bit more breathing room.

James

Thanks for clearing that up.  And I think you meant 5700 BTC budget not 57, right?  At least I hope. lol

There is only 1% available for working capital now!
That is ~57 BTC
The rest of the funds have strict usage guidelines and procedures, hence the request for extra 10% for working capital.

James

Okay, I guess it's just a matter of semantics now.  When you said "entire operating budget", I thought you meant to include everything.  I'm probably jumping the gun on all these questions as I'm sure there will be a paper/report outlining all the details of the funding involved.

Perhaps I'll just shut up now like everyone else and come back in a few months when UNITY is worth much more

[PondSea]

no, i just used that as an easy to use example of getting value for value
i plan to keep the vast majority of the 10% intact until much higher values and use it only when it makes sense to
As it is I will have 57 BTC for the entire operating budget of SuperNET, the 10% working capital gives a bit more breathing room.

James

Thanks for clearing that up.  And I think you meant 5700 BTC budget not 57, right?  At least I hope. lol

There is only 1% available for working capital now!
That is ~57 BTC
The rest of the funds have strict usage guidelines and procedures, hence the request for extra 10% for working capital.

James

James is there any plans to "divest" from some of the nxt holdings?

Holding too much nxt or anyone coin is a issue since the nav would be impacted to a large extent.