.

[BinaryMage]

WTF?!
I'd love to have an API to see orders + an orderbook snapshot of that trade... according to my calculations it should have gone down until 1.06 at least, there must have been some hefty snipes in the end!

There was one for 500 at a little over 1.07; a third of the bonds right there.

[theymos]

Cool, I got some. This looks like a pure HYIP to me, but there are many very smart traders betting against a default, so I was convinced.

[REF]

WTF?!
I'd love to have an API to see orders + an orderbook snapshot of that trade... according to my calculations it should have gone down until 1.06 at least, there must have been some hefty snipes in the end!

you didnt refresh soon enough. 2 minutes~ before the deadline the bottom was at 1.07

[OgNasty]

Looks like it's currently yielding around 14%.  It will be interesting to watch this.

[BinaryMage]

Looks like it's currently yielding around 14%.  It will be interesting to watch this.

14% for a month is pretty good, but of course it all depends on how likely you think Pirate is to default.

[Sukrim]

It yielded 108 BTC (-8 BTC once for the ticker) to the 6 issuers --> 16.666...% per week from 100 BTC initial deposit, more than twice pirate's rate. Crazy.

[PatrickHarnett]

I was capturing the order book at one minute intervals up to the trigger (my last scrape about 5 seconds before the issue).  Yes, the 500 bid at 1.07 came in the last two minutes.

With four minutes to go, total bids were around 2850 before going to 3500 and then 4174.  At the close it fell to 3585 and could be due to re-bidding.

Similarly, the cut-off increased from 1.055 to 1.06, 1.07 and then dipped to 1.068.

[MrTeal]

I was capturing the order book at one minute intervals up to the trigger (my last scrape about 5 seconds before the issue).  Yes, the 500 bid at 1.07 came in the last two minutes.

With four minutes to go, total bids were around 2850 before going to 3500 and then 4174.  At the close it fell to 3585 and could be due to re-bidding.

Similarly, the cut-off increased from 1.055 to 1.06, 1.07 and then dipped to 1.068.

Excellent, now I don't have to feel like I left anything on the table at a bit over 1.07. What clock did you go by?

[REF]

I was capturing the order book at one minute intervals up to the trigger (my last scrape about 5 seconds before the issue).  Yes, the 500 bid at 1.07 came in the last two minutes.

With four minutes to go, total bids were around 2850 before going to 3500 and then 4174.  At the close it fell to 3585 and could be due to re-bidding. 

Similarly, the cut-off increased from 1.055 to 1.06, 1.07 and then dipped to 1.068.

I got the same information.

[PatrickHarnett]

I was capturing the order book at one minute intervals up to the trigger (my last scrape about 5 seconds before the issue).  Yes, the 500 bid at 1.07 came in the last two minutes.

With four minutes to go, total bids were around 2850 before going to 3500 and then 4174.  At the close it fell to 3585 and could be due to re-bidding.

Similarly, the cut-off increased from 1.055 to 1.06, 1.07 and then dipped to 1.068.

Excellent, now I don't have to feel like I left anything on the table at a bit over 1.07. What clock did you go by?

I'm linked to internet time servers, and I would expect glbse to be the same.  Allowed for the request lag and refresh, then a simple bit of analysis formulas to look at all the bids.

At least next week's bond issue will not take so much work.

[Nefario]

GLBSE is hooked to timeservers.

[Sukrim]

Interestingly a few people have now sold off their shares immediately for a quick <4 Bitcent profit over the chance of a <21 Bitcent profit in 4 weeks per share.

...anyways, 1.12 is still a 14.29% profit (if pirate delivers that is...)

Unfortunately the table with real percentages was removed, so here's a new one:

Code:

1	28,00%	1,28
1,01	26,73%	1,28
1,02	25,49%	1,28
1,03	24,27%	1,28
1,04	23,08%	1,28
1,05	21,90%	1,28
1,06	20,75%	1,28
1,07	19,63%	1,28
1,08	18,52%	1,28
1,09	17,43%	1,28
1,1	16,36%	1,28
1,11	15,32%	1,28
1,12	14,29%	1,28
1,13	13,27%	1,28
1,14	12,28%	1,28
1,15	11,30%	1,28
1,16	10,34%	1,28
1,17	9,40%	1,28
1,18	8,47%	1,28
1,19	7,56%	1,28
1,2	6,67%	1,28
1,21	5,79%	1,28
1,22	4,92%	1,28
1,23	4,07%	1,28
1,24	3,23%	1,28
1,25	2,40%	1,28
1,26	1,59%	1,28
1,27	0,79%	1,28
1,28	0,00%	1,28

[nathanghart]

Oops, I thought it was 2000 shares   Well, I knew it was 1500 then I saw 2000 on the GBLSE listing and second-guessed myself...then I revised my bid down to reflect my estimated buy line. So I missed it. Live and learn. Congrats to all who got some and the cartel underwriting this thing. Cool stuff.

[Gomeler]

I was capturing the order book at one minute intervals up to the trigger (my last scrape about 5 seconds before the issue).  Yes, the 500 bid at 1.07 came in the last two minutes.

With four minutes to go, total bids were around 2850 before going to 3500 and then 4174.  At the close it fell to 3585 and could be due to re-bidding.

Similarly, the cut-off increased from 1.055 to 1.06, 1.07 and then dipped to 1.068.

I squeaked right in at 1.069  Make some money, money!

[TheOtherGuy]

I see on GLBSE that some of the bonds have already been resold at 1.17. That is a nice gain in under 12 hours for someone.

[gabbynot]

Not to nick pick or anything, but why does this "zero-coupon bond" mature with a par value of 1.28 and not 1.00, which would be the normal par value for this type of financial security?

Overall great concept though, thanks for the contribution to the overall BTC community.

[imsaguy]

Not to nick pick or anything, but why does this "zero-coupon bond" mature with a par value of 1.28 and not 1.00, which would be the normal par value for this type of financial security?

Overall great concept though, thanks for the contribution to the overall BTC community.

the .28 is essentially the interest.  A 'coupon' is the interest you receive.  Rather than sell 1 BTC bonds with .28 BTC coupons, its just a 0 coupon, 1.28 BTC bond.

EDIT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coupon_(bond) is a good read to explain a bit better.

[gabbynot]

Not to nick pick or anything, but why does this "zero-coupon bond" mature with a par value of 1.28 and not 1.00, which would be the normal par value for this type of financial security?

Overall great concept though, thanks for the contribution to the overall BTC community.

the .28 is essentially the interest.  A 'coupon' is the interest you receive.  Rather than sell 1 BTC bonds with .28 BTC coupons, its just a 0 coupon, 1.28 BTC bond.

EDIT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coupon_(bond) is a good read to explain a bit better.

I understand all that.  But in the so-called real world, zero-coupon bonds will nearly always have a par value of 1.00 (usually $1000).  As such the original pricing would be something like .85 or whatever for these types of bonds, subject to market forces.

Again, I'm being nick picky, but if GLBSE/PPT is already trying to mimic a lot of practices that already exist in the financial world, why not go the same route with this type of instrument?

[Nefario]

I understand all that.  But in the so-called real world, zero-coupon bonds will nearly always have a par value of 1.00 (usually $1000).  As such the original pricing would be something like .85 or whatever for these types of bonds, subject to market forces.

Again, I'm being nick picky, but if GLBSE/PPT is already trying to mimic a lot of practices that already exist in the financial world, why not go the same route with this type of instrument?

I think what we're doing here (and with GLBSE in general) is not just try to copy the way things are done on the mainstream stock exchanges.

We're looking at what they do, taking what works and ignoring the rest. A lot of things in the real world are there for a reason (often very good ones), but then again quite a lot is just hubris and often only for historical reasons.

[gabbynot]

If, in 6 months, GLBSE is hosting 20 different ZCB's all with differing par value, then what possible benefit would there be?  The 1.00 standard (which already widely exists) will make it easier for potential investors to evaluate securities against each other, which in turn may make for a wider acceptance of alternative financial markets. 

There is simply no reason to re-invent this particular wheel.