.

[imsaguy]

Interesting that people still seem to want to throw money at you - for 1.08 offers you only get ~18% per month, where other offers pay weekly and pay out over 28% compounded per month or 26% uncompounded. This would mean that everyone who bids more than 1.02 would be better off elsewhere. The only difference is the "insurance" - but this can basically be overcome by simply investing less in pirate and keeping some BTC for yourself.

Considering the competition, do you plan on changing your contracts soon (e.g. weekly payouts, no limit on share amount issued) or will you keep running like this?

I think many people forget that PPT is issued by some of the most respected people in the lending forum.  It wouldn't be just a matter of 1 person not honoring the agreement, but all six.  How many other issuers have that?

[1713558112]

1713558112

[1713558112]

1713558112

[Otoh]

when I work out the return & take the excellent insurance in to account, then say that I have bought 100 bonds at 1.10 each so I am due 18% interest in 4 weeks time (4.5% per week) = 18 BTC, but my funds at risk are not the full 100 BTC but those less the 25% guaranteed = 75 BTC, therefor I am effectively getting a return of 18 BTC from just 75 BTC put at risk so a return of 24% (6% per week) which is pretty healthy (one would need 2,000 coins direct with pirate to beat this) & I disregard the insured 25 BTC being tied up as they are part of my long term hold in any case funds rather than funds I am prepared to have lent out with any but very minimal risk - in fact I feel safer having some here with these 6 guys than all just left in Gox say

[Serge]

1.08 bottom has been historical market price, due to low competition on GLBSE and elsewhere up until recently for similar offerings. that price is not set in stone and in terms.
with so many different options now offered and available from other BTCST account holders, bottom price may as well come down to 1.02-1.01 for PPT.x family bonds.
would be interesting to watch PPT.A auction later today-tomorrow to see how market prices these bonds now

[Otoh]

1.08 bottom has been historical market price, due to low competition on GLBSE and elsewhere up until recently for similar offerings. that price is not set in stone and in terms.
with so many different options now offered and available from other BTCST account holders, bottom price may as well come down to 1.02-1.01 for PPT.x family bonds.
would be interesting to watch PPT.A auction later today-tomorrow to see how market prices these bonds now

The last offering E had I believe a high of 1.15 & the cut off would have been 1.122 except that GLBSE had a fail & filled all orders which were down to 1.085 but only as this glitch made about 7,000 bonds available instead of 3,000 as planned - so currently the figure to watch for PPT-A here is will the high be </> 1.15 (which is also where the price shot up to right after issue) & will the cut off be </> 1.12, personally I'd be surprised if any 1.10s or low to mid 1.11s got filled this time around as the last issue was so heavily oversubscribed, in other words I doubt, baring glitches, that any orders under 1.12 (equivalent to a 5.33% per week return on funds at risk) will get filled but in any case it will be interesting to follow as you say

[area]

1.08 bottom has been historical market price, due to low competition on GLBSE and elsewhere up until recently for similar offerings. that price is not set in stone and in terms.
with so many different options now offered and available from other BTCST account holders, bottom price may as well come down to 1.02-1.01 for PPT.x family bonds.
would be interesting to watch PPT.A auction later today-tomorrow to see how market prices these bonds now

The last offering E had I believe a high of 1.15 & the cut off would have been 1.122 except that GLBSE had a fail & filled all orders which were down to 1.085 but only as this glitch made about 7,000 bonds available instead of 3,000 as planned - so currently the figure to watch for PPT-A here is will the high be </> 1.15 (which is also where the price shot up to right after issue) & will the cut off be </> 1.12, personally I'd be surprised if any 1.10s or low to mid 1.11s got filled this time around as the last issue was so heavily oversubscribed, in other words I doubt, baring glitches, that any orders under 1.12 (equivalent to a 5.33% per week return on funds at risk) will get filled but in any case it will be interesting to follow as you say

I am certain that orders below 1.12 will be filled. The only way that I could explain otherwise would be people on GLBSE that don't frequent the forums, not knowing about the other pass-throughs that have appeared in the last week.

[Otoh]

1.08 bottom has been historical market price, due to low competition on GLBSE and elsewhere up until recently for similar offerings. that price is not set in stone and in terms.
with so many different options now offered and available from other BTCST account holders, bottom price may as well come down to 1.02-1.01 for PPT.x family bonds.
would be interesting to watch PPT.A auction later today-tomorrow to see how market prices these bonds now

The last offering E had I believe a high of 1.15 & the cut off would have been 1.122 except that GLBSE had a fail & filled all orders which were down to 1.085 but only as this glitch made about 7,000 bonds available instead of 3,000 as planned - so currently the figure to watch for PPT-A here is will the high be </> 1.15 (which is also where the price shot up to right after issue) & will the cut off be </> 1.12, personally I'd be surprised if any 1.10s or low to mid 1.11s got filled this time around as the last issue was so heavily oversubscribed, in other words I doubt, baring glitches, that any orders under 1.12 (equivalent to a 5.33% per week return on funds at risk) will get filled but in any case it will be interesting to follow as you say

I am certain that orders below 1.12 will be filled. The only way that I could explain otherwise would be people on GLBSE that don't frequent the forums, not knowing about the other pass-throughs that have appeared in the last week.

could be, I haven't checked them all out even myself* but I doubt any offer the equivalent of 6 of the most reputable guys who are doing this working together, to me this is an enormous plus as it removes another single point of failure in the chain & makes for a lot of trust that their money is riding on this too with the 25% insurance reserved

*edit - though I have seen 3 or 4 & it's no comparison risk wise to me

[PatrickHarnett]

Interesting that people still seem to want to throw money at you - for 1.08 offers you only get ~18% per month, where other offers pay weekly and pay out over 28% compounded per month or 26% uncompounded. This would mean that everyone who bids more than 1.02 would be better off elsewhere. The only difference is the "insurance" - but this can basically be overcome by simply investing less in pirate and keeping some BTC for yourself.

Considering the competition, do you plan on changing your contracts soon (e.g. weekly payouts, no limit on share amount issued) or will you keep running like this?

You math and logic are flawed, but similar in tone to many of your other forum posts which I find generally negative. Therefore, to point out the situation a little more clearly, to reserve coins rather than investing them may lower your payout and your claim that anyone paying more than 1.02 would be better off else where is not true.

Case 1, invest 110 coins in PPT at a buy in price of 1.05 (104.8 bonds)
Payout is either 134 coins for a profit of 24 coins, or in the event of a default, you receive 32 coins for a net loss of 88.

Case 2, Also starting with 110 coins, reserve 32 coins as self insurance, and put 88 coins into an uninsured scheme.
Position is either 32 + 78 * 1.28 = 134 (also a profit of 24) including weekly compounding, or you retain the 32 coins you started with.

There is a cross-over point, but in case #2 you have two single person points of default (Pirate and whoever your middle-man is).  In case #1, the PPT founders have more at stake than just the PPT business.  People have chosen to value these factors.

Also, in reference to Otoh's point, we have quite a lot of backup, hence Burt is off holidaying, and I'm doing the redemption (2560 coins shortly) and bond sale (3000) this week because it is not automatic.

[BinaryMage]

Interesting that people still seem to want to throw money at you - for 1.08 offers you only get ~18% per month, where other offers pay weekly and pay out over 28% compounded per month or 26% uncompounded. This would mean that everyone who bids more than 1.02 would be better off elsewhere. The only difference is the "insurance" - but this can basically be overcome by simply investing less in pirate and keeping some BTC for yourself.

Considering the competition, do you plan on changing your contracts soon (e.g. weekly payouts, no limit on share amount issued) or will you keep running like this?

You math and logic are flawed, but similar in tone to many of your other forum posts which I find generally negative. Therefore, to point out the situation a little more clearly, to reserve coins rather than investing them may lower your payout and your claim that anyone paying more than 1.02 would be better off else where is not true.

Case 1, invest 110 coins in PPT at a buy in price of 1.05
Payout is either 128 coins for a profit of 24 coins, or in the event of a default, you receive 32 coins for a net loss of 88.

Case 2, Also starting with 110 coins, reserve 32 coins as self insurance, and put 88 coins into an uninsured scheme.
Position is either 32 + 78 * 1.28 = 134 (also a profit of 24) including weekly compounding, or you retain the 32 coins you started with.

There is a cross-over point, but in case #2 you have two single person points of default (Pirate and whoever your middle-man is).  In case #1, the PPT founders have more at stake than just the PPT business.  People have chosen to value these factors.

Also, in reference to Otoh's point, we have quite a lot of backup, hence Burt is off holidaying, and I'm doing the redemption (2560 coins shortly) and bond sale (3000) this week because it is not automatic.

Your point seems valid, but I'm not understanding your math. How does a payout of 128 coins from an investment of 110 coins generate 24 coins in profit? Unless standard base 10 notation has changed without me noticing, 128 - 110 = 18.

[PatrickHarnett]

Your point seems valid, but I'm not understanding your math. How does a payout of 128 coins from an investment of 110 coins generate 24 coins in profit? Unless standard base 10 notation has changed without me noticing, 128 - 110 = 18.

Damn starfish had a math fail - I was playing with the numbers and didn't update the words properly - gone back to edit the post.

It should have been [(110 / 1.05) = 104.8] * 1.28 = 134, so profit is 134-110 = 24

[imsaguy]

You math and logic are flawed, but similar in tone to many of your other forum posts which I find generally negative. Therefore, to point out the situation a little more clearly, to reserve coins rather than investing them may lower your payout and your claim that anyone paying more than 1.02 would be better off else where is not true.

Case 1, invest 110 coins in PPT at a buy in price of 1.05
Payout is either 128 coins for a profit of 24 coins, or in the event of a default, you receive 32 coins for a net loss of 88.

Case 2, Also starting with 110 coins, reserve 32 coins as self insurance, and put 88 coins into an uninsured scheme.
Position is either 32 + 78 * 1.28 = 134 (also a profit of 24) including weekly compounding, or you retain the 32 coins you started with.

There is a cross-over point, but in case #2 you have two single person points of default (Pirate and whoever your middle-man is).  In case #1, the PPT founders have more at stake than just the PPT business.  People have chosen to value these factors.

Also, in reference to Otoh's point, we have quite a lot of backup, hence Burt is off holidaying, and I'm doing the redemption (2560 coins shortly) and bond sale (3000) this week because it is not automatic.

Your point seems valid, but I'm not understanding your math. How does a payout of 128 coins from an investment of 110 coins generate 24 coins in profit? Unless standard base 10 notation has changed without me noticing, 128 - 110 = 18.

110 coins invested at a buy price of 1.05 is 104.xxx bonds.  Let's round up since you can't buy fractional bonds.  so 110.xx coins invested at a buy price of 1.05 is 105 bonds.  105 bonds with a redeem price of 1.28 = 134.4 btc.  Since you bought with 110 coins, your profit is 24.4 btc.  Insurance is .32 per bond in the case of a default, so 105 bonds @ .32 = 33.6 btc.

[MrTeal]

You math and logic are flawed, but similar in tone to many of your other forum posts which I find generally negative. Therefore, to point out the situation a little more clearly, to reserve coins rather than investing them may lower your payout and your claim that anyone paying more than 1.02 would be better off else where is not true.

Case 1, invest 110 coins in PPT at a buy in price of 1.05
Payout is either 128 coins for a profit of 24 coins, or in the event of a default, you receive 32 coins for a net loss of 88.

Case 2, Also starting with 110 coins, reserve 32 coins as self insurance, and put 88 coins into an uninsured scheme.
Position is either 32 + 78 * 1.28 = 134 (also a profit of 24) including weekly compounding, or you retain the 32 coins you started with.

There is a cross-over point, but in case #2 you have two single person points of default (Pirate and whoever your middle-man is).  In case #1, the PPT founders have more at stake than just the PPT business.  People have chosen to value these factors.

Also, in reference to Otoh's point, we have quite a lot of backup, hence Burt is off holidaying, and I'm doing the redemption (2560 coins shortly) and bond sale (3000) this week because it is not automatic.

Your point seems valid, but I'm not understanding your math. How does a payout of 128 coins from an investment of 110 coins generate 24 coins in profit? Unless standard base 10 notation has changed without me noticing, 128 - 110 = 18.

I'm guessing he started with the numbers from one scenario and edited it halfway through. Payout for case 1 would be 134 coins, with an insurance payout of 33.5.

[BinaryMage]

Your point seems valid, but I'm not understanding your math. How does a payout of 128 coins from an investment of 110 coins generate 24 coins in profit? Unless standard base 10 notation has changed without me noticing, 128 - 110 = 18.

Damn starfish had a math fail - I was playing with the numbers and didn't update the words properly - gone back to edit the post.

It should have been [(110 / 1.05) = 104.8] * 1.28 = 134, so profit is 134-110 = 24

And I read the numbers and apparently not the words.

Thanks, that certainly makes more sense.

[PatrickHarnett]

I'm guessing he started with the numbers from one scenario and edited it halfway through. Payout for case 1 would be 134 coins, with an insurance payout of 33.5.

Yes.  Started looking at 100 bonds for 110 coins and then started playing with different purchase prices.

Anyway - redemption for PPT.B is all set and ready to go in 15 minutes.

Edit: 2000 bonds paid 1.28 - should be 2560 coins in people's accounts.

[tosku]

The bonds will have a face value of 1.28 BTC exactly 27 days 22 hours after the close of the bond auction, on Saturday morning at 12 AM UTC.

(...)

These bonds will be partially insured and backed by a cartel of some of the most reputable and well known BTC lenders in the lending forums:  BurtW, PatrickHarnett, dollartrader, hashking, imsaguy and ineededausername.  

In the event that BS&T stops payments and returns the principal and interest to date or changes its terms and conditions so that the intended pass through of interest is either stopped, pays lower interest or at a schedule that does not align with the PPT bonds the bonds will still be redeemed for their full face value on their scheduled redemption date.  PPT and the above mentioned backers will cover any shortfalls from the capital reserves of PPT.

In the case of a total default event by BS&T (failure to return our funds to us) you will receive 25% of the face value of the bonds from the capital reserves of PPT (0.32 BTC per bond).

So, in the first scenario, are the bonds redeemed for 1 BTC or 1.28 BTC?

Also, have you and your other partners revealed your real life identities? Where?

[PatrickHarnett]

So, in the first scenario, are the bonds redeemed for 1 BTC or 1.28 BTC?

Also, have you and your other partners revealed your real life identities? Where?

Answer A: 1.28
Answer B: My identity is pretty easy to determine, as are some of the others - would you like to meet me face-to-face?

[Otoh]

not sure if better to post here or on the GLBSE thread but https://glbse.com/asset/view/PPT.A the price & volume charts show info from about 24 April to 15 May, perhaps from the original PPT-A, anyway it makes it confusing - I imagine especially for newbies

[PatrickHarnett]

not sure if better to post here or on the GLBSE thread but https://glbse.com/asset/view/PPT.A the price & volume charts show info from about 24 April to 15 May, perhaps from the original PPT-A, anyway it makes it confusing - I imagine especially for newbies

I agree (and had been wondering about that.  Plus on the market charts it's going to be additive, so the 30-day totals are going to look weird too.)

[MrTeal]

Wow, I overpayed. Looks like they went down to almost 1.0 with this issue. Someone got a good deal.

[filharvey]

I think I got in at the last minute at 1.05 did have the, at 1.085 and decided to change a minute before.

[coblee]

I replied to the main pirate thread, but I think this should also be posted here:

I was looking at this earlier today


From https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=76594.msg922493#msg922493

Case 1, invest 110 coins in PPT at a buy in price of 1.05 (104.8 bonds)
Payout is either 134 coins for a profit of 24 coins, or in the event of a default, you receive 32 coins for a net loss of 88.

Case 2, Also starting with 110 coins, reserve 32 coins as self insurance, and put 88 coins into an uninsured scheme.
Position is either 32 + 78 * 1.28 = 134 (also a profit of 24) including weekly compounding, or you retain the 32 coins you started with.

Depends on the price you pay.  Call it what you will, but buyers below 1.05 will be better off "mathematically".

For those that do not have access to 2000 coins and a 7%/week account, you'll also be better off.

This is OT for this thread.

Your calculations are wrong. For case 1, if pirate defaults, you get 33.536 coins back because you had 104.8 bonds at .32 each.
By my calculation, break-even is 1.07 when your uninsured investment is non-compounding pirate rate of 28% return in 4 weeks.

Case 1:
107 coins to buy 100 PPT bonds at 1.07
  no default: 100 * 1.28 = 128
  default: 100 * .32 = 32

Case 2:
Keep 32 coins on the side and use 75 coins to invest in an uninsured 28% pirate program
  no default: 32 + 75 * 1.28 = 128
  default: 32 + 0 = 32