.

[coblee]

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

Yes, Did 3000 bonds sell or just everything above 1 BTC?

Thanks

Wow, at 1, the effective interest rate is 41.2%
You guys are losing money this way. Even doing compounding, you can only make 31.1% interest from pirate. You may need to rethink how low you are willing to buy your bonds at.

[1713870272]

1713870272

[1713870272]

1713870272

[1713870272]

1713870272

[BinaryMage]

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

Yes, Did 3000 bonds sell or just everything above 1 BTC?

Thanks

Wow, at 1, the effective interest rate is 41.2%
You guys are losing money this way. Even doing compounding, you can only make 31.1% interest from pirate. You may need to rethink how low you are willing to buy your bonds at.

Effective interest rate is not really relevant in regards to PPT's profits.

If Pirate doesn't default, they make money. If he does, they lose money. This is true regardless of whether the bonds are bought at 1.0 or 1.25; the amounts change but the fact of it does not.

EDIT: This is assuming no one buys the bonds for above 1.28, which would be vastly improbable.

[PatrickHarnett]

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

etc

Thanks for looking and thinking about this.  The point you've demonstrated is that there is a benefit, and it's materially above 1.02.

BTW I used 1.07^4 to make the comparison more realistic.

also, as a question, how did you get 41% return for someone investing at 1.00 and receiving 1.28?

[coblee]

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

Yes, Did 3000 bonds sell or just everything above 1 BTC?

Thanks

Wow, at 1, the effective interest rate is 41.2%
You guys are losing money this way. Even doing compounding, you can only make 31.1% interest from pirate. You may need to rethink how low you are willing to buy your bonds at.

Effective interest rate is not really relevant in regards to PPT's profits.

If Pirate doesn't default, they make money. If he does, they lose money. This is true regardless of whether the bonds are bought at 1.0 or 1.25; the amounts change but the fact of it does not.

That's wrong. If you paid 1.32 for a bond, PPT only puts 1 btc with pirate to make the 1.28 btc needed at the end of 4 weeks. They pocket the .32 if pirate doesn't default. If pirate does default, they don't lose money because they pay your the .32 they pocketed.

[PatrickHarnett]

That's wrong. If you paid 1.32 for a bond, PPT only puts 1 btc with pirate to make the 1.28 btc needed at the end of 4 weeks. They pocket the .32 if pirate doesn't default. If pirate does default, they don't lose money because they pay your the .32 they pocketed.

What?

No one has paid 1.32, and we have 0.32BTC per bond in a secure wallet earning zero to cover the event of default. 

We "pocket" the difference between the 1.00 and average price and that compensates for having 4k BTC tied up and goes to the PPT.DIV payouts.

[coblee]

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

etc

Thanks for looking and thinking about this.  The point you've demonstrated is that there is a benefit, and it's materially above 1.02.

BTW I used 1.07^4 to make the comparison more realistic.

also, as a question, how did you get 41% return for someone investing at 1.00 and receiving 1.28?

At 1 btc per bond, it's as if they put .32 on the side and paid .68 for the bond.
.96 return (1.28 - .32) on a .68 investment is 41%.
.96 / .68 = 1.41

Their gain equals your loss. Because instead of selling the share at 1 btc, you could have instead invested .32 of your PPT.DIV capital with pirate directly. Here's the math assuming no compounding interest:

Case 1 - Selling a bond at 1 btc
  no default: PPT makes nothing.
  default: PPT loses .32

Case 2 - Investing PPT.DIV's .32 with pirate
  no default: PPT makes .32 * .28 = .0896
  default: PPT loses .32

So if pirate defaults, your loss is the same. If pirate does not default you are effectively losing .0896 per share because that's the money you otherwise would have made if you put the insurance money with pirate.
And your effective loss is the exact same as what the buyer of your bond gained. Here's that math:

Case 1 - Buyer buys PPT at 1 btc
  no default: buyer makes .28
  default: buyer loses .68

Case 2 - Buyer invests .68 directly with pirate
  no default: buyer makes .68 * .28 = .1904
  default: buyer loses .68

The effective gain of the buyer is .28 - .1904 = .0896
See how that's the same as what you (the PPT bond sellers) effectively lost? The math works out beautifully.
Bottom line, if you sell shares for less than 1.07, it is a losing proposition. (assuming no compound interest)
With compound interest, the break-even value is a bit lower than that.

P.S. I went to MIT

[coblee]

That's wrong. If you paid 1.32 for a bond, PPT only puts 1 btc with pirate to make the 1.28 btc needed at the end of 4 weeks. They pocket the .32 if pirate doesn't default. If pirate does default, they don't lose money because they pay your the .32 they pocketed.

What?

No one has paid 1.32, and we have 0.32BTC per bond in a secure wallet earning zero to cover the event of default. 

We "pocket" the difference between the 1.00 and average price and that compensates for having 4k BTC tied up and goes to the PPT.DIV payouts.

I didn't say anyone paid 1.32. I was responding BinaryMage saying that no matter at what price the bond is sold, PPT will lose money if pirate defaults. I was just showing that if the bond was sold above 1.32, PPT makes money either way.

[BinaryMage]

That's wrong. If you paid 1.32 for a bond, PPT only puts 1 btc with pirate to make the 1.28 btc needed at the end of 4 weeks. They pocket the .32 if pirate doesn't default. If pirate does default, they don't lose money because they pay your the .32 they pocketed.

What?

No one has paid 1.32, and we have 0.32BTC per bond in a secure wallet earning zero to cover the event of default.  

We "pocket" the difference between the 1.00 and average price and that compensates for having 4k BTC tied up and goes to the PPT.DIV payouts.

I didn't say anyone paid 1.32. I was responding BinaryMage saying that no matter at what price the bond is sold, PPT will lose money if pirate defaults. I was just showing that if the bond was sold above 1.32, PPT makes money either way.

No sane person would purchase a bond above 1.28, ergo I concluded it was unnecessary to include that possibility in my calculations.

Technically you are certainly correct, but we could bring up any number of extremely improbable conditions and discuss this subject endlessly to no end whatsoever. However, for the sake of your appeasement, I have edited my post to reflect this extremely remote possibility.

[coblee]

Here's some more info for you guys:

All 3000 sold:

Code:

5/25/2012 22:00:30	450	1.00000002
5/25/2012 22:00:30	33	1.00000003
5/25/2012 22:00:30	42	1.000001
5/25/2012 22:00:29	1	1.015
5/25/2012 22:00:29	75	1.01111
5/25/2012 22:00:29	5	1.01010101
5/25/2012 22:00:29	5	1.01000001
5/25/2012 22:00:29	1	1.01
5/25/2012 22:00:29	5	1.01
5/25/2012 22:00:29	1	1.01
5/25/2012 22:00:29	1	1.005
5/25/2012 22:00:29	48	1.000001
5/25/2012 22:00:28	5	1.015
5/25/2012 22:00:28	100	1.02
5/25/2012 22:00:28	10	1.02
5/25/2012 22:00:28	1	1.02
5/25/2012 22:00:28	1	1.02
5/25/2012 22:00:28	100	1.02000001
5/25/2012 22:00:28	100	1.02100001
5/25/2012 22:00:28	100	1.02200001
5/25/2012 22:00:28	1	1.023
5/25/2012 22:00:28	1	1.025
5/25/2012 22:00:27	1	1.031
5/25/2012 22:00:27	101	1.0301
5/25/2012 22:00:27	1	1.03000002
5/25/2012 22:00:27	100	1.03000001
5/25/2012 22:00:27	1	1.03
5/25/2012 22:00:27	1	1.0251
5/25/2012 22:00:27	5	1.02500002
5/25/2012 22:00:27	100	1.02500001
5/25/2012 22:00:26	96	1.04
5/25/2012 22:00:26	1	1.031
5/25/2012 22:00:26	1	1.0311
5/25/2012 22:00:26	1	1.035
5/25/2012 22:00:26	1	1.035
5/25/2012 22:00:26	1	1.038
5/25/2012 22:00:26	8	1.04
5/25/2012 22:00:26	100	1.04
5/25/2012 22:00:25	10	1.041
5/25/2012 22:00:25	1	1.04
5/25/2012 22:00:25	1	1.045
5/25/2012 22:00:25	1	1.0451
5/25/2012 22:00:25	1	1.041
5/25/2012 22:00:25	1	1.048
5/25/2012 22:00:25	1	1.049
5/25/2012 22:00:25	5	1.05
5/25/2012 22:00:25	476	1.05
5/25/2012 22:00:25	17	1.05
5/25/2012 22:00:25	100	1.05
5/25/2012 22:00:24	1	1.0555
5/25/2012 22:00:24	1	1.0551
5/25/2012 22:00:24	15	1.055
5/25/2012 22:00:24	1	1.051
5/25/2012 22:00:24	100	1.0501
5/25/2012 22:00:24	5	1.05000001
5/25/2012 22:00:24	1	1.05
5/25/2012 22:00:24	1	1.058
5/25/2012 22:00:24	100	1.06
5/25/2012 22:00:23	100	1.0611
5/25/2012 22:00:23	1	1.061
5/25/2012 22:00:23	1	1.0691
5/25/2012 22:00:23	1	1.069
5/25/2012 22:00:23	27	1.0682
5/25/2012 22:00:23	1	1.068
5/25/2012 22:00:23	1	1.0666
5/25/2012 22:00:23	1	1.066
5/25/2012 22:00:23	1	1.0651
5/25/2012 22:00:23	3	1.065
5/25/2012 22:00:22	2	1.08
5/25/2012 22:00:22	2	1.07
5/25/2012 22:00:22	6	1.07
5/25/2012 22:00:22	100	1.07
5/25/2012 22:00:22	1	1.0701
5/25/2012 22:00:22	2	1.071
5/25/2012 22:00:22	1	1.071
5/25/2012 22:00:22	30	1.0726
5/25/2012 22:00:22	1	1.075
5/25/2012 22:00:22	1	1.078
5/25/2012 22:00:22	1	1.0781
5/25/2012 22:00:21	1	1.085
5/25/2012 22:00:21	33	1.0826
5/25/2012 22:00:21	1	1.081
5/25/2012 22:00:21	100	1.08
5/25/2012 22:00:21	1	1.088
5/25/2012 22:00:21	1	1.0888
5/25/2012 22:00:21	1	1.0891
5/25/2012 22:00:21	2	1.09
5/25/2012 22:00:21	6	1.09
5/25/2012 22:00:21	2	1.09
5/25/2012 22:00:21	1	1.087
5/25/2012 22:00:20	1	1.096
5/25/2012 22:00:20	1	1.095
5/25/2012 22:00:20	14	1.095
5/25/2012 22:00:20	1	1.0911
5/25/2012 22:00:20	1	1.091
5/25/2012 22:00:20	15	1.091
5/25/2012 22:00:20	15	1.101
5/25/2012 22:00:20	20	1.1
5/25/2012 22:00:20	1	1.1
5/25/2012 22:00:20	2	1.1
5/25/2012 22:00:20	1	1.098
5/25/2012 22:00:19	2	1.12
5/25/2012 22:00:19	15	1.13
5/25/2012 22:00:19	2	1.103
5/25/2012 22:00:19	2	1.11
5/25/2012 22:00:19	15	1.11
5/25/2012 22:00:19	15	1.12
                	3000	

I just put these numbers in the spread sheet and saw that, you made 3113.95 from your sale.
The average price is 3113.95 / 3000 = 1.038
At that price, you are losing money for this round of PPT.A.

Case 1 - Sell 3000 shares of PPT.A at 1.038
  no default: PPT makes 3000 * .038 = 114
  default: PPT loses 960 - 114 = 846

Case 2 - Put 846 btc with pirate
  no default: PPT makes 846 * .28 = 237
  default: PPT loses 846

Difference is 237 - 114 = 123
So you are effectively losing 123 bitcoins for this round. Your loss for if pirate defaults is the same.
Like I said, you may need to rethink the lowest price that you will sell bonds at.

EDIT: Fixed some numbers thanks to BinaryMage.

[BinaryMage]

Here's some more info for you guys:

I just put these numbers in the spread sheet and saw that, you made 3113.95 from your sale.
The average price is 3113.95 / 3000 = 1.038
At that price, you are losing money for this round of PPT.A.

Case 1 - Sell 3000 shares of PPT.A at 1.038 with 960 btc tied in insurance money (tied up earning 0 interest)
  no default: PPT makes 113.95
  default: PPT loses 960

Case 2 - Put 960 btc with pirate
  no default: PPT makes 960 * .28 = 268.8
  default: PPT loses 960

Difference is 268.8 - 113.95 = 154.85
So you are effectively losing 155 bitcoins for this round. Your loss for if pirate defaults is the same.
Like I said, you may need to rethink the lowest price that you will sell bonds at.

Perhaps I am missing something, but nowhere can I find the statement that they must actually hold .32 BTC per bond in a wallet instead of in investments or in Pirate himself. All that is stated is that they will pay 0.32 BTC per bond if Pirate defaults.

[coblee]

No sane person would purchase a bond above 1.28, ergo I concluded it was unnecessary to include that possibility in my calculations.

Technically you are certainly correct, but we could bring up any number of extremely improbable conditions and discuss this subject endlessly to no end whatsoever.

Fair enough. Let me respond to your original post again.

Effective interest rate is not really relevant in regards to PPT's profits.

If Pirate doesn't default, they make money. If he does, they lose money. This is true regardless of whether the bonds are bought at 1.0 or 1.25; the amounts change but the fact of it does not.

Effective interest rate affects how much PPT makes. So how is it "not really relevant in regards to PPT's profits"?

As for your second statement, I already showed that for this round of PPT.A even when pirate does not default, they effectively lose money. In other words, they don't make as much as they could have by not selling the bonds.

[BinaryMage]

Effective interest rate affects how much PPT makes. So how is it "not really relevant in regards to PPT's profits"?

As for your second statement, I already showed that for this round of PPT.A even when pirate does not default, they effectively lose money. In other words, they don't make as much as they could have by not selling the bonds.

Not relevant to the existence of positive profits or negative profits. (Certainly relevant to the amount)

As for your second paragraph, see my above post. (We're leapfrogging a bit)

[coblee]

Here's some more info for you guys:

I just put these numbers in the spread sheet and saw that, you made 3113.95 from your sale.
The average price is 3113.95 / 3000 = 1.038
At that price, you are losing money for this round of PPT.A.

Case 1 - Sell 3000 shares of PPT.A at 1.038 with 960 btc tied in insurance money (tied up earning 0 interest)
  no default: PPT makes 113.95
  default: PPT loses 960

Case 2 - Put 960 btc with pirate
  no default: PPT makes 960 * .28 = 268.8
  default: PPT loses 960

Difference is 268.8 - 113.95 = 154.85
So you are effectively losing 155 bitcoins for this round. Your loss for if pirate defaults is the same.
Like I said, you may need to rethink the lowest price that you will sell bonds at.

Perhaps I am missing something, but nowhere can I find the statement that they must actually hold .32 BTC per bond in a wallet instead of in investments or in Pirate himself. All that is stated is that they will pay 0.32 BTC per bond if Pirate defaults.

They don't need to, but it doesn't affect the numbers, because they have to pay it out if pirate defaults. You can strike out the line (which I did in the quote above) and just compare the 2 cases. Instead of selling 3000 shares at 1.038, they should instead invest 960 btc with pirate because the profit would be greater with the same loss if pirate defaults.

If what you are saying is that they should do case 1 AND case 2 at the same time, then that means if pirate defaults they will lose 1920 bitcoins. Then in that case, why not just put 1920 btc with pirate instead?

[BinaryMage]

They don't need to, but it doesn't affect the numbers, because they have to pay it out if pirate defaults. You can strike out the line (which I did in the quote above) and just compare the 2 cases. Instead of selling 3000 shares at 1.038, they should instead invest 960 btc with pirate because the profit would be greater with the same loss if pirate defaults.

If what you are saying is that they should do case 1 AND case 2 at the same time, then that means if pirate defaults they will lose 1920 bitcoins. Then in that case, why not just put 1920 btc with pirate instead?

I agree putting 1920 BTC with Pirate is financially more profitable than this round of PPT bonds in all cases, but I'm not sure how that's relevant - no investment needed to be made initially by any of them other than the 960 BTC in the PPT fund. (PPT.A is simply being reused, no 8 BTC asset creation fee)

More importantly, we're ignoring a few key aspects of this.

Assuming the 113.95 BTC above the 3000 BTC is not invested with Pirate and not earning any interest (unlikely), if Pirate defaults, they will lose 960 - 113.95 BTC = 846.05 BTC - but only if he defaults before the first payment.
If he defaults after the first payment, they will lose 960 - 113.95 - (.07 * 3000) = 636.05 BTC.
After the second payment, 960 - 113.95 - (.14 * 3000) = 426.05 BTC.
After the third payment, 960 - 113.95 - (.21 * 3000) = 216.05 BTC.

If he does not default, they will make 3113.95 - 3000 = 113.95 BTC

An investment of 960 BTC into Pirate would lose 960 BTC if Pirate defaults before the first payment.
960 - (.07 * 960) = 892.8 BTC loss if Pirate defaults after the first payment.
960 - (.14 * 960) = 825.6 BTC loss if Pirate defaults after the second payment.
960 - (.21 * 960) = 758.4 BTC loss if Pirate defaults after the third payment.
And finally a .28 * 960 = 268.8 BTC profit if Pirate does not default.

Effectively, the first usage of 960 BTC is better if Pirate defaults before all 4 payments, the second if he does not default. I'm not necessarily arguing for PPT's choice here, but it seems to me to have a similar effect to a partial hedge. They make less if Pirate pays out, but lose less if he defaults.

[coblee]

They don't need to, but it doesn't affect the numbers, because they have to pay it out if pirate defaults. You can strike out the line (which I did in the quote above) and just compare the 2 cases. Instead of selling 3000 shares at 1.038, they should instead invest 960 btc with pirate because the profit would be greater with the same loss if pirate defaults.

If what you are saying is that they should do case 1 AND case 2 at the same time, then that means if pirate defaults they will lose 1920 bitcoins. Then in that case, why not just put 1920 btc with pirate instead?

I agree putting 1920 BTC with Pirate is financially more profitable than this round of PPT bonds in all cases, but I'm not sure how that's relevant - no investment needed to be made initially by any of them other than the 960 BTC in the PPT fund. (PPT.A is simply being reused, no 8 BTC asset creation fee)

More importantly, we're ignoring a few key aspects of this.

Assuming the 113.95 BTC above the 3000 BTC is not invested with Pirate and not earning any interest (unlikely), if Pirate defaults, they will lose 960 - 113.95 BTC = 846.05 BTC - but only if he defaults before the first payment.
If he defaults after the first payment, they will lose 960 - 113.95 - (.07 * 3000) = 636.05 BTC.
After the second payment, 960 - 113.95 - (.14 * 3000) = 426.05 BTC.
After the third payment, 960 - 113.95 - (.21 * 3000) = 216.05 BTC.

If he does not default, they will make 3113.95 - 3000 = 113.95 BTC

An investment of 960 BTC into Pirate would lose 960 BTC if Pirate defaults before the first payment.
960 - (.07 * 960) = 892.8 BTC loss if Pirate defaults after the first payment.
960 - (.14 * 960) = 825.6 BTC loss if Pirate defaults after the second payment.
960 - (.21 * 960) = 758.4 BTC loss if Pirate defaults after the third payment.
And finally a .28 * 960 = 268.8 BTC profit if Pirate does not default.

Effectively, the first usage of 960 BTC is better if Pirate defaults before all 4 payments, the second if he does not default. I'm not necessarily arguing for PPT's choice here, but it seems to me to have a similar effect to a partial hedge. They make less if Pirate pays out, but lose less if he defaults.

Thanks for reminding me that if pirate defaults, PPT still earns the 113.95. I fixed it in my post above. Here it is again:

Case 1 - Sell 3000 shares of PPT.A at 1.038
  no default: PPT makes 3000 * .038 = 114
  default: PPT loses 960 - 114 = 846

Case 2 - Put 846 btc with pirate
  no default: PPT makes 846 * .28 = 237
  default: PPT loses 846

Difference is 237 - 114 = 123
So you are effectively losing 123 bitcoins for this round. Your loss for if pirate defaults is the same.

Yes, this only is true if pirate defaults within the first week. If pirate defaults after that, PPT will have made more money to cover their loses. In order to do a better apples to apples comparison, it's easier to use compounded interest in this scenario since then it doesn't matter when pirate defaults. 7% interest compounded for 4 weeks is about 31%.

If pirate doesn't default, pirate will payout 1.31 to PPT but PPT only pays 1.28 to bond holders, so PPT makes an addition .03 per share. That's only if no default.

Case 1 - Sell 3000 shares of PPT.A at 1.038
  no default: PPT makes 3000 * (.038 + .03) = 204
  default: PPT loses 960 - 114 = 846

Case 2 - Put 846 btc with pirate
  no default: PPT makes 846 * .31 = 262
  default: PPT loses 846

Difference is 262 - 204 = 58
So if you are do compounding interests, you only lose 58 bitcoins for this round.

[coblee]

If doing compounding interest, the break-even value is 1.0528
In other words, if the average sale price of the bond is less than 1.0528, then PPT is losing money in that round.

[tosku]

Aren't you missing something? PPT didn't choose to sell the bonds as cheap as they did - they had probably hoped they would gain more in the initial bond auction. Therefore, they won't be making much of a profit for this round. It's about as simple as an eBay seller putting $100 items up for auction at a starting price of $1.

[Ean]

If doing compounding interest, the break-even value is 1.0528

If doing compounding interest, the break-even value is 0.9765


As far as I know, they are not using your money for the insurance, they are using their own.

If they invest all the 3113.95 they will get 4081.75 in four weeks. That's 1.36 per bond. After buy-back, they will have made (1.36 - 1.28) * 3000 = 240 BTC.

In other words, they are risking 0.32 * 3000 = 960 BTC, and if Pirate don't default they gets 240 / 960 = 25 % profit.

[BinaryMage]

Yes, this only is true if pirate defaults within the first week. If pirate defaults after that, PPT will have made more money to cover their loses. In order to do a better apples to apples comparison, it's easier to use compounded interest in this scenario since then it doesn't matter when pirate defaults. 7% interest compounded for 4 weeks is about 31%.

If pirate doesn't default, pirate will payout 1.31 to PPT but PPT only pays 1.28 to bond holders, so PPT makes an addition .03 per share. That's only if no default.

Case 1 - Sell 3000 shares of PPT.A at 1.038
  no default: PPT makes 3000 * (.038 + .03) = 204
  default: PPT loses 960 - 114 = 846

Case 2 - Put 846 btc with pirate
  no default: PPT makes 846 * .31 = 262
  default: PPT loses 846

Difference is 262 - 204 = 58
So if you are do compounding interests, you only lose 58 bitcoins for this round.

I concur, albeit only if they are compounding interest, which may not be the case.

Aren't you missing something? PPT didn't choose to sell the bonds as cheap as they did - they had probably hoped they would gain more in the initial bond auction. Therefore, they won't be making much of a profit for this round. It's about as simple as an eBay seller putting $100 items up for auction at a starting price of $1.

You are entirely correct - we're just trying to figure out if this particular round of bonds was profitable.

If doing compounding interest, the break-even value is 1.0528

If doing compounding interest, the break-even value is 0.9765


As far as I know, they are not using your money for the insurance, they are using their own.

If they invest all the 3113.95 they will get 4081.75 in four weeks. That's 1.36 per bond. After buy-back, they will have made (1.36 - 1.28) * 3000 = 240 BTC.

In other words, they are risking 0.32 * 3000 = 960 BTC, and if Pirate don't default they gets 240 / 960 = 25 % profit.

Can you show the math behind that break-even value?

If they invest all 3113.95 BTC and Pirate does not default, they will make 25% profit off 960 BTC held in insurance versus 31% if they simply invested 960 BTC in Pirate in the first place.

[rjk]

Hey guys, if it helps all your calculations and stuff, you can factor in that pirate isn't going to default anytime soon.

Trollface.jpg