[MPEx] Introducing B.PPTAPR.SYNTH, or Now You Too Can Be Short Pirate (tm).

[Sukrim]

So in the end your bond runs longer, will already now pay 5% less than face value max., because only 9500 shares will max. be issued (potentially even less) and for sure not the 28 bonus bitcents per BTC...

You do realise that this contract was written before the wanna-be bankers defaulted on their original arrangement, and came up with 1500 instead of 2k, right? Obviously the bond would reflect that.

Otherwise, ~70 cents paying 95 is on the last call +35%, so still way better than the supposed 28%.

All in all you:
Take longer to pay the same amount in the ideal case.
Have more contraints than the original issue (Not issuing more than 200 shares? Not buying back shares in time? Pirate changing his interest rates? Less than 10000 shares offered? NO MONEY FOR YOU!) and the only way to get money back in case of a credit event (that has already happened, even before the first auction started) is calculated from 1 BTC, not 1.28.
Can get _all_ BTC invested by paying for 12h of DDoS to GLBSE (something that should probably only cost a fraction of the rewards).

If they now release in total 7500 shares (1500 at each auction), and I bought 100 000 shares for 70 BTC in total, I'd earn 5 BTC after 5 weeks.
If I bid on 60 shares in PPT.A with a 1.1666 bid and get them, I'd get 6.8 BTC after 4 weeks (and 1.1666 is already quite overpriced + unrealistic from a current perspective), even if there are no more shares offered at all and in many of your other restraints too.

If this construct really trades at current prices (0.70 BTC per 1000 shares) somebody's making a quite bad deal in my opinion...


Edit:

which they never actually stated they would do.

The thing which now reads "[ANNOUNCE GLBSE] 1500 PPT.A Pirate Pass Through Bonds" was [ANNOUNCE GLBSE] 2000 PPT.A Pirate Pass Through Bonds for a few days.

Wrong.
The thread title used to be

[ANNOUNCE GLBSE] Pirate Pass Through Bonds

As you can easily see from answers to the thread that still have the old heading. It did never read "[ANNOUNCE GLBSE] 2000 PPT.A Pirate Pass Through Bonds" as far as I know (I read this forum here since it was founded a few days ago and also cannot remember that this thread had the number 2000 in it's title!). Please show me some clear proof of this claim above...

[1715027810]

1715027810

[1715027810]

1715027810

[MrTeal]

which they never actually stated they would do.

The thing which now reads "[ANNOUNCE GLBSE] 1500 PPT.A Pirate Pass Through Bonds" was [ANNOUNCE GLBSE] 2000 PPT.A Pirate Pass Through Bonds for a few days. The fact that the forum allows you to surreptitiously change your words does not mean you did not in fact say them.

I understand people have a little difficulty with notions such as responsibility and so forth, but when money's involved all plays are for keepsies, and they have consequences.

And again, you can just SELL them if you don't want to BUY them.

The title might not have been changed, but I'm pretty sure that if the OP did say "We will release 2000 bonds" it wasn't up there very long considering I posted this 5.5hrs after the OP and I remember thinking about it for awhile before posting.

Will you announce each week where on the scale of 500 to 2000 bonds you will be, and how far in advance will you announce it.

[MPOE-PR]

@Sukrim: All in all you can buy the asset if you like it, or sell the asset if you dislike it. Do you comprehend this? Please make some positive indication because at the time being the feeling is I'm trying to talk with a recording.

@Teal: The "o Burt didn't REALLY say it" objection would have had a point ~2 days ago, when this was announced. Today it's spurious. Quotes from the 14th in reference to an event taking place on the 19th are also at least a little misplaced.

[MrTeal]

@Teal: The "o Burt didn't REALLY say it" objection would have had a point ~2 days ago, when this was announced. Today it's spurious. Quotes from the 14th in reference to an event taking place on the 19th are also at least a little misplaced.

How on Earth is it misplaced? You claimed that the PPT bond announcement claimed that they would sell 2000 bonds for a few days. I quoted myself to show that at least since 5.5 hours after the original post at 11pm on the 13th they have claimed to sell between 500 and 2000 bonds. Unless you're claiming that they then said they would definitely sell 2000 bonds for a few days between when I posted and now, or that I'm straight up lying to you, my point stands.

"I wwebsite as on the internet"

[MPOE-PR]

@Teal: Are you aware at least vaguely how many times that post was changed since the 14th? Your point stands on its head.

You should have been here on the 19th, if you had a point (which you don't). Two days later and after one major liquidity event (as measured by the market) is too late. Go ask people for proof the BP spill happened, cause Mr. Dwayne of Bumfuck Montana hadn't heard about it back in 2005 when he last bought a newspaper ffs.

All this nonsense aside, as to sukrim's concern: all the PPT people have to do is issue 2500 PPT.B and the asset isn't impaired anymore. So you can actually go from buying today at .7 to getting 1.28 in about a month. Not that it'll happen, but if you like longshots.

[Sukrim]

Are you asking us to issue 2500 bonds next week?

No, but if you did, you'd negate the 500 less issued this week and people could still get money from Mr. Popescu.

Also, as I already said: The thread title had, as far as I recall, NEVER the number 2000 in it's title and it was already very early clear to me that they are selling "up to" 2000 shares each time (see proof on: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=76594.msg850524#msg850524).

[PatrickHarnett]

The number of bonds issued is decided approximately 24 hours ahead of the bond close time.  We have funded reserves up to a particular level, setting a safe maximum.  This is set out in the glbse contract.  For this week, we had narrowed the range before the announcement, and currently have greater reserves than necessary. 

We have set a maximum weekly limit and I see no reason to alter that to accommodate a third party.

[MrTeal]

@Teal: Are you aware at least vaguely how many times that post was changed since the 14th? Your point stands on its head.

You should have been here on the 19th, if you had a point (which you don't). Two days later and after one major liquidity event (as measured by the market) is too late. Go ask people for proof the BP spill happened, cause Mr. Dwayne of Bumfuck Montana hadn't heard about it back in 2005 when he last bought a newspaper ffs.

All this nonsense aside, as to sukrim's concern: all the PPT people have to do is issue 2500 PPT.B and the asset isn't impaired anymore. So you can actually go from buying today at .7 to getting 1.28 in about a month. Not that it'll happen, but if you like longshots.

I am aware of how many times it's changed, I've been watching it closely. From the start the PPT people have claimed that they would issue up to 2000 shares, not 2000. You structured your investment such that you decided that less than 10000 shares would be a default, long after it was well known that PPT was planning up to but not always 2000 bonds.

The terms of the bonds have changed over the last week, but 2000 per issue was never guaranteed.

You do realise that this contract was written before the wanna-be bankers defaulted on their original arrangement, and came up with 1500 instead of 2k, right?

Your contract was written long after everyone who was paying attention knew that there might be less than 2000 issued. You're the only one that seems to think that implies a default.

[MPOE-PR]

had been nice about it

Go read this and keep quiet to stop further embarrassing yourself. The deeper the hole you dig the further you will have to climb out, and Mr. P is easily the least forgiving type you will meet in your lifetime.

[Raoul Duke]

You are a true market maker... You even register your domains with a market address...

http://whois.domaintools.com/polimedia.us

Administrative Contact Name:                 Martha  McCuller
Administrative Contact Organization:         Norsena
Administrative Contact Address1:             14781 Memorial Dr.
Administrative Contact City:                 Houston
Administrative Contact State/Province:       TX
Administrative Contact Postal Code:          77079
Administrative Contact Country:              United States
Administrative Contact Country Code:         US
Administrative Contact Phone Number:         +40.0731507527

If that's your twisted sense of humour at work, well, I LOL'ed.
You should learn with the pro's: they register their domains at restaurants addresses.

Also, fluffygrrl, didn't people teached you that spamming and trying to impersonate forum moderators to trick users is an ugly thing to do?
That really shows your integrity...
I advise people to read that thread, some interesting shit there.
For some more lulz: https://www.google.com/search?q="fluffygrrl"+"spam" <--- I guess her forum spammer bot went crazy lol

BTW, you're some ugly ass chick... Who gave you that black eye? Was it Mircea Popescu himself?

[MPOE-PR]

B.PPTAPR.SYNTH paid out and went poof. You're welcome to trade its successor, B.PPTMAY.SYNTH.

Have fun!

Code:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Your dividend payment for B.PPTAPR.SYNTH in total sum of 746128000000 to a
notional float of 5829125 has been issued on May 21, 2012, 11:55 pm. Feel
free to publish this receipt to your shareholders.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFPutYIkhT8a/G2mSERAn5XAJoDTYeBoe9wyLomMTNSckDINxB0ggCfctbZ
WKIsX3pse0A8EGBlH1xeszc=
=EZy1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[brendio]

Trading was very light towards the end, even though quite a number of bonds were still available for 15% below the redemption value and most of the risk had subsided. There were hundreds of bitcoins up for grabs, but I only got a couple because of lack of funds.

Perhaps it's a good time to plug my brokerage service again for those looking for simplified access to MPEx without having to deal with the complexities of GPG.

[Sukrim]

You could just have advertised this _before_ the end to gain trust and profit on your 5% fee...?

Anyways, this "new" contract is even a bit worse, as May has 31 days.

[MPOE-PR]

Sukrim, you have probably missed https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=77351.0

Otherwise, the contract is exactly the same, the previous one ran 19th April - 21 May, this one runs 22 May - 22 June. This is precisely because May has 31 days.

[brendio]

Thanks, MPOE-PR, for the plug for my thread. Yes, it existed beforehand, but perhaps I could have bumped my brokerage offer beforehand. To be honest, I was a bit worried that perhaps I was missing something in the contract that indicated a default, especially in the last clause.

I did notice something in the contract just before its maturity. Specifically, it is quoted that the underlying are

zero coupon bonds with a face value of 1.28 BTC

Clause 4 states:

The total ammount issued in the four PPT issues due until the expiration of this instrument is less than 10`000 BTC worth, however those shares may be split up. In this case the dividend paid on this instrument will be a fraction of its face value equal to the proportion of PPT issues out of 10`000 BTC worth. So as an example if the first PPT issues 2`000 BTC worth of shares, and the three subsequent ones each issue 1`000 BTC worth of shares the holders of this instrument will receive 0.00050000 BTC per share held. Note that this point only discusses the volume of issued shares, and is not concerned with the proportion actually sold.

Since there is a 1000:1 ratio with the underlying, wouldn't the face value of B.PPTMAY.SYNTH be 0.00128 BTC, and thus in the example the holders should receive 50 % of 0.00128 BTC, namely, 0.00064 BTC?

[MPOE-PR]

Possibly the language is muddied up there, but the instrument works as the numeric example shows.

[brendio]

Possibly the language is muddied up there, but the instrument works as the numeric example shows.

So in the case of 50% issuance (5000 of 10000 planned PPT issued bonds), you get back 50 % of the "before-interest" value (50%*0.001 BTC) rather than 50 % of the maturity value (50%*0.00128 BTC)?

[MPOE-PR]

That's correct.

[MPOE-PR]

B.PPTMAY.SYNTH paid out and went poof.

We have received numerous complaints from holders that the lack of transparency of the venue where the underlying is traded precludes verification of key points of this contract (specifically, asset volume actually issued). We have also received unsubstantiated claims that in fact multiple creditors have agreed to either extend terms, lower interests or both on outstanding loans. For these reasons we have decided to not offer further installments of this symbol. We have however noticed the positive impact of MPEx thought leadership all through the evolution of the underlying instrument, and we hope that as transparency pioneered by us spreads to other venues it will be possible in the near future to issue this instrument again.

Payment proof below:

Code:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Your dividend payment for B.PPTMAY.SYNTH in total sum of 1280000000000 to a notional float of 10000000 has been issued on June 23, 2012, 12:07 am. Feel free to publish this receipt to your shareholders.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFP5QjEkhT8a/G2mSERAjIBAJ9ZbyZM00scrD7zrvgoaJ2TC1avYwCgkcoy
aUxBUfnPU71imGwLhsXAhBs=
=CQaf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----