deleted

[stochastic]

deleted

[1715090515]

1715090515

[1715090515]

1715090515

[1715090515]

1715090515

[1715090515]

1715090515

[Garr255]

sub

[Sukrim]

Buying back bonds + closing the operation during May falls into short or long?

[Sukrim]

interesting as i plan to lower the rates of tygrrbank to 1.75... i guess i will have to see if i pay 4 times in June or 5 times...

how many Tuesdays are there in June?

There are 4... you could lie and say you went 500 BTC long and then secretly go short + lower interest or the other way round. It's always a bit weird if someone is allowed to bet on their own operation!

[teek]

It is now past June 30, 23:59 UTC and TYGRR.BOND-B has failed to make 0.008 BTC coupon payment between June 2, 00:00 UTC and June 30, 23:59 UTC.

A total of 0.00799999 BTC/bond were paid, so there is 0.00000001 BTC/bond remaining.

Therefore, as stated in the contract, holders of HEDGE.TYGRR.BOND-B.SHORT will be bought back at 0.04544066 BTC per bond.

Holders of HEDGE.TYGRR.BOND-B.LONG will receive 0.00000001 BTC per bond.  This is the minimum amount I can force a buyback of these.

Buybacks will be initiated in a few minutes.

A contract is a contract I guess, but off by 1 satoshi.. lmfao..  hope you don't have me on some type of technicality..

@Goat - 1 satoshi just cost you 10 btc.. oh the lulz,  did you do that intentionally as an experiment or what?

[Meni Rosenfeld]

A total of 0.00799999 BTC/bond were paid, so there is 0.00000001 BTC/bond remaining.

Therefore, as stated in the contract, holders of HEDGE.TYGRR.BOND-B.SHORT will be bought back at 0.04544066 BTC per bond.

Holders of HEDGE.TYGRR.BOND-B.LONG will receive 0.00000001 BTC per bond.  This is the minimum amount I can force a buyback of these.

What. The. F.

You do know this is just a rounding problem with GLBSE, right? Goat put 45.6 in the payment field in GLBSE, then 20, total 65.6 = 0.002 * 32800. But because of the way GLBSE rounds things it came down to a bit less. Goat filled his obligations.

Even if this wasn't GLBSE's problem, this is stupid. You should make a 0.01% or something tolerance in your contract to account for rounding and other issues, we can't carry out all calculations to infinite precision.

[Meni Rosenfeld]

TYGRR.BOND-B is obligated to make its obligated dividend payments through GLBSE to its bond holders

Exactly. TYGRR.BOND-B made its obligated dividend payments through GLBSE, 45.6+20 = 0.002*32800. How GLBSE goes on to represent it internally is not Goat's problem. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. If I were an HTBBL holder I'd be furious.

Did you contact Goat about this? Since clearly this is not what HTBBL holders had in mind (or HTBBS for that matter), and yet you still felt it triggers the letter of the HEDGE contract, you should have gone to great lengths to inform Goat about the situation and request that he makes an extra satoshi per bond payment to resolve this.

[Meni Rosenfeld]

TYGRR.BOND-B would have made its obligated dividend payments through GLBSE if the TYGRR.BOND-B holders received 0.008 BTC in the period the contract specified.  Like I said before 0.008 BTC does not equal 0.00799999 BTC.  That is like if you bought something from me in a parking lot but dropped the money into a storm sewer before it reached my hand.  I did not receive the money so you did not pay me.

It's more like I asked you to pay me $1000 via PayPal, you do just that and I end up with $970 in my account because of PayPal fees. I still should deliver the product even though I didn't get $1000.

I am not a cheerleader for either the LONG or SHORT contracts and I think the contacts are throughly written.  All the information of missing a 0.00000001 BTC had been publicly disclosed.  What is basically happening is  that people that buy a LONG bond are going into contract with the people that bought the SHORT bond.  I am only a middleman holding the funds and paying them out.  I am only doing what the contract says.

I believe the contracts were vague at best about this. It is your responsibility as a middleman to fairly interpret the contract and contact relevant parties if a potential issue arises. I find it hard to believe you didn't foresee this would be controversial.

I am sure if I broke the contract and paid the LONG holders then the SHORT holders would be furious as well.

I honestly doubt that. I'd like to see the SHORT holder who can say with a straight face that crediting SHORT instead of LONG was fair.

If the SHORT holders think this is unfair to the LONG holders then they are free to send the money back to the LONG holders.

It is not public knowledge who owns bonds. You as an issuer have indirect knowledge of this via the buyback feature, and it is your responsibility to make proper use of it.

Besides, non sequitur. Believing something is unfair doesn't mean you should opt to send your money to strangers.

Edit: Just because GLBSE shows .0079999 can we confirm that is the amount that went into shareholders account and is not just a reporting error? If they were in fact paid the full amount like I suspect they were, you owe me some BTC.

No such luck, according to my understanding of GLBSE it is indeed true that only .00799999 was received.