[GLBSE] BFLS.RIG - BFL Hardware mining & Sales

[Inaba]

I still haven't gotten anything from GLBSE as far as assets go, hopefully soon.  I'm ready to get things rolling on this end as soon as I have that data. 

I am going to be converting BFLS shares into BFLS.RIG at 1:1, so everyone will in one payout bucket.  I will eventually be fully automating everything, so payouts will come more frequently than once a week, but in smaller amounts.

Just updating everyone.  As soon as I have the data from GLBSE, I'll let everyone know.

[1713515704]

1713515704

[1713515704]

1713515704

[1713515704]

1713515704

[1713515704]

1713515704

[Epoch]

I am going to be converting BFLS shares into BFLS.RIG at 1:1, so everyone will in one payout bucket.  

A single payout bucket is welcome but I have a concern about the proposed 1:1 conversion: as commented on earlier in this thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=89902.msg1255003#msg1255003), a 1:1 conversion does not appear to represent fair value for BFLS shareholders. Unlike 'regular' mining bonds such as Gigamining, BFLS and BFLS.RIG represent a share of hardware, not hashrate, so:

BFLS (1 Single/200 shares): $600/200 = $3 per BFLS share
BFLS.RIG (1 MiniRig/6058 shares): $15295/6058) = $2.52 per BFLS.RIG share

This indicates that a BFLS share is worth more ($3/$2.52, or 1.19x) than a BFLS.RIG share. Put another way, 5098 BFLS shares ($15295) are worth the same as 6058 BFLS.RIG shares ($15295) which is the value of 1 MiniRig.

So to fairly convert the hardware value of BFLS into BFLS.RIG, 1 BFLS share should be converted to 1.19 BFLS.RIG shares. A 1:1 conversion would mean that BFLS shareholders take a 19% loss. If my analysis is flawed, I'd like to know where it fails.

[MPOE-PR]

I am going to be converting BFLS shares into BFLS.RIG at 1:1, so everyone will in one payout bucket.  

A single payout bucket is welcome but I have a concern about the proposed 1:1 conversion: as commented on earlier in this thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=89902.msg1255003#msg1255003), a 1:1 conversion does not appear to represent fair value for BFLS shareholders. Unlike 'regular' mining bonds such as Gigamining, BFLS and BFLS.RIG represent a share of hardware, not hashrate, so:

BFLS (1 Single/200 shares): $600/200 = $3 per BFLS share
BFLS.RIG (1 MiniRig/6058 shares): $15295/6058) = $2.52 per BFLS.RIG share

This indicates that a BFLS share is worth more ($3/$2.52, or 1.19x) than a BFLS.RIG share. Put another way, 5098 BFLS shares ($15295) are worth the same as 6058 BFLS.RIG shares ($15295) which is the value of 1 MiniRig.

So to fairly convert the hardware value of BFLS into BFLS.RIG, 1 BFLS share should be converted to 1.19 BFLS.RIG shares. A 1:1 conversion would mean that BFLS shareholders take a 19% loss. If my analysis is flawed, I'd like to know where it fails.

Well, Inaba would like to be excused from having to do any math on the grounds that it's hard.

[Meni Rosenfeld]

I am going to be converting BFLS shares into BFLS.RIG at 1:1, so everyone will in one payout bucket.  

A single payout bucket is welcome but I have a concern about the proposed 1:1 conversion: as commented on earlier in this thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=89902.msg1255003#msg1255003), a 1:1 conversion does not appear to represent fair value for BFLS shareholders. Unlike 'regular' mining bonds such as Gigamining, BFLS and BFLS.RIG represent a share of hardware, not hashrate, so:

BFLS (1 Single/200 shares): $600/200 = $3 per BFLS share
BFLS.RIG (1 MiniRig/6058 shares): $15295/6058) = $2.52 per BFLS.RIG share

This indicates that a BFLS share is worth more ($3/$2.52, or 1.19x) than a BFLS.RIG share. Put another way, 5098 BFLS shares ($15295) are worth the same as 6058 BFLS.RIG shares ($15295) which is the value of 1 MiniRig.

So to fairly convert the hardware value of BFLS into BFLS.RIG, 1 BFLS share should be converted to 1.19 BFLS.RIG shares. A 1:1 conversion would mean that BFLS shareholders take a 19% loss. If my analysis is flawed, I'd like to know where it fails.

The mistake here is assuming that a mini-rig is worth $15295.

At the time when the devices were bought, $15295 didn't get you a mini-rig. It got you a mini-rig to be delivered several months in the future. An actual mini-rig in your possession is hence worth much more than $15295.

At the same time $600 would get you a single within a few weeks. So a single is worth more than $600, but not by much.

Before there are ASIC upgrades, the 1:1 hashrate conversion makes sure that holders receive the same payments before and after the merger (as output is proportional to hashrate).

While the upgrade plan does not take this into account, the fact is that buyers of BFLS.RIG had to wait more before getting payments; this should be compensated by an increase in the credited value. The most natural objective measure by which to compare the two is the hashrate.

The only question remaining is how much of the new ASIC devices will a BFLS.RIG share get you.

[lumberjack]

The only question remaining is how much of the new ASIC devices will a BFLS.RIG share get you.

Once the details of the ASIC unit orders are publicly available, available shares will double and be put up for sale. At that point, it will require 6058 x 2 = 12116 shares to convert your BFLS.RIG shares into the physical hardware (Mini-Rig or SC).

[Meni Rosenfeld]

The only question remaining is how much of the new ASIC devices will a BFLS.RIG share get you.

Once the details of the ASIC unit orders are publicly available, available shares will double and be put up for sale. At that point, it will require 6058 x 2 = 12116 shares to convert your BFLS.RIG shares into the physical hardware (Mini-Rig or SC).

Right, so one can argue that a better BFLS.RIG->ASIC conversion rate should be used. I don't know how cleanly Inaba's roles as BFLS issuer and BFL COO are separated, but it would make sense if the rate is determined by the ratio of devices he gets from upgrading the totality of BFLS-backing hardware to the number of outstanding BFLS.RIG shares after the merger.

[Epoch]

I am going to be converting BFLS shares into BFLS.RIG at 1:1, so everyone will in one payout bucket.  

A single payout bucket is welcome but I have a concern about the proposed 1:1 conversion: as commented on earlier in this thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=89902.msg1255003#msg1255003), a 1:1 conversion does not appear to represent fair value for BFLS shareholders. Unlike 'regular' mining bonds such as Gigamining, BFLS and BFLS.RIG represent a share of hardware, not hashrate, so:

BFLS (1 Single/200 shares): $600/200 = $3 per BFLS share
BFLS.RIG (1 MiniRig/6058 shares): $15295/6058) = $2.52 per BFLS.RIG share

This indicates that a BFLS share is worth more ($3/$2.52, or 1.19x) than a BFLS.RIG share. Put another way, 5098 BFLS shares ($15295) are worth the same as 6058 BFLS.RIG shares ($15295) which is the value of 1 MiniRig.

So to fairly convert the hardware value of BFLS into BFLS.RIG, 1 BFLS share should be converted to 1.19 BFLS.RIG shares. A 1:1 conversion would mean that BFLS shareholders take a 19% loss. If my analysis is flawed, I'd like to know where it fails.

The mistake here is assuming that a mini-rig is worth $15295.

At the time when the devices were bought, $15295 didn't get you a mini-rig. It got you a mini-rig to be delivered several months in the future. An actual mini-rig in your possession is hence worth much more than $15295.

Meni, I've always respected your analytical abilities and contributions to bitcoin (and continue to do so), but I'm not sure that argument applies here. What you describe happened in the past; it is not an accurate description of the current environment.

If I have 200 BFLS today, I can ask Inaba to convert them to a Single. He can do that immediately because he has the hardware. Similarly, I can ask Inaba to convert 6058 shares of BFLS.RIG (assuming I had them) into an actual MiniRig. Again, he can do that immediately with hardware in hand. There is the same amount of waiting involved in either case.

I understand that in the past there was more of a delay with the MiniRigs. But that was built-in to the market-driven bid/ask price of the shares. Today you can no longer order a MiniRig (or Single) from BFL according to their website so we can no longer use this as a comparison, but you can from Inaba if you have enough BFLS or BFLS.RIG shares.

You may recall that there was a BFLS.FUTURES issue created original just for this situation. If actual hardware was not yet in hand, people had to buy FUTURES. Once actual hardware was in hand, the FUTURES shares were converted into BFLS.RIG. But that is not the situation now; both devices are 'in hand' and thus their share value in terms of hardware cost can be directly compared.

One other point to realize is that any 'disadvantage' the early BFLS.RIG adopters had due to longer wait times, exponentially decays with time. In the long run, the difference approaches 0 and we again reach the point of directly comparing # of shares vs. hardware cost. And under that comparison, 1 BFLS share is worth 1.19 BFLS.RIG shares.

I won't belabour this argument; ultimately it is up to Inaba to decide how to convert the shares, and I'm ok with that. In my dealings with him he has always been open minded and fair, so I will respect whatever decision he makes. I just wanted to point out that the current worth of a BFLS share may not be as close to 1:1 as some may believe.

[Meni Rosenfeld]

Meni, I've always respected your analytical abilities and contributions to bitcoin (and continue to do so), but I'm not sure that argument applies here. What you describe happened in the past; it is not an accurate description of the current environment.

If I have 200 BFLS today, I can ask Inaba to convert them to a Single. He can do that immediately because he has the hardware. Similarly, I can ask Inaba to convert 6058 shares of BFLS.RIG (assuming I had them) into an actual MiniRig. Again, he can do that immediately with hardware in hand. There is the same amount of waiting involved in either case.

I understand that in the past there was more of a delay with the MiniRigs. But that was built-in to the market-driven bid/ask price of the shares. Today you can no longer order a MiniRig (or Single) from BFL according to their website so we can no longer use this as a comparison, but you can from Inaba if you have enough BFLS or BFLS.RIG shares.

My main point is that due to these events that happened in the past, the current worth of a mini-rig is more than what its ticket price implies. It is still impossible to put down $15295 and get an instant minirig. If there was no ASICs or hardware advances, a minirig would sell in the aftermarket for much more than $15295. Thus you cannot argue that 6058 BFLS.RIG shares are worth only 25.492 times as much as 200 BFLS shares.

My argument is weakened by the existence of the upgrade plan, but I still claim that the most natural objective measure for the worth of such a share, which doesn't leave any party disadvantaged, is in proportion to hashrate.

One other point to realize is that any 'disadvantage' the early BFLS.RIG adopters had due to longer wait times, exponentially decays with time. In the long run, the difference approaches 0 and we again reach the point of directly comparing # of shares vs. hardware cost. And under that comparison, 1 BFLS share is worth 1.19 BFLS.RIG shares.

BFLS.RIG owners will never get back the X BTC that the rig could have mined during the time of delay. Thus the manifestation of this loss and the speculative risks should remain until cashout. Denying them this right is a variation of Hershele's "Rolls and Doughnuts" story.

FWIW, I have private arrangements with Inaba which should be unaffected by this, but hold roughly equal value in singles and mini-rigs.

[Epoch]

My argument is weakened by the existence of the upgrade plan, but I still claim that the most natural objective measure for the worth of such a share, which doesn't leave any party disadvantaged, is in proportion to hashrate.

Meni, this is the second time you mention hashrate in this conversation. I let it go the first time, but I think a clarification is in order.

Under the original contract terms of BFLS (which existed long before BFLS.RIG was even proposed), it was made clear that purchasers were buying shares of hardware, not hashrate. 1 share of BFLS represented exactly 1/200th of the cash value of a Single (that is, exactly $3). One could calculate that the hashrate of that share was 832/200 (4.16MHps), but that is irrelevant to the contract terms. The key point of BFLS, and what made it unique at the time, was that the shares could be converted to actual hardware at any time.

If I had enough BFLS shares, I could ask Inaba to convert them to a Single and ship it to me today. And I can get a $600 discount under BFL's upgrade program for an ASIC upgrade today. Which makes a BFLS share worth exactly $3 today ($600/200 = $3).

Similarly if I had enough BFLS.RIG shares, I could ask Inaba to ship convert them to a MiniRig and ship it to me today. And I can get a $15295 discount under BFL's upgrade program for an ASIC upgrade today. Which makes a BFLS.RIG share worth exactly $2.52 today ($15295/6058).

So if those $3 BFLS shares are now to be converted to BFLS.RIG, a BFLS shareholder would expect to get the same $3 worth of hardware for their BFLS share. Unfortunately, we know that 1 BFLS.RIG share is not worth $3; it is only worth $2.52. The Singles are on hand now, as are the MiniRigs. There is no 'delay' associated with a share conversion.

[ciuciu]

My argument is weakened by the existence of the upgrade plan, but I still claim that the most natural objective measure for the worth of such a share, which doesn't leave any party disadvantaged, is in proportion to hashrate.

Meni, this is the second time you mention hashrate in this conversation. I let it go the first time, but I think a clarification is in order.

Under the original contract terms of BFLS (which existed long before BFLS.RIG was even proposed), it was made clear that purchasers were buying shares of hardware, not hashrate. 1 share of BFLS represented exactly 1/200th of the cash value of a Single (that is, exactly $3). One could calculate that the hashrate of that share was 832/200 (4.16MHps), but that is irrelevant to the contract terms. The key selling point of BFLS, and what made it unique at the time, was that the shares could be converted to actual hardware at any time.

If I had enough BFLS shares, I could ask Inaba to convert them to a Single and ship it to me today. And I could get a $600 discount under BFL's upgrade program for an ASIC upgrade today. Which makes a BFLS share worth exactly $3 today ($600/200 = $3).

Similarly if I had enough BFLS.RIG shares, I could ask Inaba to ship convert them to a MiniRig and ship it to me today. And I could get a $15295 discount under BFL's upgrade program for an ASIC upgrade today. Which makes a BFLS.RIG share worth exactly $2.52 today ($15295/6058).

So if those $3 BFLS shares are now to be converted to BFLS.RIG, a BFLS shareholder would expect to get the same $3 worth of hardware for their BFLS share. Unfortunately, we know that 1 BFLS.RIG share is not worth $3; it is only worth $2.52. The Singles are on hand now, as are the MiniRigs. There is no 'delay' associated with a share conversion.

Meni loves math, only when it is in his favor.

[Meni Rosenfeld]

My argument is weakened by the existence of the upgrade plan, but I still claim that the most natural objective measure for the worth of such a share, which doesn't leave any party disadvantaged, is in proportion to hashrate.

Meni, this is the second time you mention hashrate in this conversation. I let it go the first time, but I think a clarification is in order.

I mentioned it completely intentionally.

Under the original contract terms of BFLS (which existed long before BFLS.RIG was even proposed), it was made clear that purchasers were buying shares of hardware, not hashrate. 1 share of BFLS represented exactly 1/200th of the cash value of a Single (that is, exactly $3).

It did not represent 1/200 of the cash value of a Single. It represented 1/200 of a Single. The two are not the same. If the value of a Single is >$600, the value of a BFLS share is >$3. Likewise, if for some reason the value of a single was now $50 (e.g., no upgrade plan with the advent of ASIC), the worth of a BFLS share would be $0.25.

If I had enough BFLS shares, I could ask Inaba to convert them to a Single and ship it to me today.

Right. Now let's assume there were no ASICs, and FPGA BFL devices were sold out or only available with delays. A single would be worth, say, $700. A mini-rig would be worth about $21000. So if 200 BFLS shares can get you a Single, each is worth about $3.5. If 6058 BFLS.RIG shares can get you a mini-rig, each is worth $3.46. If Inaba were to merge the two, he should do it based on their worth, not based on some past ticket price.

Why do I think a mini-rig would be worth about $21000? Because both devices exist to generate hashes. What you can get out of a device is proportional to its hashrate, so what it would go for in the market is proportional to its hashrate - with some slight discount to the rigs, because the coarser granularity makes them less attractive for some customers (on the other hand, they are more power-efficient and much easier to deploy by big players).

And I could get a $600 discount under BFL's upgrade program for an ASIC upgrade today. Which makes a BFLS share worth exactly $3 today ($600/200 = $3).

And here is the crux, that ASICs are coming, there is an upgrade plan, and FPGA BFL devices are worth anything only inasmuch as they can be traded in. So their worth is whatever they can be traded in for. If these are the original ticket prices, there is a point in saying that this is their worth.

However, by offering trade-in values equal to original ticket price, BFL is unfairly disadvantaging mini-rig purchasers. And I think it would be good for Inaba to correct for this, making sure that BFLS.RIG buyers are not disadvantaged compared to BFLS purchasers. And again, the objective measure of worth (in absence of market data) is proportional to hashrate. One can argue that to make sure nobody receives less than the letter of the contract, Inaba should credit all of the merged shares at $3 per share (so BFLS owners are par and BFLS.RIG owners get a bonus).

You should also keep in mind that the upgrades aren't happening right now. There are still some dividends to be paid until then, which will on average be proportional to hashrate. By crediting BFLS.RIG owners at less than 1:1, they will get less dividends than the contract describes.

So I guess the simplest solution that is fair for everyone is to wait with the merger until the upgrades; credit $3 per BFLS share; credit as much as possible (typically between $2.52 and $3) per BFLS.RIG share.

Meni loves math, only when it is in his favor.

As said I have no stake in this debate, and I assure you my love for math is unconditional.

[ciuciu]

Meni your detailed analysis and judgment of things you have no interest in, is very dubious to say the least. How is it going with your friend Armando?

[Meni Rosenfeld]

Meni your detailed analysis and judgment of things you have no interest in, is very dubious to say the least.

If you do not trust my judgement, take my argument at face value. Ad hominem attacks aren't helpful, and neither is derailing this thread.

How it is going with your friend Armando?

I have never referred to Alberto Armandi as a friend, let alone after what he's done to me and others. You can follow publicly available details of the case at the BDT bonds thread.

[ciuciu]

Meni your detailed analysis and judgment of things you have no interest in, is very dubious to say the least.

If you do not trust my judgement, take my argument at face value. Ad hominem attacks aren't helpful, and neither is derailing this thread.

How it is going with your friend Armando?

I have never referred to Alberto Armandi as a friend, let alone after what he's done to me and others. You can follow publicly available details of the case at the BDT bonds thread.

Actually, I'm fed up with people like you, which think that speaking all the time will cover their past actions. You and Armando stole 10000 BTC, and now you play angel. More then that, you still try to share your "knowledge". Maybe is time for you to step back a bit from the keyboard.

[Meni Rosenfeld]

You and Armando stole 10000 BTC

I lost about 2500 BTC and 100 hours of my time (and counting) in the context of the BDT bonds.

Actually, I'm fed up with people like you, which think that speaking all the time will cover their past actions. ..., and now you play angel. More then that, you still try to share your "knowledge". Maybe is time for you to step back a bit from the keyboard.

Ok. I have considered your suggestion, and rejected it.

Back on topic now.

[ciuciu]

You and Armando stole 10000 BTC

I lost about 2500 BTC and 100 hours of my time (and counting) in the context of the BDT bonds.

Actually, I'm fed up with people like you, which think that speaking all the time will cover their past actions. ..., and now you play angel. More then that, you still try to share your "knowledge". Maybe is time for you to step back a bit from the keyboard.

Ok. I have considered your suggestion, and rejected it.

Talk is cheap. How about proving your statements?

[Meni Rosenfeld]

You and Armando stole 10000 BTC

I lost about 2500 BTC and 100 hours of my time (and counting) in the context of the BDT bonds.

Actually, I'm fed up with people like you, which think that speaking all the time will cover their past actions. ..., and now you play angel. More then that, you still try to share your "knowledge". Maybe is time for you to step back a bit from the keyboard.

Ok. I have considered your suggestion, and rejected it.

Talk is cheap. How about proving your affirmations?

I think I can provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate this to a trusted 3rd party.

[ciuciu]

You and Armando stole 10000 BTC

I lost about 2500 BTC and 100 hours of my time (and counting) in the context of the BDT bonds.

Actually, I'm fed up with people like you, which think that speaking all the time will cover their past actions. ..., and now you play angel. More then that, you still try to share your "knowledge". Maybe is time for you to step back a bit from the keyboard.

Ok. I have considered your suggestion, and rejected it.

Talk is cheap. How about proving your affirmations?

I think I can provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate this to a trusted 3rd party.

So why don't you do it? I think the people in the BDT thread will be very happy to see it. And then you can start a new ASIC mining bond   with Inaba operating them for you.

[Meni Rosenfeld]

I think I can provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate this to a trusted 3rd party.

So why don't you do it? I think the people in the BDT thread will be very happy to see it. And then you can start a new ASIC mining bond  .

Nobody asked. It's not a bad idea, I'll think about it.

[ciuciu]

I think I can provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate this to a trusted 3rd party.

So why don't you do it? I think the people in the BDT thread will be very happy to see it. And then you can start a new ASIC mining bond  .

Nobody asked. It's not a bad idea, I'll think about it.

Great, I will be around.

Regards.