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

[HorseRider]

have you sent the email, inaba

[1714867228]

1714867228

[RHA]

Josh,

Yes, the other offering thread has the info, but in a nutshell, the singles will be converted to ASIC and it will require approximately double the number of shares per unit to acquire the hardware (to reflect the 2x cost increase). So you'll effectively be getting a 10x bump in hashing power for free, as long as you are a share holder.

Same thing goes with these FPGA Mini-Rigs... share's available will double and shares required will double if you want to trade it in for an ASIC rig (to reflect the 2x cost as well).

IPO share price is going to be .7 BTC per share, although I am taking some limited orders for pre-IPO at .6 per share at the moment.  Preference for pre-IPO shares will be given to current BFLS share holders if there's more demand than available shares.

People were buying the BFLS shares, counting on the conversion to ASIC. There would be no much sense in buying or keeping the shares if there was no conversion promised. One would better put the money into Jalapeno/Single SC order.
The planned conversion to ASIC kept the shares value quite higher than the one calculated from the device USD price.

A several months had passed and we heard about another conversion: to BFLS.RIG.
The proposed rate (1:1) was not quite fair in light of the planned conversion to ASIC, because going to SC MiniRigs it would finally give us ~10% less GH/s (so less dividend values) than going to SC Singles.
We pointed that out and proposed more fair rate. It was 1:1.1 so every 10 BFLS shares would be changed to 11 BFLS.RIG shares. One single share would be changed to one share - the numbers are integer until Inaba starts using real numbers or split the shares tenfold (quite good solution).
But we also wrote we could live with the not-quite-fair 1:1 ratio.

What do we see today?

For BFLS, I will be paying out accumulated dividends as well as the buyout of the hardware.  Because of the controversy in conversion and to make things easier and to fulfill the original contract as stipulated, I am choosing to go this route.  
I will then offer some RIG shares, quantity and price are as yet undetermined.

What does it mean? Do you want to pay 0.2 BTC or 0.7 BTC per share? Will the possibility to buy BFLS.RIG shares be guaranteed? Will the offer be closed or will other people have the possibility to buy the shares before us?
The price is yet undetermined so it may be worse or even way worse to what we would get with 1:1.1 or 1:1 ratio conversion. Are we supposed to take part in a race to buy the new shares?
Sorry Inaba, but it looks for me like the Nefario way of doing things - to make the things easier, you want to make troubles and lost income for the shareholders, finally causing yourself troubles, more work and lost reputation?

Why can't you simply keep to promised conversion to ASIC?
Do split each BFLS.RIG share to 10 new RIG shares and convert each BFLS share into 11 new RIG shares (it can be just 10 RIG shares until the real change of MiniRig/Singles to SC MiniRig, but it is of no importance because of diminishing dividends).

[Inaba]

The reason is because of the continued controversy on how to fairly convert/merge the shares.  BFLS holders want 1:1.18, 1:1.1 or 1:1 while the BFLS.RIG holders don't see any of those solutions as fair.  None of the arguments are invalid and they all have merit, which is why it's hard to say "We will go this route and not this one."  None of the arguments are wrong.

When I wrote the "the singles will be converted to ASIC" it was before a lot of developments had happened in the mining community, not least of which the exact extent of the level of effort required to manage singles vs a minirig.  The singles would be upgraded to a minirig no matter what, so all BFLS shares would, by default, becomes RIG shares after the conversion, but you would end up with a much lesser rate than what's being proposed here (You would end up with 30 GH against 1.5 TH per single), as stipulated by the contract.  Some people are dead set against the 1:1 ratio is the problem.

With regards to the share price being "kept higher" than the one calculated from the device USD price, I'm not sure that's relevant here... looking at the list, most people purchased directly from me for the rough equivalent of the purchase price in USD of the hardware.  I know there was some trading going on, but the volume was almost non-existent, as most people held on to the shares.  Regardless of what may have happened on the exchange, the shares were never meant to be a trading stock and for all intents and purposes, I used GLBSE as a glorified excel spreadsheet to handle the distribution of the mined funds in a fast, easy manner.  From the volume, I think most people agreed with that.

I kind of take umbrage to the accusation that this is the "Nefario" way of doing things.  The contract, from day one, has always stipulated that the hardware can be sold (or traded in for 200 shares) and the proceeds would be distributed to the shareholders.  I am trying to find the least disruptive way of handling this within the scope of the contract.  I am NOT just throwing the contract out of the window and doing what I want to do... heck if I was doing that, I'd just say "Sorry, GLBSE is dead and this is too much hassle to deal with, ya'll are stuck." 

With regards to "quantity and price are as yet undetermined" - that is to say I don't know how much of the hardware I want to release to the public and how much I want to keep for myself.  Beyond that, the shares will be offered on a first come, first serve basis to anyone and will likely be offered in lots of 50 or so, since it would be exceptionally time consuming to  handle anything less... none of the share purchase/sale is automated, as I have no intentions or desires to make a full fledged exchange.  I would like to have a set of investors that want to share in the ASIC platform who don't want to invest in the hardware themselves or operate it, I don't want people trading shares back and forth trying to arbitrage or make a profit from the sale...  that was one of the problems I had when I sold shares initially - people wanted to buy in bulk for a discount and then resell them at a profit.  There's nothing wrong with this, it's just not something I want to be a part of. 

HorseRider: No, I haven't. I will get that sent out in the next hour.

[Epoch]

The reason is because of the continued controversy on how to fairly convert/merge the shares.  BFLS holders want 1:1.18, 1:1.1 or 1:1 while the BFLS.RIG holders don't see any of those solutions as fair (bolded by Epoch).  None of the arguments are invalid and they all have merit, which is why it's hard to say "We will go this route and not this one."  None of the arguments are wrong.

Let me say this: I bought BFLS shares back in April with the intention of holding on to them long-term, for the continuous mining dividends. And I would like to continue. ASICs were not even on the table back then. The announcement of ASICs shook things up, but fortunately since BFL offered a full-value trade in program, the value of a BFLS share was guaranteed to be no less than $3 ($600/200). It still is, and will be up to March 1, 2013 (which is when the trade-in program officially ends).

It doesn't matter whether shares represent a Single or Minirig, so I'm not opposed to a conversion. In fact, I prefer it because it maintains the long-term mining dividends I originally invested for. But it is not unreasonable to expect that any conversion would strive to preserve value: in this case, preserving $3/share. We know that BFLS has an intrinsic value of $3.00/share; we know that BFLS.RIG has an intrinsic value of $2.52/share. And herein lies the problem with a 1:1 conversion: value is lost.

Some alternate conversions were tossed around and proposed: 1:1.18 represented true monetary conversion ($3 worth of BFLS because $3 worth of RIG); 1:1 represented true hashrate conversion (the hashrate of 1 BFLS is equal to the hashrate of 1 RIG). We've heard arguments from both extremes and eventually 1:1.1 seemed to emerge as a reasonable compromise between these two.

I am one of the people who maintained that the monetary conversion of 1:1.18 is the 'fair' one because a BFLS share has always represented a share of physical hardware, not a specific hashrate (unlike something like Gigamining, for example). But I also proposed the 'middle ground' value of 1:1.1 as a compromise.

So ... BFLS.RIG shareholders don't see any of these solutions as fair? To this I would ask why do BFLS.RIG shareholders have any say in this at all? Any proposed conversion of BFLS to BFLS.RIG is solely between BFLS holders and Inaba. RIG shareholders didn't issue BFLS shares ... Inaba did. Converting BFLS to RIG has no impact on existing RIG shareholders; their shares will continue to represent exactly 1/6058th of a Minirig, and generate exactly the same hashrate as before. What gives RIG shareholders the right to influence these proposals at all? Or have I missed something?

A forced buyout falls under the original contract terms, so I cannot and will not argue against it. I will say that, personally (and I suspect many others here), I would prefer to a remain a shareholder and have my BFLS shares converted to RIG. I would accept a 1:1.1 conversion. And, again, Inaba must be the sole judge in determining what is fair.

What I don't want to see is RIG shareholders dictating how BFLS is treated; with BFLS shareholders being treated as 'second class citizens'. The reality is that BFLS was around long before RIG. BFLS shareholders were the early adopters, those first excited by Josh's idea of offering shares of mining hardware. Those first believing in it and, for the most part, wanting and hoping to stay long-term. BFLS should not get the 'short end of the stick' here. A 1:1.1 conversion would work. Most would be happy with that. The ones that aren't can accept a buyout.

[Inaba]

Ok, email has been sent to all people listed.

[RHA]

The original contract stated:

Should mining become unprofitable or other circumstances cause the operator to be unable or unwilling to perform his duties, sale of all hardware and equal distribution of funds will commence according to the number of shares held by each individual. 

Mining is still profitable, operator is able to perform his duties, so it is only a matter of his willingness.
I find it quite unfair to close it all just before period of high income after conversion to ASIC.

It is similar to taking people to a journey and, just before changing from train to a plane, ordering them to get out and stop traveling because they are not happy with rates of currency conversion.

[Bitcoin Oz]

I dont understand why RIG shareholders have any say over what BFLS shareholders get as a conversion.

[server]

The reason is because of the continued controversy on how to fairly convert/merge the shares.  BFLS holders want 1:1.18, 1:1.1 or 1:1 while the BFLS.RIG holders don't see any of those solutions as fair.  None of the arguments are invalid and they all have merit, which is why it's hard to say "We will go this route and not this one."  None of the arguments are wrong.

Can you make a decision or do we have to vote over this subject ?

[Epoch]

The reason is because of the continued controversy on how to fairly convert/merge the shares.  BFLS holders want 1:1.18, 1:1.1 or 1:1 while the BFLS.RIG holders don't see any of those solutions as fair.  None of the arguments are invalid and they all have merit, which is why it's hard to say "We will go this route and not this one."  None of the arguments are wrong.

Can you make a decision or do we have to vote over this subject ?

I think everyone is in agreement that the fair conversion lies somewhere between the two extremes of 1:1.19 and 1:1. There have been no comments suggesting otherwise. Clearly the fair conversion rate is within this 20% variance.

FWIW, my suggestion to Inaba, then, is to choose the middle ground of 1:1.1 for those who wish to continue mining, and buyout those who do not. An email could be sent to each BFLS shareholder asking to confirm whether they want their shares converted or bought out. Set a time limit to respond; perhaps a week. Those who do not respond get bought out by default.

In either case, all Singles will be sold and there will be some extra RIG shares available due to people choosing to be bought out. Inaba can either keep these for himself (as he has stated he might want to do), or offer some portion for sale.

[Inaba]

I am going to maintain a separate database for the two share types and just work off the current paradigm.  It is going to make things more complicated from a coding perspective but it is what it is and I don't want to end up creating more controversy.  I think once I get all the code in place, though, it will be fine so long as I don't have to maintain it regularly and I shouldn't. 

There's one more non-trivial shareholder that hasn't checked in.  As soon as they check in, I will email everyone and if you want to change your BTC deposit address, that's the time to send me your new address.

After that, I will send out a bulk payment for back dividends and resume normal payment schedules (which will likely be increased to more than once a week).

[camolist]

HMMM so it wasn't BFL that i got payment from yesterday

trying to figure out what these btc are for now... wish there would have been separate addresses per listing on glbse not one for all is going to make this all tough to keep track of

[toffoo]

trying to figure out what these btc are for now...

Maybe check here?  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=49166.380

I had holdings in a bunch of things and they seem to be the first to have actually paid me back something.

[server]

Ok, I see everyone checked in except a few small accounts.

Can we proceed ?

[Inaba]

Ok folks, there's a few hold outs and they are going to be out of luck, since we can't wait forever.  If you want to change your bitcoin address, send me the following:

Email address  Old Address New address

I am going to populate everyone in the database and start payouts either this weekend or next week.

[coblee]

Ok folks, there's a few hold outs and they are going to be out of luck, since we can't wait forever.  If you want to change your bitcoin address, send me the following:

Email address  Old Address New address

I am going to populate everyone in the database and start payouts either this weekend or next week.

You should probably just pay the people that didn't respond at the btc address that Nefario gave you.

[BR0KK]

I had some shares of BFL.RIG (about 11 i think) and BFL (the FPGA ones. About 20 to 30 i think) to. What do i need to proof that i own them?

[HorseRider]

I had some shares of BFL.RIG (about 11 i think) and BFL (the FPGA ones. About 20 to 30 i think) to. What do i need to proof that i own them?

go to claim on GLBSE and ask Nefario to send Inaba a confirm email.

[BR0KK]

Sadly my 2FA broke ... and GLBSE wont help me recover it. So i don't have access to my Asset list :/

[HorseRider]

Sadly my 2FA broke ... and GLBSE wont help me recover it. So i don't have access to my Asset list :/

nefario has clearly stated that? then you should work with Nefario first.

[BR0KK]

No he has not stated that ... He just went totally radio silent....
Had wrote him a mal with that request.
He wanted me to send BTC to my account to prove that it belongs to me (proof adress)
I did so, but since then there were zero communication attempts from him.

2fa is still in place.

But that's unabashed thread here. Not his fault!


My asset list is out there... I know that because I was contacted by ABM yesterday that I can claim my assets on bitfunder...