[GLBSE] GIPPT Delisting 100% paid.

[dust]

The short position is the bond. INAU has never struck me as a poor guy, based on his BTC availability and the fact that a smart trader wouldn't put everything they have into BTC.

Why would he pay 2.5% for money to invest in pirate if he had a bunch of btc available that he could invest himself.  Taking a 2.5% loan to invest in pirate is past putting "everything they have into BTC".

My original challenge still stands:

I challenge anyone to outline a scenario that makes offering this asset better than simply investing in pirate without exposing investors to risk of default.

I would particularly like to hear from INAU or DeaDTerra.

[1714905355]

1714905355

[1714905355]

1714905355

[imsaguy]

Good answer, but I would like a little further clarification just because I don't see the answer-

Someday (in non-default based future), Pirate will drop his service and return all deposits.  What happens at that point?  I assume since you got all the deposits returned to you, you will turn around and buy back all shares @1 btc.  Correct?

How big does someone have to be to ask for a direct withdrawal?  Is there any price point of GIPPT where you would consider initiating a small pirate withdrawal specifically to buy back shares on GLBSE and cancel out the shares?  If you don't do this then I think you are earning interest yourself on value that is no longer present in the market you created... it's an interesting position to be in.

Apologize if these are dumb questions, I like your fund.

Thank you-

I think the bonds are worth hell of a lot more then they are currently, which is kind of sad to see You guys don't like the asset?

The bonds are worth more than 1.2 BTC, by my math. The market is simply saturated. 1 BTC is a joke for them, because then there's 0 risk for the investor of a pirate default. Pirate defaults, I don't lose anything. And that is why I pulled out of YARR and won't be buying Goat's bond.

It is not zero risk.  If pirate defaults, you have to hope that ineedausername and imsaguy, who are both heavily invested in pirate, do not default on the insurance.

Ok, here's where I get to step in.. you're spewing shit.  You need to get your facts straight and stop talking so authoritatively about other people's businesses, especially when you clearly don't know what the hell you're talking about.

EIEIO isn't exposed to Pirate.  Its a mining farm that does pretty well.  There are many, many people on this forum that have sold and either shipped to me or sold to me and met me in person.  I have on order with various enterprises a bunch more gear.  Go digging on the forums, its documented and timestamped.  In fact, ask Maged or Theymos to verify I haven't edited them anytime lately.

I /was/ involved in a PPT with 5 other people, but both INAU and I have sold our shares and are no longer invested in that.  That is also documented here on the forums.

I currently run a direct PPT, uninsured, meaning the only funds are funds that people explicitly give to me for that purpose.  In addition, I think its been about 98% that have been internal transfers at BS&T which means very little inflows from me on behalf of others into BS&T.

[dust]

Good answer, but I would like a little further clarification just because I don't see the answer-

Someday (in non-default based future), Pirate will drop his service and return all deposits.  What happens at that point?  I assume since you got all the deposits returned to you, you will turn around and buy back all shares @1 btc.  Correct?

How big does someone have to be to ask for a direct withdrawal?  Is there any price point of GIPPT where you would consider initiating a small pirate withdrawal specifically to buy back shares on GLBSE and cancel out the shares?  If you don't do this then I think you are earning interest yourself on value that is no longer present in the market you created... it's an interesting position to be in.

Apologize if these are dumb questions, I like your fund.

Thank you-

I think the bonds are worth hell of a lot more then they are currently, which is kind of sad to see You guys don't like the asset?

The bonds are worth more than 1.2 BTC, by my math. The market is simply saturated. 1 BTC is a joke for them, because then there's 0 risk for the investor of a pirate default. Pirate defaults, I don't lose anything. And that is why I pulled out of YARR and won't be buying Goat's bond.

It is not zero risk.  If pirate defaults, you have to hope that ineedausername and imsaguy, who are both heavily invested in pirate, do not default on the insurance.

Ok, here's where I get to step in.. you're spewing shit.  You need to get your facts straight and stop talking so authoritatively about other people's businesses, especially when you clearly don't know what the hell you're talking about.

EIEIO isn't exposed to Pirate.  Its a mining farm that does pretty well.  There are many, many people on this forum that have sold and either shipped to me or sold to me and met me in person.  I have on order with various enterprises a bunch more gear.  Go digging on the forums, its documented and timestamped.  In fact, ask Maged or Theymos to verify I haven't edited them anytime lately.

I /was/ involved in a PPT with 5 other people, but both INAU and I have sold our shares and are no longer invested in that.  That is also documented here on the forums.

I currently run a direct PPT, uninsured, meaning the only funds are funds that people explicitly give to me for that purpose.  In addition, I think its been about 98% that have been internal transfers at BS&T which means very little inflows from me on behalf of others into BS&T.

Thanks for the response imsaguy.  If EIEIO was more transparent about its operations I would have much more confidence in it.  The description (in addition to mining) "taking advantage of market arb opportunities and other btc related activities." and interest rate tiers/incentives reek of a pirate clone. You have stated you will release "full statement of accounts" by the end of the month, which should improve your credibility.  Feel free to PM or linke me proof of a large mining set up as well.

Assuming this bond is backed (in part) by a mining farm, I could still see a default scenario if the BTC price rose sharply and pirate defaulted, as mining farms are mostly valued in USD.

[imsaguy]

Thanks for the response imsaguy.  If EIEIO was more transparent about its operations I would have much more confidence in it.  The description (in addition to mining) "taking advantage of market arb opportunities and other btc related activities." and interest rate tiers/incentives reek of a pirate clone. You have stated you will release "full statement of accounts" by the end of the month, which should improve your credibility.  Feel free to PM or linke me proof of a large mining set up as well.

Assuming this bond is backed (in part) by a mining farm, I could still see a default scenario if the BTC price rose sharply and pirate defaulted, as mining farms are mostly valued in USD.

Why the hell would I pm it to you? Are you now the official arbiter of what is just and right?   I'd release it to the general public before I took the time to specifically pm it to you.  There have already been people that called me out on this before and they got shut down as equally fast with pictures and hashrates at pools.

Oh, and while the hardware itself might have USD value, it was all bought and paid for in bitcoin and that's how I document it.

[dust]

I'm just a concerned investor who was going to invest 100s of BTC in this. 2.5%/week insured by some of the most trusted members sounded like a very good idea until I realized the issuers and insurers have no good reason to offer it.

[nimda]

I'm just a concerned investor who was going to invest 100s of BTC in this. 2.5%/week insured by some of the most trusted members sounded like a very good idea until I realized the issuers and insurers have no good reason to offer it.

ffs. I already outlined a scenario, which you have yet to put a hole in.

[dust]

I'm just a concerned investor who was going to invest 100s of BTC in this. 2.5%/week insured by some of the most trusted members sounded like a very good idea until I realized the issuers and insurers have no good reason to offer it.

ffs. I already outlined a scenario, which you have yet to put a hole in.

I don't understand your scenario.  I just reread the thread, and the example of having USD assets and being short BTC makes no sense to me.  This would lose out doubly if BTC price were to increase.

Oh, and while the hardware itself might have USD value, it was all bought and paid for in bitcoin and that's how I document it.

The value of the hardware will still be less in BTC if BTC prices rise, regardless of what was originally used to pay for it.

[nimda]

I'm just a concerned investor who was going to invest 100s of BTC in this. 2.5%/week insured by some of the most trusted members sounded like a very good idea until I realized the issuers and insurers have no good reason to offer it.

ffs. I already outlined a scenario, which you have yet to put a hole in.

I don't understand your scenario.  I just reread the thread, and the example of having USD assets and being short BTC makes no sense to me.  This would lose out doubly if BTC price were to increase.

Yes. That is what a short is. It loses if BTC price rises, and it wins if BTC price falls. So one scenario is:
1. Issuer drives a nice car
2. Issuer is willing to bet that car on pirate not defaulting
3. Issuer wants to drive the car during the bet
4. Either:
4.a Issuer is willing to bet that if pirate defaults, BTC price will be lower than time of issue
4.b Issuer takes a "long" CFD so that if pirate defaults, issuer will have made money on the price rise

In this scenario:
1. If pirate does not default, issuer "has their cake and eats it too" by driving their car while making interest off of the net worth of the car. By 20 weeks, issuer is in the green and has made more than liabilities.
2. If pirate does default in less than 20 weeks:
2.a Under 4.a:
2.a.i if price has risen, issuer loses out. They sell their car, pay back the principle, and buy a cheaper car. Bad bet, tough break
2.a.ii if price has fallen, issuer sells their car, pays back the principle, and buys a cheaper car
2.b Under 4.b:
2.b.i if price has risen, issuer has gained money via the CFD and interest. Issuer sells car, pays back principal, and buys a cheaper car. Alternatively, the CFD + interest covers losses and the issuer comes away with a win.
2.b.ii if price has fallen, the issuer has made lost money on the CFD and gained money on interest. Issuer sells their car, pays back the principle, and buys a cheaper car. Bad bet, tough break.

There. Smart accounting isn't that hard to come by. I think imsaguy (or INAU) knows pirate in person (or is pirate ), so he's willing to make the bet on pirate. As for the bet on BTC's price, plenty of people do that. In fact, if you own any BTC, you're taking a non-leveraged long position. This asset is just a convenient bundle.

[dust]

I'm just a concerned investor who was going to invest 100s of BTC in this. 2.5%/week insured by some of the most trusted members sounded like a very good idea until I realized the issuers and insurers have no good reason to offer it.

ffs. I already outlined a scenario, which you have yet to put a hole in.

I don't understand your scenario.  I just reread the thread, and the example of having USD assets and being short BTC makes no sense to me.  This would lose out doubly if BTC price were to increase.

Yes. That is what a short is. It loses if BTC price rises, and it wins if BTC price falls. So one scenario is:
1. Issuer drives a nice car
2. Issuer is willing to bet that car on pirate not defaulting
3. Issuer wants to drive the car during the bet
4. Either:
4.a Issuer is willing to bet that if pirate defaults, BTC price will be lower than time of issue
4.b Issuer takes a "long" CFD so that if pirate defaults, issuer will have made money on the price rise

In this scenario:
1. If pirate does not default, issuer "has their cake and eats it too" by driving their car while making interest off of the net worth of the car. By 20 weeks, issuer is in the green and has made more than liabilities.
2. If pirate does default in less than 20 weeks:
2.a Under 4.a:
2.a.i if price has risen, issuer loses out. They sell their car, pay back the principle, and buy a cheaper car. Bad bet, tough break
2.a.ii if price has fallen, issuer sells their car, pays back the principle, and buys a cheaper car
2.b Under 4.b:
2.b.i if price has risen, issuer has gained money via the CFD and interest. Issuer sells car, pays back principal, and buys a cheaper car. Alternatively, the CFD + interest covers losses and the issuer comes away with a win.
2.b.ii if price has fallen, the issuer has made lost money on the CFD and gained money on interest. Issuer sells their car, pays back the principle, and buys a cheaper car. Bad bet, tough break.

There. Smart accounting isn't that hard to come by. I think imsaguy (or INAU) knows pirate in person (or is pirate ), so he's willing to make the bet on pirate. As for the bet on BTC's price, plenty of people do that. In fact, if you own any BTC, you're taking a non-leveraged long position. This asset is just a convenient bundle.

4a: If the price rises too much, the issuer cannot pay the insurance by selling their car. (see my original example)  The bond is not 100% insured if the issuer is making bets on BTC price and potentially will not be able to pay the insurance.
4b: I'm not sure  where this magical CFD comes from.  If the issuer is long BTC, they should just use those BTC to invest with pirate directly.

[nimda]

I'm just a concerned investor who was going to invest 100s of BTC in this. 2.5%/week insured by some of the most trusted members sounded like a very good idea until I realized the issuers and insurers have no good reason to offer it.

ffs. I already outlined a scenario, which you have yet to put a hole in.

I don't understand your scenario.  I just reread the thread, and the example of having USD assets and being short BTC makes no sense to me.  This would lose out doubly if BTC price were to increase.

A nice long list

4a: If the price rises too much, the issuer cannot pay the insurance by selling their car. (see my original example)  The bond is not 100% insured if the issuer is making bets on BTC price and potentially will not be able to pay the insurance.

This is the essence of a short. If the price falls drastically, the issuer will make a killing. Hopefully, the issuer's car or summer home, lakefront property, island, oil rig, whatever is several times the total issued value. If the issuer is prudent, he will liquidate his assets and buy back the bond when he reaches the point that a further rise in price would result in the inability to pay the insurance.

4b: I'm not sure  where this magical CFD comes from. 

Surely you can use the search feature of this forum?
[WTB] 1000-1500 BTC Contract for Difference (I'm taking long)
[WTB] [FILLED] 1000 BTC Contract for difference (I'm taking the short position) (so if meni's short was filled, someone obviously took the long)
The "magical" CFD could be negotiated in private, agreed on these forums like has been done before, or done on an external platform.

If the issuer is long BTC, they should just use those BTC to invest with pirate directly.

The long is a hedge. The issuer, not taking a CFD, is inherently short BTC in this scenario. The long is a way to neutralize or reverse that position. Luckily for the issuer, you can't get short-squeezed with a CFD.

It's evident that there has been some failure in communication if I didn't make clear that the long is a hedge. Furthermore, your statement assumes that the issuer actually has any BTC at all; using the USD-asset scenario, the issuer doesn't need to have any BTC on-hand. This shows that you're missing the "have your cake and eat it too" or "bet your summer home and live in it too" part, which is crucial. I apologize if my wording is confusing.

[DeaDTerra]

All bonds have been sold (they sold out a day ago but I forgot to mention it xD)
So all the 5000 bonds are now live and on the market
//DeaDTerra

[Vandroiy]

If I have one chunk of money, borrow another, and invest one each into "EIEIO" and "BS&T", how is it a "Pirate pass through" any more than a "Mystical mining pass through"?

EIEIO must pay >2.5% weekly for this to be profitable. That alone makes it far too suspicious to qualify as insurance.

[DeaDTerra]

If I have one chunk of money, borrow another, and invest one each into "EIEIO" and "BS&T", how is it a "Pirate pass through" any more than a "Mystical mining pass through"?

EIEIO must pay >2.5% weekly for this to be profitable. That alone makes it far too suspicious to qualify as insurance.

Does this mean I get your seal of approval
YAY!!!!!!!
//DeaDTerra

[nimda]

If I have one chunk of money, borrow another, and invest one each into "EIEIO" and "BS&T", how is it a "Pirate pass through" any more than a "Mystical mining pass through"?

EIEIO must pay >2.5% weekly for this to be profitable. That alone makes it far too suspicious to qualify as insurance.

It appears we need a GIPPT FUD thread too. It also appears that you have neglected to read my scenario. This bond is a bet, and if the issuer loses out on said bet, that's his problem. He does, however, have a lot more rep than you, and he seems rather qualified.

[DeaDTerra]

Me and INAU is going to discuss how we will adjust the interest rate as pirate has changed his rate to 5%
I will get back to you guys once we have taken a decision, Dividends should be paid out as normal today.
//DeaDTerra

[DeaDTerra]

the dividend is delayed. I will pay it out once I get home in 45 min
//DeaDTerra

[Bjork]

Hmm, even though I suspect these bonds will have their rates lowered to ~1.8%, I think pirate lowering his rates will actually increase the value of these bonds.  I suspect more people will be wanting to sell the uninsured passthroughs and investing in insured ones.

[Muis]

I suspect these bonds will have their rates lowered to ~1.8%

I assume the rate stays the same, because the 2.5% is the interest from EIEIO, so Pirate lowering rates shouldn't affect our dividend.

[DeaDTerra]

Hmm, even though I suspect these bonds will have their rates lowered to ~1.8%, I think pirate lowering his rates will actually increase the value of these bonds.  I suspect more people will be wanting to sell the uninsured passthroughs and investing in insured ones.

I suspect these bonds will have their rates lowered to ~1.8%

I assume the rate stays the same, because the 2.5% is the interest from EIEIO, so Pirate lowering rates shouldn't affect our dividend.

The Rates will be lowered, as according to the contract I have the right to do so whenever pirate changes his rate.
So from this week onwards Gamma Insured Pirate Pass Through will pay 1.5% a week.
As before the bond will be insured and the payouts guaranteed as long as pirate keeps paying them
//DeaDTerra

[dust]

Hmm, even though I suspect these bonds will have their rates lowered to ~1.8%, I think pirate lowering his rates will actually increase the value of these bonds.  I suspect more people will be wanting to sell the uninsured passthroughs and investing in insured ones.

I suspect these bonds will have their rates lowered to ~1.8%

I assume the rate stays the same, because the 2.5% is the interest from EIEIO, so Pirate lowering rates shouldn't affect our dividend.

The Rates will be lowered, as according to the contract I have the right to do so whenever pirate changes his rate.
So from this week onwards Gamma Insured Pirate Pass Through will pay 1.5% a week.
As before the bond will be insured and the payouts guaranteed as long as pirate keeps paying them
//DeaDTerra

In the case of where Pirate changes his interest rate, or the way he pays out the issuer has the right to change the contract appropriately.

So a 40% decrease in interest rates for a 29% decrease in pirate's rate is "appropriate"? 1.78% sounds more appropriate to me.