. - page 20. | Bitcointalksearch.org

PatrickHarnett

hero member

Activity: 518

Merit: 500

Quote from: MrTeal on May 25, 2012, 06:36:45 PM

I'm guessing he started with the numbers from one scenario and edited it halfway through. Payout for case 1 would be 134 coins, with an insurance payout of 33.5.

Yes. Started looking at 100 bonds for 110 coins and then started playing with different purchase prices.

Anyway - redemption for PPT.B is all set and ready to go in 15 minutes.

Edit: 2000 bonds paid 1.28 - should be 2560 coins in people's accounts.

BinaryMage

hero member

Activity: 560

Merit: 500

Ad astra.

Quote from: PatrickHarnett on May 25, 2012, 06:33:55 PM

Quote from: BinaryMage on May 25, 2012, 06:26:16 PM

Your point seems valid, but I'm not understanding your math. How does a payout of 128 coins from an investment of 110 coins generate 24 coins in profit? Unless standard base 10 notation has changed without me noticing, 128 - 110 = 18.

Damn starfish had a math fail - I was playing with the numbers and didn't update the words properly - gone back to edit the post.

It should have been [(110 / 1.05) = 104.8] * 1.28 = 134, so profit is 134-110 = 24

And I read the numbers and apparently not the words.

Thanks, that certainly makes more sense.

MrTeal

legendary

Activity: 1274

Merit: 1004

Quote from: BinaryMage on May 25, 2012, 06:26:16 PM

Quote from: PatrickHarnett on May 25, 2012, 05:28:47 PM

You math and logic are flawed, but similar in tone to many of your other forum posts which I find generally negative. Therefore, to point out the situation a little more clearly, to reserve coins rather than investing them may lower your payout and your claim that anyone paying more than 1.02 would be better off else where is not true.

Case 1, invest 110 coins in PPT at a buy in price of 1.05
Payout is either 128 coins for a profit of 24 coins, or in the event of a default, you receive 32 coins for a net loss of 88.

Case 2, Also starting with 110 coins, reserve 32 coins as self insurance, and put 88 coins into an uninsured scheme.
Position is either 32 + 78 * 1.28 = 134 (also a profit of 24) including weekly compounding, or you retain the 32 coins you started with.

There is a cross-over point, but in case #2 you have two single person points of default (Pirate and whoever your middle-man is). In case #1, the PPT founders have more at stake than just the PPT business. People have chosen to value these factors.

Also, in reference to Otoh's point, we have quite a lot of backup, hence Burt is off holidaying, and I'm doing the redemption (2560 coins shortly) and bond sale (3000) this week because it is not automatic.

Your point seems valid, but I'm not understanding your math. How does a payout of 128 coins from an investment of 110 coins generate 24 coins in profit? Unless standard base 10 notation has changed without me noticing, 128 - 110 = 18.

I'm guessing he started with the numbers from one scenario and edited it halfway through. Payout for case 1 would be 134 coins, with an insurance payout of 33.5.

imsaguy

vip

Activity: 574

Merit: 500

Don't send me a pm unless you gpg encrypt it.

Quote from: BinaryMage on May 25, 2012, 06:26:16 PM

Quote from: PatrickHarnett on May 25, 2012, 05:28:47 PM

You math and logic are flawed, but similar in tone to many of your other forum posts which I find generally negative. Therefore, to point out the situation a little more clearly, to reserve coins rather than investing them may lower your payout and your claim that anyone paying more than 1.02 would be better off else where is not true.

Case 1, invest 110 coins in PPT at a buy in price of 1.05
Payout is either 128 coins for a profit of 24 coins, or in the event of a default, you receive 32 coins for a net loss of 88.

Case 2, Also starting with 110 coins, reserve 32 coins as self insurance, and put 88 coins into an uninsured scheme.
Position is either 32 + 78 * 1.28 = 134 (also a profit of 24) including weekly compounding, or you retain the 32 coins you started with.

There is a cross-over point, but in case #2 you have two single person points of default (Pirate and whoever your middle-man is). In case #1, the PPT founders have more at stake than just the PPT business. People have chosen to value these factors.

Also, in reference to Otoh's point, we have quite a lot of backup, hence Burt is off holidaying, and I'm doing the redemption (2560 coins shortly) and bond sale (3000) this week because it is not automatic.

Your point seems valid, but I'm not understanding your math. How does a payout of 128 coins from an investment of 110 coins generate 24 coins in profit? Unless standard base 10 notation has changed without me noticing, 128 - 110 = 18.

110 coins invested at a buy price of 1.05 is 104.xxx bonds. Let's round up since you can't buy fractional bonds. so 110.xx coins invested at a buy price of 1.05 is 105 bonds. 105 bonds with a redeem price of 1.28 = 134.4 btc. Since you bought with 110 coins, your profit is 24.4 btc. Insurance is .32 per bond in the case of a default, so 105 bonds @ .32 = 33.6 btc.

PatrickHarnett

hero member

Activity: 518

Merit: 500

Quote from: BinaryMage on May 25, 2012, 06:26:16 PM

Your point seems valid, but I'm not understanding your math. How does a payout of 128 coins from an investment of 110 coins generate 24 coins in profit? Unless standard base 10 notation has changed without me noticing, 128 - 110 = 18.

Damn starfish had a math fail - I was playing with the numbers and didn't update the words properly - gone back to edit the post.

It should have been [(110 / 1.05) = 104.8] * 1.28 = 134, so profit is 134-110 = 24

BinaryMage

hero member

Activity: 560

Merit: 500

Ad astra.

Quote from: PatrickHarnett on May 25, 2012, 05:28:47 PM

Quote from: Sukrim on May 25, 2012, 02:41:46 AM

Interesting that people still seem to want to throw money at you - for 1.08 offers you only get ~18% per month, where other offers pay weekly and pay out over 28% compounded per month or 26% uncompounded. This would mean that everyone who bids more than 1.02 would be better off elsewhere. The only difference is the "insurance" - but this can basically be overcome by simply investing less in pirate and keeping some BTC for yourself.

Considering the competition, do you plan on changing your contracts soon (e.g. weekly payouts, no limit on share amount issued) or will you keep running like this?

You math and logic are flawed, but similar in tone to many of your other forum posts which I find generally negative. Therefore, to point out the situation a little more clearly, to reserve coins rather than investing them may lower your payout and your claim that anyone paying more than 1.02 would be better off else where is not true.

Case 1, invest 110 coins in PPT at a buy in price of 1.05
Payout is either 128 coins for a profit of 24 coins, or in the event of a default, you receive 32 coins for a net loss of 88.

Case 2, Also starting with 110 coins, reserve 32 coins as self insurance, and put 88 coins into an uninsured scheme.
Position is either 32 + 78 * 1.28 = 134 (also a profit of 24) including weekly compounding, or you retain the 32 coins you started with.

There is a cross-over point, but in case #2 you have two single person points of default (Pirate and whoever your middle-man is). In case #1, the PPT founders have more at stake than just the PPT business. People have chosen to value these factors.

Also, in reference to Otoh's point, we have quite a lot of backup, hence Burt is off holidaying, and I'm doing the redemption (2560 coins shortly) and bond sale (3000) this week because it is not automatic.

Your point seems valid, but I'm not understanding your math. How does a payout of 128 coins from an investment of 110 coins generate 24 coins in profit? Unless standard base 10 notation has changed without me noticing, 128 - 110 = 18.

PatrickHarnett

hero member

Activity: 518

Merit: 500

Quote from: Sukrim on May 25, 2012, 02:41:46 AM

Interesting that people still seem to want to throw money at you - for 1.08 offers you only get ~18% per month, where other offers pay weekly and pay out over 28% compounded per month or 26% uncompounded. This would mean that everyone who bids more than 1.02 would be better off elsewhere. The only difference is the "insurance" - but this can basically be overcome by simply investing less in pirate and keeping some BTC for yourself.

Considering the competition, do you plan on changing your contracts soon (e.g. weekly payouts, no limit on share amount issued) or will you keep running like this?

You math and logic are flawed, but similar in tone to many of your other forum posts which I find generally negative. Therefore, to point out the situation a little more clearly, to reserve coins rather than investing them may lower your payout and your claim that anyone paying more than 1.02 would be better off else where is not true.

Case 1, invest 110 coins in PPT at a buy in price of 1.05 (104.8 bonds)
Payout is either 134 coins for a profit of 24 coins, or in the event of a default, you receive 32 coins for a net loss of 88.

Case 2, Also starting with 110 coins, reserve 32 coins as self insurance, and put 88 coins into an uninsured scheme.
Position is either 32 + 78 * 1.28 = 134 (also a profit of 24) including weekly compounding, or you retain the 32 coins you started with.

There is a cross-over point, but in case #2 you have two single person points of default (Pirate and whoever your middle-man is). In case #1, the PPT founders have more at stake than just the PPT business. People have chosen to value these factors.

Also, in reference to Otoh's point, we have quite a lot of backup, hence Burt is off holidaying, and I'm doing the redemption (2560 coins shortly) and bond sale (3000) this week because it is not automatic.

Otoh

donator

Activity: 3052

Merit: 1110

Quote from: area on May 25, 2012, 12:30:08 PM

Quote from: Otoh on May 25, 2012, 11:08:04 AM

Quote from: Serge on May 25, 2012, 10:54:22 AM

1.08 bottom has been historical market price, due to low competition on GLBSE and elsewhere up until recently for similar offerings. that price is not set in stone and in terms.
with so many different options now offered and available from other BTCST account holders, bottom price may as well come down to 1.02-1.01 for PPT.x family bonds.
would be interesting to watch PPT.A auction later today-tomorrow to see how market prices these bonds now

The last offering E had I believe a high of 1.15 & the cut off would have been 1.122 except that GLBSE had a fail & filled all orders which were down to 1.085 but only as this glitch made about 7,000 bonds available instead of 3,000 as planned - so currently the figure to watch for PPT-A here is will the high be 1.15 (which is also where the price shot up to right after issue) & will the cut off be 1.12, personally I'd be surprised if any 1.10s or low to mid 1.11s got filled this time around as the last issue was so heavily oversubscribed, in other words I doubt, baring glitches, that any orders under 1.12 (equivalent to a 5.33% per week return on funds at risk) will get filled but in any case it will be interesting to follow as you say

I am certain that orders below 1.12 will be filled. The only way that I could explain otherwise would be people on GLBSE that don't frequent the forums, not knowing about the other pass-throughs that have appeared in the last week.

could be, I haven't checked them all out even myself* but I doubt any offer the equivalent of 6 of the most reputable guys who are doing this working together, to me this is an enormous plus as it removes another single point of failure in the chain & makes for a lot of trust that their money is riding on this too with the 25% insurance reserved

*edit - though I have seen 3 or 4 & it's no comparison risk wise to me

area

full member

Activity: 177

Merit: 100

Quote from: Otoh on May 25, 2012, 11:08:04 AM

Quote from: Serge on May 25, 2012, 10:54:22 AM

1.08 bottom has been historical market price, due to low competition on GLBSE and elsewhere up until recently for similar offerings. that price is not set in stone and in terms.
with so many different options now offered and available from other BTCST account holders, bottom price may as well come down to 1.02-1.01 for PPT.x family bonds.
would be interesting to watch PPT.A auction later today-tomorrow to see how market prices these bonds now

The last offering E had I believe a high of 1.15 & the cut off would have been 1.122 except that GLBSE had a fail & filled all orders which were down to 1.085 but only as this glitch made about 7,000 bonds available instead of 3,000 as planned - so currently the figure to watch for PPT-A here is will the high be 1.15 (which is also where the price shot up to right after issue) & will the cut off be 1.12, personally I'd be surprised if any 1.10s or low to mid 1.11s got filled this time around as the last issue was so heavily oversubscribed, in other words I doubt, baring glitches, that any orders under 1.12 (equivalent to a 5.33% per week return on funds at risk) will get filled but in any case it will be interesting to follow as you say

I am certain that orders below 1.12 will be filled. The only way that I could explain otherwise would be people on GLBSE that don't frequent the forums, not knowing about the other pass-throughs that have appeared in the last week.

Otoh

donator

Activity: 3052

Merit: 1110

Quote from: Serge on May 25, 2012, 10:54:22 AM

1.08 bottom has been historical market price, due to low competition on GLBSE and elsewhere up until recently for similar offerings. that price is not set in stone and in terms.
with so many different options now offered and available from other BTCST account holders, bottom price may as well come down to 1.02-1.01 for PPT.x family bonds.
would be interesting to watch PPT.A auction later today-tomorrow to see how market prices these bonds now

The last offering E had I believe a high of 1.15 & the cut off would have been 1.122 except that GLBSE had a fail & filled all orders which were down to 1.085 but only as this glitch made about 7,000 bonds available instead of 3,000 as planned - so currently the figure to watch for PPT-A here is will the high be 1.15 (which is also where the price shot up to right after issue) & will the cut off be 1.12, personally I'd be surprised if any 1.10s or low to mid 1.11s got filled this time around as the last issue was so heavily oversubscribed, in other words I doubt, baring glitches, that any orders under 1.12 (equivalent to a 5.33% per week return on funds at risk) will get filled but in any case it will be interesting to follow as you say

Serge

legendary

Activity: 1050

Merit: 1000

1.08 bottom has been historical market price, due to low competition on GLBSE and elsewhere up until recently for similar offerings. that price is not set in stone and in terms.
with so many different options now offered and available from other BTCST account holders, bottom price may as well come down to 1.02-1.01 for PPT.x family bonds.
would be interesting to watch PPT.A auction later today-tomorrow to see how market prices these bonds now

Otoh

donator

Activity: 3052

Merit: 1110

when I work out the return & take the excellent insurance in to account, then say that I have bought 100 bonds at 1.10 each so I am due 18% interest in 4 weeks time (4.5% per week) = 18 BTC, but my funds at risk are not the full 100 BTC but those less the 25% guaranteed = 75 BTC, therefor I am effectively getting a return of 18 BTC from just 75 BTC put at risk so a return of 24% (6% per week) which is pretty healthy (one would need 2,000 coins direct with pirate to beat this) & I disregard the insured 25 BTC being tied up as they are part of my long term hold in any case funds rather than funds I am prepared to have lent out with any but very minimal risk - in fact I feel safer having some here with these 6 guys than all just left in Gox say

imsaguy

vip

Activity: 574

Merit: 500

Don't send me a pm unless you gpg encrypt it.

Quote from: Sukrim on May 25, 2012, 02:41:46 AM

Interesting that people still seem to want to throw money at you - for 1.08 offers you only get ~18% per month, where other offers pay weekly and pay out over 28% compounded per month or 26% uncompounded. This would mean that everyone who bids more than 1.02 would be better off elsewhere. The only difference is the "insurance" - but this can basically be overcome by simply investing less in pirate and keeping some BTC for yourself.

Considering the competition, do you plan on changing your contracts soon (e.g. weekly payouts, no limit on share amount issued) or will you keep running like this?

I think many people forget that PPT is issued by some of the most respected people in the lending forum. It wouldn't be just a matter of 1 person not honoring the agreement, but all six. How many other issuers have that?

wachtwoord

legendary

Activity: 2324

Merit: 1125

Quote from: Sukrim on May 25, 2012, 02:41:46 AM

The only difference is the "insurance" - but this can basically be overcome by simply investing less in pirate and keeping some BTC for yourself.

I hope you understand keeping some of the Bitcoins yourself to cover your insurance will lower your effective rate. If you can get 28% per month, keeping the same money back (32%) will lead to a yield of .68*.28=0.1904 (19.04%). So yes, if that is available the price might drop a little as 1.08 yields a 1.28/1.08=1.185 (18.5%) but it's really not that different though. The difference could also be explained by higher trust in this borrower than the competitor.

Sukrim

legendary

Activity: 2618

Merit: 1007

Interesting that people still seem to want to throw money at you - for 1.08 offers you only get ~18% per month, where other offers pay weekly and pay out over 28% compounded per month or 26% uncompounded. This would mean that everyone who bids more than 1.02 would be better off elsewhere. The only difference is the "insurance" - but this can basically be overcome by simply investing less in pirate and keeping some BTC for yourself.

Considering the competition, do you plan on changing your contracts soon (e.g. weekly payouts, no limit on share amount issued) or will you keep running like this?

imsaguy

vip

Activity: 574

Merit: 500

Don't send me a pm unless you gpg encrypt it.

Quote from: REF on May 21, 2012, 09:50:34 AM

Quote from: unclescrooge on May 21, 2012, 04:46:11 AM

I don't know if it's all these pirate pass trough offers of this week-end, but men, the PPT bonds are heading down :/

Just like when I wanted to cash in :/

its the all the new pirate pass offers and that they sold 6000bonds by mistake flooding the market.

They are heading down back closer to where their market price probably should be. .E is funds that are invested, so their market price should follow the time remaining on the bond. The .A bonds aren't available yet, so a person can't really see true market sentiment yet.

REF

hero member

Activity: 529

Merit: 500

Quote from: unclescrooge on May 21, 2012, 04:46:11 AM

I don't know if it's all these pirate pass trough offers of this week-end, but men, the PPT bonds are heading down :/

Just like when I wanted to cash in :/

its the all the new pirate pass offers and that they sold 6000bonds by mistake flooding the market.

unclescrooge

hero member

Activity: 868

Merit: 1000

I don't know if it's all these pirate pass trough offers of this week-end, but men, the PPT bonds are heading down :/

Just like when I wanted to cash in :/

Sukrim

legendary

Activity: 2618

Merit: 1007

Well, congratulations to the mathematically challenged people that are buying PPT.DIV shares for above 1 BTC now - seems like quite a run away from PPT.E at the moment... Roll Eyes

finkleshnorts

sr. member

Activity: 336

Merit: 250

Quote from: brendio on May 21, 2012, 12:48:00 AM

Quote from: PatrickHarnett on May 21, 2012, 12:35:32 AM

Quote from: brendio on May 21, 2012, 12:14:10 AM

Quote from: finkleshnorts on May 19, 2012, 07:46:53 PM

Boom. Just saw the results today. I snagged some at the very bottom for 1.0851 Grin

This was my first time to actually use GLBSE, really cool. I love the new interface.

I got in right at the very very bottom for 1.085001. My order was only partly filled.

My brain hurts trying to work out how little a difference that is. 0.000999

So one tenth of a percent over a month - "score!"

Worth having - well done being on the cusp

maybe we should have a prize.

I would rather have paid the 100,000 satoshis and had my order completely filled. I was AFK over the weekend so just put a bid in beforehand and hoped for the best.

me too, i bid on like tuesday lol

Topic: . - page 20. (Read 67479 times)