. - page 32. | Bitcointalksearch.org

stochastic

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

Quote from: PatrickHarnett on April 19, 2012, 09:40:58 PM

Quote from: Raoul Duke on April 19, 2012, 09:24:35 PM

Ok, I see I used the wrong word.

I should've said "sell more 100BTC shares" instead of "sell those 100 BTC shares".

But, yeah, your statement still stands. You guys had the work, you wish to be the only ones to be rewarded and because of that you don't even want to share the risk. Understandable!

I just hope I and other depositors don't get fucked* because of your greediness...

*booted out of BS&T

Well, we are going to be doing more of those 100 BTC shares, but they are not open market at this stage. The risk/return ratio isn't set yet and that will take a little while to sort out.

Anyway, on current bidding, bond holders will be making about 26% and our "greediness" will net us 2% and given the reserves set aside (not earning interest in other things), that puts us in a net loss.

As for screwing up other people's deposits, current information is that it is not very likely. Would you prefer that as a separate exercise I dump more coins into Pirate's scheme directly?

Are you stating PPT is insolvent? Wink

This 2% is not quite true. PPT is getting more than 2% as they are putting up .32 BTC and receiving 7% on 1 BTC compounded weekly, so that is really a 9.375% return. This does not include any instant return if shares sell for more than 1.0 BTC. Money in hand now is better than later.

Raoul Duke

legendary

Activity: 1358

Merit: 1002

Quote from: PatrickHarnett on April 19, 2012, 09:40:58 PM

As for screwing up other people's deposits, current information is that it is not very likely. Would you prefer that as a separate exercise I dump more coins into Pirate's scheme directly?

Yes, I would. But you're clearly not going to do that. You'll instead use money from others for it and won't risk your money.

About the net loss: You can throw sand at my eyes all you want, but rest assured you won't blind me Wink

PatrickHarnett

hero member

Activity: 518

Merit: 500

Quote from: Raoul Duke on April 19, 2012, 09:24:35 PM

Ok, I see I used the wrong word.

I should've said "sell more 100BTC shares" instead of "sell those 100 BTC shares".

But, yeah, your statement still stands. You guys had the work, you wish to be the only ones to be rewarded and because of that you don't even want to share the risk. Understandable!

I just hope I and other depositors don't get fucked* because of your greediness...

*booted out of BS&T

Well, we are going to be doing more of those 100 BTC shares, but they are not open market at this stage. The risk/return ratio isn't set yet and that will take a little while to sort out.

Anyway, on current bidding, bond holders will be making about 26% and our "greediness" will net us 2% and given the reserves set aside (not earning interest in other things), that puts us in a net loss.

As for screwing up other people's deposits, current information is that it is not very likely. Would you prefer that as a separate exercise I dump more coins into Pirate's scheme directly?

Raoul Duke

legendary

Activity: 1358

Merit: 1002

Ok, I see I used the wrong word.

I should've said "sell more 100BTC shares" instead of "sell those 100 BTC shares".

But, yeah, your statement still stands. You guys had the work, you wish to be the only ones to be rewarded and because of that you don't want to share the risk or even reduce the risk to PPT.x bond holders. Understandable!

I just hope I and other depositors don't get fucked* because of your greediness...

*booted out of BS&T

btw, 6 founding shareholders? I remember perfectly when you opened the thread there we're only 5 founding shareholders and only 5 PPT shares valued on 100 BTC each. Care to explain the discrepancy? Especially because 1 more "founding" shareholder was added but the 25% insurance in case of default remained the same...

You guys clearly don't want to reduce the risk to your bond holders, which will be the ones to fund your venture.

PatrickHarnett

hero member

Activity: 518

Merit: 500

Quote from: Raoul Duke on April 19, 2012, 09:03:58 PM

Quote from: stochastic on April 19, 2012, 08:32:44 PM

Quote from: Raoul Duke on April 19, 2012, 11:23:52 AM

Quote from: Sukrim on April 19, 2012, 11:13:58 AM

I thought the main PPT is only used as "bank" for the insurances, not paying out the earnings from PPT.X auctions? Why would you buy shares at 100 BTC each there that are only used to be distributed in case of pirate's default?

If anything you should be glad that there are people willing to invest and by doing that secure more than the 25% default insurance.

I am only 25% glad.

You are not more glad because they don't want to sell those 100 BTC shares to reduce risk, hence reducing their profits also.

Perhaps some additional information (really a restatement) will clarify.

We came up with an idea to provide a partially insured bond that would include a reserve of unencumbered bitcoins. The total size ultimately growing to 32% or 8000 bonds or 2560 bitcoins. The six founding shareholders are committed to provide this necessary level of funding. There is no additional sweetener to cover the many hours that we have collectively put into this venture through extra shares or "fees".

If additional shares were issued and sold, it would not necessarily increase the reserve as we could simply reallocate the existing shares (i.e. transfers). Also, any surplus over the agreed reserve could be paid as dividends to the PPT shareholders - nothing particularly fancy about that either. Profits are driven by any margin between the sale of bonds and the interest due, not the number or value of the PPT shares.

I might also point out that in the event of a Pirate default, an event that some people consider certain at some stage, the PPT shareholders will suffer a loss of their investment (the above mentioned 2560 coins).

Raoul Duke

legendary

Activity: 1358

Merit: 1002

Quote from: stochastic on April 19, 2012, 08:32:44 PM

Quote from: Raoul Duke on April 19, 2012, 11:23:52 AM

Quote from: Sukrim on April 19, 2012, 11:13:58 AM

I thought the main PPT is only used as "bank" for the insurances, not paying out the earnings from PPT.X auctions? Why would you buy shares at 100 BTC each there that are only used to be distributed in case of pirate's default?

If anything you should be glad that there are people willing to invest and by doing that secure more than the 25% default insurance.

I am only 25% glad.

You are not more glad because they don't want to sell those 100 BTC shares to reduce risk, hence reducing their profits also.

stochastic

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

Quote from: Raoul Duke on April 19, 2012, 11:23:52 AM

Quote from: Sukrim on April 19, 2012, 11:13:58 AM

I thought the main PPT is only used as "bank" for the insurances, not paying out the earnings from PPT.X auctions? Why would you buy shares at 100 BTC each there that are only used to be distributed in case of pirate's default?

If anything you should be glad that there are people willing to invest and by doing that secure more than the 25% default insurance.

I am only 25% glad.

rdponticelli

sr. member

Activity: 325

Merit: 250

Our highest capital is the Confidence we build.

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: Raoul Duke on April 19, 2012, 11:11:12 AM

Quote from: rdponticelli on April 19, 2012, 07:04:04 AM

Have you thought about offering PPT shares publicly?

Could be interesting. You may rise more capital to cover a greatest portion of the bond, effectively sharing the risk and the reward of the entity...

I would go for 1 share of the main PPT if they were being offered. PPT.A or PPT.B don't interest me the slightest bit Wink

Shares of PPT are not publicly available at this time.

We do realize there is a storng market for these shares as we have gotten many emails, messages and and few posts like these asking about them.

We have discussed this and I am sure that we will be discussing it again in the future.

As I have said before, those of you that have bids on PPT stock can remove them. Or, at least don't insult us with such low bids. 1.00 and 1.01 BTC? Really? Look at the chart Wink

I don't have any buy order, so don't worry, I'm not insulting you... Wink

Anyway, if you do something like this, you can make the share worth whatever you like. Personally, I won't put 100 coins in this, but if you issue a lot of shares, take for yourself whatever percentage it takes to represent the capital you're already covering, and sell the rest, I may put 1 or 2, maybe 5... even 10 coins in it... with all the other people that may be interested, you can raise a significant capital... and covering better the bonds would mean highest bids, increased margin, lowest risks...

The00Dustin

hero member

Activity: 807

Merit: 500

Quote from: ?? on ??

Thanks. Yes we are aware of the issues with paying a 1.28 dividend so we will not do that. The plan of record is to use the new buy back function being implemented by GLBSE which will basically:

1) Halt all trading and cancel all active orders
2) Send out 1.28 (in our case) per bond to the bondholders of record at that time
3) Move all the bonds back into our account

I was actually referring to earlier discussion of a .32 dividend in case of default. If the same procedure is carried out in case of default, though, that won't be a problem (the moron will at least get the .32, and the persons who figured there was a default coming will be better off).

Sukrim

legendary

Activity: 2618

Merit: 1007

Quote from: ?? on ??

I did not check your math but did you remember to remove the order for 86 bonds at 0.01 BTC? We will not sell under 1.000 so this order will not be filled by us in the auction. Once the market opens this bid is lurking there just waiting for someone to make a mistake in their sell order decimal place or something. But if you included this order then your average is off a bit.

Yes, both from shares bid and amount bid side, so the average should be ok.

The00Dustin

hero member

Activity: 807

Merit: 500

Quote from: ?? on ??

Once the market opens this bid is lurking there just waiting for someone to make a mistake in their sell order decimal place or something.

Or for someone to sell a worthless asset to in the case of a default if you decide to pay out using a dividend instead of a recall. Be warned that the moron that gets screwed over for having that order out will certainly blame your party if such a thing happens, so I recommend avoiding the dividend payout option at all costs. Presumably you are already aware of the proper way to pay off a bond (and presumably recall will be the new proper way), but I wanted to put this out there in case you hadn't previously witnessed or considered it.

Raoul Duke

legendary

Activity: 1358

Merit: 1002

Quote from: Sukrim on April 19, 2012, 11:13:58 AM

I thought the main PPT is only used as "bank" for the insurances, not paying out the earnings from PPT.X auctions? Why would you buy shares at 100 BTC each there that are only used to be distributed in case of pirate's default?

uh?? Those shares are also the equity used to distribute the operators profits.
Or do you think they will not profit from it?
If anything you should be glad that there are people willing to invest and by doing that secure more than the 25% default insurance. Maybe that's a sign they don't believe Pirate will default...

Sukrim

legendary

Activity: 2618

Merit: 1007

I thought the main PPT is only used as "bank" for the insurances, not paying out the earnings from PPT.X auctions? Why would you buy shares at 100 BTC each there that are only used to be distributed in case of pirate's default?

Edit:
Update:
1505 shares with valid bets, totalling 1536.1578 (average price ~1.021, issuer gets 31.1578)

Raoul Duke

legendary

Activity: 1358

Merit: 1002

Quote from: rdponticelli on April 19, 2012, 07:04:04 AM

Have you thought about offering PPT shares publicly?

Could be interesting. You may rise more capital to cover a greatest portion of the bond, effectively sharing the risk and the reward of the entity...

I would go for 1 share of the main PPT if they were being offered. PPT.A or PPT.B don't interest me the slightest bit Wink

rdponticelli

sr. member

Activity: 325

Merit: 250

Our highest capital is the Confidence we build.

Have you thought about offering PPT shares publicly?

Could be interesting. You may rise more capital to cover a greatest portion of the bond, effectively sharing the risk and the reward of the entity...

xkrikl

full member

Activity: 159

Merit: 100

Great news!
So while you take a little bit more risk - it should drive the prices much higher

HorseRider

donator

Activity: 1120

Merit: 1001

Sub.

It's an ABS like thing. interesting.

stochastic

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

Good news. Keeps it simple.

coblee

donator

Activity: 1654

Merit: 1351

Creator of Litecoin. Cryptocurrency enthusiast.

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: The00Dustin on April 18, 2012, 03:49:47 PM

I don't think I've seen it mentioned anywhere, so I'm going to point out that I believe most of the numbers on this thread are wrong in one way or another. For instance, bidding 1.28 would be a losing proposition because of the .5% fee encountered when selling the bond back. IOW, paying more than 1.2736 for a bond guarantees a loss after counting the current fee for selling. To the best of my knowledge, the fee for selling applies in all circumstances other than the bank defaulting, but I could be wrong on this altogther if Burt and company have worked with Nefario and the recall option will exist within 6 weeks without a fee.

Good point, I will email Nefario. I had not thought of the fees in the new "bond recall" function and since it is not written yet there is time to give him our input.

Bond recall should cost nothing. If it costs something, you can always just give a 1.28 btc dividend (no feeds on dividends) and recall all the bonds for 0 btc. Speaking of that, the bond recall time and amount should be in the contrat and enforced by GLBSE so that you can't just recall all your bonds at 0. I guess you guys will work that out with Nefario.

The00Dustin

hero member

Activity: 807

Merit: 500

Quote from: ?? on ??

Good point, I will email Nefario. I had not thought of the fees in the new "bond recall" function and since it is not written yet there is time to give him our input.

On that note, will you actually sell bonds at 1.00 when it will net you .995? Also, if you announce more bonds than there end up being standing orders (at 1 or 1.005 as the case may be), what happens?

Topic: . - page 32. (Read 67488 times)