I am spinning something in my mind right now, been thinking about it for some time now but never thought about using burst for this...
I own a few ltcgear shares - i am thinking about creating an asset where one share equals one ltcgear share, i would start with 1000 shares to test the waters, thus not selling any preorder but existing asset.
Dividende would be paid weekly (figures) and i get 5% as fee (or 5% shares on top, i guess thats easier)
Each share was bought at 0.53$ (850$/1600) or 0,001355 BTC.
The main problem i see, once i issue 1000 shares (100 MHs Scrypt) it will create a demand for BURST, thus making it hard to keep the shares at the right price, the first buyer would actually pay more than the last.
1000 Shares equals 1.355BTC equals roughly 825k burst at 160 Sat.
Comments?
You mean something like this
https://burstforum.com/index.php?threads/ann-bytegear.309/ perhaps?
Exactly but i already own the ltcgear shares and it will be in BURST only, not waiting for any BTC to arrieve.
Guess i will just create the asset and see how it goes
Uhm... I don't see the point of this actually.
I mean, you are basically moving the profits you already get with your LTCGear on buying Bursts, then split them back among investors while taking 5% of profits which, without asset wuold be 100% yours... so uhm? No, I dont' get it
Moreover, if like you stated, the first buyer pays more than the last, you are practically saying that your shares lose value over time which is the opposite of the base concept of investment. I personally don't agree with this statement, I think instead, that with your schema the Investment/Profit ratio is 1. So no profit, nor loss.
Probably I misunderstood everything here and you are doing something similar to BLTPS project or Bytegear one, but I don't see how this can actually evolve.
Try to explain it a little bit better
EDIT:
On additional note, I know it may sound strange said by me cause I'm involved in first person but... Coming up with many projects like the two we already have (one backed by Bitcoins, mine - one backed by Bursts, Iron's one) just fragments things out leading to counterproductive effects. The effort has to be put as a whole, with big, organized, buy pressure. Fragmentation leads to nothing or, even worse, dump because small buy walls cant do anything against big dumpers.
The other project is really limited in availability, he is already sold out so there seems to be demand for this...i would rebuy shares with the money i get and probably issue more or run them for myself - this just opens up another method to get those shares without much hassle and in smaller increments - it does add another party to trust though (me paying the divs)
Limited, you mean the Irontiga's one? Cause BLTPS doesn't have an upper limit given the way it is structured.
I think, like yourself are proposing, that Irontiga can issue further parallel assets if he wants, by taking a snapshot of the shares value at a given time. Be careful, I don't know the mechanisms behind it, so I'm just guessing.
If I figured out this time what your proposal is, your are basically saying:
- You have some qASICs
- Investors can buy them or a portion of them, so what's left is still yours
- If you still have some and someone wants to sell them, they should put a lower price then yours (in this case the older investor loses with respect to the newer one, like you said)
- If you have none, it may be possible that you reinvest in more qASIC and issue a parallel asset, or you stop and simply let the market decide the new value while you are keeping 5% of the profits from the total to manage shares which are yours no more.
Put like this, the difference with respect to Irontiga is that you are anticipating the shares.
Said so, I've voluntary left a fifth point out of that list, because your schema can provide an additional way to scam people, but like you said "it does add another party to trust" so I won't detail it... It's a matter of trust, like with any other project and even with the cryptocurrency world in general.
EDIT: ok, no...
Sorry but I want to warn everyone here given your last post.
The Asset has been created and i've issued 1000 shares, selling 950 at a price of 910 BURST
First of all, I'm not saying that you are scamming or whatever.
But this is exactly the point.
If you keep 50 shares for yourself is way different than keeping 5% of the profit for yourself.
Once 950 shares have been sold, the price per share will raise as soon as someone decides to buy them and someone is willing to sell. Then you could be able to sell your 50 share for way more their original 910 burst value and say goodbye to everyone.
A correct way would be selling all 1000 shares and keep 5% of the mining profit for yourself.
Again this is just a suggest and an observation and I'm not, absolutely, saying that you are scam, especially given the price which you've kept pretty low.
Take it or not, your choice
