Splits are done to bring liquidity to a stock.
Take one look at BTCT.CO , do you really think a split will bring liquidity to this one stock? No, it won't.
It will be just as illiquid and harder to fill an order at a particular price because you will have more shares.
signed: the voice of reason.
Topic: ASICMINER: Entering the Future of ASIC Mining by Inventing It - page 1159. (Read 3917543 times)
No split gimmick. My line of thought is similar to warren buffet's $160,000/share BRKA, and also GOOG. High stock prices keeps the weak hands out. $170/share is no where near too high for "small investors".
Forgive me if this has been covered in a previous weeks or months, but are there details available about the mid-to-long term logistical plans for ASICMINER? I know they plan to deploy an additional 7-8 TH/s over the coming week, and sales of the USB miners are pending as well, but beyond that is the plan to maintain for a while, or to continue to develop and deploy and/or sell additional hardware? With BFL devices and additional Avalon offerings coming, not to mention other hardware companies entering the market, are there projections regarding the network's overall hash rate and what portion ASICMINER can realistically target? ASICMINER appears to be doing well thanks to Friedcat and others' work, and is headed in a great direction, but IMHO these are looming questions for those looking at this as a long-term investment and considering to put the equivalent of hundreds or thousands of dollars into the company.
Thanks for any information or perspective offered.
Thanks for any information or perspective offered.
Funny, being a newer but active member of the forums, I have been thinking this myself. Possibly along the lines of 1/100 a share. Similar to a "penny stock" price (currently about $1.36 a share virtual). I have been contemplating a small fund along this line for the "little guy" to buy some shares. However, this seems to be very time consuming for the operator. Something to think about though. Looking forward to next 5 day update from friedcat. Go AsicMiner!
Unless I'm mistaken, there is no reason any enterprising member couldn't set up their own ASICMINER/100-PT on either (or both of) btct.co or bitfunder (or anywhere else you please). All you'd need is the shares and the willingness to list them for sale on the PT. I agree with 1/100 being a decent multiplier - no point going for 1/10... anyone who can only afford 1/10 of a share can just buy 10x1/100 shares.
And you won't need many shares to get started either - there are 11k shares on btct, so you'd only need 110 shares to get the same number of listed 1/100 shares.
With the price of AM shares rising over the previous few months, and with the added increase in USD price, a single AM share now trades for around US$170, which may be a high entry point for first-time investors.
Would it be an idea to do a stock split? A 1/4 stock split, for example, would decrease the barrier of entry and increase the liquidity of the shares. It would also make it easier for AM to get funding because it would decrease the risk for smaller investors (due to increased liquidity) and increase the number of potential investors.
If a stock split isn't an option, how would the community see a fund-style security that trades 1/10 AM shares? In other words, each share in the fund would represent 1/10 of an AM share, with right to 1/10 of the dividends, and no voting rights. I'll assume a trustworthy operator with publicly declared backing of the underlying shares and a reasonable fee.
The complication I see is the transfer between real shares and fund 'shares', so I would think it would be impossible to convert directly. A solution may be that the fund operator agrees to repurchase funds in batches of 10 to be pulled off the market and selling the underlying shares at market value.
.b
Would it be an idea to do a stock split? A 1/4 stock split, for example, would decrease the barrier of entry and increase the liquidity of the shares. It would also make it easier for AM to get funding because it would decrease the risk for smaller investors (due to increased liquidity) and increase the number of potential investors.
If a stock split isn't an option, how would the community see a fund-style security that trades 1/10 AM shares? In other words, each share in the fund would represent 1/10 of an AM share, with right to 1/10 of the dividends, and no voting rights. I'll assume a trustworthy operator with publicly declared backing of the underlying shares and a reasonable fee.
The complication I see is the transfer between real shares and fund 'shares', so I would think it would be impossible to convert directly. A solution may be that the fund operator agrees to repurchase funds in batches of 10 to be pulled off the market and selling the underlying shares at market value.
.b
I think thats an interesting idea. When its done it should be 1/10 or even 1/20 be to prepare for the future. It would help liquidity and better determine the price. I know that i always have BTC lying around on bitfunder that i cant invest because the shares are priced too high.
Unfortunately it would mean an amount of work for friedcat and team. Thats why i believe that this wont happen in the near future.
But i believe it could be done fully fine if one of the AM-PTs decide to split the shares now. Or even create a new PT. No allowance would be needed for this.
Funny, being a newer but active member of the forums, I have been thinking this myself. Possibly along the lines of 1/100 a share. Similar to a "penny stock" price (currently about $1.36 a share virtual). I have been contemplating a small fund along this line for the "little guy" to buy some shares. However, this seems to be very time consuming for the operator. Something to think about though. Looking forward to next 5 day update from friedcat. Go AsicMiner!
But i believe it could be done fully fine if one of the AM-PTs decide to split the shares now. Or even create a new PT. No allowance would be needed for this.
This would be the simplest way to do it.
The issue with the PT split idea is that it would require a rewrite, and they wouldn't be PT's in its strictest sense anymore. I doubt the owners would agree to that because it would complicate the entire model.
.b
But i believe it could be done fully fine if one of the AM-PTs decide to split the shares now. Or even create a new PT. No allowance would be needed for this.
This would be the simplest way to do it.
While it sounds interesting in principle I wonder if this does not lead to a inflation of managers and managerial spending.
But if the alternative is having to stop deployment, due to nearing 50%....?
because AM is starting to sell hardware, i can't see how the whole 50% thing will ever be an issue. we establish the goal of whatever percent we want to hold, then sell hardware... hashrate goes up, we deploy more. simple.
heck, it's effectively what i want to have in my own control... (a much, much smaller percentage then AM though...)
While it sounds interesting in principle I wonder if this does not lead to a inflation of managers and managerial spending.
But if the alternative is having to stop deployment, due to nearing 50%....?
With the price of AM shares rising over the previous few months, and with the added increase in USD price, a single AM share now trades for around US$170, which may be a high entry point for first-time investors.
Would it be an idea to do a stock split? A 1/4 stock split, for example, would decrease the barrier of entry and increase the liquidity of the shares. It would also make it easier for AM to get funding because it would decrease the risk for smaller investors (due to increased liquidity) and increase the number of potential investors.
If a stock split isn't an option, how would the community see a fund-style security that trades 1/10 AM shares? In other words, each share in the fund would represent 1/10 of an AM share, with right to 1/10 of the dividends, and no voting rights. I'll assume a trustworthy operator with publicly declared backing of the underlying shares and a reasonable fee.
The complication I see is the transfer between real shares and fund 'shares', so I would think it would be impossible to convert directly. A solution may be that the fund operator agrees to repurchase funds in batches of 10 to be pulled off the market and selling the underlying shares at market value.
.b
Would it be an idea to do a stock split? A 1/4 stock split, for example, would decrease the barrier of entry and increase the liquidity of the shares. It would also make it easier for AM to get funding because it would decrease the risk for smaller investors (due to increased liquidity) and increase the number of potential investors.
If a stock split isn't an option, how would the community see a fund-style security that trades 1/10 AM shares? In other words, each share in the fund would represent 1/10 of an AM share, with right to 1/10 of the dividends, and no voting rights. I'll assume a trustworthy operator with publicly declared backing of the underlying shares and a reasonable fee.
The complication I see is the transfer between real shares and fund 'shares', so I would think it would be impossible to convert directly. A solution may be that the fund operator agrees to repurchase funds in batches of 10 to be pulled off the market and selling the underlying shares at market value.
.b
I think thats an interesting idea. When its done it should be 1/10 or even 1/20 be to prepare for the future. It would help liquidity and better determine the price. I know that i always have BTC lying around on bitfunder that i cant invest because the shares are priced too high.
Unfortunately it would mean an amount of work for friedcat and team. Thats why i believe that this wont happen in the near future.
But i believe it could be done fully fine if one of the AM-PTs decide to split the shares now. Or even create a new PT. No allowance would be needed for this.
I totally agree with a split 1/10, I was thinking of doing something similar but apparently trust variable here depends on how many posts I made so far 
. Maybe another "trusted" member can do this.
. Maybe another "trusted" member can do this.The trust issue can be resolved, either by convincing a trusted member to act as operator or by having the shares and dividends held and distributed by escrow.
I'm more interested in whether a split/fund idea will benefit in the way I think or will simply be a waste of time.
.b
With the price of AM shares rising over the previous few months, and with the added increase in USD price, a single AM share now trades for around US$170, which may be a high entry point for first-time investors.
Would it be an idea to do a stock split? A 1/4 stock split, for example, would decrease the barrier of entry and increase the liquidity of the shares. It would also make it easier for AM to get funding because it would decrease the risk for smaller investors (due to increased liquidity) and increase the number of potential investors.
If a stock split isn't an option, how would the community see a fund-style security that trades 1/10 AM shares? In other words, each share in the fund would represent 1/10 of an AM share, with right to 1/10 of the dividends, and no voting rights. I'll assume a trustworthy operator with publicly declared backing of the underlying shares and a reasonable fee.
The complication I see is the transfer between real shares and fund 'shares', so I would think it would be impossible to convert directly. A solution may be that the fund operator agrees to repurchase funds in batches of 10 to be pulled off the market and selling the underlying shares at market value.
.b
Would it be an idea to do a stock split? A 1/4 stock split, for example, would decrease the barrier of entry and increase the liquidity of the shares. It would also make it easier for AM to get funding because it would decrease the risk for smaller investors (due to increased liquidity) and increase the number of potential investors.
If a stock split isn't an option, how would the community see a fund-style security that trades 1/10 AM shares? In other words, each share in the fund would represent 1/10 of an AM share, with right to 1/10 of the dividends, and no voting rights. I'll assume a trustworthy operator with publicly declared backing of the underlying shares and a reasonable fee.
The complication I see is the transfer between real shares and fund 'shares', so I would think it would be impossible to convert directly. A solution may be that the fund operator agrees to repurchase funds in batches of 10 to be pulled off the market and selling the underlying shares at market value.
.b
I totally agree with a split 1/10, I was thinking of doing something similar but apparently trust variable here depends on how many posts I made so far
. Maybe another "trusted" member can do this.
With the price of AM shares rising over the previous few months, and with the added increase in USD price, a single AM share now trades for around US$170, which may be a high entry point for first-time investors.
Would it be an idea to do a stock split? A 1/4 stock split, for example, would decrease the barrier of entry and increase the liquidity of the shares. It would also make it easier for AM to get funding because it would decrease the risk for smaller investors (due to increased liquidity) and increase the number of potential investors.
If a stock split isn't an option, how would the community see a fund-style security that trades 1/10 AM shares? In other words, each share in the fund would represent 1/10 of an AM share, with right to 1/10 of the dividends, and no voting rights. I'll assume a trustworthy operator with publicly declared backing of the underlying shares and a reasonable fee.
The complication I see is the transfer between real shares and fund 'shares', so I would think it would be impossible to convert directly. A solution may be that the fund operator agrees to repurchase funds in batches of 10 to be pulled off the market and selling the underlying shares at market value.
.b
Would it be an idea to do a stock split? A 1/4 stock split, for example, would decrease the barrier of entry and increase the liquidity of the shares. It would also make it easier for AM to get funding because it would decrease the risk for smaller investors (due to increased liquidity) and increase the number of potential investors.
If a stock split isn't an option, how would the community see a fund-style security that trades 1/10 AM shares? In other words, each share in the fund would represent 1/10 of an AM share, with right to 1/10 of the dividends, and no voting rights. I'll assume a trustworthy operator with publicly declared backing of the underlying shares and a reasonable fee.
The complication I see is the transfer between real shares and fund 'shares', so I would think it would be impossible to convert directly. A solution may be that the fund operator agrees to repurchase funds in batches of 10 to be pulled off the market and selling the underlying shares at market value.
.b
The auction of these usbminers, where will this be taking place? Open to public i assume?
I am interested in 3-4 of them to test and possibly run on a pi and powered hub
Also do you guys plan to have a set retail sale of them anytime soon?
I am interested in 3-4 of them to test and possibly run on a pi and powered hub
Also do you guys plan to have a set retail sale of them anytime soon?
ASICMiner can also do a deal with a new company with separate management, control and security who could hire and run the ASICS above a certain level (40%? of network), but would be charged/funded by an economic deal that passed back all of the returns (less some fees/commisions) to ASICMiner.
It quite common in real-world deals to separate underlying ownership of the economic interest in a deal from the managament and control to remove direct influences. This is often seen in offshore companies and trust structures and is more commonly done for tax purposes.
While it sounds interesting in principle I wonder if this does not lead to a inflation of managers and managerial spending.
ASICMiner can also do a deal with a new company with separate management, control and security who could hire and run the ASICS above a certain level (40%? of network), but would be charged/funded by an economic deal that passed back all of the returns (less some fees/commisions) to ASICMiner.
It quite common in real-world deals to separate underlying ownership of the economic interest in a deal from the managament and control to remove direct influences. This is often seen in offshore companies and trust structures and is more commonly done for tax purposes.
Hey eleuthria,
Thanks for all the work you do!
Question about BTCGuild, have you and friedcat spoken about ensuring you don't tip over 50%? Do you know if he is going to move some of the hash rate over to other pools?
Thanks for all the work you do!
Question about BTCGuild, have you and friedcat spoken about ensuring you don't tip over 50%? Do you know if he is going to move some of the hash rate over to other pools?
Spreading ASICMINER's hashpower has been discussed to death. friedcat has also addressed the concern several times in this thread. His responses lead me to be comfortable knowing he understands our concerns and shares them, and ASICMINER has several options available to make sure it does not become an issue to worry over.
I'm not going to repost it all in context, but a few relevant portions of friedcat's posts:
The future of difficulty or our portion is unclear to us. If we are really lucky enough to be able to take a large percentage for a long time, we are the last ones who would like to see panics. Decentralization could be achieved by scattering some of our future computation power to consumers, or letting many different pools with different interests control them and use them for good.
Note - one option mentioned here in a fairly old update is already ongoing, the selling of consumer devices to help distrubute the hashpower.It's possible and will definitely do it. Also in the next days if without special circumstances/announcements, new hashpower will be added to the four existing accounts. And in further future if we solo, switch to new pools, or add new accounts of ours, we will not make them anonymous but make them seen by anyone, the same as the four existing accounts.
Not directly addressing the question, but indicates they are prepared to utilize other pools or solo. I'm confident ASICMINER will seek to both maximize shareholders profits, while always keeping the security of the network well in mind also.
Hey eleuthria,
Thanks for all the work you do!
Question about BTCGuild, have you and friedcat spoken about ensuring you don't tip over 50%? Do you know if he is going to move some of the hash rate over to other pools?
False alarm it seems, back up to ~7.8 TH.
Sorry about that. Back when BTC Guild started getting DDoS'd about 2 months ago, I gave many users a private server they could access to mine from during the attacks. The server was hosted outside of the main datacenter, and as a result was not hit when the other servers were. Many users were moved to another server after the first round of attacks, still private and "protected" (due to anonymity), but not at the same location. ASICMINER was still mining on the original protected/private server.
This week I have moved all servers back into either colocation or Amazon EC2, to get away from servers with such open security systems (no 2-factor auth, poor/no IP whitelisting, too much control available through the management panels, etc.). As a result, ASICMINER had to shift their Stratum proxies to a new IP, and it caused a temporary dip in the hash rate. However, the result of the move is ASICMINER is now hashing on a colocated server in a very stable and reliable datacenter, one that will likely never be moved as long as BTC Guild is in business.
Thanks for all the work you do!
Question about BTCGuild, have you and friedcat spoken about ensuring you don't tip over 50%? Do you know if he is going to move some of the hash rate over to other pools?
It was nice to see the hash rate on BTC guild push 8,000 GH/s... but now it's down below 6,900. Has anyone heard any word about moving part of the hash power to a different pool? Hopefully they are not having additional problems deploying.
False alarm it seems, back up to ~7.8 TH.
Sorry about that. Back when BTC Guild started getting DDoS'd about 2 months ago, I gave many users a private server they could access to mine from during the attacks. The server was hosted outside of the main datacenter, and as a result was not hit when the other servers were. Many users were moved to another server after the first round of attacks, still private and "protected" (due to anonymity), but not at the same location. ASICMINER was still mining on the original protected/private server.
This week I have moved all servers back into either colocation or Amazon EC2, to get away from servers with such open security systems (no 2-factor auth, poor/no IP whitelisting, too much control available through the management panels, etc.). As a result, ASICMINER had to shift their Stratum proxies to a new IP, and it caused a temporary dip in the hash rate. However, the result of the move is ASICMINER is now hashing on a colocated server in a very stable and reliable datacenter, one that will likely never be moved as long as BTC Guild is in business.
It was nice to see the hash rate on BTC guild push 8,000 GH/s... but now it's down below 6,900. Has anyone heard any word about moving part of the hash power to a different pool? Hopefully they are not having additional problems deploying.
False alarm it seems, back up to ~7.8 TH.
Sorry about that. Back when BTC Guild started getting DDoS'd about 2 months ago, I gave many users a private server they could access to mine from during the attacks. The server was hosted outside of the main datacenter, and as a result was not hit when the other servers were. Many users were moved to another server after the first round of attacks, still private and "protected" (due to anonymity), but not at the same location. ASICMINER was still mining on the original protected/private server.
This week I have moved all servers back into either colocation or Amazon EC2, to get away from servers with such open security systems (no 2-factor auth, poor/no IP whitelisting, too much control available through the management panels, etc.). As a result, ASICMINER had to shift their Stratum proxies to a new IP, and it caused a temporary dip in the hash rate. However, the result of the move is ASICMINER is now hashing on a colocated server in a very stable and reliable datacenter, one that will likely never be moved as long as BTC Guild is in business.
It was nice to see the hash rate on BTC guild push 8,000 GH/s... but now it's down below 6,900. Has anyone heard any word about moving part of the hash power to a different pool? Hopefully they are not having additional problems deploying.
False alarm it seems, back up to ~7.8 TH.
Jump to: