Seems like the main problem is that the current low price per btc, currently at around 480 usd/btc 3120 RMB/BTC, in the future when the price per btc is back at or above the 1000 usd/btc 6000 RMB/BTC level there will not be any problem, why not just temporary charge a higher(in percent/btc) management fee until the btcprice is back at a level where 20% fee would be enouth.
If you now charge something like 35-45% depending on what the current btc price is each week when the price is around 480/520 btc the problem would be solved and you would be able to take out the nessesary funds 100 000 RMB mentioned to pay your expenses and the dividend would still be at around 0.00001300 btc per share each week and when btcprice starts to climb again you can gradually charge less and less % until your back at the 20% level again, problem solved....
Exactly.
It seems to me that the main problem is that they are following a fixed dividend system regardless of their costs, profits, or losses.
If they had, for example, not made a single trade - even if their cost overrun estimates are correct they would still have about 500-700 BTC of capital from investors left.
I don't say that this is what they are doing - I just mean that there is no information contained in their payment of dividends (which has scaled linearly with the amount of invested capital) to suggest their ROIC or any other business metric.
Let me put it another way. The contract has two, contradictory explanations of how dividends will be paid out. It says:
【Dividend policy】
20% of profit will be the account management fees, all the remaining 80% is used to share out bonus, each fund will be share one over one million of 80% of profits.
Shared out bonus at 15:00 (GMT+8) in every Monday, if the day is China legal holiday will postpone to the next working day.
and
【Income estimation】
【LTC hedging】
We will hedge 2000 LTC everyday, assuming a net profit of each hedge is 0.0005 BTC, the net margin is 1BTC
【XPM hedging】
We will hedge 5000XPM everyday, assuming a net profit of each hedge is 0.0004 BTC, the net margin is 2BTC.
Each dividend of each week is (1+2)*7*0.8/1000000=0.0000168BTC.
Each dividend of each year is (1+2)*365*0.8/1000000=0.000876BTC。
Annual return is 0.000876/0.0006=146%(lowest price to buy)
Annual return is 0.000876/0.001=87.6%(highest price to buy)
We will hedge more Crypto-Currency type according to the market condition in the future, and the AutoTrader will be optimal to raise efficiency.
It is obvious - to me at least - but hopefully to anyone observing the dividend payments which of these two obligations is being observed. And it would be, I dare to suggest, neigh-impossible for both of these statements to be so consistently true at the same time.
What really boggles my mind is that if they were going to follow a set plan for the distribution of funds - regardless of their actual trading income - they would set it at a level that would not cover even half of their claimed operating costs (which one assumes they had to know before they started).
So again, I would return to the call for a balance sheet and perhaps the real numbers related to trading.
The signs indicate to me that the "profits" they have reported at each dividend period have no relationship whatsoever to any trading that has been done and are being paid out strictly based on how much capital has actually been invested in this project.
I would love to be wrong about what the numbers seem to be suggesting, and perhaps there is a good explanation.