Topic: B - page 5. (Read 22007 times)

Personally, I think you should detail your plans with staying or leaving GLBSE like you stated you would in other threads.  A guarantee that you would continue to issue bonds for TyGrr-Bank on GLBSE for the next 6 months is more important to me than if you change it to 4% and then decide to move away from using GLBSE.

For your primary topic, what kind of risk are you talking about?  What is the probability of an loan on the Pirate bank defaulted.  What do people that borrow money from Pirate do with the money?  If it is as risky as lending money to you then I see no problem with raising it.

that's correct observation. goat must have regained some shares, there's no other explanation

I see the payment went out today. Just a note, has the number of shares / bonds gone down? I see that 14093 were paid out, when previously 16810 were paid out.

Phil

It can be also true that he holds btc balance in his personal account, that is the root account of all assets he created. Or where he sent funds to cover dividends and only then realized that dividends must be (can only be) paid from the sub-account of the asset manager and need to be either deposited there or sent there from any other account that has positive balance.
As long as his books keep the right info, it's not really my concern. 2.0 glbse started less then a month ago (2 and half weeks to be precise?) and we're still learning. I have no idea how to advise asset managers on proper accounting and is most probably none of my business. All I want to accomplish is to document the features and move forward with the user guides for both users and managers to smooth the experience (and learn my share).

for the mining it's pretty straightforward, he sends in the share of mining income.
for the bank it's probably the pirate's coupon share
for the bot, no idea
disclaimer ^^ wild guesswork

btw generous exchange rate for bitcoins to pay for the electricity. did anyone else noticed the 5$ in the formula?

It sounds like he has used funds from one asset to pay dividends on another. 

Now, I think Goat is pretty trustworthy, and don't think he is deliberately misleading investors or trying to make a ponzi scheme. But mixing funds from multiple sources (that are separate) creates the slippery slope that can turn innocent accounting mistakes into the need to either use fraudulent accounting measures or fold.  I don't want to see that happen, so I hope Goat gets his books in order before it comes to that. 

If he has a portfolio for one asset that contains the other, he needs to be managing dividend payments between assets just like dividends to investors.  Mixing funds creates a serious moral hazard.

this was not implied. it's just an explanation how assets are managed in 2.0
and there might be issues from the claim process from 1.0 to 2.0
i did not test this particular part as i did not have any asset created in 1.0 and the claim worked anyway only in prod

i wrote that to clarify where to look for shares (check each account portfolio) and make sure that shares not issued are in fact in asset manager account and vice versa, if user (person) should have any shares in his private account and they were for any reason imported in the asset manager sub-account that they should be transferred to the personal account.

not sure if that was obvious from the previous post of mine. this is afaik a newish concept and a little detail worth checking and paying attention to

for the record it is possible and desired that a sub account has it's own portfolio, p.ex. if it is a 'fund' and it's aim is to own shares in other companies and also needs to collect dividends or coupons from them and needs them in the asset bitcoin account.
i'm mixing user 101 with asset manager 101 but hope you get the idea

edit: even at 1% weekly this would be a good thing to own. better than bitcoins sitting in the wallet : )

Me too. I missed them by a few inches. I removed a couple of orders around 0.07 and bought @0.089 just before the big dump... Anyway, was a great deal...

Thanks for the shares by the way..  Just hate I didn't get any at .05..

Are the funds of your different assets are mixed together?  Or do some of your assets have ownership stakes in other ones?  Seems like there is some mixing going on... :-/

the main developer is aware of that and afaik it's in his to do list
but thanks for insight to 'regular' markets

not 100 %
and I did not buy @.103  ; )

Suggestion:  add a note to the OP (and perhaps on GLBSE) that dividends are owed to and paid to only the holders of record at the time dividends are paid.

People used to "regular" stock markets might be expecting there to be the usual ex-dividend, record, and payment dates.

you chicken you

yes! let's be responsible for the ignorance of others!
I sold after dividend 1 (goat's coupon) but before dividend 2 (glbse sorry payment), where shall I apply for the lost money?
 

The people involved with class warfare arguments fall into two groups.  The ones who don't get it (and/or want something for nothing), and the ones who have much to gain by fleecing the dumb (and/or playing robin hood for those who want something for nothing). It saddens me that there are alredy people involved with bitcoin who believe they are entitled to bitcoin welfare and bitcoin bailouts.

jesus christ! At the time everyone was in a panic and some people thought to themselves: better sell them for 0.08 than be sorry and sell for 0.0. Their decision.

The market continued trading and if someone sold, he sold.
Dividends were payed late due to "technical difficulties", it was to be expected they would be payed if situation was resolved.

I sold 500 in panic myself at 0.0999 or something and bought back for an average price of roughly 0.011. I missed the dividend payment: so what, it's my own fault.

The people that bought shares for 0.05 to 0.09999 were taking very high perceived risk at the time and are now rewarded. They might've just as well lost everything and the seller would've made a good deal.

hindsight is 50/50, you can't complain now because things didn't go the way you feared they would go.

It's a free market, and it's hashking's fault that hasking sold the bonds for less than face value.  No one else has any fault here unless you're implying that dividends should be paid to shareholders as of record (so to who held the bonds on Tuesday at a given time, the normal day for payments).  However, GLBSE has never claimed to offer such a feature, so blaming Nefario for not offering a feature he never seemed to offer doesn't make sense.  Lots of people will be out lots of money if bitcoin fails, and this wil be their fault for investing in bitcoin, not Satoshi's for inventing it.

ETA (as cross-posted to hashking's thread):  Also, for the record, a bid wall to pay back the bonds defeats the purpose of a bond, borrowing the face value.  For instance, why would someone borrow $100 from you if I had to leave it where you could get to it?  (Hint: They wouldn't, they borrow it to spend it.)  Moreover, the contract said Goat wil buy back the bonds at any time, everyone is inferring that this means he will buy them back whenever they want him to, and this may have been implied elsewhere, but the way it was worded in the original contract (again, for a loan), would only imply that the bonds don't expire, not that you get to collect face value on a whim.  In fact, I believe this was discussed early in the TyGrr-Bank thread (something about when Goat decides to buyback, he will put the money back in GLBSE, puts up a bid wall for all open shares, and ceases to pay interest).  IOW, ANY suggestion that Hashking had ANY right to more than what he CHOSE to sell the bonds for is ridiculous, and the fact that Goat is buying back bonds on request is him going above and beyond to make those requestors happy.

me does not ask for dividens which i did not received
i sold all my tygrr-banks for new tygrr-bot ones.

but i am fine... i dont think we should blame goat for nefarios fault.

The squeaky wheel gets the grease.  I hope for Kluge not everyone asks for their dividends they did not receive.

After a bit of thought, I've decided I will cover this. 18.118 is due. 1.38 was just transferred. The remaining 16.738BTC will be covered tomorrow morning.


Cheers,

Ben

ETA: Rest of the payment sent ~10:40AM US Eastern, 4/6

ETA2: HK, around 10:40PM US Eastern, 4/6, insisted on returning the coins to me. I'm not sure how I feel, but I accepted his offer and very much appreciate it. Cheers!