Topic: [BitFunder] IceDrill.ASIC IPO (235 Thash Mining Operation powered by HashFast) - page 82. (Read 378708 times)

Zing!  Lol molecular, remind me to tread lightly if I ever find you and myself not agreeing.  

I like how people are acting stupid and pretending to not understand the obvious valid points on both sides, preferring to babble about "spirits" in general instead of what's reasonable in this particular dilemma.

If IceDrill has hurt your feelings, by daring to propose a change which may be interpreted as an entailment of previous other changes, please sell your shares before mean, terrible IceDrill strikes again!

Does this mean that the private investors are not so confident of getting their money back?  What do they know that the public does not?

We will take all your feedback into consideration as per usual.
I am sure we can work through this so that both public and private share holders are happy

//DeaDTerra

I bet those were pretty advanced calculations.

People talk about "promise" and "guarantee"... what kind of mindset is this? We're all taking a huge risk. Investing here is basically a gamble. Not because the operators could change the contract slightly, but because the delivery schedule and difficulty development carry so much uncertainty.

My guess is that in the end, it wont matter much wether it's 0.0015 or 0.0016... one way or the other.

Also to defend the change a bit: Private investors were taking a larger risk already and now they have to skip on the lions share of the potential profits? Cut them some slack. They might've bought the shares for much lower than the initial IPO price of 0.0014, but they more likely than not have sunk their money into a hole where it's not going to come back out for either ever or a long time.

There is nothing wrong with adjusting the contract as long as everybody agrees. However, the unilateral nature of this change is not justified and there doesn't seem to be consensus. DeaDTerra needs to have a stronger case to propose a change like that. Otherwise this indeed sets a terrible precedent of fudging the contract and undermines the trust in this security.

Are we really entertaining the notion that there is any situation in which the breach of terms in a good-faith contract is more "fair" than the execution of those terms? (barring the good-faith agreement of all parties involved)

The private shareholders are not inherently entitled to any particular profits. They are entitled to what was specified in the IPO contract. The relative magnitude of the effect on public shareholders is not relevant. What kind of precedent is being set here?

I too made purchases and calculations specifically with the promise of 0.0016 in mind.  I'm not particularly inspired by the "spirit of the original promise" argument.  I wasn't aware of that spirit. i was aware of a number and i thought that number was promised.  Better keep that number.  Otherwise, shareholders are left to wonder what else may be in the spirit of the contract that they're not aware of.  What else supposedly justifies a change in the letter of the contract?  Nobody knows in advance.  Not even those offering the shares, i imagine.  There is no principled way for only one party to change the terms of an agreement after the fact.  That is the whole point of a contract!  I fear trust is dissipating.

I concur. If you take that clause out of context, there is no way to deduce any relationship to ROI, just a target profit. I bet this whole experience has been an educational exercise in contract writing for DeaDTerra. It would be unfair to load the burden of misinterpretation onto public shareholders. However, dependent on the risk/reward schemes the difference between 0.0015 and 0.0016 can be a significant difference for private shareholders, while it is less than 10% for public shareholders. Unfortunately only DeaDTerra and team members can evaluate the fairness of such an adjustment without disclosing more information about the funding structure.

Why even wiggle?
The 0.0016 / share clause was used to sell shares at IPO prices back then. How can it be taken away now???

Here's the quote from the 1st page of this thread:
holders of public shares have received an accumulated dividend of 0.0016 -- no mention of any other terms. Pretty clear to me.

Is there a way to validate that claim? If so, a case could be made that the protection clause can be lowered to 0.0015 (since it's a protection clause, not a profit clause).

Yes, .0016 certainly is a number, but not a random one.

The question is whether ukyo will give IceDrill some wiggle room to allow for the imprecise language in the contract.

He probably won't because the fault was IceDrill's but a decent argument may be made that he could or even should.

.0016 didn't assume anything - it's a number.

If they meant that the guarantee would be "The highest price at which shares were sold, subject to a maximum of .0016" then that's what would (or should) have been in the contract.

It's a gray area, depends on parsing the guaranteed figure as a string variable or integer constant.

0.0016 assumed shares sold higher than 0.0015, which didn't happen. 

I'd expect ukyo to side with the shareholders on this one, given his firmness with the terms of ACTM's IPO.

agreed

0.0016 was guaranteed. Now its too late to change the contract / promises.

Also, i bought > 0.0015 and did it, becuase 0.0016 was promised.

I don't think you should be making changes to your promises now. You appear to be a decent set of people unlike many in the business.
You are making a mistake massaging the payback number in this manner, and here's why:

I bought into the deal based on the promise of the 0.0016 guaranteed return from these shares.
My decision was not driven by my purchase price.
My decision was not driven by the initial .0014 offer price, nor the next .0015 + exchange fees.
My decision was not driven by the BTC/USD conversion rate at the time or anything else.

I bought into the deal because of this 0.0016 div/share protection clause in the original contract. Clearly stated as such (!)
The 6.5% difference in the guaranteed payback is quite noticeable to those who were weighing risk/reward of this offer.

If everything will goes as expected.

Great, let the hashing begin!

It will begin in November, right?

Hi guys!
We have now cancelled the last batch and we can hence start finalizing the numbers surrounding the mine.



Each IceDrill share is currently worth 10 mhash at startup (public+private), calculating in the public investor protection clause each public share reaches 12.72 mhash (only public). One share is equal to (1/23,529,411) of the profit this is  roughly 4.25/10^6 % of the farms profit per share. One share will generate 9,54 Mhash in dividend at the farms start and 3.18 mhash of reinvestments, to bring each share to a total of 12.72 Mhash.
Please note that all these numbers are made with assumptions we have been given by HashFast, these should be taken as estimates and not exact number.

18,500,452 shares are public and will receive 75% (the other 25% will be kept for further reinvestment) of the farms profit until 0.0015 BTC has been paid to each share. Each share will at this stage receive 1/18,500,452 *0.75 of the farms profit and 25% will be reinvested.

We’ve decided to lower the investor protection clause from 0.0016 BTC payback to 0.0015 BTC payback as no share has ever been sold (from anyone) for higher than 0.0015 BTC. This is a 6.25% decrease. We believe this remains within the spirit of the clause: to provide 100% principal investment ROI in dividends, before private shares attain value upon entering the market.

When each public share has been paid 0.0015 BTC, the public protection clause naturally expires and the private shares will start receiving dividend (The private shares will become public shares). Once this stage is initiated the private shares will be converted into public shares and start receiving dividends accordingly. An announcement will be made when this happens. The owners of these private shares may then do as they wish with them, sell them, keep them etc. At this stage each share will be worth 1/23,529,411 of the farms profit (75% in dividend and 25% reinvested), for the exact way the farms profit is calculated please look back into the main information sheet.
//DeaDTerra

Had nice chat with Jordan Ash on the topic. Whooooosh, over my head. That said, if I were in a position to pay that (small) research grant I'd probably go for it.