[BTC-EQTY] Version 2 - An Investment fund with proven returns! - page 2.

Pale Phoenix

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 250

Quote from: ranlo on July 25, 2013, 06:02:58 AM

I'd think if they could increase their hashing power considerably over a short period of time they'd have done it already, :p.

AM doesn't want to control more than 20% or so of BTC mining so they moderate the hashing power they bring online. They are now considering renting out their excess power to other firms to keep mining distributed.

Take some time to read the AM thread to fully understand their business model.

xaviarlol

full member

Activity: 153

Merit: 100

Quote from: ranlo on July 25, 2013, 06:02:58 AM

Quote from: Voodah on July 25, 2013, 05:51:01 AM

Quote from: ranlo on July 25, 2013, 05:31:39 AM

Mmmm, this looks interesting but... I find it hard to follow the ASICMiner train right now... from a logical POV, there are tons of ASIC's being shipped out right now and the hash rate is increasing (and will increase at a very fast rate). As hash rate goes up, AM's relative hash rate (and therefore income) lowers. It's hard to justify going into a fund that is banking so much on what is inevitably going to be heading downhill as soon as all the new chips start hitting people's doorsteps. At least to me, I think we are either at, or are very near, AM's peak; it seems like a pretty high-risk low-reward investment option.

Or am I missing something here?

You're forgetting they are not mannequins.

They will keep upgrading, buying more power, developing new miners, selling stuff, etc. You invest in the company, not the current hashing power.

But we're basically hoping that ASICM can keep up with all the other ASIC providers? I'd think if they could increase their hashing power considerably over a short period of time they'd have done it already, :p.

It's tough, really. I get that we're basically betting on the company as a whole... but with BFL, Avalon and the others all finally getting out some major hash power... it's going to offset the playing field considerably.

Asicminer is a very well-run mining company, I have full confidence in their ability to respond to the types of things you described. I don't lose any sleep at night having a relatively high amount of holdings in AM.

I think that they have a lot of tricks up their sleeve in the event that their dominance is threatened, they also have a great track record of achieving goals and staying on top of the food chain.

ranlo

legendary

Activity: 1988

Merit: 1007

Quote from: Voodah on July 25, 2013, 05:51:01 AM

Quote from: ranlo on July 25, 2013, 05:31:39 AM

Mmmm, this looks interesting but... I find it hard to follow the ASICMiner train right now... from a logical POV, there are tons of ASIC's being shipped out right now and the hash rate is increasing (and will increase at a very fast rate). As hash rate goes up, AM's relative hash rate (and therefore income) lowers. It's hard to justify going into a fund that is banking so much on what is inevitably going to be heading downhill as soon as all the new chips start hitting people's doorsteps. At least to me, I think we are either at, or are very near, AM's peak; it seems like a pretty high-risk low-reward investment option.

Or am I missing something here?

You're forgetting they are not mannequins.

They will keep upgrading, buying more power, developing new miners, selling stuff, etc. You invest in the company, not the current hashing power.

But we're basically hoping that ASICM can keep up with all the other ASIC providers? I'd think if they could increase their hashing power considerably over a short period of time they'd have done it already, :p.

It's tough, really. I get that we're basically betting on the company as a whole... but with BFL, Avalon and the others all finally getting out some major hash power... it's going to offset the playing field considerably.

Voodah

sr. member

Activity: 266

Merit: 250

Quote from: ranlo on July 25, 2013, 05:31:39 AM

Mmmm, this looks interesting but... I find it hard to follow the ASICMiner train right now... from a logical POV, there are tons of ASIC's being shipped out right now and the hash rate is increasing (and will increase at a very fast rate). As hash rate goes up, AM's relative hash rate (and therefore income) lowers. It's hard to justify going into a fund that is banking so much on what is inevitably going to be heading downhill as soon as all the new chips start hitting people's doorsteps. At least to me, I think we are either at, or are very near, AM's peak; it seems like a pretty high-risk low-reward investment option.

Or am I missing something here?

You're forgetting they are not mannequins.

They will keep upgrading, buying more power, developing new miners, selling stuff, etc. You invest in the company, not the current hashing power.

ranlo

legendary

Activity: 1988

Merit: 1007

Mmmm, this looks interesting but... I find it hard to follow the ASICMiner train right now... from a logical POV, there are tons of ASIC's being shipped out right now and the hash rate is increasing (and will increase at a very fast rate). As hash rate goes up, AM's relative hash rate (and therefore income) lowers. It's hard to justify going into a fund that is banking so much on what is inevitably going to be heading downhill as soon as all the new chips start hitting people's doorsteps. At least to me, I think we are either at, or are very near, AM's peak; it seems like a pretty high-risk low-reward investment option.

Or am I missing something here?

xaviarlol

full member

Activity: 153

Merit: 100

Quote from: Pale Phoenix on July 24, 2013, 10:02:48 PM

Dude, slap some water on your face and think about this again because you are making a rather serious error.

You are comparing the return on your investment to a number that will always be very close to 1%. The 1% is the EV of the GAME, not the investment. It is the probability that over a large number of rolls, the house will win 1% of bets.

Think of it in terms of a different kind of investment, say a grocery store. The grocery store has 1 million in sales and 10 thousand in profit in a year, giving it a profit margin of 1%. The investors in the store have put up 100 thousand dollars, so their return (assuming all profits are distributed) is 10%.

In the case of Just Dice, you are trying to compare the investors return to the store's profit margin. The two numbers are only related in that they both are calculated using the same numerator, the profit in dollars.

Ohhh... now I understand what you are saying.

Yes, you are right, the comparison is invalid. Though when the house profit is in the negatives, or near, its safe to say that a double digit ROI from an individual is a very good outcome. Eg. The grocery store's actual return has been -1%, the investors will take a -10% loss, in your example.

Pale Phoenix

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 250

Dude, slap some water on your face and think about this again because you are making a rather serious error.

You are comparing the return on your investment to a number that will always be very close to 1%. The 1% is the EV of the GAME, not the investment. It is the probability that over a large number of rolls, the house will win 1% of bets.

Think of it in terms of a different kind of investment, say a grocery store. The grocery store has 1 million in sales and 10 thousand in profit in a year, giving it a profit margin of 1%. The investors in the store have put up 100 thousand dollars, so their return (assuming all profits are distributed) is 10%.

In the case of Just Dice, you are trying to compare the investors return to the store's profit margin. The two numbers are only related in that they both are calculated using the same numerator, the profit in dollars.

xaviarlol

full member

Activity: 153

Merit: 100

Quote from: Pale Phoenix on July 24, 2013, 07:55:30 PM

The .2571% has nothing to do with return to investors because it is derived by dividing the amount won by the amount wagered. It certainly isn't the average return to investors, which is impossible to calculate, as you say.

Are you seriously comparing your own ROI to a measure of the house's edge, which is expected to be 1% and is only now .2571% due to variance in the EV of the game?

Firstly, the .2571% does have something to do with the return to investors because that's what came out of investor pockets as a whole. It's impossible to quantifiy what investors lost, or gained what, but the net profit/loss for the collective investment is that figure.

Secondly - No - the ROI is highly dependent on the level of investment at that time, which is what I have based the timing on investing on. I focused on times when there is low investment and high turn-over, which resulting in my fund greatly out-performing the expected return.

Pale Phoenix

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 250

The .2571% has nothing to do with return to investors because it is derived by dividing the amount won by the amount wagered. It certainly isn't the average return to investors, which is impossible to calculate, as you say.

Are you seriously comparing your own ROI to a measure of the house's edge, which is expected to be 1% and is only now .2571% due to variance in the EV of the game?

xaviarlol

full member

Activity: 153

Merit: 100

Quote from: Pale Phoenix on July 24, 2013, 07:11:38 PM

Just a heads up. The house profit shown on Just Dice is calculated from the amount WAGERED, not the amount INVESTED.

Of course, it would be impossible for it to be on the amount invested as it is dynamic.

The point was comparing it to the site benchmark, which one can consider as the "average" return to all shareholders (some people lost more, some gained more).

Pale Phoenix

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 250

Just a heads up. The house profit shown on Just Dice is calculated from the amount WAGERED, not the amount INVESTED.

xaviarlol

full member

Activity: 153

Merit: 100

Quote from: Deprived on July 24, 2013, 11:27:24 AM

Quote from: xaviarlol on July 24, 2013, 08:24:56 AM

There will be more during the next report date, but I think something worth mentioning is that BTC-EQTY's J-D investment greatly out-performed Just-dice's benchmark house profit, once again indicating that BTC-EQTY provides above-average returns.

As at the time of this post, BTC-EQTY's position in JD is +18.16%, while the JD house profit position is +0.2571%. This basically means that the total ROI from JD was +0.2571%, where as BTC-EQTY's same position on that investment is +18.16%.

BTC-EQTY is also now selling bonds, for those people who want risk-free guaranteed returns, paid upfront!. Current return for those bonds is 21.9% APR. More info in this thread: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/btc-eqty-bonds-make-guaranteed-btc-immediately-100-backed-by-btc-eqty-260986

I notice the bonds claim to be secured against all of BTC-EQTY's assets. Does that mean the benefit and risk of the bonds gos to BTC-EQTY investors (i.e. the capital raised from them is an asset and their face-value is a liability)?

Correct. When the bonds are all issued, there will be a profit/loss section, liabilities etc in the main report. Probably for September's report.

Deprived

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

Quote from: xaviarlol on July 24, 2013, 08:24:56 AM

There will be more during the next report date, but I think something worth mentioning is that BTC-EQTY's J-D investment greatly out-performed Just-dice's benchmark house profit, once again indicating that BTC-EQTY provides above-average returns.

As at the time of this post, BTC-EQTY's position in JD is +18.16%, while the JD house profit position is +0.2571%. This basically means that the total ROI from JD was +0.2571%, where as BTC-EQTY's same position on that investment is +18.16%.

BTC-EQTY is also now selling bonds, for those people who want risk-free guaranteed returns, paid upfront!. Current return for those bonds is 21.9% APR. More info in this thread: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/btc-eqty-bonds-make-guaranteed-btc-immediately-100-backed-by-btc-eqty-260986

I notice the bonds claim to be secured against all of BTC-EQTY's assets. Does that mean the benefit and risk of the bonds gos to BTC-EQTY investors (i.e. the capital raised from them is an asset and their face-value is a liability)?

xaviarlol

full member

Activity: 153

Merit: 100

There will be more during the next report date, but I think something worth mentioning is that BTC-EQTY's J-D investment greatly out-performed Just-dice's benchmark house profit, once again indicating that BTC-EQTY provides above-average returns.

As at the time of this post, BTC-EQTY's position in JD is +18.16%, while the JD house profit position is +0.2571%. This basically means that the total ROI from JD was +0.2571%, where as BTC-EQTY's same position on that investment is +18.16%.

BTC-EQTY is also now selling bonds, for those people who want risk-free guaranteed returns, paid upfront!. Current return for those bonds is 21.9% APR. More info in this thread: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/btc-eqty-bonds-make-guaranteed-btc-immediately-100-backed-by-btc-eqty-260986

xaviarlol

full member

Activity: 153

Merit: 100

Some interim results:

In just the first 4 days of trading, this fund has already achieved a very large profit. The fund as generated a profit of +14.61770470 BTC, or +7.59%, in just 4 days!

The performance thus far is very pleasing, and if it performs this well in the future we will all be very happy investors

Adamlm

hero member

Activity: 822

Merit: 1002

Thanks for clarification.
I want to buy 5 shares.

Edit: I didn't notice that the min. purchase is 10 shares, so I'm in for 10.
Payment sent.

xaviarlol

full member

Activity: 153

Merit: 100

Quote from: Deprived on July 19, 2013, 12:41:12 PM

Quote from: xaviarlol on July 19, 2013, 08:02:40 AM

Quote from: Deprived on July 19, 2013, 06:00:26 AM

Quote from: xaviarlol on July 19, 2013, 05:52:05 AM

Fees are only taken from income, not increased value of assets. Income consists mainly of dividends, which the fees come out of. I will reward this in my OP.

That's not a policy I recommend for a few reasons:

1. It encourages the issuer to invest in assets which pay high dividends but lose share price fast. So if you invest in a PMB that only veer pays back half what you paid for it you still get a management fee for a horribly bad investment.
2. It discourages investments which would be profitable but not pay dividends (or where only a small part of profit is returned in dividends) - as you don't get fees on them.

Basically it puts the managers interests out of alignment with those of investors. Investors want profit, manager makes most by going for dividend churn-rate.

You're by no means alone in this misguided viewpoint - somewhere along the line a large chunk of the "investment" scene here have totally confused dividends with profits. It may be a natural extension of the abusive mining securities that take a management fee as percent of turnover (coins mined) regardless of how much profit (or, more usually, loss) investors are making.

EDIT: I should add that I like your spreadsheet - clear and easy to understand.

There is a fee on net profit at the end of the fund life when everyone divests (in fact, 5% on net profit, same as the dividend fee) and if people sell back to the fund manager (ie me). So it is in my best interest to keep the assets just as strong. It ends up being 5% on net profit regardless of if its dividend income or appreciating asset value, so it's really all about the value when choosing investment options. Thanks for pointing it out

If you make a profit it works out roughly the same as a monthly fee on profits, yes. But difference is if investors make a loss you still take 5% of all received dividends - hence why I don't like it as a system for funds (where investors rely on the management's decisons - so management fee should be based on how well management deliver profit for investors).

I disagree that this is a problem. Management fees go towards the maintaining and work done on the fund, if the entire market falls, or rises, that doesn't really change that fact. This isn't a charity

Also as an example, an investor may make bad decisions on their own and lose more than the fund will lose (if you agree that this fund is "smarter" than the average person, which is fundamentally why investors choose managed funds over doing it themselves), and that is no different to making a profit.

Quote

Looks interesting.
Are exact start/end dates defined? Or should I assume it will last 6 months from today?

Yeah sorry, the end date is January 20th 2014. But it can end earlier, or later if there is a demand to do so.

Deprived

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

Quote from: xaviarlol on July 19, 2013, 08:02:40 AM

Quote from: Deprived on July 19, 2013, 06:00:26 AM

Quote from: xaviarlol on July 19, 2013, 05:52:05 AM

Fees are only taken from income, not increased value of assets. Income consists mainly of dividends, which the fees come out of. I will reward this in my OP.

That's not a policy I recommend for a few reasons:

1. It encourages the issuer to invest in assets which pay high dividends but lose share price fast. So if you invest in a PMB that only veer pays back half what you paid for it you still get a management fee for a horribly bad investment.
2. It discourages investments which would be profitable but not pay dividends (or where only a small part of profit is returned in dividends) - as you don't get fees on them.

Basically it puts the managers interests out of alignment with those of investors. Investors want profit, manager makes most by going for dividend churn-rate.

You're by no means alone in this misguided viewpoint - somewhere along the line a large chunk of the "investment" scene here have totally confused dividends with profits. It may be a natural extension of the abusive mining securities that take a management fee as percent of turnover (coins mined) regardless of how much profit (or, more usually, loss) investors are making.

EDIT: I should add that I like your spreadsheet - clear and easy to understand.

There is a fee on net profit at the end of the fund life when everyone divests (in fact, 5% on net profit, same as the dividend fee) and if people sell back to the fund manager (ie me). So it is in my best interest to keep the assets just as strong. It ends up being 5% on net profit regardless of if its dividend income or appreciating asset value, so it's really all about the value when choosing investment options. Thanks for pointing it out

If you make a profit it works out roughly the same as a monthly fee on profits, yes. But difference is if investors make a loss you still take 5% of all received dividends - hence why I don't like it as a system for funds (where investors rely on the management's decisons - so management fee should be based on how well management deliver profit for investors).

Adamlm

hero member

Activity: 822

Merit: 1002

Looks interesting.
Are exact start/end dates defined? Or should I assume it will last 6 months from today?

xaviarlol

full member

Activity: 153

Merit: 100

Quote from: alexius89 on July 19, 2013, 07:03:49 AM

an IPO on bitfunder, btct, havelock would be very fine for all potential investors ;-)

I considered it - I probably will list at some point. I structured the fund in a way where such a listing isn't necessary. Investors can sell out of the fund at absolutely any time back to me, I think that's pretty neat. Otherwise, the funds are temporary and will pay out all investors when it ends. There isn't really a need for extra liquidity with this structure.

Topic: [BTC-EQTY] Version 2 - An Investment fund with proven returns! - page 2. (Read 7772 times)