Topic: [BTC-TC and BF] MININGCO.ETF - Closed - page 11. (Read 48261 times)

With the recent inflows of BTC, I agree that we have reached a point where MININGCO.ETF should expand the definition of its asset class.  

I would like to make sure that this amendment would still exclude an issue that only has preorders and is paying dividends from shareholder equity.  
Or one that only uses credit (secondary IPOs) to purchase new equipment.

maybe "Only actively mining assets that allocate mining revenues to pay dividends and reinvest in new equipment on an ongoing basis."

Note: I do like HIM as a choice (discloser I own some HIM)

Cheers

Thank you for your hard work on this! I have a few of the IPO level shares as well a number more I purchased over the recent weeks.

I don't see anything wrong with the change.  We are a small group overall, and tend to discuss ideas and if this change gives the ability to further diversify the holdings....


I think asking burnside if anything is easier, should help make the choice.  I think the lower entry price will only help attract new funds and make a well balanced basket for others without the need to put too much into something.  When I bought into the fund, USD/BTC was around $20 and the fund under BTC0.60 still, now the BTC value to the dollar has risen 5 fold and the fund also doubled in BTC value, so 10:1 would keep it in reach for more, but also maybe set the NAV to a more extended fraction, say 4 places to the right, which is about 1 cent in USD

I'm sure I might have ideas as others also contribute.

Yeah.... imagine. 


MiningCo.ETF actually has an excess of cash right now. This is why no new shares are currently up for sale (BitFunder has 10 left).
New shares will be put up for sale after more shares underlying assets are added to the fund.

Also, I have a little hesitancy using all our cash to purchase share of funds that we already have. If we pass a motion that would allow new underlying assets (like HIM), I would want to use the cash for that. See more about what I think of the motion below.



And good job on bASIC-MINING. 2 Avalons in less than 7 days. Wow.


MiningCo.ETF now has over 200 shares outstanding. We broke BTC1 NAV per share which means we got our two bagger.

---

I've been considering the motion to include more high quality mining assets. Of course we will stay away from PMBs. But the language of the motion will need to be correct to make sure of this.

I think the number one thing that helps mining assets maintain there value is the inclusion of some kind of reinvestment or growth.

Give me your thoughts on a motion to remove the clause "where the equipment is owned by shareholders" and instead use "where the asset includes a growth/reinvestment fund for the purchase of new equipment on an ongoing basis."

I want to get the wording correct. Let me know what you think.

While we are talking about motions. What about our own stock split. MiningCo.ETF has always been a "higher" priced fund. But is 1+ BTC too high? Would you vote for a split? What ratio? 2:1?  4:1?  10:1?

Imagine that.

Great job on the fund Carnth. Very nice spreadsheet layout...complete with graph pr0n!

Looks like all issued shares on BTC-TC are sold.  

I have been watching the HIM fund and tend to agree that it seems well run and should be competitive to our other issues. 

The fundamentals are there, but I do have 2 small concerns due to the way it is structured.
1. I don't really like the way it does the management fee, 15% of mining revenue instead of issuing himself shares during the IPO.  (It really just means that you need to look at 85% of hashing when doing per share calculations.)
2. The lack of shareholder quorum on issues.  (There are no obvious bad decisions that were made, but I would like it more if stock splits and equipment choices were at least discussed)

This is pretty common in the securities world.
Here is an example of a 10 for 1 split:

Before split
You have 25 shares. Each share is worth 1.00
Total value: 25.00

After split:
You have 250 shares. Each share is worth 0.10
Total value: 25.00


You don't gain or lose any value during a split. But the result is that shares are now "more affordable."
Usually after shares become more "affordable" more people generally tend to buy.




I will be taking a deeper look into this. It certainly would diversify our portfolio.



Thanks for the kind words.



This is all true. The original Nasty Mining asset (from GLBSE) was a mining company where the shareholders owned the equipment.
Today, it is a "fan club" exactly as you say. It is structured this way to avoid any potential regulation issues.


Thank you very much.

Bought few shares

By the way, Carnth, I'd like to add that I think you're doing a fabulous job with this fund and I am very excited for its future.
(Just to put my current criticism of one aspect of the fund in its proper, positive context )

I think some kind of motion is certainly called for, because unless I'm missing something (and I may well be), does Nastyfans even fit into MiningCo's contract at present?  My understanding of Nastyfans was that in a (utterly transparent) attempt to avoid contravening securities regulation, we only hold "seats" in a "fanclub" to which OgNasty "donates" bitcoin on a regular basis.  So there isn't even technically a contractual obligation on OgNasty's part, let alone any kind of property interest in his mining equipment.


I absolutely support some kind of contractual amendment that continues to keep PMBs and the like out of the fund.  However, I think the current language restricts us from investing in some very promising mining company-like entities - including possibly one we are already invested in(!) - without necessarily providing much substantial in the way of "security".  Bitcoinland still operates primarily on trust and track-record -- what do we really think the prospects would be of a lawsuit against friedcat and co if they decided to up and run with gazillions of shareholders money?

Anyway, like I said, I think we should keep some kind of language keeping the fund focused on mining companies and company-like entities, and I don't know exactly how to express that, but I think the most important thing is to make it clear that hash-based bonds are excluded.

By the way, apparently I am mistaken and HIM actually has 3TH on order, 1.8 very early in the queue, and 1.2 more recently.

*edit: forgot a quote script in there

I think as long as you can assure potential/shareholders that MININGCO will stay away from the likes of Virtualmine, until you can buy in at a pre defined dividend %, i see no problem.

EDIT: Nicely managed and presented, BTW. 

Basic-mining vote passed and it will be doing a 1/10 split not sure what effect this is gonna have.  I'm naive to what happens next in a 1/10 split but i'm interested to see since it represents a big part of the fund.

Total dividends of 0.20818809 will be paid this week.

This is about 0.00120340 per share with an instant annual dividend yield of 7.11%


GMP is slowly recovering, but all other underlying assets have skyrocketed on news that Avalon and BFL continue to ship. Especially bASIC-MINING since it has received TWO ASIC devices in one week.

This has caused the NAV per share to increase to BTC0.88

---

It certainly has been busy.
MiningCo.ETF has never seen so much action in a week.

With good news on Avalon and BFL delivering, underlying assets are doing well dividend wise. bASIC-MINING almost doubled in value after they received their first Avalon, and then it almost doubled again after getting their second.

We have all been waiting for the ASICs to be delivered "soon," and it looks like it is finally here.

I have updated the historical values on the spreadsheet and included historical entire NAV and outstanding shares. I hope the extra performance data gives a little more transparency. Plus I think the graphs are cool too.

In case anyone overlooked, the spreadsheet also contains a Dividend Ledger sheet.
There you can keep track of all the dividends accrued, payouts, and fees collected.

---

MiningCo.ETF is available on BTCT.co and as a pass-through on BitFunder.
[/quote]

You are correct that MiningCo.ETF's asset contract specifies where ownership of equipment lies with the shareholders.
I'm not opposed to new assets to include in the fund but HIM would require MiningCo.ETF's asset contract to be changed. And that would mean a Motion.

Any other MiningCo.ETF shareholders interested? Would you vote "yes" to allowing underlying mining assets where shareholders do not own the equipment?

I originally put "shareholders own equipment" in the contract because it gives some inherent value to the underlying asset. The asset is valued for the equipment and the dividends it generates.
Other mining assets can only be valued for the dividends they generate. Which is not a bad thing. But that's the difference between a mining stock and a PMB (perpetual mining bond).

Carnth, have you considered Havelock's HIM fund lately?  While it is referred to as a "fund", it operates more or less like Cognitive and bASIC-mining, although I suppose technically based on the prospectus the equipment is owned by Havelock Investments and not the fund's unitholders, so perhaps it does not meet MiningCo's selection criteria. (I will say though, that in bitcoinland it seems that proven trustworthiness and transparency are more valuable than apparent legal "rights".)

HIM has 1.8TH in BFL Singles on pre-order (plus 5 ASICminer blades operating currently), with the first pre-orders dating to the first week they were available, so with Singles starting to ship the dividends should start rising significantly, potentially quite soon.  The manager, James Grant (lightbox here on bitcointalk), puts out monthly income statements and quarterly financials, and generally seems to run a pretty tight ship.  There has been a downward price correction in the last few days, which may make this a good opportunity for MiningCo to buy in. 

(Disclosure: I own units of HIM... that said, I have a larger position in MiningCo).

I haven't been a buyer recently either, and while not long term holder, in bitcoinland probably one of the longer holders around, I was just poking some fun at you.  I am very shocked just how much the IPO shares were holding bASIC-MINNING back as we see them run now that all 5000 shares have been issued, 1000 held by creativex I do not worry flooding the market, so the 4000 in the float are hopefully in strong hands seeing how strong the rise is.

It has been a very unique series of events that occurred one right after the other.

Here's what happened:
Before I made my weekly dividend post, I removed the fund's sell wall from the market. I don't normally do that, but I did this week. I did this because the NAV went down I wanted to give a chance for the other shareholders who are selling to lower their price first.
Next, I made my weekly dividend post.
Then bASIC announced that they received their Avalon.
I knew this would have a drastic effect on the price, so I checked the latest price and updated the spreadsheet with "last price" instead of the usual 7 day average.
All the while, I still did not restore the buy wall on btct.co or Bitfunder.
There was no intent for MiningCo.ETF to front run as MiningCo.ETF never had any shares up for sale.

Ironically, between your post and now--there has been so much volume on bASIC-MINING that the 7 day average price is actually higher then my spreadsheet.

The usual sell wall will be restored in the next couple of hours on both btct.co and Bitfunder. And they will be priced as usual using the NAV calculated with 7 day averages from the underlying assets.

The spreadsheet shows you have bASIC-MINNING at 0.75, the 7 day average is 0.7112 and then you have the NAV at 0.78, I know it will get there over the next week, but can't front run

Yes, I saw!

Next we need GMP.
Then BFL needs to deliver to Cognitive and Nasty and the our divs will soar..