Topic: [BTC-TC and BF] MININGCO.ETF - Closed - page 16. (Read 48261 times)

You're comparing apples and oranges.

What we refer to as exchanges (BTC.CO, Bitfunder) actually fill a whole bunch of different functions (exchange, broker, registrar, company bulletin board etc).

In RL an exchange has basically nothing to do with voting - voting would be handled by the company directly.  One body needs to track and record the results of votes.  If Carnth wants to do that off-site and record/publicise results somewhere else then that's fine - but remind me of the benefits of NOT having total votes recorded on either exchange?.

But that doesn't address the issue of investors on one site taking on part of the risk of default on the other exchange which they neither use nor, in the case of current BTC.CO investors, were even aware before they invested was a risk they were expected to take on in return for no benefit to them.  Obviously if current investors vote to accept that risk (and any dissenting are bought out at full value) then that's fine.

No, it isn't. In the real world companies list on two or more exchanges all the time and they just sum the votes. I could probably give you six examples without even thinking, such as coeur d'alenne and first majestic for starters.

I agree with this point. Not defining a main is in effect enacting a merger in the market. Not having that merger recognized structurally creates tensions which aren't either useful or productive.

But then neither site shows the official result - one may show pass, the other fail and noone looking at either knows what actually happened.

If one was the "main" then those looking at it would see actual results and those looking at the other would see it was a pass-through and know to look at the main to see how any vote actually ended.

There's other problems with making two sites both the main as well - that was just the simplest one to point out.

Consider the situation if one site is hacked and funds stolen, or operator runs away or whatever.  Should current BTC.CO investors have to soak up losses caused by a listing on Bitfunder that went bad?  Or vice-versa?

Now consider it specifically from the perspective of current investors on BTC.CO.  Adding bitfunder as an equal investor exposes them to additional counter-party risk for no real benefit to themselves (with a limited number of investments there's no benefit to investors from increased capital).  Sure - the risk of Bitfunder disappearing is low - but ANY risk which delivers no benefit is bad.

With one main and the other a pass-through that sort of liability is already defined - the main is totally unaffected by anything which happens on the pass-through, the pass-through can be screwed by both platforms.

I honestly think not defining a main is pretty bad for a few reasons - not necessarily very obvious ones but valid ones nonetheless.  Either have one main and one pass-through - or run two seperate but otherwise identical funds.

Just sum the votes manually.

Hey Deprived do you have any securities in BTC TC ?

If you 're going to list it on two sites I'd suggest making one the main and the other a pass-through to it.

If there's ever any votes, somewhere needs to have the official result - and they can't both vote in one another's motions.  The pass-through's vote would end before the main vote - then you'd reflect their votes in the main one by using 2 proxy accounts (one to vote yes, other to vote no) - you couldnt vote the pass-through as a block if it could be of similar or greater magnitude to the main one.

So is this a good fund to invest in ?

I think it's a good thing for everyone involved.  It'd bring a bunch of the btct.co mining companies more exposure, it'd bring more investment options to BitFunder users, and it'd bring more cash into the fund with which to diversify and extend the investments.

Seems like a win-win-win. 

This is exactly the reason. Bitfunder charges 1% fees only to the seller, which the fund would have to bare. The fee follows a sliding scale which can be found here: https://bitfunder.com/help



Yes, it would be a combined fund across 2 exchanges. A first in the crypto-currency world if I'm not mistaken.



Thank you very much for your interest.

---

There could also be extra benefits as well such as the ability to transfer shares from one exchange to the other.
I am curious about any other interest. I would be willing to do this if I can justify the Asset Creation fee.

Will it be 1 combined fund listed on 2 exchanges, or 2 separate funds that follow the same contract/goals?

I don't have an account on BitFunder because of the weird 3rd party BTC transfer requirement, but it does seem like BitFunder could benefit from this listing.

I don't think a 1% premium makes much of a difference if it is due to the exchange charging higher fees, so long as it is a combined fund across 2 exchanges.

Good luck.  This fund keeps getting more exciting.

This week, our position in COGNITIVE took a hit; the weekly average price is down to .33 from .42.
This has caused the NAV per share to fall to .52

This week's dividends of 0.33851856 will be paid tomorrow night on Jan 30, USA time.
The Management Fee has once again been waived. Thank you to all who have invested.

---

I would like your thoughts on setting up this fund on BitFunder.
If you only have an account on Bitfunder, would you want to buy shares in this fund?
Because of the fees Bitfunder charges, would you buy shares at a 1% premium over the price sold on BTC-TC?

The first dividend payment was successful!
The Value of GLARI Mining Project (GMP) jumped significantly. Because of this, the NAV per share has risen to .54 BTC.

---

Future outlook-my guess as to what's to come:
Since Avalon has announced its release of their ASIC mining devices, GMP is in position to receive Avalon ASIC devices in Batch 2.

In other news, it looks like bASIC is calling it quits.  bASIC has promised to refund all pre-orders, so a move to a different ASIC producer shouldn't be difficult. But, mining companies who chose to go with bASIC will now be in the back of the queue for other ASIC devices.

Be very cautious when investing. Watch for continued volatility as the ASIC drama continues.

Dividend to be paid tomorrow will be a total of BTC0.11955969
I have waived the management fee as a thank you to everyone who has taken the first step with me to get this fund going.

---

Future outlook-my guess as to what's to come:
ASICs still are a huge concern for everyone involved with Bitcoin mining. Expect increased market volatility.

Avalon has announced that they have shipped a couple of units. At this time, there is no way for sure to know if this is true as no one has come forward to say that they have one in their possession.

One thing is certain, the mining company that can get their ASIC equipment first will have a huge advantage and not to mention an equally huge jump in price.

Added additional "proof of ownership" details on the second post to enhance transparency. (Added Nasty Fans list and the Fund's Bitcoin wallet address)

---

First dividend will be paid on Wednesday Jan 23 (USA time).
All dividends accrued up until Tuesday will be included in the Wednesday dividend. You can see all the dividends accrued (and where they came from) by opening the spreadsheet (also found on the second post) and clicking on the "Dividends" sheet (at the bottom).
Management fees will also be shown on the Dividends sheet.

Added a "Dividends" tab to the spreadsheet:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AqLxDN0JzEUNdHdhandXeDQwTU13N2ZmbWxMMHNzeGc

This will track dividends received and paid by the fund.

First batch of shares are on sale for BTC0.5

Agreed. Carnth has been very professional about this startup, very encouraging.

I prefer a % based management fee - it's one of the best encouragements to ensure the fund is managed.
It's good to see somebody being upfront with the risk reward - it inspires confidence.

I plan to release shares for sale "soon."

Starting up, the fund would invest in Nasty Mining, Cognitive, bASIC-MINING and GMP.

With these companies, all three major ASICs vendors will be represented.


In keeping with the Asset Issuer terms, Cognitive and bASIC-MINING would have to be capped at 20% of the value of the entire fund, each.
Nasty and GMP are allowed to have more than 20% of the value of the fund since they are not on btct.co, but my asset contract states that all underlying assets will be balanced with all other assets within 10% margin of error of the entire fund's worth. The rest will be held in BTC for buybacks and keeping in compliance with the Issuer Terms and Asset Contract.

Honesty: Buying into this fund at the start is probably the most risk you will see in this fund. It will be a very rocky start, especially being on the cusp of ASICs being released.