Topic: [BTC-TC] BTC Growth: Capital Growth via Hedge Fund-Style Investing - page 13. (Read 251637 times)

As some participants might be aware, up until a certain threshold fund size, the SEC does not require that hedge funds disclose their holdings or their trading activity; thus, analogies based on whether the SEC or some variant is present or "missing" don't seem to bear directly on the question of disclosure for a fund of this size. (Some participants will also be aware of academic studies suggesting that funds which do not disclose their trading activities tend to outperform otherwise comparable funds which do.)

More to the point, however, there is a reason why the listing documents include a Not-So-FAQ: it was in hopes of making some of these questions not so frequently asked. The bottom line is simple: if potential participants lack confidence or want the fund to become something other than it is so that they can feel confident, then they should not participate.

Haha, almost as if Greg was talking himself. What I am missing here is the SEC (or any variation of it). I won't comment on the derogatory part of your reply. You can keep that style of communication between Dr. and yourself.

You seem new to the idea of how hedge funds work - they don't disclose their holdings except when required by the SEC. I think you don't realize that you are exactly the kind of investor that Greg does not want - he doesn't want advice on how to trade or to be asked questions about what his holdings are.

We have invested in a fund that will be traded for profit. If there isn't any profit then it sucks to be us for the losses/opportunity cost and it sucks for Greg since he'll have wasted his time for little payback. I think that the wisest thing that you've done is to steer clear - this investment isn't for you, as it would seem many real world hedge funds aren't either.

I think everyone made the same of this: Greg didn't answer your questions because he doesn't care - he got his funds for playing already. I agree with you that some kind of supervision of what's going on in the fund would boost the confidence of investors greatly (there are now people willing to sell at a loss). Dr. got his funds just because he was articulate and sophisticated - but he doesn't need to prove anything to anyone as long as people in Bitcoinland are willing to buy that (risk of not knowing anything). And they were.

I think I am very much on the same page with you. I actually also think the fund can have profits (as long as it focuses on (intra-)day trading rather than actual investments). Unlike you, however, due to this lack of knowledge of what's going on in the fund, I decided to stay away for now.

Nicely put, Sir.   

Wow.. Wonder what stripykitteh makes of this..

Anyways, it is not my intention to take time away from your fund management at all, especially since I invest in your fund as well and wish all the best for your fund.

For some reason all my questions turn into conclusions and accusations once you quote them and the real questions remain unanswered to me so I'll just live with it

It was and never will be my intention to do such a thing. Nothing I can say against it though, so I will stop "wasting" your precious time.

Lastly and for the record: I think you are running an honest fund here and I wish you all the best with it (and my btc ). This might come as a surprise but my questions all were meant to do good not harm.

All the best,

FWIW, I don't have a problem with this. Greg - go manage the fund, make us a profit and answer questions about fund performance once they come up. For those concerned about a ponzi, there's not enough at stake to risk jail time. As far as motivations go, I'd say that the 2% fees are also not worth Greg's time by themselves - Greg's clearly going after 20% of the gains. I'm fine with that, since that's why we're all here - looking for increased valuations.

I intended specifically to refer to more than one person; I intend whatever I write here to be of use to whoever happens along to read it. If any potential participants feel they need individual private consultation, this is not the place for it.


Your conclusion is not only erroneous, but grossly so. Basic accounting does not permit companies simply to whip up some profit statements out of thin air, unsupported by detailed records, including detailed records of assets, liabilities, and just about everything else.


Again, your conclusion is not only erroneous, but grossly so. (Not to put too fine a point on it, but we're now descending into the absurd: how do you imagine a company would even begin to report taxable income by reporting only a balance sheet? It's a rhetorical question: I am not looking for a reply.)

More generally, I hope that you and any other interested readers will appreciate that this thread was opened before the fund launched, specifically with the intention of providing a venue for anyone with an interest to ask questions, make suggestions, and evaluate for themselves what was being proposed. (And it certainly was not opened to provide an ongoing opportunity for tutorials on basic accounting or UK law.) I put a great deal of time and effort both into the preparation of the original listing document and into the discussions which took place on this thread before the fund launched.

However, the fund has now launched. As you will hopefully appreciate, that means I now have one or two things that are occupying my time with regard to actually managing the fund -- an activity which I consider altogether more pressing than investing yet more of my time here on the forum, re-hashing the same questions which were already discussed before the fund launched.

Re-hashing the same types of questions represents a direct subtraction from the time that I can spend actually managing the fund: it is, in a very real sense, a direct drag on the returns of the fund. I understand that since you are looking to launch a fund of your own, it would naturally be in your interest to occupy my time as much as possible with extended discussions about basic accounting and even your accusations that I am "making it very easy to run a Ponzi out of this". But I hope you will appreciate that my willingness to engage in this exercise is severely limited, and in my eyes this exercise is directly contrary to the interests of those of us who are actually participating in the fund -- including me.

Maybe my reluctance to take time away from fund management for re-hashing or for discussing basic accounting sheds some light on why my first response to many questions is going to have to be "RTFM" or even just simply to remind potential participants of what it already says in the listing documents: if the information which I have already spent a great deal of my time providing is in any way insufficient for your needs, then do not participate.

OK, I'll take your words for that then
@Greg, if that is the case, my well meant apologies for any harsh things I said. Never expected a language barrier in the English language

Back on topic; can you elaborate a little more on what you said regarding the reporting you have to do for English taxes and deposition of records?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but your Ltd qualifies for Abbreviated Accounts (I think they call it that?), which do not need to be audited. (There's a 3.26M GBP limit there I believe?). This means you only have to report a short balance sheet and turnover is not even required?

Will the bitcoin assets you now hold in name of the Ltd be reported as Assets in your balance sheet? Or do you follow the same reasoning there that as long as they haven't been converted to fiat they don't have to be reported?

Thanks in advance,

I am a native English speaker. I have interpreted Dr Greg's comments as being somewhat formal but not impolite, consistent with what you'd expect from someone running a hedge fund. I guess you'd call it "maintaining a professional distance". My impression is he does not want to appear to be on intimate terms with any of his investors for fear of appearing partial (we'd be disappointed to find out he'd been dispensing hot tips to certain favored individuals, for example).

My 2 cents.

You're welcome ;-)

I just updated my last post with a more concrete question. Can you take a look at that one?

Note on my feedback; I'm no native English speaker (Dutch) but I read your words as being very condescending. In Dutch if you refer to a third person like you did, it's considered quite offensive. I like to think that I'm quite good at English but I might have mistaken your answer there (if so please let me know).

Cheers,

I appreciate the feedback.

EDIT to more clarify my question.

Jeez Greg, you make it sound as if I haven't read the whole god damned document which I did.. I was just offering you a suggestion because a lot of people here (including myself) would like to see a bit more openness.. I'm not asking for your passport, I'm not asking you to disclose your full portfolio to the world. I'm hoping you will answer "me" this time instead. You sounded a bit condescending there.

Back to my question. As a UK limited company you will have to keep proper records of your profits (management fees) because you have to pay taxes on that. I refer to your own words in that matter:

From that quote I conclude that you have no obligation whatsoever to keep records of bitcoin denominated assets as long as you don't convert them to fiat. You will not have to report your bitcoin assets end of year. If you plan to do that nonetheless please let me know because those reports should be open to the public and would satisfy my initial question.

As indicated in the listing documents, I believe the opportunities are severely limited; but they're not entirely absent. Potential participants in the fund who need to know specific investment strategies in advance -- or need to know about them while they're still being executed -- should not participate in the fund and should probably steer well clear of hedge funds in general.

Potential participants who read through the full document and this forum thread will have already read my response to the Ponzi question, and they will also be aware that I have no interest whatsoever in trying out various schemes or suggestions to prop up confidence in a pseudonym. They will be aware that they are dealing with a real live person, with a real name and real accountability and real laws to follow. And they will be aware that as a UK limited company, we have a legal obligation to keep proper records and to submit accounting to the UK government, as we have been doing for more than a decade.

At the risk of turning this into a circle jerk I think you are right. There is a large amount of blood that's going to be spilled over the next few weeks in mining securities, particularly from a well-known one. Many people are wanting to get off that particular bus, and they only have limited means of doing so.

Ironically I sold all my shares in that company to buy into this asset.

You mean having an audit done by a third party? That would certainly boost investor confidence.

Greg, I know you said you will not give details about your investments, but the description is rather unclear about what specific investments would be used? What in the bitcoin world is available right now that you consider worthwhile for investing in?

TL;DR ;-)

Short answer: He won't
Long answer:

That being said; Greg if I might suggest; it might be a good idea to have holdings verified every once in a while by a trusted third party? Otherwise you're making it very easy to run a Ponzi out of this..

I would recommend that anyone interested in participating in the fund should first read through the listing documents provided at the exchange -- including the FAQ -- and perhaps also the earlier discussions in this thread, to get a better understanding of how we'll be reporting.