Topic: [BTC-TC] BTC Growth: Capital Growth via Hedge Fund-Style Investing - page 16. (Read 251637 times)

From the contract:


This was hilarious, thank you.

The question was straightforward and I really hoped for a straightforward answer. I didn't get it. I have read the comments in the listing document as well as the article and your answers to Deprived questions. I couldn't find the answer anywhere. In fact, I feel like you are trying to avoid it. The question is extremely important - by answering it properly, you can show how deeply you understand Bitcoin economics. As a matter of fact, the reason why long position in most funds around here will cause losses is precisely because their managers can't answer the question or answer it wrong.

I wonder how happy Deprived is about your answers to his questions. For now, he remains the only person who seems to understand how things work.

Although your question seems very straightforward, it actually packs in quite a bit of complexity and subtlety. So, rather than trying to pin down a specific yes/no answer and coming up short on something the details of which depend very much on the specific business in question, I would point instead to the comments in the listing document itself which address mining. The document also links to a substantially longer discussion in a standalone article about direct investment in mining hardware, and last but not least there are some brief comments in my reply to Deprived earlier in this same thread.

Will the fund take any long term positions on Bitcoin mining activities?

Ah, I get it -- no problem at all.

Taking the second question first, ironically enough the change doesn't matter, as I had originally interpreted you to be asking about an exit strategy for the fund anyway, just specific to the mechanics of the exchange. (It was your question which prompted the addition of a sentence to the listing documents yesterday, intended to clarify how closure of the fund might be handled using the buyback facility of the exchange.) As I mentioned originally, I would not at this point envision passing the fund on to another manager but would instead envision closing it.

As for the first question, the superficial answer is simply excelling at the fund's stated goal of achieving capital growth denominated in Bitcoin. The deeper answer, though, is much more about adapting my thinking and strategies to the very limited environment of Bitcoin, where tools that folks take for granted in the fiat world just aren't available yet.

Many thanks for your support, Luckybit -- I appreciate it!

Thanks Greg please excuse my ignorance since GLBSE I switched to HaveLock, and have not looked into alternates since. (I tend to think everything is a scam until I have a need and then seek the most viable option)

That said your answers are still very much appreciated and relevant.
I have made corrections given I mistook the exchange for the fund.

Your attention to the updated questions is much appreciated.

When it is finished being voted on by the btctc admins

I just want to know when I buy shares ? I dont want to miss this chance

I'm pleased to say that as of this morning, the exchange has opened BTC Growth for peer review by moderators. This next step of the process -- attention from the moderators and their assessment of the listing submission -- will yield a decision as to whether the fund will be listed on the exchange.

Since I have no reliable means of gauging demand except for observing what happens if and when the exchange approves the fund, I can't really guess in advance how the process might progress. However, given the level of attention currently being focused on mining operations that will begin 'real soon now', I suspect that any worries about having too much capital to put to work will be quickly put to rest.


From the section headed "Subscriptions and Redemptions":

"When in operation, the subscription and redemption facility will be made available only for a relatively brief period following the publication of the fund's NAV, so as to preclude any incentive for the issuer either to issue or to re-purchase on the basis of knowledge about the fund's NAV which has not yet been made public. (While doing so might provide a short term benefit for existing participants in the fund, it would be contrary to the interests of new participants and thus would not serve the longer term development of the fund as a whole.)"

As to what "relatively brief period" might mean, that again will depend on overall demand and liquidity. If only a handful of shares are being traded, and the market price is slow to react to changes in NAV, that would be a different matter than if a speedy and liquid market brings prices in line with NAV quite quickly.


Yes, I really don't understand what seems to be a fixation on dividends rather than total returns. It is trivially easy to push out a whacking great big (but entirely unsustainable) dividend. Nor do I understand why it seems to be OK with so many would-be buyers of various assets when future dividend streams are linked to an entirely unquantified description of "profit". It is trivially easy to achieve no profit at all -- and therefore pay zero dividends -- simply by incurring new expenses (such as salaries, for example). Too often, IMHO, folks read "profit" but think "revenue" -- or else recognise the difference but think that they know how to get from revenue to profit, even when the issuer hasn't filled them in on any specifics. I'm not saying that all or even most folks do that, but it's hard to avoid the impression that many do.

this.

Nowhere in that can I see details of how many shares you'd be selling at IPO - or what your plans are in terms of time-scale for releasing all of them.

I'd assume you aren't going to sell all at once (even if there was demand) as it wouldn't be practical to deploy that much capital at once.

I note that you only intend to publish NAV/U monthly - is it your intention only to sell and redeem once per month?  Or will you be maintaining bids/asks based on a current (but unpublished) NAV/U?  Either way can work of course.

I'm glad you're avoiding the cancer that is dividends for the sake of dividends btw.

The asset is now awaiting unlocking by the operators of the exchange, in preparation for attention from the moderators who serve as gatekeepers between submissions and listings.

Please see the section of the document headed "Initial Offering, Minimum Participation Level, and Fund Closure" and "Subscriptions and Redemptions" for more details on the release of shares.

“Outstanding 0 / 1000000 Issued” @0.1
How many shares are you going to release? Round 1? 2?

 

I'm sure that governments can and will change their collective minds about how best to handle Bitcoin; rapid change in the Bitcoin landscape more generally is just something we should assume. However, this seems to me to be a larger and broader issue, rather than a being a concern which is specifically focused on this fund or that fund, this exchange or that exchange.

answers appreciated.
just do not forget that government(s) can change the mind in (un)predictable way

I've had an interest in investing for a long time and an interest in Bitcoin for an unfortunately longer time than I have been actively involved with it. (Why 'unfortunately'? Because when I first read about Bitcoin in 2011, I thought it was an ingenious idea that would ultimately prove to be utterly useless as an actual currency, and I didn't return to it for another two years. I suspect there are others out there who share that kick-myself-later experience.)

In addition to those two interests, the way Bitcoin is currently regarded by the UK government -- specifically, treating gains as irrelevant from a tax perspective until they are converted to fiat -- provides an opportunity to do things, such as providing a low-friction fund management service, which I otherwise could not do at all without creating a whole new corporate structure, with all the additional expense and administrative overhead that would require. In other words, this is a way for me to give that a try without all the additional accoutrements that would otherwise be required.


Success for the exchange -- wow, that's a big question! Personally, I'd like to see it 1) become legally bulletproof -- not legally avoidant, but legally bulletproof, compliant with whatever needs to be complied with, etc. -- and 2) introduce market making services for both listed securities and options, either by becoming the counterparty to all trades itself, or by retaining others to provide market making. In other words, to my mind, success for the exchange means providing the foundations that people need to make real Bitcoin investing much more efficient than it is now.


Almost none of my new business endeavours have ever been undertaken with a specific personal goal in mind; rather, they're undertaken to learn, explore, adapt, and attempt to grow into a niche -- but without any of that codified into specific goals. (When I'm trying to learn about something, for example, I rarely reach a point where I think "great, I've learned it -- now what?".) That doesn't mean I just go off in random directions, of course, without tactical targets or longer term strategies; I do have both. But what it means is that I have no more of an answer for your question about this in particular than I would have if you had asked it about any of my other business efforts.


The listing document mentions a minimum participation level and closing the fund as a matter of exiting positions gracefully and returning NAV to participants. I would not envision passing the fund on to another manager.

Thanks Greg,
I haven't reviewed the prospectus yet I've just read the OP and comments.
Before I do I would value your input on the following questions:

• Why have you personally decided to do this?
• What does success for BTC-TC look like to you?
• How will you know when you have met your personal goal of why you are doing this?
• Have you defined a succession or an exit strategy for BTC-TC in the prospectus?

Thanks again