As soon as I can provide more information I will - but I'd prefer not to give anything detailed until it's finally agreed : better to say nothing than say something which later has to be retracted. I can confirm all investors would be able to trade without providing ID as that's a precondition on me moving DMS to ANY exchange. So if it doesn't allow that then we wouldn't list there.
Deprived, I am just happy we are going
somewhere! Don't really care about the verified ID stuff, you know sooner or later ALL countries will be requiring it. Bankers/politicians need their pound of flesh.
Just one question though. What happens when MINING = zero? Do you shutdown this fund and start with a new one?
You have really been conscientious and certainly someone we can trust through this whole mess.
Good question. I think some form of bundling might be required. E.g., instead of 5mhash PMBs, MINING becomes 50mhash PMBs. Though you'd have to pay out people holding odd lots of MINING.
I've had a few (i.e. a lot of) beers so apologies if I'm not as clear as I could be. MINING can't ever reach 0 or near to it (relative to the price of PURCHASE). That's because if there's a massive rise then immediately there's a large dividend to SELLING reducing the NVA/U of PURCHASE.
After EVERY increase i ndifficulty greater than a few % MINING is always going to be paying dividends equal to 1/400th of NAV/U per day. That sets an absolute minimum on the value/price of MINING (depending on what you believe the minimum to be between dfficulty changes).
Where the contract is currently silent is on the situation where MINING's dividends/value end up being effectively rounding errors (which requires a few orders of magnitude increase in difficulty). Whilst I believe that unlikely (prices were, in part, set based on what I believed to be best/worst cases in the short-mid term) it obviously isn't theoretically impossible (note that if it occurs then nearly all ASICs produced to date would mine less coins than the power cost of running them let alone any recovery of sunk costs).
My expectation was (and remains) that at some point in the not too distant future MINING will end up being the majority of PURCHASE value - and SELLING will then vote to close the fund (obtainin 10% of NAV/U rather than the 0% they'd receive back if they waited). I don't want to poison the pool by giving by prediction of when that will occur but rather obviously it would have to occur between difficulty increasing by 1 order of magnitude (which is almost certain) and it increasing by 2 orders of magnitude (which I believe to be highly unlikely with current technology).
If it actually happens that MINING dividends drop below 10 satoshis per day then we DO have a problem that isn't covered by the contract. I believe it exceedingly unlikely that will happen without a period of stagnation previously (where SELLING should rationally vote to close) as the break-even point for those obtaining free hardware and $0.01/KWh electricity falls before that with current technology (and that's the edge case I used when setting hashes/share initially to avoid this problem).
It may not be the most satisfcatory answer ever - but my response is that:
a) It isn't likely to happen.
b) If it does happen then I'll sort something out.
In retrospect there's a few changes I should have made when designing DMS - one of which definitely IS provision for reverse splits to keep the price of MINING in a sensible range.
Do bear in mind when considering this that you'd only be discussing dividends per month of under 1% of current market value of MINING - whatever else is the case it's entirely trivial when currently assessing the value of MINING.
On a last note let me give a (probably irresponsible - but I've had few beers so who cares) teaser. The biggest profits to be made trading DMS are yet to come - predicting the cross-over point where difficulty ceases rising and the price of MINING gos through the roof (SELLING has no exit route other than paying 90% of NAV/U to MINING). I don't pretend to know exactly when that occurs but when it does it's going to catch a lot of people by surprise.
From a management perspective it's been a fun (and profitable) security to run - right up until recently. Hopefully we can get back to that : it offers a legitimate method for people to bet on their judgment vs others KNOWING in advance the odds they get - which is very rare in BTC land (most betting services either don't give fixed odds, have no market depth or are just random in outcome).
