Topic: [BTC-TC] Deprived Mining Speculation (DMS) - page 36. (Read 198958 times)

Well unless there's a sudden change in the voting my plan is definitely to relist.

Why wouldn't I carry on off-exchange if we couldn't relist?

1.  It's a lot of work - with no management fee payable for it.
2.  It wouldn't be practical with the current contract anyway - think of things like transaction fees on sending all the tiny little MINING dividends.
3.  Noone who held mainly only ONE of MINING/SELLING would have any liquidity.  Ever.  As there'd be no way to trade shares.
4.  How would I know when to close it down?  At present it's done by me raising a vote.  On an exchange without a voting system I could decide anyway based on traded price.  With no trading and no easy way to run votes it would be pure guesswork.

etc.

In short the contract, operational details and management fee were all designed based on it being run on an exchange.  And I'm sure most investors invested on the assumption that would be the case.

It seems that more DMS holders are in favor of relisting:
MINING 94:35
SELLING 104:23

BTW, looking at just-dice now (profit -5440 BTC) I'm glad Deprived divested at -1500 BTC

@baloo_kiev: This is just the worst possible scenario. Deprived indicated that relisting at BF/HVL is more probable.

Man, you've been handling the whole thing like a pro so far. But this particular plan of paying out immediately based on market price at whatever moment really sucks. Even if you shut down DMS, why not paying dividends (bi-weekly or monthly) to the holders so everyone receives fair amount?

BTCT sends out daily emails to asset issuers containing shareholders email address, public BTC address and share count.

Asset issuers have everything they need to carry on with paying dividends as well as to communicate with shareholders (even though it's a considerable amount of work).

If we haven't managed to move by the end of October when BTC-TC closes then we'd shut down.  At that stage mining would be paid thier amount in full immediately, SELLING would get whatever was left.  If there was still CIPHERMINE.B1 not sold then I'd have to do a final dividend manually when we sold them.

Mining is too cheap, this is good time for people to buy. But, if BTCT shut down and we have not migrated shares to other platform, then how do holders get dividends?

I think he will only provide that number is if it is deciede that DMS will close and only at that time. Otherwise it may affect the free market trading that is essential for this security. If DMS moves to another platform, there will probably be a redemption of pairs of M+S.

Although I prefer re-listing, but it's not easy to change the contract and transfer to another platform. So maybe we have to close DMS.

Deprived, you mention you'll use the market price at your post time to give to Mining and Selling holders. Could you please figure out the number?

Thanks for the offer. That's a great idea for those who want quick exit. For me, still prefer relisting.

There's one other option I may be able to offer once we have the Coinlenders cash back.

We have 36031 CIPHERMINE.B1 bonds and 225378 effective outstanding units of PURCHASE (or MINING+SELLING pairs).

That means for every 6.255113652132886 PURCHASE (or MINING+SELLING) we have 1 CIPHERMINE.B1.

I could therefore calculate NAV/U IGNORING CIPHERMINE.B1 and offer the following:

99% of NAV/U + 1 CIPHERMINE.B1 for 7 PURCHASE (or MINING+SELLING)
99% of NAV/U + 10 CIPHERMINE.B1 for 63 PURCHASE (or MINING+SELLING)
99% of NAV/U +100 CIPHERMINE.B1 for 626 PURCHASE (or MINING+SELLING)
99% of NAV/U +1000 CIPHERMINE.B1 for 6256 PURCHASE (or MINING+SELLING)

At present the CIPHERMINE.B1 can be sold straight into bids for 80% of full value (though only for the first to do it) so that would give an exit route with very small losses.

Until we get the CL cash back I can't offer that - but I'll offer something along those lines as soon as I can.

Unfortunately I can't do the selling of them myself and value them at 80% as I then risk either:

1.  If I sell first and noone buys I just dumped 20% of value of what I sold for no good reason.
2.  If I don't sell until I receive transfers in then I can't guarnatee the bids will still be there when I need them.

By transferring the CIPHERMINE.B1 to those redeeming I lose all risk like that so could give an absolute fixed rate.

Sent.

Well, hell. I thought that I'd been paying enough attention to this security, but it seems not - it was my fault for not reading enough. It was, however, the explicitly listed PURCHASE buy-back rate that made me assume this was still a valid move.

Since you were in possession of the pair when MINING divs were issued, can you send those to me?

EDIT: Just received - thanks.

Yeah - since posting I've been PMed that some other outstanding withdrawals also were sorted out.  As I've repeatedly said I expect us to get that cash back in full - but I can't start issuing buybacks on that assumption.

Here's the first post I made after noticing the announcement of BTC-TC closure:


The emboldened line clarifies the exact point you're asking about.  There's no way I can cash some people out as though all investments would be recovered at a 100% rate - as if some invetsments fully/partially default the other investors would then have to bear not just their own portion of losses but also the losses that should have been taken by the people who cashed out.

I later made an offer to PERSONALLY buy back pairs (with a value of 10 BTC+) at .0075 each - which represents full value for the Coinlenders bond and a sizable discount on CIPHERMINE.B1 (or full full value of CIPHERMINE and nothing for CL).  That should give a view of how I personally believe things will pan out - I expect us to get back the CL bond  totally and not take a massive loss on the CIPHERMINE.B1.  But I can't value either at over 0 (for the purpose of fund buybacks) as I'd then be gambling with all other investors' funds.

Will return your shares to you for now.

If you (or anyone else) want to sell pairs of MINING+SELLING to me personally for .0075 then you can send them to my personal account (DeprivedPersonal) on BTC-TC.  I believe you're likely better off waiting (obviously - I wouldn't be offering to pay more than what I think a pair will end up at) but the offer's there for anyone who needs cash fast and can't get more via the market.

There were problems with Inputs.io being ddosed and moving to another IP (a CloudFlare IP), this caused some connectivity issues to Inputs, followed by some problem with external websites (including CL) not being able to connect with Inputs properly. I withdrew some funds from CL this morning and it didn't show up in my Inputs account. However, the situation was resolved very quickly by TradeFortress after I mentioned the issue.

Well, I'm asking because I purchased a number of MINING and SELLING on the market and sent them to you for redemption about an hour ago, as the last update before that time (yesterday's) still did show a PURCHASE buyback rate. Will you still honor that buyback at the rate, as this new update had not yet been announced?

In any case, if I'm understanding, you will now suspend buybacks of PURCHASE until the redemption value of the Coinlenders CD and CIPHERMINE bonds is known?

Once we know what actual NAV/U is, yes.

At present I'm reporting NAV/U as though our last investments were at full value - however I don't actually know if that is the case:

1.  I don't yet know what the plan going forward is for CIPHERMINE.B1.
2.  Until we actually have the cash from the last Coinlenders CD I can't in good conscience do redemptions as though it were repaid.  There have been significant reports of problems getting cash out of it since BTC-TC closure.

No way I can buy back some people's holdings based on full face value - and risk everyone else getting screwed badly by that if either/both of those last 2 investments turn bad.

The Coinlenders CD matures on 27th - at which point we'll find out very promptly what the situation there is.  Hopefully by then I'll also have enough information to produce a more accurate valuation for the CIPHERMINE.B1 and can then start offering redemption again.

There's no queue to join for redemption - once I know the status of those investments for sure then any/all redemptions will be processed (everything other than the CIPHERMINE.B1 would be in actual BTC).

1. Havelock does have custom ability to allow pushing shares directly to the issuer for shareholders. It also allows issuers to push shares directly to accounts. You would probably need to talk to James to get any specific API needs addressed, as their issuer system is unique in how it works.
2. Correct, Havelock does not have this feature.
3. Also correct, however....

In my experience, Havelock has been the most responsive to feature requests from issuers. If you take the time to set a meeting with them, and explain your intention to run multiple sets of assets like this (DMS, and the one you have planned), it is not unlikely they will try to accommodate some or all of your feature and API needs.

Yeah it's definitely possible - either with one as main and the other as a pass-through or as a dual listing (where both are considered to be of equal standing).

One of the next securities I'd been planning to list was going to be dual listed (on BTC-TC and LTC-Global) with bot-managed transfers possible between the exchanges.  That would allow both markets to effectively share liquidity and would have also allowed use of the securities to arbitrage on the LTC/BTC exchange-rate.

Unfortunately if we relist on either of Bitfunder/Havelock then there's need to be unavoidable changes to the contract.  There's no way around that - as neither exchange has the functionality to support all aspects of the current contract.  Specific problem areas (some of which may only relate to one of them) are :

1.  Lack of API support for transfers - meaning PURCHASE splits would have to be done manually so I'd have to impose limits on them to kep the workload bearable.
2.  No direct transfer of BTC - so redemption of MINING+SELLING pairs wouldn't be possible (or would have to be restricted only to large bundles with the BTC paid off-exchange).
3.  No voting system - so investment approval would have to be simplified.  This also raises problems with the shutdown vote - which is a more serious concern that investment approval really.

None of this is insurmountable - but do be aware that in the event of a move I WOULD have to change the contract to reflect what was actually practical.  Which I hate - as contracts shouldn't get changed by an issuer.  But the alternative - moving with a contract that couldn't be followed because of platform limitations - is even worse.

Which is a large part of why my initial view was that closure was preferable.  However that has its own issues - specifically that I then have to decide on settlement prices and people holding BOTH of MINING/SELLING are then going to feel aggrieved that they bought at a price they believed would be profitable and are now being forced to sell off without even a chance to realise that profit.

Voting at present indicates a strong preference to relist and also a strong preference for Bitfunder over Havelock.  Ownership of both MINING and SELLING is pretty broad - noone owns more than 10% of SELLING, one person owns just over 10% of MINING - so those results aren't just a few large investors.

Will you still be buying back at NAV/U -2%?