Topic: [BTC-TC] Deprived Mining Speculation (DMS) - page 37. (Read 198958 times)

BTC Balance (BTC-TC)   1137.742277
9071 LTC-ATF.B1    90.71000000
CIPHERMINE Bonds    360.61000000
Coinlenders CD 27/9   203.3303975
Coinlenders Cash   0
Just-Dice Balance    153.86146722
TOTAL ASSETS    1,946.25414142
   
Outstanding MINING   210981
Outstanding SELLING   210981
Outstanding PURCHASE   14397
Effective Units   225378
   
Block reward   25
Difficulty   112,628,549
Hashes per MINING   5000000
   
Daily Dividend    0.00002233
50 days (Min Liquid)    0.00111629
100 days (Forced Close)    0.00223259
365 days (Buyback)    0.00814895
405 days (IPO)    0.00904199
400 days (Post SELLING div)    0.00893036
410 days (Pre SELLING div)    0.00915361
   
NAV Post MINING Div    1,941.22237700
NAV/U Post MINING Div    0.00861318
Days Dividend Post Div   385.79
SELLING Dividend    -         
NAV Post SELLING Div    1,941.22237700
NAV/U Post Selling Div    0.00861318

Have stopped posting the PURCHASE buying/selling prices for now as they could possibly confuse when, right now, NAV/U is what matters when considering prices.

In theory the DMS could run both at BF and HVL, just the price of PURCHASE would be adjusted for different sale fees (0.4% HVL, 1.-0.5% BF).
I'm not sure if it's possible, just a thought.

Bitfunder have 0% trading fee for buying and 1% for selling(at least last time i looked) so 0,5% on avg if you intend to do both and 0% if you only intend to buy, they also have discounts if you trade(sell) big volumes.

BitFunder trading fee: 1%

It's not that big a deal.  And if the "which exchange" motion shows X and you'd absolutely not want to get shares on X then voting for closing is actually valid anyway.

If a majority want exchange X and also all vote to relist then they'd win both votes whatever you do.

Neither motion has a meaningful end date - so the expressed view could well change over time anyway if and when more information becomes available.  It's just a way for me to get a very crude idea of sentiment - and see if there's an overwhelming demand for any particular course of action.

A tactical voting small problem: since the motions are both up and its current results are already public, if I prefer to be listed on Exchange B, while Exchange A is clearly winning, it might be convenient for me on the other motion to vote to close the fund (even if I actually wanted to keep it open).

Not that it can be solved now, nor that it is really important to solve it.

(just for the record, using Condorcet might have solved this, but it wasn't possible of course; also this could have been theoretically solved by either posting the "which exchange" motion after the other one, or by hiding the votes)

Indeed - by the time everything was tested the need would be over.

And we still end up (if the bot traded pairs for PURCHASE) with 0.2% on each side being lost in transaction fees in a market trade.  Or I then have to make the payments manually.  If the bot tried to do payments then I run into the problem that it's a pain verifying them as wallet transfers don't show up in the same lists as share transfers.  So I end up spending loads of time manually verifying even in the best case.

I'll do them manually - accepting any number of transfers over a certain size ( a few BTC) plus ONE transfer per person for those who just want to cash out.  What I won't do is process loads of tiny transfers from people trying to arb dust - those will be considered to be donations.

Anything is possible, but extending the current transfer-bot to handle MINING+SELLING conversions is highly non-trivial. The current transfer-bot (which I created for Deprived) is pretty simple in function: Keep track of the timestamp of the most recent item the trade-history, periodically pull a new trade-history from BTCT and for every incoming PURCHASE transfer that occurred past the aforementioned timestamp send out equal amounts of M & S.

A transfer the other way around is more complicated, since the software has to pair up transfers and keep track of which ones have already been handled. For the most common case, a user sending equal amounts of M & S with a few minutes at most in between, is relatively easy, but there are many different alternative cases that may occur that are more complicated to deal with properly. What if there's an hour between the two transfers? What if someone accidentally sends unequal amounts? What if that someone fixes that by sending another transfer a few minutes later? Etc...

While it's perfectly doable to create an algorithm that handles this process correctly, it would require quite some testing to ensure that all fringe cases are handled properly. With only 2 weeks of BTCT-trading left, I have great doubts whether it is worthwhile to put any effort into this.

edit:
On a completely different subject: I'm curious how the motion-results will differ between MINING and SELLING as some kind of weird sociological experiment

I've put two advisory motions up on each of MINING and SELLING.

One motion is WHETHER you want to relist.
The other is WHERE to relist if we DO relist - expressing a view there will NOT be taken as indicating that you prefer to relist.

If there's a clear majority of BOTH Mining and Selling who want to shut down then we WILL shut down - if most people want out and are happy for me to pick the final prices then we'll do that.

The vote on where to relist would be taken into account if appropriate (i.e. if we DO relist) but ultimately it's highly likely that other factors will end up making the decision for us.

Whilst I'm not going to disclose precisely how I would split funds between MINING/SELLING if we close down (as it would likely screw up prices if we then didn't close down) I HAVE worked out a basis on which I can determine whether I got it roughly right AFTER the fact.  If I get complaints BOTH from those holding MINING AND from those holding SELLING that I screwed them then I can be pretty sure I got the price about right

No you weren't meant to be buying up pairs - the reason teh fund always bought up pairs (and why I'm offering to) is because there's nothing subjective in the value of a pair (it equals NAV/U of PURCHASE).  And also because that ensures (when the fund does the buying) that the same number of MINING+SELLING stay in circulation (which is pretty important).

Deprived,
Since I am the FIRST vote for relisting, I will bring up the subject in advance of the new stock exchange.  (Ha, beat the rest of you to the dms.selling motion!)

Was I supposed to be buying mining and selling as pairs?  I was just buying purchase and selling. 

Thank you for driving the keyboard so hard during all the lunacy!  It keeps us out here (mostly) sane.

Can you create a tradebot that pays out when sending in a MINING+SELLING pair?

Once NAV/U is established (i.e. we know what's happening with CIPHERMINE and have the Coinlenders cash back) yes - I'd definitely be offering repurchases just as I did before, both on PURCHASE and also on MINING+SELLING pairs.  The detail of the resolution in respect of CIPHERMINE may obviously amend what value I place on it in the books at that point.  As we'd no longer have any investments I'd actually be willing to do this at a lower % reduction than we previously have - we're now in territory that the contract couldn't predict and my main intention is to try to minimise any loss people take as a result of BTC-TC closing (whilst maintaining whatever profit/loss their position had gained prior to that point).

Right now I'm personally willing to buy up pairs of MINING+SELLING at .0075 in decent quantites (10+ BTC worth) as following Kate's last posts I now believe we're likely to recover substantial value from CIPHERMINING.  But I believe if you hang on for a few days to a week it's likely you'd get back ..008+ (less whatever is paid out in dividends in the meantime).

No fund money will be used on buybacks until I have a NAV/U that I'm confident about - at a minimum a lower bound.  I'm just moving some of my own money on so I can step in and stop any really stupid panic selling.

The latest post from Kate is much better than her initial one (it's quoted above in part by Ranasha).  I just responded to it - right now the situation as I see it is:

If DMS continues on a new exchange then I wouldn't be actively seeking any change to the bond contract and wouldn't be interested in a buyback at any discount.  I would, however, consent to selling back immediately at full face value if that was what they wanted (by the contract they should pay a fairly hefty premium to do that - but I'd waive that).
If DMS closes down then I'd consider a small discount if it meant getting the cash now rather than in 3 months (which is what the contract entitles us to).

I'm not going to be pushing for resolution on it - realistically they need to decide what they're doing with CIPHERMINE then it should be obvious what they want to do with the bonds.  As neither DMS or CIPHERMINE has lost any significant assets due to BTC-TC closing there's no real reason why either party should NEED to change the contract.

Deprived, are you planning to offer any services where an individual might exchange a SELLING+MINING for NAV/U price (or slight discount)? I mainly ask this because you seem to be leaning towards going to another exchange while I am currently feeling way too spooked to hold any sort of bitcoin security.

Deprived is using his own coins, not fund money (if I understood his post correctly).

Wont using fund money to buy back individual shares at this rate lower NAV/U?

A relevant quote from Kate Woodrake (Ciphermine):

(the actual quote is larger, but I only copied the part relevant for DMS)

Obviously DMS can survive "this" with a move to another platform. A forced buy-back at a discounted rate would be pretty bad, but if it's at regular face value, I guess it would be good.

Just a point for anyone struggling to work out how to price the shares with uncertainty over what will happen with CIPHERMINE bonds.

If you valued those bonds at 0 then NAV/U for PURCHASE would be : .00703442
That's pretty much the worse case scenario - and it's VERY unlikely the bonds will be worth nothing.  So don't panic sell where MINING+SELLING would come to less than that.

I'll sling some of my cash on and try to keep the price at least at that - so those who desperately want out now don't lose out too horribly.  But I'd seriously not recommend selling even that cheap.

Once we have the Coinlenders cash back (in my wallet or here) then the fund itself can buy back at those prices - until then I can't buyback with the fund itself even that high just in case a load of TF's cash happened to be in BTC-TC securities that crashed or whatever (which I don't rate as at all likely).

I won't be selling any DMS shares I buy up (or any I already hold) - I'm just doing it because I'd hate to see investors panicking and selling at stupidly cheap prices.  I'll only be moving 100 BTC on initially - if anyone's desperate to sell large amounts I could sort something out but I don't recommend it.  Right now the trading ranges seem reasonable - amounting to a fairly small discount on NAV/U.

I'm also about to put up advisory motions on relisting.  My personal viewpoint is moving more and more towards relisting - as much as anything so I can duck out of defining prices for MINING/SELLING   But also because at an absolute minimum there's going to be cash left for SELLING after the 2 week period - I can't see any likelihood of the CIPHERMINE bonds being cashed out within a few months (when I bought them the plan was always just to gradually sell them to keep them at ~20% of capital, which we'd been doing fine - with about 10% of them sold already without really trying).

Great update.  thank you.