Topic: [BTC-TC] Deprived Mining Speculation (DMS) - page 39. (Read 198958 times)

And BitFunder has a messed up way of crediting your wallet, all the coins have to go through WebEx first. :/

Also there are different fees:
Bitfunder: 0% for buying, 1% for selling (less if you have turnover 50+ BTC)
Havelock  0% for buying, 0.4% for selling (total is the same as BTCT)

I would prefer Havelock.

If you decide on relisting, you can put up a motion for all DMS shareholders. I agree that only Havelock and Bitfunder are viable options.

edit: On another matter: Could you let us know if there is any news regarding the CIPHERMINE bonds that DMS holds? With LTC-ATF.B2 bought back and the JD investment withdrawn, the CIPHERMINE bonds make up the only uncertain factor in the NAV of DMS and it would be good to know how to properly value the shares being traded.

IF DMS does relist, where would people prefer?

Cryptotrade is run by a scammer.
MPEx isn't a valid option as most investors won't have accounts there - and there'd be no point relisting somewhere that most people couldn't access their shares.

Which leaves Bitfunder and Havelock as the only two real options. 

I have no massive preference between them - I've used both without any problems.  Havelock looks prettier but I find it more a pain to navigate around than Bitfunder (takes too many clicks for the most common transitions) and it seems to grind to a halt under any sort of heavy load - which I've never seen on Bitfunder (which has always seemed to be able to handle load better than BTC-TC could).  Bitfunder has very sporadic customer service (people regularly waiting for support issues to be handled) and you have to move funds in and out through an entirely pointless exchange that only seems to exist to make moving funds in/out of Bitfunder unnecessarily complicated.

We'll see if either offers relocation.

I'm tending more towards relisting now but definitely haven't made a final call on it.

Yeah it dropped below 0% in the last 24 hours.  We're down just over 5 BTC overall on J-D.

What is our profit from the whole time in JD? Is it below 0%?

(I'm glad that only 10% was there and that Deprived didn't follow my suggestion to increas our investment there before)

Just divested all our funds in J-D - the site took a major kicking last few days and our investment is down to 153.86146722 BTC.

Can't actually withdraw it as hot-wallet there is empty right now.

https://blockchain.info/address/1CzJY7pVkCqDjUtycHzFgeTTbbWokqYuXo

Is the address in which I'll hold funds belonging to DMS.  I've transferred the 90.71 BTC into there from one of my own personal addresses.

Will be withdrawing our J-D funds to there now.  If we find a new home I may, of course, reinvest in J-D.  And if we close down then the funds in that BTC address will be sent to BTC-TC and be part of the final distribution.

I just did a final full repurchase at face value on LTC-ATF.B1.

DMS held 9071 of them so should, after conversion from LTC receive exactly 90.71 BTC.

For now that 90.71 is reserved in my own wallet - seems unwise right now to transfer it into BTC-TC until we know what we're doing.  It'll stay listed in daily reports as being LTC-ATF.B1 - but is actually cash BTC now (the LTC received are being used to buy out LTC-ATF - seemed pointless for DMS to exchange them into BTC, losing out on fees/spread, when I have plenty of liquid BTC myself and needed to get more LTC onto LTC-Global anyway).

Wasn't your bot I was thinking of - it was the other one that would sometimes do 3-4 tiny buys of PURCHASE + swaps in a minute.

This will probably cause monopoly of those market-makers with little people having to benefit them.

Aww... It's not my bots fault that people kept buying into its SELLING ask 1 share at a time

One change I'd make if I started this anew without bot transfers possible is that I'd make 1 PURCHASE = 1000 MINING+SELLING (or even 5000).  That would cut transfers right down as I'd only sell to people who were either taking a large position or actively market-making.  And they'd have more incentive to do it due to not being undercut by bots buying 1 purchase, splitting it then trying to sell the components seperately for a fraction of a cent profit.

If MINING + SELLING was X% less than the NAV/U of PURCHASE (which, remember, is 5% LESS than the selling price of PURCHASE) then it's rather simple to convert them to add up to NAV/U whilst being in the same ratio to one another.

I'm not sure which buyback clause in the contract you refer to:

If you refer to repurchasing PURCHASE and matching bundles of MINING+SELLING then yes - that will of course be possible once we've established what NAV/U is.  The only real issue I see with determining NAV/U will be the Ciphermine bonds.  Those won't be refunded by the issuer as the cash from them has been used to purchase mining hardware.  If the bonds relists elsewhere then there's no problem - otherwise, per the contract, we have to give notice of redemption and wait three months with zero interest before the cash arrives.  And until it does I can't in good conscience include it in the NAV/U.

The contract, on closure for exceptional reasons (which this is) says :

"Propose a split of funds between DMS.MINING and DMS.SELLING to be approved by a majority vote by both all outstanding DMS.MINING and all outstanding DMS.SELLING.

In the event of a vote with a proposal to split funds being left up for 7 days and (in either vote) the total of (Yes votes + No votes) being less than 50% of all outstanding shares then the Manager will determine a fair (in his best judgement) split of funds and execute final payments in accordance with that decision.  This clause is added specifically to address the scenario where most shares have been redeemed with a large part of those remaining outstanding being unable or unwilling to participate in reaching closure."

That's aside from the option of getting a new manager which clearly isn't an option here.  Moving to a different exchange wasn't covered in the contract - but if that proves easy to do then I'll certainly consider it, even if only to let existing shares run their natural course.

At present everything will continue as normal in terms of dividends etc - just there'll be no trading of PURCHASE and no redemptions.  Swaps of PURCHASE for MINING+SELLING will still be allowed.

There's no need to resolve it today - and no way I can anyway as I need to find out what's happening with the CIPHERMINE bonds, see what options are available and get as much feedback as possible.

Same here, I was SELLING-only (except for the brief moments where my arb-bot hit a good trade), but now I'm fully split. I bought MINING at a reasonable discount compared to what it was previously trading at and if all of the investments of DMS can be liquidated properly, I should even make a tiny profit.

Havelock and BitFunder don't have the necessary API-functions for a transfer-bot (yet). And I don't know how eager Deprived will be to do manual transfers again.

Undoubtedly, there will be people disappointed with any one buyback plan. Equally undoubtedly, I do not want to be on the wrong side of any buyback plan  . It's just that in this scenario, the method in which a buyback would operate seems to have already been fairly reasonably described in the contract, and I would rather see this particular method executed than any plan hatched in the last few or next few hours.

Also, I was previously an exclusive holder of SELLING. And as you have done, I have moved to purchase shares on the other side of the coin in order to properly hedge against any potentially hazardous proceedings going forward.


Lastly, if Deprived were to close down and buy out shares right now, there is nothing stopping him from starting right back up on another exchange fresh. Given how this particular asset works, such a plan could be carried out with relative ease. This allows people who want to get out (such as myself) and people who want to continue playing to both be satisfied.

+1 for moving to another exchange. Why closing such professional and well thought assets?

Honestly, with any solution there will be people dissatisfied, that unavoidable in a situation like this.

I personally feel that a splitting the funds proportionally based on something like the 7-day average price (exact parameters may vary) of both assets would be a reasonably fair distribution.

That said, I've fully covered my (smallish) position by ensuring that I have the same amount of MINING and SELLING, which means that regardless of the buyback plan, I will not lose too much.

Maybe you should consider transfering to another exchange and stop selling PURCHASE at the same time?

The problem with option 2 that you present is that there was a severe price imbalance the last few days where purchasing selling and mining individually would add up to be a fair degree less than the cost of a PURCHASE, making it hard to accurately determine ratios. Furthermore, I think that actually attempting to determine anything based on "what seems to be fair/correct" will devolve into a shouting contest between the two sides in which the outcome will more or less be purely subjective.

Anyway, I would prefer to not move to another exchange but rather follow through with the buyback clause that was in the contract.