Great to have an extra 20 BTC to share...
And for the conflict of interest:
I hope Deprived gets arrested this moment and is not allowed to use the internet and or phone for the next three days that way we have another 60 BTC to share...
Topic: [BTC-TC] Deprived Mining Speculation (DMS) - page 63. (Read 198958 times)
I think the moon is made of blue cheese, whats wrong with that?
Great to have an extra 20 BTC to share...
And for the conflict of interest:
I hope Deprived gets arrested this moment and is not allowed to use the internet and or phone for the next three days that way we have another 60 BTC to share...
Great to have an extra 20 BTC to share...
And for the conflict of interest:
I hope Deprived gets arrested this moment and is not allowed to use the internet and or phone for the next three days that way we have another 60 BTC to share...
Thanks for the answer, I appreciate it
Really it's a simple case of would SELLING investors want a free 20 BTC or not? With difficulty set to rise sharply even a total write-off wouldn't impact MINING.
I would want the cash (and will gleefully accept my share of the 20BTC), but I hope you take my point that if it was happening all the time it would tend to affect how trustworthy you are perceived to be (not how trustworthy you ARE, but I hope you can see there's a difference).
Perhaps you can come back to this when you've slept off your Big Night Out?
I totally get the point.
On a side-note, at present there's potentially a huge problem on BTC-TC. Am Pming burnside about it then off to bed (it doesn't jeopardise loan repayment).
Don't leave us hanging! What's the subject of the huge problem??
It looks as though post-IPO of Labcoin there was a situation where an Ask showed up as being for 2^32-1 shares (i.e., over 4 billion). I don't know if it was caused by someone typing -1 as the amount of shares being offered or something else. It looks like it has been fixed manually.
Really it's a simple case of would SELLING investors want a free 20 BTC or not? With difficulty set to rise sharply even a total write-off wouldn't impact MINING.
I would want the cash (and will gleefully accept my share of the 20BTC), but I hope you take my point that if it was happening all the time it would tend to affect how trustworthy you are perceived to be (not how trustworthy you ARE, but I hope you can see there's a difference).
Perhaps you can come back to this when you've slept off your Big Night Out?
I totally get the point.
On a side-note, at present there's potentially a huge problem on BTC-TC. Am Pming burnside about it then off to bed (it doesn't jeopardise loan repayment).
Don't leave us hanging! What's the subject of the huge problem??
Really it's a simple case of would SELLING investors want a free 20 BTC or not? With difficulty set to rise sharply even a total write-off wouldn't impact MINING.
I would want the cash (and will gleefully accept my share of the 20BTC), but I hope you take my point that if it was happening all the time it would tend to affect how trustworthy you are perceived to be (not how trustworthy you ARE, but I hope you can see there's a difference).
Perhaps you can come back to this when you've slept off your Big Night Out?
I totally get the point.
On a side-note, at present there's potentially a huge problem on BTC-TC. Am Pming burnside about it then off to bed (it doesn't jeopardise loan repayment).
Really it's a simple case of would SELLING investors want a free 20 BTC or not? With difficulty set to rise sharply even a total write-off wouldn't impact MINING.
I would want the cash (and will gleefully accept my share of the 20BTC), but I hope you take my point that if it was happening all the time it would tend to affect how trustworthy you are perceived to be (not how trustworthy you ARE, but I hope you can see there's a difference).
Perhaps you can come back to this when you've slept off your Big Night Out?
Occurs to me that I still haven't properly addressed the 'conflict of interest' point. In theory one definitely existed - as I represented both myself and DMS when agreeing the loan. To determine whether it's a practical conflict of interest you have to consider two things:
1. Did I unduly rush in making a decision - i.e. could I have taken feedback, had a vote etc to put the decision in other people's hands. I'd argue no to this - the time-scale was way too compressed for that.
2. If a decision HAD to be made quickly was the decision made correct? i.e. was lending the 400 BTC better than NOT lending it FOR DMS. I believe the answer to that is unequivocably yes.
I'm open to arguments on why either of the above is wrong - or why I've missed some basic point. One potential argument is definitely that DMS could have held out for more than 5%. But I KNOW that wouldn't have worked - as I deliberately offered the max I was willing to pay, precisely to avoid that scenario (had I wanted to do it on the cheap I could have just borrowed the cash without saying so or done it via DMS buying LTC-ATF.B2 at .35% per week). 5% was the MAX I was willing to pay for a loan for under a day (if I'd had more than an hour I wouldn't have paid over 1%).
1. Did I unduly rush in making a decision - i.e. could I have taken feedback, had a vote etc to put the decision in other people's hands. I'd argue no to this - the time-scale was way too compressed for that.
2. If a decision HAD to be made quickly was the decision made correct? i.e. was lending the 400 BTC better than NOT lending it FOR DMS. I believe the answer to that is unequivocably yes.
I'm open to arguments on why either of the above is wrong - or why I've missed some basic point. One potential argument is definitely that DMS could have held out for more than 5%. But I KNOW that wouldn't have worked - as I deliberately offered the max I was willing to pay, precisely to avoid that scenario (had I wanted to do it on the cheap I could have just borrowed the cash without saying so or done it via DMS buying LTC-ATF.B2 at .35% per week). 5% was the MAX I was willing to pay for a loan for under a day (if I'd had more than an hour I wouldn't have paid over 1%).
It seems as though everything has turned out as it was supposed to and SELLING owners got a nice present.
I guess something that might come out of this is a vote could be put to asset holders as to whether this sort of thing can be allowed to happen in the future.
I admit if you were doing this every week I would start to feel that something was wrong. I acknowledge that you believe there were an unusual set of circumstances at play which justified taking such action.
And yes, anyone whose business plan is reselling BFL pre-orders sounds like a dickhead.
What I missed was that the IPO procedure wasn't the same as usual (it was all buried amongst pages of waffle).
Usually if X shares being sold at price Y then the issuer just places an Ask for Y shares at X and the top bids get filled. I was happily bidding assuming that to be the case. But that was NOT what was happenign - instead Y shares were being split evenly between all bids (over X) and all charged X each.
By time I noticed that it was under an hour until listed IPO time - plus there were majot issues with BTC-TC processing incoming tranbsactions (and no guaranteed enough blocks would be found anyway).
From my perspective I simply made a decision to give DMS 20 BTC to allow me to leverage my bid to buy what I would have bought anyway (or, as it turns out, slightly more - like 40 BTC worth more). The cash I spent wasa cash I'd already mentally spent anyway (and so written off - any time I invest with anyone other than myself I first consider whether I'm willing to treat is as a total loss : if not I don't invest). I think a lot of those complainign don't understand how the IPO worked and/or that the borrowed funds were (mainly) not ever going to ever do anything other than just sit in my wallet for a few hours. As it happens last minute bids were below what I projected so I ended up running 40 BTC into the loaned cash - but tbh that's just a rounding error (and I'd prefer to have overspent than underspent anyway).
Really it's a simple case of would SELLING investors want a free 20 BTC or not? With difficulty set to rise sharply even a total write-off wouldn't impact MINING.
EDIT: Fixed for drunken confusion between X and Y (they're next to one another on the keyboard - or at least on the same keyboard).
There's one more area where a potential conflict of interest could arise (unrelated to DMS) - between my personal orders and LTC-ATF. I avoid actual conflicts here by always placing LTC-ATF's orders ahead of my own.
So LTC-ATF and my own buy orders were on same price - but with LTC-ATF's first. And LTC-ATF already sold its shares off at .0025 (for a 150% profit) whilst when I tried to dump some at same price afterwards I got a lock error (loads of people trying to sell for a 150% profit I guess).
So LTC-ATF and my own buy orders were on same price - but with LTC-ATF's first. And LTC-ATF already sold its shares off at .0025 (for a 150% profit) whilst when I tried to dump some at same price afterwards I got a lock error (loads of people trying to sell for a 150% profit I guess).
Occurs to me that I still haven't properly addressed the 'conflict of interest' point. In theory one definitely existed - as I represented both myself and DMS when agreeing the loan. To determine whether it's a practical conflict of interest you have to consider two things:
1. Did I unduly rush in making a decision - i.e. could I have taken feedback, had a vote etc to put the decision in other people's hands. I'd argue no to this - the time-scale was way too compressed for that.
2. If a decision HAD to be made quickly was the decision made correct? i.e. was lending the 400 BTC better than NOT lending it FOR DMS. I believe the answer to that is unequivocably yes.
I'm open to arguments on why either of the above is wrong - or why I've missed some basic point. One potential argument is definitely that DMS could have held out for more than 5%. But I KNOW that wouldn't have worked - as I deliberately offered the max I was willing to pay, precisely to avoid that scenario (had I wanted to do it on the cheap I could have just borrowed the cash without saying so or done it via DMS buying LTC-ATF.B2 at .35% per week). 5% was the MAX I was willing to pay for a loan for under a day (if I'd had more than an hour I wouldn't have paid over 1%).
1. Did I unduly rush in making a decision - i.e. could I have taken feedback, had a vote etc to put the decision in other people's hands. I'd argue no to this - the time-scale was way too compressed for that.
2. If a decision HAD to be made quickly was the decision made correct? i.e. was lending the 400 BTC better than NOT lending it FOR DMS. I believe the answer to that is unequivocably yes.
I'm open to arguments on why either of the above is wrong - or why I've missed some basic point. One potential argument is definitely that DMS could have held out for more than 5%. But I KNOW that wouldn't have worked - as I deliberately offered the max I was willing to pay, precisely to avoid that scenario (had I wanted to do it on the cheap I could have just borrowed the cash without saying so or done it via DMS buying LTC-ATF.B2 at .35% per week). 5% was the MAX I was willing to pay for a loan for under a day (if I'd had more than an hour I wouldn't have paid over 1%).
It seems as though everything has turned out as it was supposed to and SELLING owners got a nice present.
I guess something that might come out of this is a vote could be put to asset holders as to whether this sort of thing can be allowed to happen in the future.
I admit if you were doing this every week I would start to feel that something was wrong. I acknowledge that you believe there were an unusual set of circumstances at play which justified taking such action.
And yes, anyone whose business plan is reselling BFL pre-orders sounds like a dickhead.
Occurs to me that I still haven't properly addressed the 'conflict of interest' point. In theory one definitely existed - as I represented both myself and DMS when agreeing the loan. To determine whether it's a practical conflict of interest you have to consider two things:
1. Did I unduly rush in making a decision - i.e. could I have taken feedback, had a vote etc to put the decision in other people's hands. I'd argue no to this - the time-scale was way too compressed for that.
2. If a decision HAD to be made quickly was the decision made correct? i.e. was lending the 400 BTC better than NOT lending it FOR DMS. I believe the answer to that is unequivocably yes.
I'm open to arguments on why either of the above is wrong - or why I've missed some basic point. One potential argument is definitely that DMS could have held out for more than 5%. But I KNOW that wouldn't have worked - as I deliberately offered the max I was willing to pay, precisely to avoid that scenario (had I wanted to do it on the cheap I could have just borrowed the cash without saying so or done it via DMS buying LTC-ATF.B2 at .35% per week). 5% was the MAX I was willing to pay for a loan for under a day (if I'd had more than an hour I wouldn't have paid over 1%).
1. Did I unduly rush in making a decision - i.e. could I have taken feedback, had a vote etc to put the decision in other people's hands. I'd argue no to this - the time-scale was way too compressed for that.
2. If a decision HAD to be made quickly was the decision made correct? i.e. was lending the 400 BTC better than NOT lending it FOR DMS. I believe the answer to that is unequivocably yes.
I'm open to arguments on why either of the above is wrong - or why I've missed some basic point. One potential argument is definitely that DMS could have held out for more than 5%. But I KNOW that wouldn't have worked - as I deliberately offered the max I was willing to pay, precisely to avoid that scenario (had I wanted to do it on the cheap I could have just borrowed the cash without saying so or done it via DMS buying LTC-ATF.B2 at .35% per week). 5% was the MAX I was willing to pay for a loan for under a day (if I'd had more than an hour I wouldn't have paid over 1%).
Just got stuck trying to work out some details of the Labcoin IPO. Turns out I was reading a LabRat thread (some dickhead reselling BFL pre-orders).
Okay that gave me a real laugh
Hey everybody! Deprived's human, come look!
Oh and I'm officially drunk.
Just got stuck trying to work out some details of the Labcoin IPO. Turns out I was reading a LabRat thread (some dickhead reselling BFL pre-orders).
Luckily it seems I sent the 350 BTC to the right place
Just got stuck trying to work out some details of the Labcoin IPO. Turns out I was reading a LabRat thread (some dickhead reselling BFL pre-orders).
Luckily it seems I sent the 350 BTC to the right place
While I appreciate your openness, I object your using DMS as your personal bank. There is a conflict of interest. Also, I'm concerned that you are becoming more like usagi, willing to take unnecessary risks with other people's money.
I'm too lazy to look it up: can you loan DMS money without investor approval?
I'm too lazy to look it up: can you loan DMS money without investor approval?
On the last point I can only loan funds to people approved by a vote of SELLING investors. Pre-approved such lendees are myself/burnside - any other exposure needs a vote to pass.
Looks like the sale went through, have transferred back 350 BTC, 70 BTC left. Could have transferred more but it would have cancelled bids. Will send back the other 70 btc in morning when I'm sober.
The accusation of being usagi-like hurts. Deeply. Please appreciate that my promises/guarantees aren't usagi-like ones (where 6 months later you haven't been paid - see Nyan.A where not only does he not pay what he promised he also keeps dividends from shares they already own). If I'd noticed this IPO a few hours earlier I could have moved 400 of my own BTC in no problem - but I noticed it under an hour before official IPO time so couldn't be at all confident of getting funds in from elsewhere on time (BTC-TC was timing out most of the time by then).
It's effectively a free 20 BTC for SELLING/PURCHASE. The amount is within what I can comfortably repay within a day even if the actual loan vanished. 5% per day seems a reasonable rate - by which I mean one that you can't really turn down when there's no default risk. I DO agree that I'm sort of stretching the bounds of the contract by doing it - as short-term loans were never the intention. But I'm not seeing who the victim is when there's no risk of default/delay (other than delay in IPO execution where extra interest would be paid).
Only 'risk' was if BTC-TC stole the funds (and everything else deposited there) - but in that situation DMS was no worse of as the cash would have been on BTC-TC anyway (though have to admit that particular scenario makes me shudder).
My overall strategy has always been to avoid risks - that's why I rarely invest (most BTC stocks are total shit - goof for flipping for a profit and leaving some sucker carrying the losses a year later). To believe what I did is somehow aginst DMS' interests you need to conclude TWO things:
1. That what I was doing could go wrong (this was definitely possible though unlikely)
2. That I'd have problems repaying 420 BTC if it DID go wrong.
The 2nd point is where the case against loses. If (as was the case) the IPO gos smoothly then total exposure is trivial anyway (under 100 BTC). Even if it went wrong 420 BTC is NOT an amount I'd need more than 24 hours to raise. That's why I dislike the usagi comparison - I don't say I'll pay something when I lack the funds to do so in a reasonable time-scale (i.e. days). My expecteed exposure on this was under 100 BTC - but even if burnside fucked up his script and the while 420 BTC got spent AND the share price crashed I'd just sell a few things and move 420 BTC in.
There's no scenario in which DMS could have bought the IPO shares itself. So the choice was between getting nothing and getting a safe 20 BTC. You COULD argue that 5% for a <24 hour loan was weak - but then you COULD argue that the moon is made of blue cheese. Conflict of interest? Well - think of it as I offered DMS 20 BTC to borrow 400 BTC for under a day. If I'd said NO I think that would have been a far worse decision for investors. There was under an hour to decide in - so a vote was out of the question (had it been much over an hour I'd have been confident of moving funds in from elsewhere).
I take the view that ignoring the possibility (because some people would be butt-hurt that I made some profit) would be far worse for investors than a 5% return for ~16 hours loan. But maybe you or someone else can explain to me how investors' interests would have been served by me saying no?
This sort of opportunity is VERY rare. I can only think of 3 IPOs in the last 6 months I'd have borrowed cash to buy into - and the other 2 I didn't need to as I spotted them early enough. This one got approved much faster than I expected AND with a strange IPO procedure (they left cash on the table so as to piss off ALL investors a bit rather than the cheap-skate ones a LOT). I decided I was happy to pay DMS 20 BTC to leverage my position - and that was allowed under the contract. Principle's fine - but turning down 20 BTC just because it's me? We lend 300 BTC to TradeFortress for under 30% per year. I don't have a clue what his name is, what assets he has etc. I know precisely what my name is - and what my assets are - but I should reject myself as a loan target because 'bitcoin'?
Having said all that I DO actually sort of agree with you. Problem I have is simply that although I know there was no risk to DMS there's no way I can prove that easily. All I can advise to investors is that if you think there's ANY risk (even a small one) that DMS investors could end up worse from making that loan than from not making it then you should NOT invest in ANY security I offer. The loan was taken on the basis of being a secured loan (that's the only basis on which it COULD be made by contract) - if you believe it wasn't properly secured then you should not trust me with ANYTHING.
Personally I can't see any scenario in which the loan wasn't repaid - other than if burnside stole everything deposited on BTC-TC in which case it would have been lost anyway. I just have too many sources I can pull relatively small BTC amounts from.
While I appreciate your openness, I object your using DMS as your personal bank. There is a conflict of interest. Also, I'm concerned that you are becoming more like usagi, willing to take unnecessary risks with other people's money.
I'm too lazy to look it up: can you loan DMS money without investor approval?
I'm too lazy to look it up: can you loan DMS money without investor approval?
What if you make a huge loss at IPO and are not able to pay back the 400 BTC loan and the daily 20 BTC interest?
this:To be clear, even if my personal J-D investment all vanished AND labcoin immediately scammed and their shares went to 0 the loan would be back before tomorrow's report.
Personally, I'll enjoy this bonus to the dividend! : )
Woke up to check my Asicminer dividend. Now today is like double-dividend day! Thanks, Deprived.
If it's not clear what the loan is being used for, it's being used to inflate a bid I make so I actually get to spend all (or msot of) my own funds. The loan itself isn't being spent (or not much of it - I can't tell for sure exactly how much excess demand there is).
My guess is it'll be around a 2.5:1 over-suscription on the IPO. So if I want to spend 100 BTC I have to put in 250 BTC of bids. I want to spend more than that - but can't get cash there in time to bid excessively - so am just borrowing so I can spend my OWN cash then return the loan soon as my order is partly filled. As it's possible the filling will run into the loan a bit I gave myself 24 hours - as I'm about to head out I won't be able to sort it anyway until tomorrow (will be drinking so not gonna risk moving significant sums around when I get back). At present there's bids for over 17 million shares with only 7 million available - and there'll be more bids going up all the time until the actual sale. So I may STILL not get to buy all I planned to anyway.
My guess is it'll be around a 2.5:1 over-suscription on the IPO. So if I want to spend 100 BTC I have to put in 250 BTC of bids. I want to spend more than that - but can't get cash there in time to bid excessively - so am just borrowing so I can spend my OWN cash then return the loan soon as my order is partly filled. As it's possible the filling will run into the loan a bit I gave myself 24 hours - as I'm about to head out I won't be able to sort it anyway until tomorrow (will be drinking so not gonna risk moving significant sums around when I get back). At present there's bids for over 17 million shares with only 7 million available - and there'll be more bids going up all the time until the actual sale. So I may STILL not get to buy all I planned to anyway.
Deprived,
There are many people who would pay 5 btc for an emergency loan of 400btc to get in a hot and oversubscribed IPO. As fund manager, you should not treat the fund as your personal piggy bank. I think you have to be very careful about the conflict of interest between your fundholders interests and your personal financial interests. I'm sure you have convinced yourself that this is fair, but from the outside it looks very much like self dealing.
I believe you should have done this investment either completely with your own money, or given the fundholders benefit from the inevitable trading gain. (17000 bitcoins chasing a 7000 btc allocation will lead to inevitable stock price IPO jump).
Please consider doing the right thing and share the wealth, less management fee, with your fundholders.
-helixone
No gain is inevitable - what would happen if the ipo sold out, dms invested heavily then tbey vanished and the price fell to 0? You can't get the gains without takung the risks. If the ipo is a scam this way I personally take the hit. Dms cant take it bevause mining dont gain from investment so no investment or risk can be taken which coyld jeopardise them.
If you're personally willing to escrow 420 btc in case it gos wrong then nect time we'll do it that way and dms can habe the profits without the risk. Until then if I take the risk I get the profit. Sure I likely make 500+ btc on this but I also risk losing a decent chunk. if you think that risk can be ignored then feel free to sort out escrow - heck I have plenty more 'risk free' things you can cover if you want. Sorry if this comes off as harsh or ride but tbh if you wont cover the 420 btc if it gos wrong then perhaps you should reconsider expecting me to (having had a few beers I'm proud of how restrained I was there).
There are many people who would pay 5 btc for an emergency loan of 400btc
He paid 20.I disagree with your line of reasoning.
As long as he's able to pay back, then I see no problem with him doing anything he deems safe, if that increases the value of the fund.
If it's not clear what the loan is being used for, it's being used to inflate a bid I make so I actually get to spend all (or msot of) my own funds. The loan itself isn't being spent (or not much of it - I can't tell for sure exactly how much excess demand there is).
My guess is it'll be around a 2.5:1 over-suscription on the IPO. So if I want to spend 100 BTC I have to put in 250 BTC of bids. I want to spend more than that - but can't get cash there in time to bid excessively - so am just borrowing so I can spend my OWN cash then return the loan soon as my order is partly filled. As it's possible the filling will run into the loan a bit I gave myself 24 hours - as I'm about to head out I won't be able to sort it anyway until tomorrow (will be drinking so not gonna risk moving significant sums around when I get back). At present there's bids for over 17 million shares with only 7 million available - and there'll be more bids going up all the time until the actual sale. So I may STILL not get to buy all I planned to anyway.
My guess is it'll be around a 2.5:1 over-suscription on the IPO. So if I want to spend 100 BTC I have to put in 250 BTC of bids. I want to spend more than that - but can't get cash there in time to bid excessively - so am just borrowing so I can spend my OWN cash then return the loan soon as my order is partly filled. As it's possible the filling will run into the loan a bit I gave myself 24 hours - as I'm about to head out I won't be able to sort it anyway until tomorrow (will be drinking so not gonna risk moving significant sums around when I get back). At present there's bids for over 17 million shares with only 7 million available - and there'll be more bids going up all the time until the actual sale. So I may STILL not get to buy all I planned to anyway.
Deprived,
There are many people who would pay 5 btc for an emergency loan of 400btc to get in a hot and oversubscribed IPO. As fund manager, you should not treat the fund as your personal piggy bank. I think you have to be very careful about the conflict of interest between your fundholders interests and your personal financial interests. I'm sure you have convinced yourself that this is fair, but from the outside it looks very much like self dealing.
I believe you should have done this investment either completely with your own money, or given the fundholders benefit from the inevitable trading gain. (17000 bitcoins chasing a 7000 btc allocation will lead to inevitable stock price IPO jump).
Please consider doing the right thing and share the wealth, less management fee, with your fundholders.
-helixone
At the pub at moment so can't access btctc acccounts - they use yubikey which doesn't work on my mobile. Looks like ipo hasnt actually happened yet. If it happens to take longer than a day for burnside to sort whatever the delay is then obviously I'll pay 20 btc per day interest. Looks like guitarist has replaced the broken string (only reason I bothrred checking) so back to beer & music for me.
I think it's clear that he will have it paid back in time. Especially because ~65% won't even be sunk into LC due to the share distribution method they're using.
Jump to: