Topic: [BTC-TC] Deprived Mining Speculation (DMS) - page 77. (Read 198958 times)

You seriously need to implement some automation. While you think the load may not necessitate it, it sucks waiting hours for shares to be transferred back and watching the opportunity to profit pass by before your eyes.

And on that note, do your transfers, man! 

Ooh ok, that makes sense, then, thanks again for the explanation.

Think you're misunderstanding what I mean by secured loans.

You want to borrow 100 BTC?
You transfer to me 150 BTC worth of securities first.
If you default or their value drops below 110 BTC then I sell them and get our money back.

That's what happens with most of Coinlender's loans now - collateral is required.

Returns wouldn't be much more from private loans anyway.  But I'm totally averse to us exposing a large part of capital to any single counter-party.  I have no reason to distrust TF (if I did then we wouldn't be invested there at all) but at same time I can never have absolute certainty about anyone else's reliability.  And the fund CAN'T expose too much to one party because we then run into the situation where a default becomes likely to impact MINING - who have no vote and, generally, gain no benefit when everything gos well.  So even with very low-risk investments we MUST maintain diversity in any exposure other than to myself/burnside (which MINING holders explicitly accepted by buying into DMS in the first place).

So nope - maximum investment target for any single CP remains 20%.

I will, however, take out a new CD after difficulty rise assuming there's sufficient capital to do so.

I don't see how could we enforce such a loan, in case the borrower defaults.

On Coinlenders TradeFortress covers the defaults himself, and due to the high volume the change that a substantial amount of loans will default at once is very small.

Hence, for this to be interesting, we would need to ask for a very high interest rate, better than what we would earn depositing at Coinlenders.
I have no idea how much Coinlenders asks his borrowers, so making comparisons isn't quite easy.

I'm not comfortable going over 20% with ANY single investment - so whilst I fully intend to put more in CL it won't go over that.

Issue with J-D is that it can lose as well as win - though the likelihood of significant losses for us is pretty minimal (someone would have to hit a bunch of very unlikely wins or risk a lot of BTC repeatedly).  Occasionally our investment there is going to take a 1-2% loss but I don't see any real risk of large losses in any short period.  At present we're up about 7% on our investment there - statistically we should only be up about 3-4%.  If there's significant interest then I'm fine with putting up a vote to increase our investment there to 20% (it's currently under 10% but would be adjusted up to around 10% after next difficulty change).

yeah I like LTC-ATF.B2  too but it would be a bit silly for DMS to absorb most of LTC-ATF.B2

Honestly I would rather provide more BTC to coinlenders rather than deal with providing secured loans directly.

That does seem kind of low, especially if there's no backing information. I'd be more open to LTC-ATF.B2 if there was more than 50BTC opportunity to invest in it.

I would like for DMS.SELLING to invest a bit more, either in J-D, CL, or another avenue - I like the idea of secured loans as long as they're not too much trouble for you to set up and maintain.

If SELLING holders want me to invest more I will.  But that needs two things:

1.  Proposed investments.
2.  A vote approving them.

If cash continues to rise then I already intend to take out a new Coinlenders CD - 2 weeks after previous one started so as to give best possible spread on maturity dates.

Just-Dice there was opposition to investing more than 10%.  In fact we're doing very well there (someone lost a 640 BTC not long back which means we made nearly 3 BTC there today).  I plan to send a top up there after next difficulty change (once we know what capital left will be after that).

There's no more LTC-ATF.B1 available at face value or near.  LTC-ATF.B2 is being approved so I could take some of that - but there's not going to be a lot of that issued initially anyway.

Other options we have are :

Namworld's BTC-Bond on BTC-TC.  That only pays 0.03% per day (.21% per week, not much over 10% per year) - so I've been reluctant to propose it as it's so low and I can't anywhere find details of what assets currently back it.

Graet's loan on Bitfunder.  Pays a decent rate and he has a good rep but problem with it I'm not convinced it's properly backed.  The funds are largely being used to replace BTC stolen from the mining pool he runs - so any time he pays out he has to borrow back money that isn't even his.  And if there are mass withdrawals from the pool then the backing for the bond vanishes and he has to borrow from somewhere else to payout any bond-holders who want to cash out.  Other stated use was to buy servers - which are obviously valued in fiat and so not appropriate to be the backing for a BTC-denominated bond.  Whilst I don't doubt his willingness and good intentions to pay I'm sceptical of his ability to do so if something gos wrong.  For me to trust funds to someone I need to be convinced not just that they're honest and well-intentioned but also that they have the capability to fulfil their end of the deal even if there are significant problems.  I'm not convinced of that with Graet.Loan.

Other option is doing secured loans ourself (this was mentioned in the contract and would be fine).  Basic terms would be:

We'd only do secured loans.
Loans would have to be secured by providing collateral to us - in the form of solid securities - with a value significantly in excess of the loan value.
We'd charge a pretty low rate - reflecting the very low level of risk to us.  Something like a 1% setup fee then .1% per day.
Loans would be small ones (10-100 BTC).  Micro loans (under 10 BTC) aren't worth the hassle and we don't have the capital to do medium (100s) or large (1000s) ones.

I'm fine with doing that - but do SELLING holders want me to?  Feed-back welcome - don't worry about the details just whether you'd like it done in principle.  Before any loans would be made a contract for borrowers would need to be approved by SELLING (and so would the securities we'd accept as collateral).

Let's not get greedy. The assets do not have to be invested in order for your DMS investment to make money.

The amount of BTC just sitting there in cash form is still kind of high, any chance you could spend more on investments?

Sold   297
Swapped   0
Total   297
Price   0.049083
Total   14.577651
Less Fee   14.5484957
Man Fee   0.436454871

BTC Balance (BTC-TC)   1191.387766
13100 LTC-ATF.B1    131.00000000
Coinlenders CD    201.09903051
Just-Dice Balance    104.17936680
TOTAL ASSETS    1,627.66616302
   
Outstanding MINING   34227
Outstanding SELLING   34227
Outstanding PURCHASE   568
Effective Units   34795
   
Block reward   25
Difficulty   21,335,329
Hashes per MINING   5000000
   
Daily Dividend    0.00011786
50 days (Min Liquid)    0.00589288
100 days (Forced Close)    0.01178577
365 days (Buyback)    0.04301806
405 days (IPO)    0.04773236
400 days (Post SELLING div)    0.04714308
410 days (Pre SELLING div)    0.04832165
   
NAV Post MINING Div    1,623.56530471
NAV/U Post MINING Div    0.04666088
Days Dividend Post Div   395.91
SELLING Dividend    -         
NAV Post SELLING Div    1,623.56530471
NAV/U Post Selling Div    0.04666088
PURCHASE selling price    0.04899392
PURCHASE buy-back price    0.04572766

LTC-ATF.B1 dividend received and converted back to BTC.

0.797266 BTC this week (less than last week as we sold off some of them).

The graph they use is from bitcoin.sipa.be yes, but the network hashrate statistic they list isn't (as it's getting updated) and the same is true for their difficulty estimate.

An alternative source for difficulty prediction is allchains.info. They use a different computation for the expected difficulty.

Unfortunately bitcoincharts takes its graph from sipa.be - so is also out of date on that.  And yeah, bitcoincharts seems to work on a rolling average - so early on in a period it's still mainly using data from the previous difficulty so tends to underestimate change (in an environment of increasing difficulty).

bitcoin.sipa.be hasn't been updating recently.

I keep http://bitcoincharts.com/bitcoin/ open; it has various stats including the expected next difficulty (the calculation algorithm estimates too low early in the round though and the estimate moves closer to the final value as the readjustment approaches) and network hashrate.

There are various places to get numbers. Here is a popular source: http://bitcoin.sipa.be

Got to say Deprived your fund is the most interesting and fun in btct
Any bets  if all of us understand it completely by the fund closure?  

another question: By which amount of TH/s  the Total Hashrate  has increased since the 30th of june  on average?

Is there any link or is someone able to answer it? :-)

best regards
Alex