Topic: [BTC-TC] S.MPOE / S.BBET Pass-throughs - page 4. (Read 22171 times)
I have now added a link to MPEx receipt in the pass-through details page, signed to the same key ID that signed the statement in the issuer's details, as well as in this thread's op.
What I don't understand in all this is...can the asset owner just create more shares?
On BTC.CO/LTC Global there's no way for an asset owner to create new shares - it currently has to be done manually by burnside.
Personally as everything I run is either a bond or a fund (a pass-through is really a fund where the assets are 1 share of the underlieing per unit sold) I just created them with an arbitrary huge number of shares: the number authorised doesn't matter (much) practically for bonds/funds, just the number sold. For stocks obviously it's different - but a pass-through to a stock is NOT a stock (shares/units in it have no direct rights in respect of the underlieing asset). Having said that I listed the pass-throughs to BBET and DICE as stocks - because that's how most investors will think of them and their behaviour will seem as though they're stocks in nearly all circumstances.
Looks like namworld follows a similar policy - with 1,000,000 shares created for each of his pass-throughs.
Indeed, it is convenient to leave room to grow. Prevents Burnside from having to constantly update the amount available.
And damn, I hadn't realized you were running the same on LTC-GLOBAL with the exact same names for BBET & DICE.
What I don't understand in all this is...can the asset owner just create more shares?
On BTC.CO/LTC Global there's no way for an asset owner to create new shares - it currently has to be done manually by burnside.
Personally as everything I run is either a bond or a fund (a pass-through is really a fund where the assets are 1 share of the underlieing per unit sold) I just created them with an arbitrary huge number of shares: the number authorised doesn't matter (much) practically for bonds/funds, just the number sold. For stocks obviously it's different - but a pass-through to a stock is NOT a stock (shares/units in it have no direct rights in respect of the underlieing asset). Having said that I listed the pass-throughs to BBET and DICE as stocks - because that's how most investors will think of them and their behaviour will seem as though they're stocks in nearly all circumstances.
Looks like namworld follows a similar policy - with 1,000,000 shares created for each of his pass-throughs.
What I don't understand in all this is...can the asset owner just create more shares?
This was not actually the case, I ran the numbers to check if there were any naked shares and if so how many.
In fact I had 940k shares in my account but I had only issued 933k shares. The 240k shares purchased in the first batch was enough to cover the newly issued shares.
Hence all shares were covered at all times, as I received criticism for the potential of naked shares, I will make sure that all shares are cover.
//DeaDTerra
In fact I had 940k shares in my account but I had only issued 933k shares. The 240k shares purchased in the first batch was enough to cover the newly issued shares.
Hence all shares were covered at all times, as I received criticism for the potential of naked shares, I will make sure that all shares are cover.
//DeaDTerra
As long as you go to cover the shares right away a naked sale to take advantage of overpricing on another exchange should be fine. I would actually expect it.
There is a S.Dice passthrough already on BTCT.co, GSDPT. Exactly the same 5% fee as well.
I agree, doesn't make much sense. BTCT seems to be the best exchange these days, hopefully the majority of assets will end up on it.
Why doesn't it make sense?
That's like saying "There's already a 1 MH/s fixed-rate bond on exchange X".
It's good for everyone other than the operator of the existing pass-through. More fees for the exchange, potential profit for namworld and competition which usually helps investors.
The 5% fee may be the same - but they can compete on availabilty and pricing of the actual shares. Only danger is that competition could increase the extent to which naked shares are sold - in an attempt to get market shares by taking risks and breaking their contracts. DeadTerra has acknowledged that he's selling unbacked share with the plan to then cover them - something that has risk associated with it (if the price then rises sharply and he can't personally afford to cover the difference). It's the only way he can realistically try to meet the demand with these new batches being sold - but is a potential disaster if something gos wrong (e,g, he loses his net connection for a few hours around the time the batch is released).
Actually, when speaking to him earlier, I think he said he only briefly thought he accidentally naked shorted. He did in fact have the shares to cover everything he sold for both sites.
The ones he sold tonight on both sites are largely naked - he's intending to cover them when evorhees releases the next batch in an hour's time. Or that's what he said when I asked about it in his thread.
My point wasn't so much about that - as that one effect of competition is potentially to increase risk-taking (which in the case of pass-throughs means selling naked in the expectation of being able to buy coverage cheap). Aside from that, competition is good for investors - as pass-through operators can't then get away with leaving up overpriced offers (NOT an accusation against DT - just a general point).
In fact I had 940k shares in my account but I had only issued 933k shares. The 240k shares purchased in the first batch was enough to cover the newly issued shares.
Hence all shares were covered at all times, as I received criticism for the potential of naked shares, I will make sure that all shares are cover.
//DeaDTerra
DeadTerra has acknowledged that he's selling unbacked share with the plan to then cover them - something that has risk associated with it (if the price then rises sharply and he can't personally afford to cover the difference). It's the only way he can realistically try to meet the demand with these new batches being sold - but is a potential disaster if something gos wrong (e,g, he loses his net connection for a few hours around the time the batch is released).
This indeed sounds dangerous and unwise. BTC financials are still very volatile, and prices can move significantly in minutes.
I have placed a block of 44k S.DICE-PT at their sale price in tomorrow's slice.
I've added some details on the PTs pages as per suggestions/comments.
Fair enough.
The security listed on the exchange is the pass-through NOT the underlying asset.
If you see two newsagents in the same street do you complain because they sell the same newspapers?
Two people selling exactly the same thing is the very essence of competition - the product is the same, so they have to compete on price/service.
How is competition bad?
Because you are essentially listing the exact same security on the exact same exchange.
The security listed on the exchange is the pass-through NOT the underlying asset.
If you see two newsagents in the same street do you complain because they sell the same newspapers?
Two people selling exactly the same thing is the very essence of competition - the product is the same, so they have to compete on price/service.
How is competition bad?
Because you are essentially listing the exact same security on the exact same exchange.
The security listed on the exchange is the pass-through NOT the underlying asset.
If you see two newsagents in the same street do you complain because they sell the same newspapers?
Two people selling exactly the same thing is the very essence of competition - the product is the same, so they have to compete on price/service.
How is competition bad?
Because you are essentially listing the exact same security on the exact same exchange.
I agree, doesn't make much sense. BTCT seems to be the best exchange these days, hopefully the majority of assets will end up on it.
Why doesn't it make sense?
That's like saying "There's already a 1 MH/s fixed-rate bond on exchange X".
It's good for everyone other than the operator of the existing pass-through. More fees for the exchange, potential profit for namworld and competition which usually helps investors.
The 5% fee may be the same - but they can compete on availabilty and pricing of the actual shares. Only danger is that competition could increase the extent to which naked shares are sold - in an attempt to get market shares by taking risks and breaking their contracts. DeadTerra has acknowledged that he's selling unbacked share with the plan to then cover them - something that has risk associated with it (if the price then rises sharply and he can't personally afford to cover the difference). It's the only way he can realistically try to meet the demand with these new batches being sold - but is a potential disaster if something gos wrong (e,g, he loses his net connection for a few hours around the time the batch is released).
There is a S.Dice passthrough already on BTCT.co, GSDPT. Exactly the same 5% fee as well.
I agree, doesn't make much sense. BTCT seems to be the best exchange these days, hopefully the majority of assets will end up on it.
Why doesn't it make sense?
That's like saying "There's already a 1 MH/s fixed-rate bond on exchange X".
It's good for everyone other than the operator of the existing pass-through. More fees for the exchange, potential profit for namworld and competition which usually helps investors.
The 5% fee may be the same - but they can compete on availabilty and pricing of the actual shares. Only danger is that competition could increase the extent to which naked shares are sold - in an attempt to get market shares by taking risks and breaking their contracts. DeadTerra has acknowledged that he's selling unbacked share with the plan to then cover them - something that has risk associated with it (if the price then rises sharply and he can't personally afford to cover the difference). It's the only way he can realistically try to meet the demand with these new batches being sold - but is a potential disaster if something gos wrong (e,g, he loses his net connection for a few hours around the time the batch is released).
There is a S.Dice passthrough already on BTCT.co, GSDPT. Exactly the same 5% fee as well.
I agree, doesn't make much sense. BTCT seems to be the best exchange these days, hopefully the majority of assets will end up on it.
Why doesn't it make sense?
That's like saying "There's already a 1 MH/s fixed-rate bond on exchange X".
It's good for everyone other than the operator of the existing pass-through. More fees for the exchange, potential profit for namworld and competition which usually helps investors.
The 5% fee may be the same - but they can compete on availabilty and pricing of the actual shares. Only danger is that competition could increase the extent to which naked shares are sold - in an attempt to get market shares by taking risks and breaking their contracts. DeadTerra has acknowledged that he's selling unbacked share with the plan to then cover them - something that has risk associated with it (if the price then rises sharply and he can't personally afford to cover the difference). It's the only way he can realistically try to meet the demand with these new batches being sold - but is a potential disaster if something gos wrong (e,g, he loses his net connection for a few hours around the time the batch is released).
Actually, when speaking to him earlier, I think he said he only briefly thought he accidentally naked shorted. He did in fact have the shares to cover everything he sold for both sites.
The ones he sold tonight on both sites are largely naked - he's intending to cover them when evorhees releases the next batch in an hour's time. Or that's what he said when I asked about it in his thread.
My point wasn't so much about that - as that one effect of competition is potentially to increase risk-taking (which in the case of pass-throughs means selling naked in the expectation of being able to buy coverage cheap). Aside from that, competition is good for investors - as pass-through operators can't then get away with leaving up overpriced offers (NOT an accusation against DT - just a general point).
There is a S.Dice passthrough already on BTCT.co, GSDPT. Exactly the same 5% fee as well.
I agree, doesn't make much sense. BTCT seems to be the best exchange these days, hopefully the majority of assets will end up on it.
Why doesn't it make sense?
That's like saying "There's already a 1 MH/s fixed-rate bond on exchange X".
It's good for everyone other than the operator of the existing pass-through. More fees for the exchange, potential profit for namworld and competition which usually helps investors.
The 5% fee may be the same - but they can compete on availabilty and pricing of the actual shares. Only danger is that competition could increase the extent to which naked shares are sold - in an attempt to get market shares by taking risks and breaking their contracts. DeadTerra has acknowledged that he's selling unbacked share with the plan to then cover them - something that has risk associated with it (if the price then rises sharply and he can't personally afford to cover the difference). It's the only way he can realistically try to meet the demand with these new batches being sold - but is a potential disaster if something gos wrong (e,g, he loses his net connection for a few hours around the time the batch is released).
Actually, when speaking to him earlier, I think he said he only briefly thought he accidentally naked shorted. He did in fact have the shares to cover everything he sold for both sites.
There is a S.Dice passthrough already on BTCT.co, GSDPT. Exactly the same 5% fee as well.
I agree, doesn't make much sense. BTCT seems to be the best exchange these days, hopefully the majority of assets will end up on it.
Why doesn't it make sense?
That's like saying "There's already a 1 MH/s fixed-rate bond on exchange X".
It's good for everyone other than the operator of the existing pass-through. More fees for the exchange, potential profit for namworld and competition which usually helps investors.
The 5% fee may be the same - but they can compete on availabilty and pricing of the actual shares. Only danger is that competition could increase the extent to which naked shares are sold - in an attempt to get market shares by taking risks and breaking their contracts. DeadTerra has acknowledged that he's selling unbacked share with the plan to then cover them - something that has risk associated with it (if the price then rises sharply and he can't personally afford to cover the difference). It's the only way he can realistically try to meet the demand with these new batches being sold - but is a potential disaster if something gos wrong (e,g, he loses his net connection for a few hours around the time the batch is released).
There is a S.Dice passthrough already on BTCT.co, GSDPT. Exactly the same 5% fee as well.
I agree, doesn't make much sense. BTCT seems to be the best exchange these days, hopefully the majority of assets will end up on it.
There is a S.Dice passthrough already on BTCT.co, GSDPT. Exactly the same 5% fee as well.
Just had a quick look - think you may have misunderstood one of the NO votes.
You say:
"For those asking about what happen if issuer shuts down the asset, I would not
do anything. It's a simple pass-through for those who don't have an account on
MPEx. As already stated in the contract."
It may be that what they want to see in your contract is that if the issuer does a liquidation/forced buyback then you'd pass through all funds received from that to shareholders in the pass-through. As such funds aren't dividends they aren't covered at all in your contract.
Alternatively it could be that whoever voted that NO wants to know what will happen if YOU shut down the pass-through (I assume you'd sell shares on MPEx then distribute the proceeds without taking a fee). Wasn't me who voted - so don't know for sure which of these two was being asked.
You may also want to add info on your pricing policy. Say you buy shares at 1 BTC each, do you then sell them at 1 BTC, 1.1 BTC or what? If price then falls on MPEx to 0.5 do you then relist the shares you bought for 1.0 and 0.5? i.e. do you sell at the price you bought at or track MPEx prices?
You say:
"For those asking about what happen if issuer shuts down the asset, I would not
do anything. It's a simple pass-through for those who don't have an account on
MPEx. As already stated in the contract."
It may be that what they want to see in your contract is that if the issuer does a liquidation/forced buyback then you'd pass through all funds received from that to shareholders in the pass-through. As such funds aren't dividends they aren't covered at all in your contract.
Alternatively it could be that whoever voted that NO wants to know what will happen if YOU shut down the pass-through (I assume you'd sell shares on MPEx then distribute the proceeds without taking a fee). Wasn't me who voted - so don't know for sure which of these two was being asked.
You may also want to add info on your pricing policy. Say you buy shares at 1 BTC each, do you then sell them at 1 BTC, 1.1 BTC or what? If price then falls on MPEx to 0.5 do you then relist the shares you bought for 1.0 and 0.5? i.e. do you sell at the price you bought at or track MPEx prices?
Quote
You may claim your S.MPOE and S.BBET on coinbr
https://coinbr.com/btct/nampt_1
https://coinbr.com/btct/nampt_1
Hello,
This shall serve as the official thread for them.
Current pass-throughs:
S.BBET-PT
S.MPOE-PT
Currently being reviewed on BTCT.co:
None
MPEx Receipt: http://namcdn.com/mpex-statement.txt
Fee taken is set to 5%.
Regards.
Jump to: