Topic: [CLOSED] S.DICE - SatoshiDICE 100% Dividend-Paying Asset on MPEx - page 70. (Read 316363 times)

Look at the accounts.  10% MPEx dividend.
Look at the dividend paid on MPEx - 10% of profits.

Before today only 10 million were active (let alone traded) on MPEx.

Yes. I believe the statement refers to just that. And would be priced accordingly to the split and average price of the time. The first doesn't say issuance is impossible, just not in a way that would dilute existing shareholders.

I don't see any statement that only 10 million are trading on MPEx. Plus shares can be delisted from an exchange or relisted. It does not constitute share issuance. To issue more shares, you have to authorize new ones and deliver them, or deliver authorized shares that were never given to the public.

Stepping back from the contract issue briefly - yes, they represent great value at that price. 

But getting back to the contract issue, contracts have to be adhered to - whether or not the breach gives good value to new investors.

There's a difference between creating/issuing shares in a company in the abstract and actually issuing them on an exchange.

You need to look at the two sentences together:

"The representatives of SatoshiDice solemnly promise and warrant never to issue more shares on any other venue nor in any way to dilute existing shareholders at any point in the future. All future share issuance will be made only a) subject to approval by MPEx and b) at a price no less than the higher of the 1 day average price and the 30 day average price then current on MPEx ; "

The first sentence explicitly prevents authorising or issuing more than 100 million shares (as, by definition that would dilute).
Are you seriously claiming that the second sentence then defines the price at which shares which have just been defined as impossible to create can be sold?

Yes - in theory more shares COULD be created by a split.  But the pricing can't apply to that due to the very nature of a split.

If 100 million shares had been created on MPEx, 90 million of them given to evoorhees to do what he wanted with and 10 million sold then I'd agree with you.  But that's not what happened.

10 million shares were issued on MPEx representing entitlements in respect of 10 million underlying off-exchange shares.  Issuing new MPEx shares in an action seperate to changing the underlying shares - and the only act to which the second sentence can logically apply.

I repeat: Give a scenario that is otherwise in accordance with the contract where you believe the pricing restriction would apply?

5 million? I thought it was only 1 million more?!

look guys -- SD just had a record dividend, and now they are selling at a massive discount
these shares at .0044 have a zero-growth yield of 4.3% per month, which is 66% p.a., with compounding
the profits are growing at double digits per *month*

BUY BUY BUY

An authorized share is a share that does not get dividends as it is not held privately (funding shares). S.DICE shares cannot be issued again, they already were. If they were issued, it would dilute the others share out of dividends. There are more shares now trading on MPEx. That's it. I don't consider it share issuance/dilution. 100 million shares were issued of which 100 millions were issued to evoorhees. He then sold 10 million on MPEx. He's now selling 5 million more.

I believe the issuance statement is meant to say than 100 million are to be issued on MPEx or on anywhere else, which would dilute the 100 million already being issued on MPEx.

I don't even see any statement claiming there's only 10 millions shares trading on MPEx. Only that 10 million would be placed for sale out of 100 million being created.

Yeah that would - but is pretty irrelevant to what we're discussing and would be rather suicidal given the pricing restriction

I'm just playing devil's advocate here, but wouldn't a stock split be a way to create new shares without dilution?

Simple challenge to those who disagree with my explanation of the contract.

Give a scenario in which that pricing restriction would apply without the contract being broken (by, for example, dilution).

I was referring to 20% of the 1M shares at .0044 -- the others will be priced higher.

Plus they weren't "gobbled up" - a lot of them were sold into existing orders when the block was put up.  That's not gobbling up it's force-feeding.

New ones can't be created AT ALL as that would dilute - which is strictly banned.  So rather obviously the pricing restriction can't apply to that.

A pricing restriction can ONLY apply to the issuance of shares as active - shares that are authorised but unissued (and even ones in treasury but unlisted for that matter) don't have a price as they aren't transacted.  A pricing restriction can only apply to when shares are put up for sale - as that's the only time they actually have a price.

Now why would the second part be there if the first part explicitly said there wont be any more dilution?

the contract states: "The representatives of SatoshiDice solemnly promise and warrant never to issue more shares on any other venue nor in any way to dilute existing shareholders at any point in the future. All future share issuance will be made only a) subject to approval by MPEx and b) at a price no less than the higher of the 1 day average price and the 30 day average price then current on MPEx ; "

-no new shares were issued on another venue
-shareholders were not diluted
-no new shares were issued

during the ipo, 100 million shares were issued, with 90% remaining among private investors and 10% being sold on mpex. now another 5% are being sold on mpex. no more than 50% of the total shares will ever be sold on mpex.

that is how i understand the contract.

20% of the new offering has already been gobbled up, so I doubt the shares will be devalued for much longer...

This !

That second part could still refer to regulating the issuance of new shares (more than the 100mil that exist), no?

The line is at whether the terms refer to shares that are new and added to the general total, or merely new to MPEX.

Now explain the second sentence.

The private stakes in the company were NOT held as part of the issue made on MPEx.  They can be privately traded however their owners want - it's totally irrelevant to those holding MPEx shares.  The second ssentence referred to the means by which additional shares could be issued on MPEx - which is what happened here.

You're about the third person to quote that sentence - which noones disputes the meaning of - whilst totally ignoring "All future share issuance will be made only a) subject to approval by MPEx and b) at a price no less than the higher of the 1 day average price and the 30 day average price then current on MPEx ; " which is the bit in question.

That refers to issuance on MPEx (issuance on other exchanges is barred and the contract is silent on the private off-exchange ownership of the remaining 90% of the profit stream).

100 million shares were authorised.
10 million were issued on MPEx.
The other 90 million couldn't be issued on an exchange other than MPEx, COULD be privately issued off-exchange and could only be issued on MPEx in compliance with the defined pricing policy.

It's not THAT hard to understand.

A share actively held by an a private individual are already issued.


I take that statement as never issuing more shares elsewhere or diluting shares. Each share still own 1/100,000,000th of SatoshiDice and are thus not diluted at all.

That is the distinction between share dilution, versus share devaluation caused by a large amount being put for sale at cheaper than market price.