Topic: [CLOSED] S.DICE - SatoshiDICE 100% Dividend-Paying Asset on MPEx - page 94. (Read 316363 times)

Wouldn't the price of 1 GSDPT be higher then, because a) it is easier to buy and b) it is fully backed by S.DICE?

Each GSDPT is backed by 1 S.DICE and you can received one 1 S.DICE in trade for 1 GSDPT
I can't of course control the price but it should controls it self pretty well. I will also offer more share when I get to chance to buy more.
//DeaDTerra

As you all know: "Past performance is not an indication of future performance"
Do not forget to update this thread when you have to cough up a fat payment and PE jumps at the other direction.

 

How will you ensure it remains the same?

Exactly the same
//DeaDTerra

How closely will the price of the GLBSE pass through follow the S.DICE price?

Just wanted to remind everyone that the first batch of S.DICE goes out in less than six hours.

Also, the GLBSE pass-through (GSDPT) opens in ~2 hours. GLBSE is back online too.

UPDATED STATS (Aug 24)

When the IPO was announced about 6 days ago, the P/E ratio was 10x.  Some people said that was too high of a valuation and we've been debating this as is proper.

I updated the stats today to reflect the past week of numbers, as well as added a new metric showing P/E based on past 30 days (not based on all time performance).

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Aiec3-Eo_yO5dG5SQklHZG4wRm1GMW9DRWpMMW5UQkE#gid=0

Current P/E based on all-time performance:  8.79x
Current P/E based on past 30 days performance:  4.72x

Thus, if SatoshiDICE remains flat from here, and neither grows nor shrinks in usage from actual past 30 days' performance, it's priced at a 4.72x multiple. Annual dividend yield of IPO prices is 21.20%

I can't stress enough that all these numbers are based on actual real-life performance, they are not wild-eyed estimates of possible future growth figures, etc. I think it will be hard to continue to argue that this asset is priced unreasonably.

I follow your resoning here. It seems to me it would make sense to work on contract template for bitcoin issues along this, with the goal arrive at an ISDA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISDA_Master_Agreement alternative.

Doesn't anybody finds this funny? A person who runs a porn site (underage, gore etc.), it is talking about security and morality in this forums.

I'm not quoting the "random other participant to the discussion". What made you think that?

I'm not at liberty to discuss what the strategy of MPEx is. The fact that I generously went out of my way to find you a reference from the actual owner for a side point raised here is nice of me. The fact that you seem to think you have the standing or authority to attack what the one person with standing and authority says on a subject is... well... kinda silly.


Copyright is a right. The notion that rights depend on courts to exist is a little more of the same "we've grown up in a paradigm we can't really leave" issue. So: milk is not milk because "government" says so, and rights do not exist because of the courts. Quite the contrary: the courts are one of many things flowing from the existence of rights.

Furthermore, 4.2 does not rule out courts. 4.2 rules out the pretension of some courts to modify private contracts. They are still held to enforce private contracts, as written. In short, 4.2 only rules out improper courts.

But yes, thank you for noticing that the first time someone wrote an actual contract for a BTC security it was not one of the citizen-finance people hanging out on this forum. This in spite of the fact that they've been going around wrecking the notion of BTC finance for over a year, to the degree that most people (and even most of them themselves!) regard such a thing with incredulity today. Go pay a royalty and use it in your own stuff, you'll be better off.

This is primarily so that shareholders do not try to claim some right to use the brand. In other words, shareholders should not be under the impression that they can use the SD name/brand/etc without permission.

There is a disconnect between the last two points of the contract: 4.2 rules out courts and 4.3 refers to copyright.

Hmmm more anti-MPEx comments. 

Meanwhile, since this post went up five days ago, SatoshiDICE has been making so much money that the IPO price is now only a 9x multiple. SD made over 2000 BTC in net profit today, which is almost a tenth of what I'm asking for in the IPO... earned in one day. Maybe I'm pricing this too low :/ Will post updated stats in the google doc tomorrow.

I totally read this without noticing who said it and thought "Wow, he really showed that Mircea_Popescu, and even by quoting him makes it more ironic". Then a couple posts later I realized it was he, and his post totally backfired making him look like an idiot.

LOL this is exactly  the reason Mircea needs a new PR person.

*EPIC FACEPALM* While I personally like Emanuel, aka Atlas, I don't think quoting him as a reference will help you get your point across on this forum. Quite the opposite in fact. Not saying I disagree with what you and he said in the quote, just, um, that's a pretty  funny PR slip-up.

What I really meant to ask is "Why are you choosing an exchange whose operator insults people routinely and is surrounded by very shady and questionable circumstances." For example:

I'd have to quote here


I imagine the problem is not exactly the loudness as much as the senselessness. People complaining meaningfully about something substantial aren't a liability, they're an asset. When it turns to complaining for lack of activity and in hopes of milking some excitement out of the dreary white collar slave day... that's another matter.

On a side note: maybe you should try the IRC, it really doesn't bite.

So you're essentially putting up a barrier of entry of 20 BTC to keep the "citizens" out? Forcing them to either pay you or use a broker/pass through if they wish to trade the assets on your exchange?

This reminds me of the attempts throughout history (lol internet history) to keep the noobs, trolls, and kids out of forums. When things don't go the way they wanted it to, the ones that would complain are going to do so even louder, because they paid someone for the opportunity. I'm not saying it doesn't work to some degree... It's just that it's been tried before.