Topic: [CLOSING...] MOVETO.FUND - MoveTo Growth Fund - page 5. (Read 12830 times)

I really appreciate the transparency and professionalism you bring to the table in this frontier market cytokine.  I agree with you on all points mentioned concerning IPO and strategy moving forward. 

Starfish et al peaked around 58k.  With the wind out of the PPT.assets it should be back closer to 35k quite soon.  Depends on how the next week and month play out.

Anyway, the MoveTo Fund is an important part of the economy.

Excellent idea. I'll have to look into their APIs and see how easy it is to pull in data from there.


Agreed, and you can consider it done. I was thinking that around three months is a good wait time for new issues to season. Unless others disagree, this should be our new policy, with obvious exceptions for very high rep issuers. And, it will help greatly with sleeping at night. Of course, ZIP.A had been trading much longer than that... so not all scams are avoidable, but our exposure can be strongly mitigated. I'll modify the OP when I do the NAV update (and I'll also remove the now unnecessary "no pirate exposure" clause and replace it with a"no JRO exposure" clause )


Yep, that would be perfect. Then we just filter out everything below a certain rating: bam.


That would be ideal for us. I really don't want bitcoin to go up in price yet. The thing is, I'm so bullish on its long-term potential that I'm just hoping we'll all have sufficient time to accumulate enough coins before the critical-mass point.

Patrick isnt on GLBSE   

It's a good idea to diversify into other markets although I havent had much to do with cryptostocks or MPEX. Their might be good value in becoming a sort of "broker" so people dont have to open accounts at these other stock exchanges they only need to buy your fund on glbse to get the exposure.

I think its wise to avoid new IPO's untill they become established stocks as the recent price rise has seen a  rash of scammy-looking ones appear including an obvious scam called TIMESHAREAFRICA.

Ive heard rumours there is a bitcoin credit rating agency coming which might help. I dont know to what extent the pirate stuff was the cause of the bitcon price rise so we could go back to the $5- $8 range for awhile which would attract more glbse investment. Depending on the major announcement in september of course.

Yep . Although, there are many much larger funds and banks than mine... Starfish has some 60K I think, and I think Gamma is probably comparable, but these just aren't listed on the GLBSE.

In other news though, I'm almost done refactoring the code - in this case, it was a total rewrite. It's so much cleaner now and elegant, using the linux philosophy of having separate tools each with a separate job: one for getting data, one for constructing price bars, one for doing indicators, and one for overall execution. It's great because with this code base I can very quickly adapt it for other markets just by pointing the data feed to a different place. The ask-code should be much easier to plug in now, and at that point I'll be feeling much better about things. I'm also excited because I got the strongest buy signal I've ever received on any asset this month (I'll discuss this in the next monthly update after we've done some more buying).

The only thing keeping me up at night now is this whole BDT fiasco. I truly think that the problems with the platform as easy to fix, so it all just depends on Alberto's honesty. Right now I'm waiting to update the NAV after we get our coupons, which Meni promises are coming tomorrow along with the late bonus.

I've been thinking about the issue of trust and lack of GLBSE-auditing/ratings, and I think perhaps that avoiding IPOs completely may be the most risk-adverse approach, because the history of an asset is very important (with the exception of high rep issuers of course, such as Goat etc.). I haven't made any decisions yet on this; I don't know what is going to happen yet in the immediate future with BDT, and I don't yet know what my actions will be depending on the situation. Lets just see what happens tomorrow.

In the meantime, I'll ask my shareholders: what is your opinion? I am here to serve you after all, and to get the ulcers so that you don't have to

With all the pirate funds gone and ZIP.A and BDT under a cloud I think your fund is going to be one of the top 3 assets on GLBSE shortly 

Very strong is a over exaduration, I said something of the lines he seems legit and as far as I know hes honest xD
I don't go to absolutes anymore after all this mess with JRO and stuff.
//DeaDTerra

I just sent 100btc your way and Im slowly liquidating my glbse hioldings for the same reasons . I want to set and forget it as Im getting an ulcer trying to trade 

I agree completely. My last post was based on my discussion with DeadTerra, who has a very strong positive opinion about Alberto's honesty. However, based on more recent news and events, I am now in talks with usagi of CPA to insure these bonds ASAP. And yes, I will definitely filter out all future assets associated with JRO by default.

That said, due to the influx of capital from pirate closing down, we'll soon have significantly more holdings, and so this will greatly increase our diversification and dilute the effects of any one asset becoming a problem.

Honestly, I hate this drama shit. All I want to do is run the strategy, but instead I have to run it and investigate every new trade signal to see if it's telling me to buy into a scam or not. It's (almost) making me miss the normal stock market. The GLBSE is awesome and the profit potential is huge, but it's like playing with fire at the same time.

At some point in the near future, I plan on having a little fireside chat with everyone about our goals and solidify a mission statement with the optimal risk/return profile and money management strategy going forward. I'm thinking a good idea right now would be to look for some kind of third party asset auditor (the Starfish perhaps) that could rate things and then have a minimum rating requirement and automatically filter out everything that doesn't meet that standard.

I wouldnt be so sure about Alberto and I would avoid any and all future projects proposed by JRO.

This is exactly how I see things.

True, true! It's a sad day for sure, but this day was coming for some time. I'm hopeful though that I can raise more capital as a result, yet at the same time I am grateful that I had some time to gain experience with the GLBSE game whilst still small. It will be very interesting to see if many of the "non-pirate" bond offerings wind down as a result as well. It's also possible that bond yields may fall in general... I'm thinking competition for capital was keeping yields high. It could lead to a lot of refinancing/buybacks even for issues that are not directly related to pirate.

Even more interesting is what effect (if any) on the price of bitcoin pirate exiting will have. I'm hopeful that it will steady out for a while now that the pirate bubble is gone, which would be really good for us: the game, as I see it, is to increase the number of coins you have as much as possible before they get too expensive. Of course, that probably depends on what this is.

Pirate closed, funds should start be returned by monday, until then markets are on the loose. Time to ride this beast! 

NAV per share updated to 1.17268084

Also, an update:

While working on improving the code that examines the asks, I found another bug that needed to be fixed. The code is becoming spaghetti now and I really need to refactor it, so the ask-examining feature is being postponed until I can clean up my act. It's okay really though, because I already do this by hand through examining all the assets each day, but maybe towards the end of the month I can get this feature in and automate the process.

Also, I cancelled the sell of PUREMINING, because at 0.14 the yield on it is now extremely high, and I think ASIC may be delayed. We own so little that we might as well hold it. Regardless, the 400 BTC has been injected as promised, and due to nice rallies on our other assets, you lucky dogs are now way up this week.

As you probably already know, there has been some drama lately surrounding BTD, REBATE, and ZIP.A with the "disappearance" of JRO. We do own a large holding of BTD, but Alberto seems to be a very honest guy (I had a discussion about this with DeadTerra) so I'm OK with this holding due to the high yield. However, it looks like ZIP.A is likely to have some sort of a buyback, although I don't know what we'll get for it. Regardless of the outcome, it's only about 1% of our portfolio anyway since I was cautious getting into it.

So, in closing: we are firmly back on track now and I look forward to finishing out this month with new highs!

-cyto

Definitely. The position was taken on very, very early on (the very first month of operation), and a lot of things have changed since then both in terms of the markets and in terms of adapting our strategy to the GLBSE.


Thanks! I certainly believe strongly in our approach. Many others have been burned by being too incautious with the GLBSE. In the recent past, it was very easy to make money because you could buy just about anything and make a profit (especially with the BTC/USD price level at $5 for so long), but those days are gone.

In a way, this is good for me because I think after solidifying our strategy we will shine more relative to other banks and funds as it becomes increasingly more difficult to make profits consistently.

Well, after Googling it, what you call "mean reversion" is something I personally do sometimes, and even without sophisticated algorithms is often a good way to make rapid returns on a few BTC ...just not with hundreds (or even tenth, probably) of them.

In truth, I hoped you had noticed already that "extremely low liquidity" means something. However, you've been doing well nevertheless, hopefully you'll be doing even better now that you've adjusted the algorithm, and personally compensating for losses really does show you care about us -so I'm still strongly in 

Ok, so here's how it's going to go down.

I am very happy with all of the assets that we currently own - all of them have a very high positive expectation. We have done a great job of filtering out the "crap" from the GLBSE and picking up the winners. Additionally, I have verified that all of the mining assets we own have ASIC upgrade paths or include the purchase of ASIC equipment as part of their growth plan. So I am not worried about anything that we own, with one exception: PUREMINING*

PUREMINING has a negative long-term expectation, yet was originally purchased because it has hit a strongly oversold level, which often causes a price bounce and thus a mean-reversion trade is possible to perform. On the S&P500, I am used to doing this all the time (it's a key part of how my system operates), yet on the GLBSE there just isn't sufficient liquidity to do this type of trading activity.

I believe it was an operator error on my part to attempt a mean-reversion trade on the GLBSE and thus I am chalking it up to a learning experience, and so I will inject 400 BTC into the fund to compensate for expected further losses from this particular asset for fund investors. Eating losses like this is only something I will do if the error is on my part; if we do the right thing and the investment doesn't work out, then that's a completely different scenario. So I don't expect to eat losses ever again for the fund since I now understand how the GLBSE operates much more clearly, and we will not attempt to perform any short-term trades in the future (unless liquidity vastly improves, but that is likely years away).

I'll get this done this week.

Thanks,
-cyto

*Also FPGA.CONTRACT, but I already liquidated that and we barely owned any shares of it anyway.

Another major change coming this week, or next at the latest...

Thus far, I've been running the system based on actual trading prices, which makes perfect sense for a liquid exchange. However, since the GLBSE is so illiquid, I need to look at market depth - that is, rather than treating each asset as a separate entity for analysis, I need to look at every ask price for every asset as a separate entity, so that we can pick up the best asks every day on the entire GLBSE.

The problem with our current approach is that we end up paying higher prices for good assets, and it would be better to buy these assets when the occasional "dump" occurs; however, the problem with placing bids based on volatility is that it sucks away all the time value of money: sure, we may pick up a great price if we bid well, but all the time waiting for the bid to be hit costs us. So I'd prefer us to be market takers and pay the fees, but have zero time value cost and, of course, the knowledge and advantage of knowing exactly which asks on the GLBSE represent the best investment each day.

I think this will give us a huge leg up once this is implemented. I'll let you know when it is done.

This is due to the fact that I use the last trade price for each asset when I do the NAV per share, and GLBSE assets are volatile, especially due to the huge gaps between the bid and the ask. The two main culprits for this particular dip are COGNITIVE and PUREMINING, but nearly all assets were affected somewhat negatively this week, and for obvious reasons:

We were up a huge ~15% last month primarily due to a rally from an oversold condition, so it's entirely normal for the market to mean revert after big moves, especially when the base BTC value has jumped so dramatically in real terms lately (which is strongly deflationary from our perspective, but means the USD value of your shares has greatly increased). Nothing in the markets moves in a straight line; it is the nature of a fund that you are exposed to this volatility. I expect the fund's NAV to vary each week, both up and down, but what I care about is maintaining the long term upward trajectory, not short-term fluctuations which are impossible to avoid.

Finally, it's worth mentioning that the current high water mark is 1.1694110613, so I don't get paid a single bitcent until I beat this level. If my investors aren't making money, I don't make money either.

Ahm... what about this nice -4% here? was it a side effect of the "restructuring" you announced?