Author

Topic: Gigamining / Teramining - page 109. (Read 216459 times)

donator
Activity: 289
Merit: 250
June 14, 2012, 09:58:26 PM
What if the total supply of bonds went up to 80000 or 160000? The demand can't keep up with the supply, and the price will tank, since there is only so much capital that can flow into the GLBSE at any given time.

Say Chevron issues 100000 bonds and you buy one at a fixed coupon. If they then issue 400000 bonds 2 weeks later with the same coupon, your original bond will probably drop (in this case maybe only slightly) in value due to the increased supply of those bonds.

That's exactly the point. The market price for mining bonds was high, so more and more bonds hit the market. If gigavps didn't issue them, someone else would (and did). On the other extreme, if the market price for bonds was lower than the cost of buying the equivalent hardware, there would be no incentive to issue any more bonds, and supply would naturally be cut off.
sr. member
Activity: 451
Merit: 250
June 14, 2012, 09:54:18 PM
Smells like some numbers are about to get seriously crunched!
vip
Activity: 1358
Merit: 1000
AKA: gigavps
June 14, 2012, 09:49:36 PM
To all gigaminers:

I have been authorized to share some photos of the soon to arrive mini rigs! BFL has informed me that during their testing of the mini rigs, they needed to use a different PSU to make sure the mini rigs are as stable as the singles. Although BFL has delayed the shipment of the mini rigs, I would rather have them deliver a stable product that just works.

Looks like they'll be shipping by the weekend.

Best,
gigavps



sr. member
Activity: 451
Merit: 250
June 14, 2012, 09:42:09 PM
Well, gigavps dumped 20000 new bonds onto the market at 1btc/share, without offering previous investors any kind of compensation or gain. (making around $50000 in cash)

Whether he realizes this or not, it demonstrates carelessness and lack of concern for current investors in order to please potential future investors, and to get money up front, mere weeks after selling the initial shares.

I could completely understand why someone would never want to do business with him again, and investors are cutting their losses and exiting what now seems like a pretty questionable business.

Thank you for continuing to be ignorant.

Giga did not dump 20,000 onto the market - he made a private placement and employed several people to assist with selling the bonds - that is quite normal, as it takes quite a lot of work.  If you want to see what happens when you simply place it on market, read the howls of anguish over in the YABMC thread.

Second, the price was not 1.0 and depending on how/who you purchased from, it was higher than that.  I am unsure of the eventual weighted price as I didn't buy any, but it was probably in the 1.2 to 1.3 range.

Giga has a sensible business and plan to make things work on a scale most people couldn't conceive of.  If someone wants to panic after thinking they could make a quick buck off these bonds, they were misguided - markets have a way of leveling these things out.

As it is, they are a good buy (@ 1.0 which they are currently) and I look forward to a nice yield.  (and I got some yesterday  at 1.38).

This.

Giga has not ripped off anyone......he has stated the terms of the bond, is living up to those terms, and it makes NO DIFFERENCE how many total bonds are outstanding as long as he continues to meet the obligations to each bondholder.

That is all. 

I agree that giga hasn't broken any of his obligations, just that the supply of available bonds has greatly increased, while demand has remained roughly constant in the near term. For this reason, People who bought in over 1 btc have taken a large loss on their investment.

What if the total supply of bonds went up to 80000 or 160000? The demand can't keep up with the supply, and the price will tank, since there is only so much capital that can flow into the GLBSE at any given time.

Say Chevron issues 100000 bonds and you buy one at a fixed coupon. If they then issue 400000 bonds 2 weeks later with the same coupon, your original bond will probably drop (in this case maybe only slightly) in value due to the increased supply of those bonds.

In any case, I agree that 5MH/s for 1 btc is a good deal--I thought it was a good deal at 1.5btc too. I think people just need to be careful not to flood the market with mining bonds.
donator
Activity: 289
Merit: 250
June 14, 2012, 08:21:36 PM
Hiding behind the notion of a bond is no excuse; bonds are supposed to be fungible, if you issue bonds at a different face value they're a different tranche and trade as a different issue.

We could argue endlessly about the semantics of calling this issue a bond, so let's ignore that for a while.

The face value of this issue was never 1.0 BTC or 1.5 BTC - it represented processing power of 5 Mh/s. Old bonds and newly issued bonds are all still the same 5 Mh/s, and are thus fungible. Gigavps hasn't violated any contract or done anything wrong here. As has been stated many times in this thread - considering Moore's law, new ASIC hashing developments and so on, it's somewhat ridiculous to expect 5 Mh/s to go up in value, or even retain the same value, whatever currency you value it in.
legendary
Activity: 2044
Merit: 1000
June 14, 2012, 08:18:32 PM
Giga has not ripped off anyone......he has stated the terms of the bond, is living up to those terms, and it makes NO DIFFERENCE how many total bonds are outstanding as long as he continues to meet the obligations to each bondholder.
That is all. 

It's true, and I have an order to buy giga at ~1 BTC now. But I feel seriously misled as an investor. That's just how I feel. The shares will probably never recover. People who bought in at 1, yeah, they got a good deal. Nice job. Everyone else, oh well, take your loss like a man huh?

How do you feel misled?  I am honestly curious about this.....

Giga has stated he will pay the PPS on 5 MH/s to holder of every bond.  He has done this, and continues to do so.......how is that misleading? 
legendary
Activity: 2044
Merit: 1000
June 14, 2012, 08:04:47 PM
Well, gigavps dumped 20000 new bonds onto the market at 1btc/share, without offering previous investors any kind of compensation or gain. (making around $50000 in cash)

Whether he realizes this or not, it demonstrates carelessness and lack of concern for current investors in order to please potential future investors, and to get money up front, mere weeks after selling the initial shares.

I could completely understand why someone would never want to do business with him again, and investors are cutting their losses and exiting what now seems like a pretty questionable business.

Thank you for continuing to be ignorant.

Giga did not dump 20,000 onto the market - he made a private placement and employed several people to assist with selling the bonds - that is quite normal, as it takes quite a lot of work.  If you want to see what happens when you simply place it on market, read the howls of anguish over in the YABMC thread.

Second, the price was not 1.0 and depending on how/who you purchased from, it was higher than that.  I am unsure of the eventual weighted price as I didn't buy any, but it was probably in the 1.2 to 1.3 range.

Giga has a sensible business and plan to make things work on a scale most people couldn't conceive of.  If someone wants to panic after thinking they could make a quick buck off these bonds, they were misguided - markets have a way of leveling these things out.

As it is, they are a good buy (@ 1.0 which they are currently) and I look forward to a nice yield.  (and I got some yesterday  at 1.38).

This.

Giga has not ripped off anyone......he has stated the terms of the bond, is living up to those terms, and it makes NO DIFFERENCE how many total bonds are outstanding as long as he continues to meet the obligations to each bondholder.

That is all. 
hero member
Activity: 518
Merit: 500
June 14, 2012, 07:52:15 PM
Well, gigavps dumped 20000 new bonds onto the market at 1btc/share, without offering previous investors any kind of compensation or gain. (making around $50000 in cash)

Whether he realizes this or not, it demonstrates carelessness and lack of concern for current investors in order to please potential future investors, and to get money up front, mere weeks after selling the initial shares.

I could completely understand why someone would never want to do business with him again, and investors are cutting their losses and exiting what now seems like a pretty questionable business.

Thank you for continuing to be ignorant.

Giga did not dump 20,000 onto the market - he made a private placement and employed several people to assist with selling the bonds - that is quite normal, as it takes quite a lot of work.  If you want to see what happens when you simply place it on market, read the howls of anguish over in the YABMC thread.

Second, the price was not 1.0 and depending on how/who you purchased from, it was higher than that.  I am unsure of the eventual weighted price as I didn't buy any, but it was probably in the 1.2 to 1.3 range.

Giga has a sensible business and plan to make things work on a scale most people couldn't conceive of.  If someone wants to panic after thinking they could make a quick buck off these bonds, they were misguided - markets have a way of leveling these things out.

As it is, they are a good buy (@ 1.0 which they are currently) and I look forward to a nice yield.  (and I got some yesterday  at 1.38).
sr. member
Activity: 451
Merit: 250
June 14, 2012, 07:39:04 PM
Well, gigavps dumped 20000 new bonds onto the market at 1btc/share, without offering previous investors any kind of compensation or gain. (making around $50000 in cash)

Whether he realizes this or not, it demonstrates carelessness and lack of concern for current investors in order to please potential future investors, and to get money up front, mere weeks after selling the initial shares.

I could completely understand why someone would never want to do business with him again, and investors are cutting their losses and exiting what now seems like a pretty questionable business.
full member
Activity: 237
Merit: 100
June 14, 2012, 07:20:30 PM
Are you trying to nudge it in that direction? Wink

It's not just Gigamining -- look at:

https://glbse.com/asset/view/YABMC
sr. member
Activity: 471
Merit: 252
June 14, 2012, 07:11:11 PM
I have a question to all you in this thread. What do you think about this gigamining price "collapse"?

Do you think it will raise or not?

In my opinion it will raise at least between 1.2BTC and 1.3BTC
vip
Activity: 574
Merit: 500
Don't send me a pm unless you gpg encrypt it.
June 14, 2012, 04:39:08 PM
Why are we discussing this anyway?  Mining bonds really aren't "bonds".
donator
Activity: 266
Merit: 252
I'm actually a pineapple
June 14, 2012, 03:24:18 PM
And only thing he can to now, to show that he actually cares of his investors, is rise the 5Mh/s to 6Mh/s per FRN. Preferably without dumping another assload of bonds to the market. Smiley

Gigamining does not have investors. These are (perpetual) bonds. We lent him money, and own no equity in gigamining. He owes us nothing beyond the original terms of the contract.

Really? Who told you that? Sure it has investors.
Let me copy paste you a definition: An investor is a party that makes an investment into one or more categories of assets --- equity, debt securities, real estate, currency, commodity, derivatives such as put and call options, etc.
 Roll Eyes

Copumpkin: You got burned by a thirteen year old with access to Google!

Oh shit, reductio ad wikipedium Smiley

ROFLMAO! That must hurt, Copumpkin.
I guess you did deserve it for flapping your gums and using big complicated words without knowing what they mean.
Here is one for the road: http://bit.ly/KqC0jQ  Kiss


I'm probably going to regret this, but here goes an attempt to explain what's wrong here:

You pointed out that my implied definition of "investor" does not match the one on wikipedia. You then ignored the rest of my point, which did not depend in the least on the definition I used for the word. I call that the "plug your ears and say lalalala" approach to discussion, which I don't consider a particularly productive or respectable one.

Furthermore, although it is irrelevant to my earlier point, my usage of investor to mean "equity investor" or shareholder is a fairly common one, especially when one is using it in a context that contrasts with other forms of investment. Investment is not a formally defined term and although it has several accepted meanings, in the context I used it, its meaning as shareholder was clear. It was disingenuous for you to harp on that point, and childish for you to gloat about it afterwards. This is why I'm not going to bother to continue arguing about this, but I figured I'd give you and others an opportunity to get better at online discussion. Stupid quips, intellectual laziness, and arrogance are not the way to go.
donator
Activity: 266
Merit: 252
I'm actually a pineapple
June 14, 2012, 03:15:17 PM
And only thing he can to now, to show that he actually cares of his investors, is rise the 5Mh/s to 6Mh/s per FRN. Preferably without dumping another assload of bonds to the market. Smiley

Gigamining does not have investors. These are (perpetual) bonds. We lent him money, and own no equity in gigamining. He owes us nothing beyond the original terms of the contract.

Really? Who told you that? Sure it has investors.
Let me copy paste you a definition: An investor is a party that makes an investment into one or more categories of assets --- equity, debt securities, real estate, currency, commodity, derivatives such as put and call options, etc.
 Roll Eyes

Copumpkin: You got burned by a thirteen year old with access to Google!

Oh shit, reductio ad wikipedium Smiley

ROFLMAO! That must hurt, Copumpkin.
I guess you did deserve it for flapping your gums and using big complicated words without knowing what they mean.
Here is one for the road: http://bit.ly/KqC0jQ  Kiss


I was actually mocking you, and so was reeses.
legendary
Activity: 910
Merit: 1000
Quality Printing Services by Federal Reserve Bank
June 14, 2012, 02:53:47 PM
And only thing he can to now, to show that he actually cares of his investors, is rise the 5Mh/s to 6Mh/s per FRN. Preferably without dumping another assload of bonds to the market. Smiley

Gigamining does not have investors. These are (perpetual) bonds. We lent him money, and own no equity in gigamining. He owes us nothing beyond the original terms of the contract.

Really? Who told you that? Sure it has investors.
Let me copy paste you a definition: An investor is a party that makes an investment into one or more categories of assets --- equity, debt securities, real estate, currency, commodity, derivatives such as put and call options, etc.
 Roll Eyes

Copumpkin: You got burned by a thirteen year old with access to Google!

Oh shit, reductio ad wikipedium Smiley

ROFLMAO! That must hurt, Copumpkin.
I guess you did deserve it for flapping your gums and using big complicated words without knowing what they mean.
Here is one for the road: http://bit.ly/KqC0jQ  Kiss
donator
Activity: 266
Merit: 252
I'm actually a pineapple
June 14, 2012, 02:29:22 PM
And only thing he can to now, to show that he actually cares of his investors, is rise the 5Mh/s to 6Mh/s per FRN. Preferably without dumping another assload of bonds to the market. Smiley

Gigamining does not have investors. These are (perpetual) bonds. We lent him money, and own no equity in gigamining. He owes us nothing beyond the original terms of the contract.

Really? Who told you that? Sure it has investors.
Let me copy paste you a definition: An investor is a party that makes an investment into one or more categories of assets --- equity, debt securities, real estate, currency, commodity, derivatives such as put and call options, etc.
 Roll Eyes

Copumpkin: You got burned by a thirteen year old with access to Google!

Oh shit, reductio ad wikipedium Smiley
legendary
Activity: 2646
Merit: 1137
All paid signature campaigns should be banned.
June 14, 2012, 08:57:27 AM
Nefario is on the road for the next few hours, but asked me to post that he agrees with this idea and hopes to have it in place over the weekend.

HURRAY!  Thanks!
hero member
Activity: 667
Merit: 500
June 14, 2012, 08:42:13 AM
Does anyone know why Giga and many other Mining bonds have lost around 20% of there value in the last few weeks.  

Has a large investor pulled out?

I believe a large part of our current issues can be explained by the following asymmetry/inefficiency in the GLBSE market:

If I want to sell 1000 GIGAMINING bonds (or any other bond or stock) I can simply put in a sell order and it does not cost me anything.

However, if I want to buy 1000 GIGAMINING bonds (or any other bond or stock) I have to put up the full amount of BTC in order to place the order.  So for the entire time the buy order is in the book I have to tie up that amount of BTC.  So there is a cost, an opportunity cost, to placing buy orders.

So the bottom line is that it is easier to sell than to buy.  Until this issue is fixed the bids will always be lighter than asks and there will be an intrinsic bias toward selling and therefore and intrinsic downward pressure on prices.


Someone forward this to Nefario, I nag him enough.

please recall how gigamining was issued. private (otc) sales before ipo bought bonds at 1 btc / bond, thus selling at 1.20-1.30 still represents a 20-30 % profit (plus the dividends from the meantime of holding the bond)

it is not true that selling is easier i.e. it does not cost anything - the sell order blocks the shares and prevents them from being transferred or offered for sale at a different price. thus you can't have fake sale wall the same way as you can't have a fake buy wall. what you see in the order book is what you can have. nothing else.

if you expect bitcoin / shares in the future and want to make the order now, hm, no worky. wait and act after you have the funds in your account.
even if you have a regular income and would like to post a permanent order that would be filled per partes as the funds arrive, can't do it right now.

well you cannot sell shares you don't have on GLBSE and many people would like to have this option ... but it is a little bit more complicated

most of us miss a much more simple thing ... placing multiple buy orders with my balance ... I have the money ... I don't ask for margin trading ...
and simply if any of my buy orders gets filled - all the other are checked imediately and if my new balance isn't sufficient for any of them -> they are or deleted (very simple) or reduced in volume (to max volume my funds fit) or stay in full on my own orderbook but are listed publicly (and thus tradeable) only in reduced volume (but if some of my sell orders gets filled the new higher balance could allow to have them listed publicly again in full)

We don't need to have immediatelly the complex solution ... but the simple one with deleting the orders would be great ... the only condition is that the orders must be executed sequentially by the exchange (which I guess is how GLBSE works now) and with each trade check all buy orders of the buyer and delete those that don't have adequate balance for
Nefario,  How long would it take you to implement the simple version (just delete all other orders ) of this idea?

We/YOU really need this.


Nefario is on the road for the next few hours, but asked me to post that he agrees with this idea and hopes to have it in place over the weekend.

sorry to continue hi-jacking this thread, but this will be a game changer, it's been mentioned many times before, even by myself, this will actually give some much needed liquidity to glbse.
hero member
Activity: 700
Merit: 500
June 14, 2012, 08:37:49 AM
Does anyone know why Giga and many other Mining bonds have lost around 20% of there value in the last few weeks.  

Has a large investor pulled out?

I believe a large part of our current issues can be explained by the following asymmetry/inefficiency in the GLBSE market:

If I want to sell 1000 GIGAMINING bonds (or any other bond or stock) I can simply put in a sell order and it does not cost me anything.

However, if I want to buy 1000 GIGAMINING bonds (or any other bond or stock) I have to put up the full amount of BTC in order to place the order.  So for the entire time the buy order is in the book I have to tie up that amount of BTC.  So there is a cost, an opportunity cost, to placing buy orders.

So the bottom line is that it is easier to sell than to buy.  Until this issue is fixed the bids will always be lighter than asks and there will be an intrinsic bias toward selling and therefore and intrinsic downward pressure on prices.


Someone forward this to Nefario, I nag him enough.

please recall how gigamining was issued. private (otc) sales before ipo bought bonds at 1 btc / bond, thus selling at 1.20-1.30 still represents a 20-30 % profit (plus the dividends from the meantime of holding the bond)

it is not true that selling is easier i.e. it does not cost anything - the sell order blocks the shares and prevents them from being transferred or offered for sale at a different price. thus you can't have fake sale wall the same way as you can't have a fake buy wall. what you see in the order book is what you can have. nothing else.

if you expect bitcoin / shares in the future and want to make the order now, hm, no worky. wait and act after you have the funds in your account.
even if you have a regular income and would like to post a permanent order that would be filled per partes as the funds arrive, can't do it right now.

well you cannot sell shares you don't have on GLBSE and many people would like to have this option ... but it is a little bit more complicated

most of us miss a much more simple thing ... placing multiple buy orders with my balance ... I have the money ... I don't ask for margin trading ...
and simply if any of my buy orders gets filled - all the other are checked imediately and if my new balance isn't sufficient for any of them -> they are or deleted (very simple) or reduced in volume (to max volume my funds fit) or stay in full on my own orderbook but are listed publicly (and thus tradeable) only in reduced volume (but if some of my sell orders gets filled the new higher balance could allow to have them listed publicly again in full)

We don't need to have immediatelly the complex solution ... but the simple one with deleting the orders would be great ... the only condition is that the orders must be executed sequentially by the exchange (which I guess is how GLBSE works now) and with each trade check all buy orders of the buyer and delete those that don't have adequate balance for
Nefario,  How long would it take you to implement the simple version (just delete all other orders ) of this idea?

We/YOU really need this.


Nefario is on the road for the next few hours, but asked me to post that he agrees with this idea and hopes to have it in place over the weekend.
donator
Activity: 266
Merit: 252
I'm actually a pineapple
June 14, 2012, 08:27:06 AM
And only thing he can to now, to show that he actually cares of his investors, is rise the 5Mh/s to 6Mh/s per FRN. Preferably without dumping another assload of bonds to the market. Smiley

Gigamining does not have investors. These are (perpetual) bonds. We lent him money, and own no equity in gigamining. He owes us nothing beyond the original terms of the contract.

Really? Who told you that? Sure it has investors.
Let me copy paste you a definition: An investor is a party that makes an investment into one or more categories of assets --- equity, debt securities, real estate, currency, commodity, derivatives such as put and call options, etc.
 Roll Eyes

Yes, pick apart definitions while ignoring the obvious point.
Jump to: