Topic: [GLBSE] BFLS.RIG - BFL Hardware mining & Sales - page 12. (Read 28518 times)

No it doesn't work that way.... pre-ordering something is usually done for the same price... even if you have to wait a long time... I paid exactly the same for my Black Ops II as someone who buys it in the store today.... Same goes for iPads, iPhones etc.... Sometimes you even pay more on pre-order than when it becomes readily available because of the exclusivity to have something first.

You can't deduct a higher value for a pre-ordered product just because you had a delay in delivery time. it doesn't make sense economically....

edit: Good luck Inaba on setting an exchange value that is agreeable for the majority

I'll start with this because you've just proven my point. You pre-ordered CoDBO2, presumably for a discount. Let's say you paid for it $40, and now that's it out it costs $50. Is it worth $40 because you paid $40 for it? No, it it's worth $50 because that's what it trades for now (assuming friction-free exchangeability). You were willing to shell out $40 in advance in order to get something in the future which will then be worth $50.

This is not the direction of causality, but rather of deduction. It's not that the past delivery time causes the worth to be higher. It's that because of the delay, we deduce that its worth is higher. If people were willing to shell out $600 a month ago to get a single now, it must mean a single now is worth more than $600. Likewise for mini-rigs, and since the delay for them was higher, the implied worth is greater.

With mining devices, the revenue they generate over time must be properly understood when doing valuation calculations. You paid for your single earlier than most, but that doesn't cause it to be worth now more than other singles; you cashed out the benefit of your early investment with the mining output it generated over the time since receiving it. On the same note, if people are willing to pay $600 to get a single within 4 weeks, they'd be willing to pay much more to get a single now and have it generate income over these 4 weeks.

So my Single ordered in November 2011 and delivered in April 2012 is worth more than a single ordered in July 2012 and delivered in September 2012, just because I had wait longer to get it.... This means that Inaba has to take into account the delivery time on the singles and then set a different price for every single according to the delivery time it took to get them....

Somehow you can see that your argument is not quite right....

BTW same can be said for anything you pre-order.... my Call of Duty Black Ops II which I pre-ordered is not worth anything more than the ones people can buy directly from the store

The 1:1.1 rate proposed by Epoch seems a fair middle ground, if it's ok with Inaba.

Yes, the intent is to do away with singles.  All of the current singles will be going towards upgrading to a minirig.  The singles are just too much to manage in quantity.

I thought his intent was to ditch the singles entirely and move completely to minirigs and minirig SCs, not single SCs.

1:1 rate is proper for running Singles with MiniRigs together and having one combined payout.
However, this rate is not good for hardware exchange or upgrading to SC,
because one will get higher final hashrate for Single upgraded to Single SC,
than for 200 BFLS.RIG shares when MiniRig is upgraded to MiniRig SC.

200 BFLS shares is equivalent to old Single = 599/1299 of Single SC = (599/1299)*60 GH/s = 27.66743649 GH/s

200 BFLS.RIG shares is equivalent to 200/6058 of old MiniRig = (200/6058)*(15295/29899) of MiniRig SC = (200/6058)*(15295/29899)*1500 GH/s = 25.33289388 GH/s

27.66... / 25.33... = 1.092... which  is close enough to 1.1 rate proposed by Epoch.
Until ASIC 2.

Inaba, do you really have to combine them?

It is nice to see other shareholders chiming in.

How about the middle ground proposed earlier: a 1:1.1 conversion; it represents the middle ground between the 1:1.19 ratio based on hardware value, and the 1:1 ratio based solely on hashrate. A 1:1.1 conversion would mean we give up some hardware value, but gain some hashrate. A compromise with some give-and-take from both sides.

Of course, each shareholder needs to make their own decision. Some may accept a 1:1 conversion. Others may not. Optimistically I'd like to see a 1:1.19 conversion because that is what it takes to convert a $3 BFLS share into the equivalent value of RIG. But I think this is an extreme case, and not overly fair (because it gives BFLS shareholders 20% extra hashrate) ... the same way I feel about a 1:1 conversion (which is at the other extreme, and also not particularly fair because it represents a 20% loss in hardware value).

Which is why I consider a 1:1.1 conversion (halfway between 1:1 and 1:1.19) to be a reasonable compromise for everyone. In other words 10 BFLS shares are converted to 11 RIG shares.

Takes these as just ideas, thoughts, and proposals to stimulate further discussion. Ultimately it is up to Inaba to decide how to handle BFLS. I'm pretty sure it will not be difficult to satisfy most (and perhaps all) of the shareholders.

No matter what happens, someone will be unhappy.  


I'm okay with a 1:1 exchange as one share appears to be nearly identical in hashrate between the two. I do see the personal benefit illustrated by taking the unit cost per share as the source of a conversion rate, but for the simplicity of getting this done and behind us I'm content with 1:1.

I'd rather move over to RIG shares than take a buyout, but if the buyout is the only way to make the most people happy I'm okay with that route.

	Price	shares	hashrate		hash per share	price per share	price per hash
single	$599.00	200	832		4.1600	$3.00	$0.71995
minirig	$15,295.00	6058	25200		4.1598	$2.52	$0.60694
				Single:Minirig	1.0001	1.1863	1.1862
minisc	$29,899.00	12116	1500000		123.8032	$2.47	$0.02

I didn't say the effect should be zero. But it shouldn't be infinite as some people want.

You should be happy to know that I refused some offers to take an active role in IPO management and similar, in large part due to finding it inappropriate after the BDT case. (No big deal, they weren't very serious anyway.)

But to say that I am forbidden from managing an IPO forever and ever and ever is silly. If after a cooldown period an opportunity will present itself I will consider it. But investors should be extra careful not to take my role for more than what it is, and I will make even more effort to clarify what my role is (and of course usual stuff like much enhanced background checks, etc.)

I agree with an earlier observation of yours that the model of unrecognized people having their IPO managed by other people isn't working, so legitimate opportunities of this kind may not exist at all. But there could related opportunities.

Im just saying that people are in la-la land if they think it should have zero effect, as you are claiming.
There should be repurcussions for lapses in judgement. Do you really believe youre going to be able to front another IPO ?

If you think so, you havent learnt a lesson.

An interesting idea, but it might be better to give BFLS shareholders the option of a 'buy-out' or 'conversion to RIG' instead of a forced buy-out of everyone.

The adoption rate of this will depend on the buy-back price for RIG. Depending on your point of view and assumptions, a fair buy back price for RIG would be anywhere ranging from $2.52 ($15295/6058) to $3.00 (the current value of a BFLS share). The closer the RIG buy-back price gets to $3, the fewer shareholders would choose to buy back in.

For those shareholders choosing not to buy back in, you are proposing they simply get a final payout from the liquidated Singles (which should fetch at least $600 apiece, or, in other words, at least $3 per BFLS share). That seems reasonable.

One way to handle this might be to offer shareholders a specific buy-back price for RIG. Those who do not accept simply get a final payout from the liquidated Singles. For those who accept, you simply convert their BFLS shares to RIG based on your offer. For example, if you offer $2.73 per RIG share, the conversion would be $3/$2.73 or 1:1.1 (1 BFLS share worth $3 becomes 1.1 RIG shares worth $2.73 per share).

Speaking as a BFLS shareholder, I would likely accept a 1:1.1 conversion; it represents the middle ground between the 1:1.19 ratio the share worth based on hardware value, and the 1:1 ratio based solely on hashrate. A 1:1.1 conversion would mean that I lose some hardware value, but gain some hashrate. A reasonable compromise.

Other BFLS shareholders may have other thoughts on this.

I was the IPO manager. I clarified from the start what was my exact involvement (which was fairly minimal) and that investors are the ones who are responsible for their investment decisions. I did not guarantee it or profess intimate knowledge of the issuer. Trying to make it sound like I am somehow responsible for it does not make it true. I prefer to be productive rather than wallow in the past.

The only reason this was even brought up here is that ciuciu was upset that I called him on his default of "guaranteed, low-risk bonds" (that is, exactly what Alberto did).

People make mistakes. The particular mistake of placing undeserved trust has been extremely common in this community. And making a mostly emotional error has little bearing on my ability to contribute intellectually in my areas of expertise. Yes, the errors I've made should be acknowledged, but not to the level of character assassination that you want to bring it.


This is all off topic for this thread.

Argh, there doesn't seem to be a way to make everyone happy.

I'm thinking maybe I should sell off the singles and payout the final payment on the singles for the sale price and then let people buy back in to RIG as appropriate.  That would fulfill the contract as stated and should satisfy people in a fair (if not ideal) manner.  What are the thoughts on this?

You have no judgement. You fronted an operation that stole thousands of bitcoins. The way it works is that when you put your reputation on the line for someone and they do what bitscammer did then it damages your rep too.

Theres no mathematical formula for it its just the way things are.

Great, I will be around.

Regards.

Nobody asked. It's not a bad idea, I'll think about it.

So why don't you do it? I think the people in the BDT thread will be very happy to see it. And then you can start a new ASIC mining bond   with Inaba operating them for you.

I think I can provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate this to a trusted 3rd party.

Talk is cheap. How about proving your statements?