Will the IPO price also be 1.02??
Of course not. That's why people buy in bulk.Edit: well I was wrong; the issuer will sell up to 4K bonds down to 0.1
Topic: [GLBSE] GIPPT Delisting 100% paid. - page 16. (Read 19309 times)
Edit: well I was wrong; the issuer will sell up to 4K bonds down to 0.1
Will the IPO price also be 1.02??
The IPO price will be set by the market, but if I notice there's not enough demand then I will wait with releasing all the shares, I don't wish to create a massive bid wall or to crash the market. //DeaDTerra
Well then I wish you the best of luck in your bet. I've done some math, and it turns out GIPPT is worth over 1.2 BTC. A little birdie told me you were selling pre-ipo shares for less than that, so I bet I'll be buying a few at IPO.
Cheers
I was indeed selling 1000 shares at 1.02 BTC each, but they are all out now Cheers
Though the rest of the shares will be offered on Friday.
Anyone interested please do place bids on the shares.
//DeaDTerra
Will the IPO price also be 1.02??
Well then I wish you the best of luck in your bet. I've done some math, and it turns out GIPPT is worth over 1.2 BTC. A little birdie told me you were selling pre-ipo shares for less than that, so I bet I'll be buying a few at IPO.
Cheers
Cheers
It seems to me that this is basically a bet by the issuers/backers that Pirate won't default in the next 20 weeks. The issuers will obviously lose money on a Pirate default, and it will take over 20 weeks to "generate" the backing through the reduced weekly rate. However, it's not a bet against the buyers, because the buyers don't lose money if pirate doesn't default in 20 weeks. They simply don't earn as much as they would with an uninsured pass-through.
Is this correct?
Correct the lower rate will pay off the backings and generate profit after the threshold has passed. The bet is not against the buyers as they will always receive the 1 BTC back independent if pirate defaults or not Is this correct?
INAU stands for 95% of the backing and I for 5% of it. Hence 100% of the face value of the bond is covered.//DeaDTerra
It seems to me that this is basically a bet by the issuers/backers that Pirate won't default in the next 20 weeks. The issuers will obviously lose money on a Pirate default, and it will take over 20 weeks to "generate" the backing through the reduced weekly rate. However, it's not a bet against the buyers, because the buyers don't lose money if pirate doesn't default in 20 weeks. They simply don't earn as much as they would with an uninsured pass-through.
Is this correct?
Is this correct?
All the pre-order shares have sold out, so if you want shares I recommend posting a bid before the 3rd of August at 19:00 GMT +1 to ensure that you get your bonds
//DeaDTerra
//DeaDTerra
I really do wish you the best of luck but surely the fact that I'm more interested in the assets you're buying as insurance than the assets that make up the yield-paying bond tells you something 
That is, with Pirate's current level of deposits and assuming trust account interest stays where it is Pirate's liabilities will increase by about 1 million BTC in the time taken for you to break even.
Best of luck
That is, with Pirate's current level of deposits and assuming trust account interest stays where it is Pirate's liabilities will increase by about 1 million BTC in the time taken for you to break even.
Best of luck
I also want to add that if you want to pre-order the shares you pay 1.02 BTC per share, as you have to pay for the transaction fee as well But on the other hand you get guaranteed bonds, and at the face value of the bond.
Edit: Bed is calling, any questions or concerns will be answered tomorrow morning.
//DeaDTerra
But on the other hand you get guaranteed bonds, and at the face value of the bond.Edit: Bed is calling, any questions or concerns will be answered tomorrow morning.
//DeaDTerra
I have hit my 10 PMs per hour, so please give me some time to answer your pm 
If you can please email me
//DeaDTerra
If you can please email me
//DeaDTerra
But you have the 5000 BTC in backing already rallied up somewhere and the second BTC to be deposited at pirate will anyways come from users, not you?
Also, will the BTC that are insurance backing and that are "invested" somewhere completely pirate free? It might be the case that they are "invested" in a hidden PPT and in the case of a default would take down the person holding the backing too!
Indeed, that is the case.Also, will the BTC that are insurance backing and that are "invested" somewhere completely pirate free? It might be the case that they are "invested" in a hidden PPT and in the case of a default would take down the person holding the backing too!
We will do out best to find lenders with as low pirate exposure as possible, but to be honest it's hard to find anyone that's totally free from exposure, as there's both indirect and direct exposure levels. We will make sure that the lenders realize that it will be used to back a pirate default and hence can not be involved in pirate investments. In the case where the deposits fail to payout, INAU will go in and pay his debt personally.
//DeaDTerra
//DeaDTerra
But you have the 5000 BTC in backing already rallied up somewhere and the second BTC to be deposited at pirate will anyways come from users, not you?
Also, will the BTC that are insurance backing and that are "invested" somewhere completely pirate free? It might be the case that they are "invested" in a hidden PPT and in the case of a default would take down the person holding the backing too!
Indeed, that is the case.Also, will the BTC that are insurance backing and that are "invested" somewhere completely pirate free? It might be the case that they are "invested" in a hidden PPT and in the case of a default would take down the person holding the backing too!
We will do out best to find lenders with as low pirate exposure as possible, but to be honest it's hard to find anyone that's totally free from exposure, as there's both indirect and direct exposure levels. We will make sure that the lenders realize that it will be used to back a pirate default and hence can not be involved in pirate investments. In the case where the deposits fail to payout, INAU will go in and pay his debt personally.
//DeaDTerra
Instead of getting 2.5% with your scheme, I could get ~7% on 1 BTC (e.g. with FOO.PPPPT) and deposit a second BTC in cold storage, bringing my total profit per week to ~3.5%. How is 2.5% a good deal?
Let's look at a scenario in which pirate defaults in just 4 weeks for simple maths:
You put 200 BTC in here - you end up with 220.762 BTC, you're +20.762
You put 100 BTC with pirate, and 100 BTC locked away, paying half your interest into the cold storage coins each week to keep your insured amount level - each amount goes up to 114.752 BTC, so you had 229, but you just lost half, so you're -85.25.
With a bit of maths, we can see that it'd take 71 weeks for your pirate funds to "catch up" so that you'd be better off after a default with your method.
Straightforward enough?
But you have the 5000 BTC in backing already rallied up somewhere and the second BTC to be deposited at pirate will anyways come from users, not you?
Also, will the BTC that are insurance backing and that are "invested" somewhere completely pirate free? It might be the case that they are "invested" in a hidden PPT and in the case of a default would take down the person holding the backing too!
Indeed, that is the case.Also, will the BTC that are insurance backing and that are "invested" somewhere completely pirate free? It might be the case that they are "invested" in a hidden PPT and in the case of a default would take down the person holding the backing too!
We will do out best to find lenders with as low pirate exposure as possible, but to be honest it's hard to find anyone that's totally free from exposure, as there's both indirect and direct exposure levels. We will make sure that the lenders realize that it will be used to back a pirate default and hence can not be involved in pirate investments. In the case where the deposits fail to payout, INAU will go in and pay his debt personally.
//DeaDTerra
But you have the 5000 BTC in backing already rallied up somewhere and the second BTC to be deposited at pirate will anyways come from users, not you?
Also, will the BTC that are insurance backing and that are "invested" somewhere completely pirate free? It might be the case that they are "invested" in a hidden PPT and in the case of a default would take down the person holding the backing too!
Also, will the BTC that are insurance backing and that are "invested" somewhere completely pirate free? It might be the case that they are "invested" in a hidden PPT and in the case of a default would take down the person holding the backing too!
Instead of getting 2.5% with your scheme, I could get ~7% on 1 BTC (e.g. with FOO.PPPPT) and deposit a second BTC in cold storage, bringing my total profit per week to ~3.5%. How is 2.5% a good deal?
Insuring pirate is a big risk, and as you are trading 1:2 as you pay 1 BTC to essentially get 1 BTC in pirate and 1 in Backing, we can not offer as good rates as normal uninsured pass through.//DeaDTerra
Regarding the backing questions, please check the google document.
"
How can we guarantee that the bonds are insured?
95% of the face value of the bonds are insured by INAU (INAU), these 95% will be split up and deposited into trustable third party lenders, for example HashKing. They will sign a Gpg contract stating that if pirate defaults or fails to return the amount deposited with him then, they will pay this amount to me (DeaDTerra). The 5% I cover will be done using personal holdings, these will be held in Gamma Bitcoin Fund and will always be accessible.
"
I will be backing 5% of the bonds face value while INAU backs the rest 95% of the face value, giving a total backing/insurance of 100% of the face value. INeedAUserName is a major lender that has been in the game for a long time, he has no problems backing 5000 Bitcoins. The safety of these Bitcoins will be guaranteed thanks to third party lenders that will hold the coins, and pay them out to me in case of a pirate default. Hence neither me or INeedAUsername will have direct access to these funds.
//DeaDTerra
"
How can we guarantee that the bonds are insured?
95% of the face value of the bonds are insured by INAU (INAU), these 95% will be split up and deposited into trustable third party lenders, for example HashKing. They will sign a Gpg contract stating that if pirate defaults or fails to return the amount deposited with him then, they will pay this amount to me (DeaDTerra). The 5% I cover will be done using personal holdings, these will be held in Gamma Bitcoin Fund and will always be accessible.
"
I will be backing 5% of the bonds face value while INAU backs the rest 95% of the face value, giving a total backing/insurance of 100% of the face value. INeedAUserName is a major lender that has been in the game for a long time, he has no problems backing 5000 Bitcoins. The safety of these Bitcoins will be guaranteed thanks to third party lenders that will hold the coins, and pay them out to me in case of a pirate default. Hence neither me or INeedAUsername will have direct access to these funds.
//DeaDTerra
Is there some way to guarantee payment in the event of a default? Will coins be kept in escrow, do you have other assets that would fund it or what?
I'm interested, but I need to be confident that the insurer can cough up >5000BTC at short notice in the event of a BTCST default.
I'm interested, but I need to be confident that the insurer can cough up >5000BTC at short notice in the event of a BTCST default.
+1 to this
Instead of getting 2.5% with your scheme, I could get ~7% on 1 BTC (e.g. with FOO.PPPPT) and deposit a second BTC in cold storage, bringing my total profit per week to ~3.5%. How is 2.5% a good deal?
Jump to: