Topic: [Group Buy] Avalon ASIC Batch 3 [CLOSED- Seven 4 module Avalons ordered] - page 8. (Read 49861 times)
March 31, 2013, 10:50:35 AM
March 31, 2013, 10:49:04 AM
Splitting ownership interest of each Avalon individually is not up for discussion due to the accounting nightmare I would surely face. If you are not happy with this, please seek someone to buy your shares. There are plenty of people looking to buy shares that are happy with splitting ownership of all Avalon's, myself including.
This decision is not up for debate. I'm sorry if you feel mislead or wronged, that was never my intention.
Thanks,
Ch
This decision is not up for debate. I'm sorry if you feel mislead or wronged, that was never my intention.
Thanks,
Ch
March 31, 2013, 10:46:06 AM
On the percentages spreadsheet for the "monthly net gain" could we also see projected BTC return side by side? Not only the overall aprroximate dollars?
Or am I understanding it wrong?
Or am I understanding it wrong?
March 31, 2013, 10:39:20 AM
March 31, 2013, 10:32:44 AM
Agree on the early and late units. I think that goes against the whole point of having "batches". Is there any evidence from the first batch shipment that there were early and late units?
btw, crypto - great blog. (at least i think its yours
)I Neo. No, the blog you're referring to is not mine. I had no idea there was a blog by that name... If so, I'm sorry about that. I am indeed a (professional) writer/journalist, but I have no blog about cryptos so far, though that might happen in the future.
March 31, 2013, 10:19:55 AM
If you had 7% of the 1st unit, and there were 7 more units added, you would have 1% of 7 units.
It is the same expected income and ROI.
It is the same expected income and ROI.
It would be if they all arrive at the same time. Their point is that, in a worst case scenario, when one unit arrives on the first of the month, and the other six on the last of the month, they would only have 1% of the one unit during the first month instead of the 7%. I was one of the investors of the first two units as well, and I do understand the 'problem', but having 7 units also has it's advantages (like less risk). It's also unlikely that there will be weeks between deliveries (and would expect them all to be sent together, if at all possible.
March 31, 2013, 10:07:45 AM
I also feel this way. I'm not sure how to solve the problem. My money was invested in the first unit.
I had a 10%~ investment on it. I was very likely to get my ROI in the first month. Now I have roughly 1% share. I'm not likely to see my ROI until the very last unit is received and mining. Depending on how avalon ships, it could be less then a few weeks from the first to the last unit. But its likely going to be much longer.
I don't understand your concern.
If you had 7% of the 1st unit, and there were 7 more units added, you would have 1% of 7 units.
It is the same expected income and ROI.
The trade off is that you will still have income if your machine is DOA.
You will also have less income if another machine is DOA.
March 31, 2013, 09:26:57 AM
The arrangement had always been a "group buy" as the SUBJECT of this thread suggests. All investors own all machines equally sharing all the risk between everyone.
I can not imagine the extra work load determining who's is what and when and how much.
It's a GROUP BUY.
I can not imagine the extra work load determining who's is what and when and how much.
It's a GROUP BUY.
I dont want to take a side because i think both views have advantages but it was planned as a group buy to buy one Avalon machine. Then another one. At least iam thought all the time i put my money into to buy the one machine.
Maybe in future groupbuys this has to be specified more exactly. Im ok with having a part of all machines because it spreads the risk in case a machine is broken or something.
Same. I did my due diligence and stayed up for 24+ hours to watch the Avalon event. Had my money in before Avalons were on sale.
CH refunded every member that did not make the cut, closed all payments before Avalon were on sale. Annouced the groubuy was closed. I did not expect him to spend the next 3 days taking more. Though I appreciate the community dedication.
Althought its not actually a big deal.(for me), I now feel shafted because, my investment is diluted for a extra period of time; even though I did the extra work that 80% of the people here did not bother with. At the end of the days it will be moot once all the Avalons are up and running. So we really shouldn't take this out of proportion.
March 31, 2013, 08:47:24 AM
The arrangement had always been a "group buy" as the SUBJECT of this thread suggests. All investors own all machines equally sharing all the risk between everyone.
I can not imagine the extra work load determining who's is what and when and how much.
It's a GROUP BUY.
I can not imagine the extra work load determining who's is what and when and how much.
It's a GROUP BUY.
I agree. I understand Spinner et al.'s position, but this would be an absolute nightmare for CoinHoarder. and even worse with the transmission of shares. This would need weighted attribution of each share, etc. I really think that's not realistic. What's more, I absolutely don't expect it to take weeks between "early" and "late" units.
Agree on the early and late units. I think that goes against the whole point of having "batches". Is there any evidence from the first batch shipment that there were early and late units?
btw, crypto - great blog. (at least i think its yours
) March 31, 2013, 08:13:31 AM
The arrangement had always been a "group buy" as the SUBJECT of this thread suggests. All investors own all machines equally sharing all the risk between everyone.
I can not imagine the extra work load determining who's is what and when and how much.
It's a GROUP BUY.
I can not imagine the extra work load determining who's is what and when and how much.
It's a GROUP BUY.
I agree. I understand Spinner et al.'s position, but this would be an absolute nightmare for CoinHoarder. and even worse with the transmission of shares. This would need weighted attribution of each share, etc. I really think that's not realistic. What's more, I absolutely don't expect it to take weeks between "early" and "late" units.
March 31, 2013, 08:09:45 AM
The arrangement had always been a "group buy" as the SUBJECT of this thread suggests. All investors own all machines equally sharing all the risk between everyone.
I can not imagine the extra work load determining who's is what and when and how much.
It's a GROUP BUY.
I can not imagine the extra work load determining who's is what and when and how much.
It's a GROUP BUY.
I dont want to take a side because i think both views have advantages but it was planned as a group buy to buy one avalon machine. Then another one. At least iam thought all the time i put my money into to buy the one machine.
Maybe in future groupbuys this has to be specified more exactly. Im ok with having a part of all machines because it spreads the risk in case a machine is broken or something.
You have a point, but the problem is that this makes the task of division of mining revenue incredibly complicated for coinhoarder, or whoever is tasked with that duty. Also, what happens when people trade shares? And as people have already mentioned it spreads the risk, so that if machine #5 is shipped and hashing before machine #1, everyone is still earning shares.
March 31, 2013, 07:52:28 AM
The arrangement had always been a "group buy" as the SUBJECT of this thread suggests. All investors own all machines equally sharing all the risk between everyone.
I can not imagine the extra work load determining who's is what and when and how much.
It's a GROUP BUY.
I can not imagine the extra work load determining who's is what and when and how much.
It's a GROUP BUY.
I dont want to take a side because i think both views have advantages but it was planned as a group buy to buy one avalon machine. Then another one. At least iam thought all the time i put my money into to buy the one machine.
Maybe in future groupbuys this has to be specified more exactly. Im ok with having a part of all machines because it spreads the risk in case a machine is broken or something.
March 31, 2013, 07:40:40 AM
The arrangement had always been a "group buy" as the SUBJECT of this thread suggests. All investors own all machines equally sharing all the risk between everyone.
I can not imagine the extra work load determining who's is what and when and how much.
It's a GROUP BUY.
I can not imagine the extra work load determining who's is what and when and how much.
It's a GROUP BUY.
March 31, 2013, 06:58:44 AM
Lots of topics here. As one of the original investors I'd like to weigh in a bit on machine allocation. I'm ok with the plan to distribute investments evenly across all machines. It egalitarian and greatly simplifies accounting. None of this machine-labeling nonsense. Early investors will feel, though, like their investment has been diluted by later investments, (and that was one of the reasons that I kept adding shares ... to offset that dilution a bit).
CoinHoarder, I'm happy with the Ownership Percentages that you came up with for the mining pool ... once you have all 7 miners. Now here's the kicker. How would you feel about doing that 6 more times. Actually I'd be happy to help with this. As I see it people should be added to the pool with the skin they had at the time of EACH purchase. As you begin receiving shipment, shares from the group of investors that enabled you to buy that miner are added to the ownership roster. This gives early investors their "premium" for having skin in the game early on, and it allows later investors to share the risk of any one miner going down.
Any thoughts in this regard would be much appreciated. Thanks
CoinHoarder, I'm happy with the Ownership Percentages that you came up with for the mining pool ... once you have all 7 miners. Now here's the kicker. How would you feel about doing that 6 more times. Actually I'd be happy to help with this. As I see it people should be added to the pool with the skin they had at the time of EACH purchase. As you begin receiving shipment, shares from the group of investors that enabled you to buy that miner are added to the ownership roster. This gives early investors their "premium" for having skin in the game early on, and it allows later investors to share the risk of any one miner going down.
Any thoughts in this regard would be much appreciated. Thanks
I also feel this way. I'm not sure how to solve the problem. My money was invested in the first unit.
I had a 10%~ investment on it. I was very likely to get my ROI in the first month. Now I have roughly 1% share. I'm not likely to see my ROI until the very last unit is received and mining. Depending on how avalon ships, it could be less then a few weeks from the first to the last unit. But its likely going to be much longer.
If you had a 10% investment when there was 1 avalon you should have a 1.428% share of 7 Avalons. They won't necessarily arrive in the order they were bought in anyway, what if the first one arrives a month late? Isn't it better for all of us to spread the risk across all of them? Also it did say in the OP that more machines would be ordered if there was enough money for it with nothing about assigning investors to specific machines.
March 31, 2013, 05:08:38 AM
Ok before I sound like a complete a**hole. I should mention a compromise, say 50% ownership until "your" miner arrives. After that then you're 100% vested. So here are the scenarios:
- 1. Everyone's 100% vested from the begining
- 2. Once the nth miner is received only shared that helped buy all miner up to that one are 100% vested
- 3. Once the nth miner is received shared not represented by the remaining miners are only 50% vested
That might/will cause a new discussion when the units are not received in the order they were bought. You could say that the first miner received counts as the first one ordered, but one could also argue that, if the fifth one arrives first, that we wouldn't have anything yet without the investors in the fifth unit.
March 31, 2013, 03:53:21 AM
Lots of topics here. As one of the original investors I'd like to weigh in a bit on machine allocation. I'm ok with the plan to distribute investments evenly across all machines. It egalitarian and greatly simplifies accounting. None of this machine-labeling nonsense. Early investors will feel, though, like their investment has been diluted by later investments, (and that was one of the reasons that I kept adding shares ... to offset that dilution a bit).
CoinHoarder, I'm happy with the Ownership Percentages that you came up with for the mining pool ... once you have all 7 miners. Now here's the kicker. How would you feel about doing that 6 more times. Actually I'd be happy to help with this. As I see it people should be added to the pool with the skin they had at the time of EACH purchase. As you begin receiving shipment, shares from the group of investors that enabled you to buy that miner are added to the ownership roster. This gives early investors their "premium" for having skin in the game early on, and it allows later investors to share the risk of any one miner going down.
Any thoughts in this regard would be much appreciated. Thanks
CoinHoarder, I'm happy with the Ownership Percentages that you came up with for the mining pool ... once you have all 7 miners. Now here's the kicker. How would you feel about doing that 6 more times. Actually I'd be happy to help with this. As I see it people should be added to the pool with the skin they had at the time of EACH purchase. As you begin receiving shipment, shares from the group of investors that enabled you to buy that miner are added to the ownership roster. This gives early investors their "premium" for having skin in the game early on, and it allows later investors to share the risk of any one miner going down.
Any thoughts in this regard would be much appreciated. Thanks
I also feel this way. I'm not sure how to solve the problem. My money was invested in the first unit.
I had a 10%~ investment on it. I was very likely to get my ROI in the first month. Now I have roughly 1% share. I'm not likely to see my ROI until the very last unit is received and mining. Depending on how avalon ships, it could be less then a few weeks from the first to the last unit. But its likely going to be much longer.
March 31, 2013, 02:56:00 AM
Ok before I sound like a complete a**hole. I should mention a compromise, say 50% ownership until "your" miner arrives. After that then you're 100% vested. So here are the scenarios:
- 1. Everyone's 100% vested from the begining
- 2. Once the nth miner is received only shared that helped buy all miner up to that one are 100% vested
- 3. Once the nth miner is received shared not represented by the remaining miners are only 50% vested
March 31, 2013, 02:47:14 AM
Lots of topics here. As one of the original investors I'd like to weigh in a bit on machine allocation. I'm ok with the plan to distribute investments evenly across all machines. It egalitarian and greatly simplifies accounting. None of this machine-labeling nonsense. Early investors will feel, though, like their investment has been diluted by later investments, (and that was one of the reasons that I kept adding shares ... to offset that dilution a bit).
CoinHoarder, I'm happy with the Ownership Percentages that you came up with for the mining pool ... once you have all 7 miners. Now here's the kicker. How would you feel about doing that 6 more times. Actually I'd be happy to help with this. As I see it people should be added to the pool with the skin they had at the time of EACH purchase. As you begin receiving shipment, shares from the group of investors that enabled you to buy that miner are added to the ownership roster. This gives early investors their "premium" for having skin in the game early on, and it allows later investors to share the risk of any one miner going down.
Any thoughts in this regard would be much appreciated. Thanks
CoinHoarder, I'm happy with the Ownership Percentages that you came up with for the mining pool ... once you have all 7 miners. Now here's the kicker. How would you feel about doing that 6 more times. Actually I'd be happy to help with this. As I see it people should be added to the pool with the skin they had at the time of EACH purchase. As you begin receiving shipment, shares from the group of investors that enabled you to buy that miner are added to the ownership roster. This gives early investors their "premium" for having skin in the game early on, and it allows later investors to share the risk of any one miner going down.
Any thoughts in this regard would be much appreciated. Thanks
March 31, 2013, 01:41:45 AM
CoinHoarder,
Hey, I just checked your ownership spreadsheet and you have me down as 53.099 coins, but to my reckoning I only invested 50 BTC. I think you added my payment of 3.1 twice
I'd be glad to take them, but rather get it fixed now. It'd be a mess if this were exposed after mining.
Hey, I just checked your ownership spreadsheet and you have me down as 53.099 coins, but to my reckoning I only invested 50 BTC. I think you added my payment of 3.1 twice
Quote
2013-03-25 09:49:02 PAYMENT RECEIVED 1 0 248572c5aea14beb4669168eda7fc187ee0218e5bd8bd63316f1114b8dfbd82e Spinner 15hGBYyvfYWGhm8Ts58wohoqGwf7xwyoUJ
2013-03-25 09:51:03 PAYMENT RECEIVED 19 0 1515629aec7aabf120ad86bf2d1d63235149c68835c1d225209d0749cdd27165 Spinner 15hGBYyvfYWGhm8Ts58wohoqGwf7xwyoUJ
2013-03-25 11:42:03 PAYMENT RECEIVED 20 0 8064252c3a58eae24c4305057e7f1bb28b8bec45aae36a510dd598d671f695e1 spinner 15hGBYyvfYWGhm8Ts58wohoqGwf7xwyoUJ
2013-03-25 13:43:24 PAYMENT SENT 0 17.497 5062a5127fd1da2534e7cb9425be24b667e9b7ddff5b9ef854ded2bf92a127bb spinner 15hGBYyvfYWGhm8Ts58wohoqGwf7xwyoUJ
2013-03-25 23:23:03 PAYMENT RECEIVED 3.1 0 7052ee6db7cb8389747a515214bf8c2748207e5d6b979bc8b6a87d1d21dfe5c5 spinner 1Ec3p5MDk4ec3J2QuJEatoQmoTX9AjUcJJ
2013-03-26 04:49:06 PAYMENT RECEIVED 35 0 3095e730f90451b39cc9864636bac8bd37b0c4718263f6ad172a6e74c23c6c86 spinner 15hGBYyvfYWGhm8Ts58wohoqGwf7xwyoUJ
2013-03-26 21:57:09 PAYMENT SENT 0 7.504 735a652c9829ff3328be6566ea7feb3107a9a977f44e1b90b4369e52c698ba76 spinner 1Ec3p5MDk4ec3J2QuJEatoQmoTX9AjUcJJ
2013-03-25 09:51:03 PAYMENT RECEIVED 19 0 1515629aec7aabf120ad86bf2d1d63235149c68835c1d225209d0749cdd27165 Spinner 15hGBYyvfYWGhm8Ts58wohoqGwf7xwyoUJ
2013-03-25 11:42:03 PAYMENT RECEIVED 20 0 8064252c3a58eae24c4305057e7f1bb28b8bec45aae36a510dd598d671f695e1 spinner 15hGBYyvfYWGhm8Ts58wohoqGwf7xwyoUJ
2013-03-25 13:43:24 PAYMENT SENT 0 17.497 5062a5127fd1da2534e7cb9425be24b667e9b7ddff5b9ef854ded2bf92a127bb spinner 15hGBYyvfYWGhm8Ts58wohoqGwf7xwyoUJ
2013-03-25 23:23:03 PAYMENT RECEIVED 3.1 0 7052ee6db7cb8389747a515214bf8c2748207e5d6b979bc8b6a87d1d21dfe5c5 spinner 1Ec3p5MDk4ec3J2QuJEatoQmoTX9AjUcJJ
2013-03-26 04:49:06 PAYMENT RECEIVED 35 0 3095e730f90451b39cc9864636bac8bd37b0c4718263f6ad172a6e74c23c6c86 spinner 15hGBYyvfYWGhm8Ts58wohoqGwf7xwyoUJ
2013-03-26 21:57:09 PAYMENT SENT 0 7.504 735a652c9829ff3328be6566ea7feb3107a9a977f44e1b90b4369e52c698ba76 spinner 1Ec3p5MDk4ec3J2QuJEatoQmoTX9AjUcJJ
I'd be glad to take them, but rather get it fixed now. It'd be a mess if this were exposed after mining.
March 31, 2013, 12:46:47 AM
Reviewed your charts there - wow lots of work 
. Nice job with those. Good luck to all on the buy-in.
. Nice job with those. Good luck to all on the buy-in. Jump to: