Topic: [Havelock] Bitcoin Difficulty Derivative (BDD) - page 58. (Read 290235 times)

Hasn't it been established that the major mining operators are colluding now to create a shortage in the supply?  Ghash has been producing significantly less blocks over the past weeks - at one point they fell below Discus Fish in the 24 hour numbers.

Can someone explain me what's an easy calculation I can make to see when the next dividend of B.SELL will be paid?


Many thanks

Period 16, Day 6 Report - August 1, 2014

Balance Post Divs: BTC 324.41657761

Total Units: 12775

NAV/U: BTC 0.02530174

Im sure he cooperated why would he make things harder on himself, he knew it would be easy for him just to pay the fine and go about his day.

Read this, if you are a U.S. Citizen http://www.sec.gov/rules/interp/33-7516.htm

Think havelock is protecting you, might want to think again. It even address U.S. Citizens using offshore businesses.

Period 16, Day 5 Report - July 31, 2014

Balance Post Divs: BTC 324.41657761

Total Units: 12755

NAV/U: BTC 0.02543446

^Huh.  OK.
BTW, there are two possible explanations as to why Voorhees got off so easy.
Perhaps, as you've suggested, the SEC didn't want to to come down hard on a gambling operator flagrantly ignoring SEC's own regulations.  Because ~pause for effect~ ...bad publicity.
Or Voorhees genuinely cooperated
I have no idea.

For once, you weren't the one I was arguing with. 

Period 16, Day 4 Report - July 30, 2014

Balance Post Divs: BTC 325.81169381

Total Units: 12743

NAV/U: BTC 0.02556789

What falsehood did you discover in my post, specifically?  Or do you just need to vent?

What you utterly fail to recognize is that the penalty is chump change for issuing unregistered securities anyway?  Furthermore the SEC doesn't want to start a fight in the Supreme Court right now, which will happen in this scenario until they clarify crowdsourcing regulations set forth by the JOBS Act.

Period 16, Day 3 Report - July 29, 2014

Balance Post Divs: BTC 324.77789604

Total Units: 12639

NAV/U: BTC 0.02569648

^You have a propensity for popping up in my threads, offering your opinion regarding my true identity.
I feel it's only right to return the favor

Re. Mr. Galfry:  Just another US national like yourself whose fine offering was vetted by Havelock.

Please take your battle with Havelock to the HIF thread or the Mintspare thread, this is the BDD thread.

Twentysevent is a US national,* using your services in breach of your stated TOS.**

So now you know

P.S: Any good news from Mr. Galfry Puechavy of MintSpare (8894 Southwest 129th Terrace, Miami, FL 33176-5945)?  Any plans for the 100 BTC you're "holding" for him?

---

*https://localbitcoins.com/ad/99436/buy-bitcoins-with-cash-winder-ga-usa
** https://www.havelockinvestments.com/havelock-tos.pdf

All of our Funds and our Exchange are registered, regulated and approved by the regulatory body in our jurisdication.The Funds are administered by a law firm and an accounting firm. Please do not assume that the SEC is the only regulatory body. Every country has their own regulators.  Erik  a great person that has always done his best to help move bitcoin forward, did not register his offering at the time, our Funds however are registered. TwentySeventy position in the BDD fund is to manage the front end day to day investor relations.  Havelock Investment provides an open platform for the Bitcoin community to exchange units of our Funds in a safe secure way. The free market determines the value of those Funds.   

We have worked hard over the past couple of years to evolve with the Bitcoin Eco system. We thank everyone in the community that have supported our efforts. 

Thank you,
Havelock Investments

I'm very aware of the current regulatory environment regarding the issuance of stocks, bonds, and other types of securities in the US.

I'm equally aware of the Erik Voorhees case; in my opinion, that was simply a slap on the wrist for him. He ran the largest (at the time) BTC gambling operation in the world, netting him millions in profits. The SEC charged him with securities violations due to his issuance of stock in FeedZeBirds and S.DICE, much like the IRS arresting Al Capone for tax evasion.

People here fail to realize that the US Gov't didn't set out to get Big Bad Voorhees for issuing stock; they wanted to get him on gambling charges, but that was proving too difficult.

That all being said, B.MINE, B.SELL, and B.EXCH are all linked contracts issued by and on HavelockInvestments.com - I am the Manager, for which I take a percentage of the sales of EXCH and a percentage of Havelock's trading fees generated by the trading of the three contracts. The daily NAV/U listings are exactly that - just the Fund's net asset value divided by the total number of units. All of the assets are liquid (BTC).

I've never called BDD anything but exactly what it is and have certainly never positioned as like a mutual fund or other investment vehicle. Regarding your 'disgorgement' scare tactics - I don't have direct control of the funds, Havelock does, so that's a non-starter. To be candid, I believe that Havelock and the companies/contracts/etc. listed there are pretty small-fry for the SEC; they're looking to go after the big boys and the big scammers (not that I think that any of the listed funds are scams - the SEC just has better reason to try and get those actively scamming people versus those acting in good faith, but simply outside the constraints of securities laws).

In addition to that, I believe that I've proven myself to be one of the most trustworthy members in this subforum during my time here. I'm here literally every day posting the NAV/U, issuing full reports after every ~12 day period, and answering questions. Finally, if Wall Street has shown us anything in the last decade, it's that the real innovation often gets done more quickly than regulation does; at this point, the laws surrounding Bitcoin and BTC-linked activities are sparse, at best, unless you're running a simple MSB. Until there are some clear guidelines regarding a US resident managing the day-to-day operations for a set of derivative contracts issued by a Bitcoin-based exchange based in Panama, I'm going to keep managing BDD as is. In the absolute worst case scenario, I can relinquish control of BDD to Havelock (though this isn't news to anyone that's been paying attention over the past six months).

Your concern is appreciated and noted.

This has probably been talked about before, but I'd be interested to know if this could apply to B.EXCH. The full release does reveal that the US Securities Commission actively monitors BITCOINTALK Forum. Most nations have a similar US Securities Enforcement counterpart. You might be of interest to them 20's as it appears you are offering THREE unregistered securities not just two like Voorhees. And this business with the daily NAVs makes things look like mutual funds. You are digging your own grave. Do seek legal advice before writing anymore (but I fear it is too late.)

No one is beyond the law.

And I'm extremely interested in this "full disgorgement" process i.e. does the disgorged money go to the "shareholders" or to the Feds? (We all know the answer.) So then, how many "shareholders" would actually petition the Fed for redress?

 http://www.sec.gov/News/PressRelease/Detail/PressRelease/1370541972520#.U9b6rY1dUtQ:


Washington D.C., June 3, 2014 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged the co-owner of two Bitcoin-related websites for publicly offering shares in the two ventures without registering them.
An SEC investigation found that Erik T. Voorhees published prospectuses on the Internet and actively solicited investors to buy shares in SatoshiDICE and FeedZeBirds.  But he failed to register the offerings with the SEC as required under the federal securities laws.  Investors paid for their shares using Bitcoin, a virtual currency that can be used to purchase real-world goods and services and exchanged for fiat currencies on certain online exchanges.  The profits ultimately earned by Voorhees through the unregistered offerings totaled more than $15,000.

Voorhees agreed to settle the SEC’s charges by paying full disgorgement of the $15,843.98 in profits plus a $35,000 penalty for a total of more than $50,000.

“All issuers selling securities to the public must comply with the registration provisions of the securities laws, including issuers who seek to raise funds using Bitcoin,” said Andrew J. Ceresney, director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement.  “We will continue to focus on enforcing our rules and regulations as they apply to digital currencies.”

Period 16, Day 2 Report - July 28, 2014

Balance Post Divs: BTC 325.41870050

Total Units: 12599

NAV/U: BTC 0.02582893

Yeah, I'm coming up with right about 9.05%, so we're not too far off from each other.

For each incremental increase of ~7% in the Difficulty, the Period shortens by 1 Day (i.e. if there was an increase of 49% then the period would be about 7 Days long). So if it increases between 7% to 14% (where is where we fall here), we're only going to have to pay out 12 days of dividends instead of 13, which is where I think the (small) difference is.