Topic: [HAVELOCK] PETAMINE - 1,150 TH/S HASH RATE (1GH/S per Unit) - page 117. (Read 565833 times)

PetaMine starts deployment up to 1,143 TH/s this Monday

May 21, 2014

We would like to announce that in the event that the first batch of 10,000 units are not sold out by This Sunday the 25th of May,2014 at 20:00 GMT, CryptX will purchase all remaining units of this batch.

On Monday 26th of May, PetaMine will begin to increase the current hash rate from 500 TH/s to 1,143 TH/s. All the hardware is ready and the deployment will start THIS Monday.

If and When more than 10,000 units sell in the current IPO we will deploy the remaining TH/s according the schedule in the Prospectus up to 1,500 TH/s.

We look forward to taking the PETA Fund operation to the next level. Thank you, The Cryptx Team



nice!

@NotLambChop : No problem, as said thanks for your time and opinions !

@Howardb : Then we seem to agree on all points
I also didn't have any issue with the initial win/win plan potential, but their last move made my alarms go off as well....

I'm not sure why you thought I was talking abour Cryptx as being virtual, it's the PETA project that is in effect a virtual corporation. Neither did I say
I believed they are scamming us. My view is they have taken the opportunity to generate a high value project where nearly all the risk is on us the shareholders of the project (who also appear have no say in the running of that project). It's win/win for Cryptx almost any way this goes, and in that I must congratulate them on a good business plan. Having said all that, their IPO('s) would not be legal in most countries if for no other reasons than they donot provide shareholder safeguards or manage conflicts of interest transparently or at all!

@Kivela:  Thank you for your thorough response, and would like to apologize for my tone.

@NotLambChop

Firstly thanks for the response,
I did misinterpret your statement.

I must admit I personally have an issue with the idea of an IPO in an already running fund and the way it went down.  

The abbreviation IPO seems to be used without any sense of meaning on havelock so the idea of 'sound investments' is gone from the moment you start picking up shares over there anyhow.  They were able to buy shares, set a new price and lock out all the others (who made it happen from day one) in the meanwhile.    In my opinion that is what market regulation does on the normal market, regulating those types of excesses ...
Yes we all have made bad decisions based on emotions (or at least I did buy stock of companies that I shouldn't have), but a normal firm is never able to do this type of manipulation (or not so visibly anyhow).  I would understand that they would create some risk based derivative as in an option plan for themselves, but these are also publicly published in a normal market situation.  Now the market deregulation is so clearly visible that staying in the market seems illogical all together.

Giving I already received feedback that portrayed me as being a cryptx fanatic of some kind I would like to restate I have never made 'investment advice' regarding them, rather I posed questions and made statements regarding likelihood of them being scammers giving their personal exposure.

I do appreciate your feedback, link to previous cases and your critical view overall, sharing these is what forums are ment for in my opinion !

So thanks for enlightening me regarding the Brewster story.

I agree mostly with what people are saying when they say this isn't a con.

they could also be pumping and dumping their own shares.  I don't know that there is any mandatory disclosure of the primaries' positions in terms of shares, or if they are obligated to disclose their sales.

This listing of the IPO at well over market struck me as strange from the outset.  I have no idea nor evidence that's it's an intentional pump, so it's nothing but speculation that it is possible.  It happens every day and is not a new idea.

For the most part I'm a fan.  PETA has been pretty good to me.  I'm not thrilled about this IPO coming out well over market price, as I think it
 is a mistake on a couple of levels, one of which is that price will likely drop a good 15-25% upon trade opening again, as the market clearly is not buying the .095 valuaton, so this will shoot investors, who are locked out of trading right now, straight in the ass, although PETA can still fix this if they want to......

^If the marks understood how scams worked, they would not "invest" in the scams, and the scams would fail.  I assumed that was self-evident.

A well-orchestrated scam is one where the perpetrators do not need to run and hide.  A good scam is both sustainable and, when it finally concludes, is indistinguishable from an ordinary failed business.  This one's not only feeding money into a hosting business, it is also raising money through now-standard "second IPOs," and sprouting siblings (SCRYPT).

As far as names, addresses, and the rest of that silliness, in Bitcoinspace that's not even a risk -- the names and addresses of Pirateat40, Ukyo and NeoBee are public knowledge also.  A good scammer knows his marks.

That's what you seem to have missed in the Danny Brewster story.

Thanks for your swift reply.

Yet up until now if they would have just done nothing, they would have been well off as well.
As in, there is no clear reason for them to start scamming in my humble opinion.

Shares can only be sold to other interested parties, so the risk is shared between the share holders,
the hosting fee is a fee that is payed no matter if the share price should fall, it would just burn out sooner rather than later due to the lacking initial power to keep up.  (hereby already indicating that in my calculations keeping up with the network with reinvestments is simply not possible)

I am interested in your last statement however...

If I would understand how cons worked, they wouldn't ?

Care to enlighten me ? 
What I stated is that if they would really be complete scams they would be better off in just letting the fund 'starve to death' at the 0.45 hosting cost and open up a new one with a new venture instead.
Now they have published their names, addresses, ages, registration numbers out in the open for all of us to see.

Clearly I have missed something from the Danny Brewster story since they are not youngsters, so please do clarify.

Many ventures starting out honest turn to scamming when things go wrong and best-case scenario projections fail to materialize.
Re. "I personally would think they would have done it in a less privacy-exposing way":  If you understood how cons worked, they wouldn't.
TL;DR: Danny Brewster/NeoBee.

Cryptx differs from being a virtual company in my humble opinion.

Since they are a registered company in Belgium they actually have their names, addresses (and names of their spouses... err. spouse in singular since one of them is unmarried) online through what is called in Belgium 'het staatsblad' which lists the registration papers of all companies.

I do agree with all of you that their main source of income is the hosting of 'our' miners, but that seemed obvious to me from day one.
On the other hand if they would really like to scam us I personally would think they would have done it in a less privacy-exposing way than this, so I still trust in the fact they are trying to make a decent income, while not biting the hand that feeds them...

Yes they are bad at communication, yes their math is way-off from time to time, but they are out in the open, and not 2 script kiddies having a blast without any risk towards themselves... If they really were in it for a short time scam, I would imagine they would have serious nightmares given that they are so exposed to all of you...

So nope, it is not a virtual company.
It is a normal SME, struggling to improve without a doubt, but I truly believe in their intentions to make it a win-win for most or all of us.
And Peta-Mine and Scrypt are just vehicles towards this end goal I think/hope.
In the end I think they had a great idea (and the balls to do it) and up until now they are doing a great job in trying to get and keep it going.

Regarding IPOs like this not being legal in the developed world...

Most if not all (even big) dot com company IPOs should be deemed illegal then, since most of them don't care about their users or shareholders, most of them have never even had profit in their books... Even the bigger companies like Apple are known to not have their corporate strategy tied by activist shareholders (remember the debate regarding flowing some of the excess cash towards the shareholders a few months ago).

I do agree that most dot com companies are not sound investment strategies,
however as long as there is demand we are on the wrong side of the tape/ticker aren't we...

Cryptx

Another important question - there is some missinformation about reinvestment:

I will quotet Your posts realted to reinvestments:




So firstly we have 111btc - 108 goes to 18TH of LK miners.

then:




so now after that we have:
 0 btc for reinvestment
all BTC spend for reinvestment - 108+30=148 BTC
18+6 = 24 TH from reinvestment



so now we have:
 0.8 btc for reinvestment
all BTC spend for reinvestment - 108+30+24=162 BTC
18+6 +4= 28TH (28 LK miners) from reinvestment



so now we have:
 0 btc for reinvestment
all BTC spend for reinvestment - 108+30+24+30=192 BTC
18+6 +4+5= 33 TH from reinvestment (33 LK miners)



so now we have:
2 btc for reinvestment
all BTC spend for reinvestment - 108+30+24+30+30=222 BTC
18+6 +4+5+6= 39 TH from reinvestment (39 LK miners)

Next updates dont include buying miners and gives as total aroung 150 BTC so exactly as it is stated in prospect.
But in prospect there is 27 Dragonminers from LK, according to my calculation it should be 39 or this founds goes to other systems or what?

It means : we are currenty hashing at 466th - 39th are from aour founds (not from IPO but our cash taken to reinvestment.) so Cyptx provide 427th.
Or if we have for real 503th: 503 - 39th = 464 th but we are currently hashing at 466th during last week.

Cryptx please explain how much TH You provide from IPO funds and how much and what machines You provide from our reinvestment funds.

Cryptx

Still not answered question why we are hashing at 466TH for couple of last days when when it should be according to Prospect 503 th??
30 th it is 1.7 BTC/Day now. Do you have any issue with machines?

Just to understand things (no fud, no bad feelings, please don't delete my post)

16/05, mined 200btc, dividends 0.00150424, btc price 430$, share price ~0.072 = 2.1%

Assuming IPO sells out, next values (if btc price stays at 500$, share price 0.095) would be?
Assuming IPO doesn't sell out, next values (if btc price stays at 500$, share price 0.095) would be?

It is really an interesting thing, avoiding speculation on far future (far = couple of months). If the weekly dividend % triples because we deploy triple hashing power, the share price doesn't really matter (as long as it is stable). Share price would be a variable just for when jumping in (or back in for who left as I did).

As for future reinvestment, as I proposed a while ago, I'm keen to push Cryptx to find a voting method to increase the reinvestment %, or even to change the time-frame of pay outs. Whatever, but it has to be a common agreement. Daily/Weekly speculators may not be happy (*) but long term ones will.

*Fluctuations based on pre-div payout, post-div payout will still be there, making it appealing for short term speculators to make a margin.

I am not aware of anything similar to PETA fund. I don't want to convert btc to "play"/invest on nasdaq or other markets. I don't want to have my btc sitting doing nothing and just waiting for the price to go higher.

I invested in HIF and it didn't work out. PETA got me with the whole timing/decision making/communication issues, so pissed off, I just wanted out.
As I mentioned in another post, time to step back to sprint forward. Regroup, organize, clear thing out and start with reinvigorated strength!

tomorrow i will try to make functions for

$/BTC
Difficulty
cost$/Gh/s
w/Gh/s

on the spreadsheet

@cryptx

How is the marketing going for this ipo to sell off these 10, 000 shares?  At the moment I find it hard to see all of them sell off at this rate.

Thanks webbrowser.

Why does the reinvestment percentage starts at 90% after the hardware is paid for?

Well, the more shares are sold in this IPO the better the deal is for everybody...

You want to know what's really depressing?
I've figured out the rough formula for the loan amount and why it was not provided.



I don't see how batch 1 will sell out.  But if it does,



With 688 units sold at IPO, it will take 5 weeks to repay the 1376BTC loan.

But he's a 'hero member' lol!

dat trust score doe

That's irrelevant to this thread.

The main issue with most mining securities is that the operator (most likely intentionally) uses completely inaccurate network difficulty projections. The prospectus assumed the difficulty increase is linear?! One look at http://bitcoindifficulty.com/ tells you all you need to know.