Topic: 📈 NastyFans: The Bitcoin Enthusiast Fan Club (est. 2012) - page 10. (Read 958946 times)

This is an easy question. Holding BTC has made us a substantial amount of money that we would have missed out on had I expanded the mining operation. If I had spent this money to expand you would be complaining that we would have been better off holding. I’ve been in Bitcoin a long time and decisions like this to wait in order to spend funds has historically been the right one and I’m glad my gamble paid off for us all.  

We have 2 VII’s and an S17 operating currently. Anyone is free to join me in donating hashes to NastyFans as this is a community organization. I’m leading by example with my mining operation and product line but expect someday I will not be alone in donating to this venture as others continue to grow their interest in the organization’s longterm success.

I don’t know how in touch you are with the mining community but it is nearly impossible to find a GPU or ASIC for sale right now at anywhere near MSRP. If you can provide new mining equipment at MSRP let me know and I’ll happily expand when the time is right (likely near the end of the year if history repeats).

just curious - but most of my questions have thus been ignored.

such as my question on whether these have truly made ROI or not.


I also have another question.

with as much as the seats have brought in, why has the mining not expanded?

From my understanding, it is a single gpu - or is there more than that? And if it is a single gpu - why not expand? It cannot be for a lack of funds, you have many times stated you are a millionaire - so expand. Especially as you have a 11.2 kw/h system.

In response to the above post I should mention the 125% ROI fact I posted was about 1oz silver minted seats which are coins and a majority of their cost is for services like address generation, engraving, precious metals, etc.

When talking about regular NastyFans digital seats, the ROI on those is closer to 3,000%.

Disclaimer: Post below was originally posted Friday, and deleted a few hours later, due to the fact that some of what I said I was posting from memory recall, and wanted to re-confirm I wasn't misunderstanding any of our prior discussions. After looking through prior stuff, *again*, I don't believe I was misinterpreting anything.

---

OK, 1st sentence is a fair point, maybe a bad example I used.. But then you go on to add in a bunch of BS to create a false narrative and deflect from the main point I was making, which is you claiming a 125% "ROI" on an investment, when it doesn't exist.
Also a fun fact: You've never once described the difference of a "custodian of someone's funds" and "accepting someone's funds as a payment for an item". I'm not even sure why you would have ever talked to me about that, as it would have had nothing to do with any of our dealings.) 
..

You question me on the comparison above, while you compare an investment to a "payment for an item". Or comparing "someone raising money to buy a GPU miner today, then 9 years from now they have a million dollars" to an organization that takes in funds for seats/shares for a % of a mining operation which provides BTC returns to the coin's address and claims 6 years later they have 125% "ROI" when they don't.

The payment did come with a physical asset or "item", but it also included a long-term investment of NastyFans shares/seats, essentially getting a % of a BTC mining operation, which promised weekly BTC returns to the coin's address and included a built-in donation to OgNasty/NastyMining as part of the payment.

Maybe I just [stupidly] took you at your word back then, because I thought you were an honest guy, and I had more trust in your word back then. But at the end of the day, they were your words. I've tried to just accept you have a condition that, when facing adversity, isn't conducive to being logical and usually comes with rage, so I'm not sure there is really anyway I could ever get through to you.

Regardless of all that, to me it seems unethical and dishonest to claim 125% "ROI" because BTC's value went up.

---

Another disclaimer: I saw a response to the post above on my phone over the weekend, some time after I deleted my post. It seemed like Og was arguing over the purchasing power of the seats and trying to state that I am not acknowledging the value of seats has dropped because the value of BTC went up. I'll let OgNasty speak for himself, but in my point of view, the value of seats have dropped because NastyMining hasn't been able to keep up with the difficulty and generate enough BTC to sustain substantial long-term BTC growth for NastyFans.

Instead of having a leader who acknowledges any of this and maybe seeks ways to address the shortfalls, instead he wants to claim a 125% "ROI", which gives the appearance the seats have been a successful BTC investment, and he can just put the feather in his cap and walk on... which doesn't sit well with me. I can't tell if this is some sort of a sales tactic for new members, or a way to absolve any prior obligations about making a prior investor whole.

I explained that I took QS at his word he had the seats listed at a higher price. I explained I saw them be listed and sold within a few days. If there’s an accusation you want to make, maybe you should make a reputation thread about it instead of trying to derail this thread with semantics.

No, you changed my quote to muddy the waters.  My point only requires reading your own words.

I'm including QS to give context so people know what you are responding to.


Clearly this conflicts with your attempt to backtrack and not know what was going on with the seats before hand:

Nope. I’m making an offer for those concerned with the buy side liquidity. I certainly don’t recommend anyone take me up on that offer and sell their seats for that as it is in my opinion incredibly undervaluing them. I haven’t bought any seats at that price, nor do I expect anyone would need to sell them for that price as the market has been shown to be willing to buy hundreds of seats quickly at higher prices. Much like nonnakip wants to address pending distributions to make them accessible for those who want them, I would like to make our savings accessible for those who want to do so. Options are good and I’m glad to be able to offer this one.

So you're buying up the seats at 0.0005 when there is 0.00056 worth of savings per seat but you're resisting a buyback by the club itself because "[you] want to grow the organization, not shrink it". Does that adequately capture your conflict of interest here? How does your buying grow it?

I shortened your quotes to make the discussion easier for you to understand.

QS brought up a concern he had. He was worried there was no liquidity on the buy side of the auction. I responded by saying NastyMining or myself would purchase up to 15 BTC of seats at 0.0005 BTC per seat (currently worth $833,250) if anyone was interested. That offer will put a floor under seat prices in BTC terms which is something I think people have wanted to see with this organization for a long time.

You already did comment on them, and you seemed pretty certain:

Awesome. I know that has been a concern for some of the members so it is great to see a solution in the works to be implemented. Any news about progress on a poll for the minted seats giveaway? I’m curious how people feel about that.

I like the idea of trigger for payout. We do not need to vote for this.

I will implement a feature with a basis on shop infrastructure. A member can click "trigger payout" and a Bitcoin address and amount is shown for member to send a payment. The amount will be exact amount to push hold amount to minimum threshold for automatic distribution payout. This will work for online seats and minted seats.

You don’t seem to understand the difference between being a custodian of someone’s funds and accepting someone’s funds as payment for an item. It’s not a difficult subject to comprehend, but I’ve tried explaining it to you so many times, I think your inability to grasp outweighs my ability to teach. I’d recommend starting your own thread to discuss the issue so you don’t convolute this thread with your misunderstandings.

I believe I've answered this in the prior post. And, your FPGA example does not represent what you've setup here with NastyMining/NastyFans. But, if you really need me to entertain your irrelevant example, let's adjust it to you paying BTC for the FPGA. Unless that FPGA makes its BTC back, it was a bad BTC investment, and you probably should have just kept the BTC.

I stated that you said your goal (NastyMining) was to get BTC in the hands of NastyFans. Nice play on words though.

In case you were too lazy to go back through our PMs, you definitely said it. Unlike you, I don't make things up, never have.. and I don't intend to start now.



You seem to be able to comprehend BTC for BTC when it favors you. How would you have felt if nicehash would have just returned the current USD rate in 2020 for BTC funds stolen in 2017?

Why would it seem odd that this has exceeded my expectations?  This was started as a project to run an FPGA miner that cost around $400 at the time.  That would be like someone raising money to buy a GPU miner today, then 9 years from now they have a million dollars and some idiots are going around saying it was a stupid investment.  I don't know about you, but if someone borrowed $400 from me today and 9 years from now they gave me a million dollars back while paying me weekly the entire time, I wouldn't be crying about the return and calling that person a scammer.  That would be foolish and embarrassing. 

As for the stated goal of NastyFans being to get BTC in the hands of NastyFans...  I think you literally just made that up.  If anything, NastyFans is a unique diversification play that would have done well regardless of if BTC went up or down due to it's product line and no cost mining capabilities.  My actual goal with this organization was to show that there's a better way to run an organization that can let everyone play a role in it's success while utilizing the transparent and unique nature of Bitcoin along with renewable energy.  It's a proof of concept that doesn't need any of the typical infrastructure and cannot fail unless it's given up on by everyone involved.  Much like Bitcoin itself. 

In case you were too lazy to actually look at the policy and about sections on nastyfans.org before wrongly assuming our goals, let me highlight the first line of this thread for you, since you seem to have failed to see what this organization is about.  I'd say you should probably read it a few times and hold yourself accountable for not understanding what you're attacking.  Maybe take a look at how transparent we are and the efforts that are being put forth without compensation and appreciate that some people care enough to put their time and money into something in the hopes of inspiring others to build on Bitcoin.

Still seems odd when you say it has "exceeded every expectation I ever had for it".. considering you stated your expectations to me were to "get BTC into the hands of NastyFans". It's an odd statement because you have taken more BTC from me than you've given back... so which is it.. are you trying to get BTC into the hands of NastyFans, or USD?  Or does it even matter.. considering, in your head, you can apparently spin either scenario into a "success"?

Well, I don't get paid for sig spamming.

You can't cancel me, Og.

I’m sorry. I get that we get paid for sig spamming, but this back and forth is losing my interest. The data is very clear. The seats that sold were listed for only a couple days. If they were listed at some unrealistic price before that, I can’t comment on with any certainty and can only take QS at his word. I don’t have access to that data. All I can see from the data I have is that the seats were listed and sold at that price in under 48 hours. That is a fact and not something up for interpretation or debate.

Ok, well, according to the apparent seat holder and you they were.

They weren’t. The data is very clear as well as me personally witnessing the seats being listed for less than two days before being sold to a different user on the public auction. It isn’t something we can debate. The facts are very black and white. As far as things to complain about, a user making money selling an item on a perfectly functioning public auction seems to be one of the stranger ones I’ve heard. Bless your little heart though. I love that you want to participate here, even if your efforts are misguided. It takes all kinds.

You still shouldn't say "There were just a couple hundred seats traded after being listed only a few days." if they were actually listed for a few months.

It doesn't matter what you think about the price before or after, you're misleading potential buyers.  

Do you understand why it's unethical?