Topic: 📈 NastyFans: The Bitcoin Enthusiast Fan Club (est. 2012) - page 118. (Read 958995 times)

I'm sure Blazedout419 meant 75MH/s is killing it. And of course it would! That's 70+ AMD 280x GPUs.

Did you mean 75 KH/s, cause I'd be interested in hearing more about your setup if it wasn't a typo!

Scrypt hardware at this point is GPUs. The key is choosing the right ones and operating them efficiently. Scrypt ASICs are promised but vaporware so far.

I check every single morning to see if scrypt ASICs are available for order yet. We are scrypt mining away with 1.6MH/s now, but I can't power and cool 75MH/s worth of GPUs. It isn't realistic.

That's really not that bad of an idea depending on the price of the hardware.  I did a quick little experiment the other day mining litecoin and it looks like that is currently a bit more profitable than BTC mining.. For myself, I'm only using my GPU for LTC which is basically nothing but my plan is to trade that for BTC at some point.. I don't know anything about Scrypt hardware though..

Ok, NOW I'll go crawl back into my hole and be quite for a while!

Agree. There are some good deals on 280x stuff right now, when you can find it in stock. With smart system builds (I have the utmost confidence in OgNasty here) these have pretty good ROI with scrypt.

There may be an issue with scrypt ASIC's theoretically on the way, but GPUs look to pay for themselves in a month or so, which is sooner than any scrypt ASICs are likely to actually exist IMO, and even then they should still have decent resale value as gamer cards.

I'm doing some of this in my own operation, but I don't have near 75 MH. Wow.

LOL! I hear ya there!


Great points and I agree on all (including wanting to be repaid while I'm still alive! lol).  

My main thing is that I'd like to see a bank built up so that when options to move on new equipment you, OG Nasty, can move swiftly without having to put together a loan request, collect, etc.

Yes, I'd ike to see the debt paid off more quickly than the 25% as I think that'll help potential new Fans have some fun, but I just want Nasty to be poised in a great position to move forward quickly.  In fact, I'd probably vote for some percentage going to the holdings account and maybe an additonal amount (> than 25%) to go toward the debt.  If the 75% goes through then maybe something like 40% to holdings and 35% to debt repayment.. Either way.. That's just my voice and I'm going to keep it shut for a while again! lol

Why not purchase scrypt hardware along side of BTC???  My 360GH of ASIC is getting close to useless... mean while my 75MH of GPU is killing it. 

Applause!

It is easy to look back now and say that we made a mistake taking debt when we did.  The bullet run didn't make it by November and the BTC price increased.  However, if BTC would have crashed down to $2, we would be talking about how genius it was to get debt in BTC.  At the time, it seemed that jumping on the next-gen equipment was the only option we had and there were those advising me who believed I was far too bullish on BTC at the time, so I went against my instincts thinking that I was perhaps blinded by my own bullishness (turns out I was not).

The fact is that our debt has increased far faster than I had imagined at the time.  However, I structured our debt so that this would never be a killer of the operation.  In the loan it says that 25% of our mined income will go to debt.  I want to make it perfectly clear that any amount paid over that would be strictly at MY OWN JUDGEMENT.  Increasing the share of income that is paid to NASTY MINING's holding address does not necessarily correlate to paying down debt faster.  I'm not saying I wouldn't use it to pay down debt ahead of further investments, but it is certainly within my rights and abilities as the operator of NASTY MINING.  Going back to the debt structure...  The debt we hold is the best debt you can have in the world.  It is 0% debt with no timely required payments.  Basically, if we wanted, we could take 100 years to pay back this debt and it would be perfectly within our agreement.  That being said, I am the last lender to be repaid and do have a personal interest in this debt being repaid while I am still alive.

So is our debt a big deal?  Yes and no.  It's a large number, but it represents only a 25% share of our mining income.  It never has to be more than that, and we can divert distributions to a separate account for future equipment purchases while only keeping 25% of our income going towards debt.  Again, not saying that is what we should do.  I'm just saying we still have a lot of options and while the debt amount is great now, it doesn't threaten us as long as BTC mining is still largely profitable.  For example, at the current difficulty, NASTY MINING would still be able to operate profitably and pay down our debts with a $100 Bitcoin, and that is with our current soon to be outdated equipment.  While the debt does pose a threat to the operation, it isn't as dire as it seems, since if BTC drops below $100 and our operation becomes unprofitable, we would have an easier time repaying the debt at a beneficial rate with savings we do accumulate, for example our alt coins that are saved until needed (like how they recently bought us 2TH of mining equipment with most fans not even aware we had that many alt coins).

One last comment on the debt and then I will largely shut up, unless there are new points to be addressed.

The lenders made an investment on terms that they would be paid back from "NASTY MINING's 25% share of NastyFans' donation distributions" (for example see https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/100-repaid-nasty-mining-200-btc-loan-258099). They made a somewhat risky investment with a potential return of 5% over a few months (i.e. 21.5% annualized) if the donations were enough to pay back the loan that fast (in fact some of the lenders have been repaid). This was a very generous return and it stands to reason there was potential down side.

In fact the donations have slowed and payback has taken longer, but along the way everything has been done as promised when the loan was offered and accepted by all parties involved.

I don't feel we have any obligation, ethical or otherwise, to redirect our donations in order to pay back the lenders faster than the deal originally called for. If we stick with the 25% agreed terms then NASTY FANS is not particularly at risk. The most we will ever have to pay to service this debt, regardless of what happens to BTC prices, fiat, etc. is 25% of donations. That is quite reasonable, responsible, and not particularly risky -- again in line with a 30% debt to equity ratio.

If we get another 10 bagger, we will all be very happy, both with respect to NASTY FANS and, I suspect, our other activities (in many cases for people in this group). You are looking (myopically I would argue) at the debt as one small piece of a much bigger picture.


I think its entirely plausible the seat price will do very well. We have incoming capacity that is several times the existing capacity. If BTC does another 10x in the near future that capacity will produce millions of dollars worth of BTC. Yes the difficulty would eventually adjust to the price rise but that takes time. At present ASIC orders are already months behind production capacity. No matter how much people may want to mine more, it just isn't possible.

I hear you, and I basically agree, however that jump applies to everything (including the donations we receive and or / have received if we haven't spent them.)




What do I know? Honestly, I really don't know much, so these are just my own thoughts on the topic and I'm only sharing because I enjoy speculating and hearing others opinions / observations etc.


Personally, I don't think that will affect it too much (some emotions will likely come into play so I think it will affect prices some). The higher the fiat price of BTC means that the donations are worth that much more so it really shouldn't matter very much at all.  Also, because the seat price is dictated primarily by current holders of seats who probably think in terms of BTC being BTC like you and me that won't affect them too much.  (It hasn't affected me to date and I bought in late in the game (at higher seat prices)) 

Of course if no-one is willing to buy then the current owners are likely to reduce the price by however badly they want / need to liquidate their seats. And that, I think is where the main impact would be..

So new, potential investors may be scared away from a debt of 1.6 million in BTC, but if they look at the donation page and see that they are getting a good, per-share donation (times that same fiat price) then they should feel much better - no?

NastyFan seat fair price has really only changed for the following reasons as far as I can gather:

• Network difficulty going through the roof = tends to cause seat price to drop (donations less and less)
• Equipment delivered = tends to cause seat price to jump (donations become more)
• Increase in BTC to fiat prices - should cause the seat price to rise as the donations would now be worth more fiat
• People who didn't like the BFL order want to liquidate and are willing to accept less than they really think it's worth - Seat price drop as much as the owners are desparate to liquidate
• Other fans just wanting / needing to liquidate for who knows, some extra BTC or fiat over the holidays - Seat price drop as much as the owners are desparate to liquidate
• The new silver coins - should cause the seat price to go up some
• The pool incentives - tend to cause seat prices to go up some
• All of the other tricks OG Nasty and Nonnakip have up their sleeves - tend to cause seat prices to go up some

(I'm curious to see what others think that I've missed on the above list)

However, (and this is only speculation) I have a strong feeling that most of the Nasty Fans are more long term owners and tend to think in terms of BTC being BTC like you and me and are not all that willing to part with their seats for a while.

Either way, I want to see the debt paid off.  I think that would be best for NastyFans in the short term as well as the long term. 

I for one would not have loaned the 5 BTC that I did in fiat because I believe in BTC and "knew" that the BTC, fiat value would increase.  My loan didn't include any interest - only 2 .1BTC tips so .2BTC.  And I'm quite happy with that deal.  I mean if BTC starts going for $20,000 USD then that means I got $4,000 USD for helping out and for "saving" my 5 btc so that I didn't spend or invest somewhere else. 

But in order to get lenders interested in loaning fiat, then some other deal would have to be struck - interest or something else.  And whatever that deal would be, then it's likely to be less economically beneficial to NastyFans than straight up fiat loan (w / no interest).

You and me like to think in terms of BTC only, but unfortunately the whole world doesn't.  I've already seen this scenario play out twice now. Once in the price jump from the 10's to the hundreds in March, then again from the hundreds to the thousands.


The evil fiat price rises and the whole world notices.
A bunch of new miner come online to take advantage of the profit to be made from the higher BTC price.
Difficulty rises.
Existing miners get either squeezed out or must re-invest to keep up the mining arms-race to stay profitable, but are never able to mine the same amount of coins as they were in the past.

We are in a risky situation.  If we get another 10 bagger in the next 6-12 months, the 315 Bitcoins owing will be millions in fiat.  

What's the seat price going to do when NastyFanClub owes 1.6 million in Bitcoins?

That's the thing.. When valued against fiat.  If borrowed in BTC, then 1 BTC is always going to be 1 BTC. True, it's economically beneficial for Nasty to borrow in Fiat and owe in Fiat and pay back in fiat, but that takes away any kind of incentive for the loaners.

Bottom line, I'm looking forward to seeing the debt repaid (partially because I've got a little out there  ) but also because potential investors may shy away from us having debt vs. being drawn to us when seeing that we're poised to act fast when a new generation of mining hardware comes available.  And yes, we've been able to move fairly quick in the past when placing orders with loans, but if we have funds ready to go, then we can move that much quicker and that could mean being included in a bullet run or not.

Bottom line, I don't think debt is ever good, it may be necessary and the debt ratio we have isn't that terrible. 

This is how I see it:

No Debt = less risk = more appealing opportunity for potential investors

Paid off previous debt = better credibility = greater chance for future loans if needed = more appealing opportunity for potential investors

Savings dedicated for growth = more appealing opportunity for potential investors

All of the above should affect seat value in a positive way (although, not entirely true if someone just needs to liquidate quickly.)  So let me say it this way instead, all of that should positively impact fair value.

I am not concerned with seat price, or liquidity or debt ratios or any other banking nonsense.  My biggest fear is the fact that the debt is 100% denominated in BTC and that could have disastrous consequences if the market moves the wrong way.

We have already seen a taste, the past fall with the price moving 10x, and now all of a sudden, we owe 10x more, when valued against fiat.

I would feel a lot safer if we had borrowed fiat to purchase equipment priced in fiat.

Yes, I do too. I want the seat prices to reflect the true value of this operation. That value is based on a lot of criteria and some may not see that true value by only looking at current donation yield, but that is their choice.

I agree... I don't think it is careless, just not the absolute best policy when dealing with bitcoin debt. Surely it would be better to hold fiat debt if that option exists with very few caveats.



The debt will be paid faster at 75% regardless of the hardware generation. I have quite a few seats and yet the current donations are negligible even for me. I'd rather these small payments be used to get us out of debt and towards savings asap.  Even a small amount of savings could be worth a heck of a lot of mining equipment in 3-6 months. I could be wrong but we are already hedged for low price and difficulty just by owning existing equipment and having debt.

Hey, I don't know about you but I have a substantial investment in this club, and I don't want to see the seat prices drop. I don't want to see long term prospects hurt either, so we all want the same thing (I think).


I actually agree with that but I don't see a 30% debt to equity ratio (both measured in BTC) as being careless at all. It's reflective of the debt being fairly secure as a function of expected future BTC revenues, and also of debt being used to fund purchases of capital equipment, of of which is quite responsible use of debt. Most of the outstanding debt is for equipment that hasn't even been delivered yet.


I agree with that too. I believe when the next generation of miners starts arriving and the hash rate increases several fold, the debt should start getting repaid at a faster rate, using the current ratio. The current in-service equipment is aging and shouldn't be expected to yield that much. Trying to pay off future generation equipment with proceeeds from obsolescent hardware a bit of trying to get blood from a stone.

Low seat value doesn't mean much unless you are trying to liquidate seats. A low seat price also makes nastyfans more accessible to new or less rich potential participants, not to mention a better entry point for newly minted seats.  3600 BTC per day inflation is a constant, yet year to year BTC has only grown massively in value. It is almost impossible to predict short and mid term movements but I think in that type of environment, debt has the potential to ruin us if we aren't careful. A very high BTC value coupled with a massive difficulty increase does have the potential to be an insurmountable challenge.  Having btc savings (and the access to capital if neccessary) is a far better position to be in than in debt. Fiat debt would be the way to go forward unless we were absolutely sure the BTC price was going down over a protracted period.   We want any creditors to be happy and potentially willing to loan again  because of our excellent reputation.

I still oppose. 75% is too much and will reduce donation payouts drastically and hurt seat values. The debt is not in and of itself harmful, and especially the idea of paying off "all" debt is misguided. The market cap of the group (see post 1) is over 1200 BTC which is more than 3x the total debt. This is not an unhealthy debt ratio for a business like mining. As we have seen in the past several weeks bitcoin is not always deflationary (in fact at present and for the forseeable future it is massively inflationary, with 3600 BTC being "printed" out of thin air every day), which was part of the argument against using debt. If we had paid off the debt at $1200/BTC, we would be much worse off today.

It is unfortunate that the debt holders have been holding the bag longer than perhaps expected, but they were told up front what the debt was being used for and how it was to be paid off. They took a risk that mining using pre-ordered gear would pay off (in BTC) less and more slowly than expected, which is exactly what happened.