Topic: 📈 NastyFans: The Bitcoin Enthusiast Fan Club (est. 2012) - page 196. (Read 957542 times)

1) I've been delivering regular dividends on GLBSE far longer than Giga.
2) This is a real mining operation. The 9/15 dividend was a result of real world factors.

So far you haven't delivered anything except a few token dividends.  Time will tell if you overdeliver.

Giga has a proven track record of delivering exactly as promised for 6 months.

What exactly happened with your dividend on September 15th?  Why was it so low?  Overdelivered?

I just thought I'd point out that gigamining shares are not backed by enough hardware to provide the claimed hashing power per bond. Gigamining shareholders are buying debt that is tied to difficulty, nothing more. NASTY is a real mining operation and shareholders own the equipment that backs the dividend.

As far as Bastone's constant digs at why I don't want to put up a motion to alter the contract. I underpromise and overdeliver. So while NASTY shares will be backed by more shareholder owned hashing power than claimed, gigamining is backed by less hashing power than is listed in the MH/s per share claim and shareholders don't own it.

I think it means that once you pay for the upgrade you can't transfer it to a different gigamining bond holder, but ask giga, I'm sure he'll clarify.

Hmm I stand corrected 

Only problem for me personally is this.


So if I buy 100 giga shares I won't be sure I'll have the option to use the paid upgrade. (or did I misunderstood that?)

Nasty won't upgrade the OP or contract to reflect 648Gh/s / 25000 = 25.9 Mh/s per share.  It still remains 20 Mh/s per share.  Until the OP or contract change Nasty isn't obligated to pay more.

Last Nasty share sold for .49 BTC  

1 BTC = 20MH/s/.49 = 40.8 MH/s per BTC

Giga is 15 shares of Tera with paid upgrade of .29 BTC.  135 MH/s per upgraded share.

Last Giga share sold for .5598 BTC

1 BTC = 135 MH/s/(.5598+.29) = 158.8 MH/s per BTC

Giga is 158.8/40.8= 3.89 times better deal then Nasty, if you go by the contracts and OP's.

Ok I got this form the gigamining topic.


Each gigamining share will get you 4 terramining shares. At the current rate for 1BTC you'll get 65Mh/s/BTC
NASTY got 648,832MH/s ordered and a total of 25000 shares. At the current rate 1BTC will get you 54Mh/s/BTC

Also it isn't sure how much shares will be sold when all the equipment is working so the actual Mh/s might be higher.
Not such a big difference imo.

lol indeed.

I was just quoting ognasty, and as such "out of pocket" wasn't my own wording.

Ideally it is true, though sometimes it's not that simple, and someone uses their own "out of pocket" funding to settle things in lieu of a more formalized and structured approach where the numbers all add up and the budget is truely self-sustaining... It's the kind of thing a lot of small businesses and start-ups do / quite common for one or more ranking officers or founding members to put their own money in.

---

@OGNasty:

Thanks for telling me what was going on / I really appreciate knowing now that this is (currently) the case for electricity and other operating costs. Sorry for posting a quote of you saying as much without asking first. I just figure other people would appreciate knowing what was going on with our operating costs at this stage.

Please don't silently do stuff like this. While I appreciate your initially using your own money to pay for the electricity budget, it still looks awfully suspicious when the business plan is vague in such areas.

(nobody here wants to see another impossible business model suddenly falling apart because it was all smoke and mirrors, or underhanded undisclosed shady dealings or other types of mysterious activity lol this is nothing like that. probably... I'd rather not let my imagination run too far though, or I really might say something paranoid)

This asset currently pays less then 0.5 Mh/s per share, for awhile it didn't pay at all.  Most ASIC companies will be paying 100+ MH/s for the same value as this, which only guarantees 20 Mh/s per share.

Look at Gigamining for example its been paying 5Mh/s per share for a long time, and will upgrade to 100 Mh/s (Giga is first in line too for ASIC).  It trades for approximately the same price as NASTY, that is insanity.  Either Gigamining is radically undervalued, or this is radically overvalued.  

Wasn't my imagination. The math REALLY DOESN'T add up. The operating costs are being paid out of pocket currently.

---

Sorry, but with the lack of clear explanation and disclosure, it seems prudent to communicate an explanation about how the operating costs are being paid out of pocket, and the exact plan to create the "operating costs" account has yet to be finalized:

((quote from private message forum email thingy))

@Bastone

Sorry, I was rewording that last paragraph when you posted your response just now.

As for your request, I don't understand why the OP or the GLBSE contract should be changed to state anything differently, other than clarification on the subject of operating costs (currently, it is quite vague)

---

I looked around on the market for equivalent of 20MH/s worth of "mining bond" or similar. There aren't really any out there with ownership in the company and/or voting rights like this. Also, price checked various ones that state at or around 1 MH/s (since we're currently operating closer to that)

Maybe prices have changed in the past 2 months I will look again and check how many are actually DELIVERING DIVIDENDS ant what the rates are. (and will also consider liquidity / rate at which they are being traded, etc.)

Pretty sure I WILL NOT be dumping all my shares of nasty mining in favor of something else, and at most will diversify into other mining-type companies and contracts. The business plan here was the best one around when I bought my first share a few weeks ago (more than a month at this point, perhaps two?)

Ah whatever, we're already getting more transparency and better returns here than with most traded companies (which are typically traded on fiat currency, not bitcoin.)

The Nasty contract on GLBSE and the OP of this thread, both only obligate NASTY to pay 20Mh/s.  I asked Ognasty to change the OP (to show a higher MH/s rate) several pages ago and he refused.  If he does happen to pay more it will be exceeding the contract.

I still fail to see why the market is valuing this asset so high for a puny 20Mh/s, even being first in line at BFL doesn't account for it. 

Oh no, something just "clicked" in my brain which seems to be in line with other people being worried / confused / asking questions you've labeled as troll-ish and so on.




That won't work though.


If 100% mined output is going to shareholders, the surplus hashing power has no way of being funneled off (into another account or otherwise) unless you do something like:

Wild theories / assumptions:

-- front some money so that an "operating costs" account can buy the required number of shares at market price

-- outright GIVE the shares away to the "operating costs" account

-- somehow create "special operating cost shares" to fill the account with, which will have to be excluded from the original 25000 shares, but still pay dividends or some other scary maneuver.

As I said above. Something just "clicked" in my brain:

It still remains unclear what the exact nature of how / logic for how the extra hashing power will be allocated to pay for electricity and operating costs (( seems to me, the extra power will simply affect the value to ALL shareholders ... if so, the "surplus power per share" will make ALL shares higher than 20 MH/s and you're still left without any way to put that hash power into electricity or other operating costs ))

---

Three questions:

How will an "operating costs" account be done?

Will the "operating costs" account own some of the original 25000 shares?

Will there be a transfer of shares "at market price" or zero cost or what?

Edited to add:

My main realization was this:

Why is "extra hashing power" (beyond 20MH/s) per share even needed AT ALL? If that will be 100% paid to shareholders as dividends anyway, and you would otherwise have no access to it, what's the point? You won't just "take it and use it to pay for electricity" ... or will you? I haven't noticed any clear, well-explained way that extra hashing per share will pay for electricity in any way whatsoever.

(finished re-proofreading and fixing. oops)  --  Last Edit: Wednesday October 3rd 2012 @ 18:55 GMT

---

@MoinCoin: Thanks. Here are a few clickable thingies I currently know about.

First one is the one MoinCoin just pointed out.

• Post by cytokine on September 30, 2012, 05:20:12 PM
  
• Post by OgNasty on September 28, 2012, 09:27:35 PM
  
• Post by tmfp143 on September 29, 2012, 04:18:33 PM
  

---

QFE:


Hell yeah!!!

Active trading (people hedging growth and such against nastymining's potential) means more liquidity for all of us / better prices (both for for selling, as well as for buying more shares)

No such caps exist at this time.  I'll have a better idea of potential capacity limits when I've seen the finished ASIC products we've ordered.

Picked up some shares below 0.40 

Ok let me have a try.

The way I see is OgNasty controlls the extra 18K shares and brings them on the market in a controlled way.
ATM we got around 7K shares on the market and 700K MH/s ordered. Meaning if no new shares are being sold, each share is worth 100 MH/s.
This creates an higher prices as normal. By contolling shares it is possible to get more BTC for the acctual value of the hardware.
So depending on howmuch depand theire is, the actual MH/s/share will be higher compared to the stated 20 MH/s.

Once all the shares are sold we will have 649,212 MH/s / 25000 shares = 25.96848 MH/s (each share worth 1/25000 of the hardware)
Now if all shares are controlled in a good way, the company will be able to use the profit from selling new shares, to buy more hardware. And this way raise the MH/s/share rate.
The profit will also be used to buy shares to cover opperating costs. The divident payment will be used to pay for the running cost. Ofcouse every share sold also goes a part to OgNasty to convert back into $ to cover the cost of ordering the initial equipment.

This system seems like a good way to do it. The only problem is this seems the way OgNasty tells us it happen BUT the contract isn't clear it works this way.
Any clarification would be nice otherwise we just need to trust OgNasty not to 'run' away with the profits.

Might be wrong tho 

-Timbo925

BFL ANNOUNCEMENT:
https://forums.butterflylabs.com/showthread.php/16-Announcement-BFL-ASIC-Release-specifications

Butterfly Labs has announced that their BitForce Single 'SC' will exceed initial estimates by 50%.  That significantly improves our ordered hash rate, which has been updated on the OP.

Where was it answered?  Again, you avoid a straight answer.

We all will have to assume that you will not buy any more equipment and will pocket all of the remaining IPO funds raised.

The end goal is to provide or exceed 20MH/s per share.  It will require some management on my part to go from the current 1MH/s per share FPGA goal to the 20MH/s per share ASIC goal as we start massively increasing hashing power.  Investor demand will ultimately determine the rate at which the MH/s per share amount is adjusted.  There is no way to say exactly how many shares will be on the market when the ASICs arrive, but I will try to keep things orderly, and keep the share count down until the ASICs arrive.

---

Those are the stated goals.  However, the MH/s per share could increase significantly while buyers are found for the additional shares hitting the market.  Dividends during this period should be extremely high due to being at the front of the line for ASIC miners, which should allow us to exploit a low difficulty, as well as a potentially higher MH/s per share while buyers are found.  That is the "intrinsic bet" MoinCoin mentioned.

---

I will pay more than 20MH/s per share if we have more than 20MH/s per share operating.  I will not be dumping 18,000 shares on the market at once, so there will be a transitional period where it would be reasonable to assume that more than 20MH/s per share in dividends will be paid.  

---

The quote below is from the thread FAQ.  Basically, the way I'm planning to implement it is like this...  Once we have our equipment in place and have exceeded the 20MH/s per share goal, shares still held by the company will begin being placed in a separate account, with dividends used to pay electricity costs and buy more shares on the open market.  This should allow NASTY to remain free of operator costs & electricity costs, while also providing an ongoing demand for shares and not dilluting the market.  

---

There is no "cap" and seeing as though there are only 25,000 shares and more than 500,000MH/s currently on order, without a motion passing with a 66% 'yes' shareholder vote to issue more shares, the MH/s per share is guaranteed to exceed 20MH/s.

---

You don't seem to understand how GLBSE works.  Dividends are paid out only to the Outstanding Shares (noted on the OP).  Currently there are "Shares Outstanding."  100% of the dividends generated by the "Currently Operating" equipment (also noted on the OP) is paid to the Outstanding Shares.

---

You are making assumptions about the rate at which shares would be transferred to a private account.  As the controller of the company, that makes me the single largest controller of NASTY shares at the present time.  That is a rather large incentive to keep dividends high, shareholders happy, and the share price elevated.  

Let me also repost this:
There is no "cap" and seeing as though there are only 25,000 shares and more than 500,000MH/s currently on order, without a motion passing with a 66% 'yes' shareholder vote to issue more shares, the MH/s per share is guaranteed to exceed 20MH/s.

---

As stated, I control them.  I do not own them.  Due to controlling them on behalf of the shareholder, I have an incentive to make sure they are valued highly and distributed in a way that maximizes shareholder value.  

---

I have no plans to change the OP or contract at this time.  There is no cap.  

---

Then make your investment decisions based on your assumptions.  The imaginary cap has been addressed several times now and I don't think anyone appreciates your trolling using a sock puppet account.  As mentioned, with the current shares issued and the ordered equipment, it would be impossible not to exceed 20MH/s per share without either a shareholder motion to issue more shares, or the equipment providers falling short of their estimates.

---

This was already answered.  Please re-read the FAQ section on how free electricity is provided and the above posts for clarification.