Topic: 📈 NastyFans: The Bitcoin Enthusiast Fan Club (est. 2012) - page 197. (Read 959011 times)

GLBSE user funds are more or less safe, but I have bad news from the GLBSE shareholder meeting.

Nefario has, without a shareholder motion and in violation of the bylaws and GLBSE ToS, decided to close down GLBSE. Users will be able to collect deposits only after submitting identity info. A similar system to the one that Goat was forced to use will be provided so that assets can be traded elsewhere.

He is also illegally using user deposits to pay for his lawyer. If he continues, the GLBSE cash reserves (which I manage) will not be enough to cover costs and GLBSE will be in debt to users.

I'm very sorry about this, but those shareholders who are sane are helpless against Nefario and the insane shareholders who for some mind-boggling reason think that closing down GLBSE in this way will help both themselves and GLBSE users.

Since Nefario refuses to give complete details about his legal concerns and he has been acting strangely, I feel that it is somewhat possible that Nefario is working under some sort of plea bargain and is gathering IDs for future prosecution.

What's all this now?

Is nefario or GLBSE-related somebody or other is making an announcement? What?

---

Placeholder for link if I can find more info... potentially (( if I'm not being lazy playing minecraft all weekend ))

I don't want to speculate on anything until I've seen the announcement on Saturday.  

Oh, awesome. Is that all? Do you actually have a reliable non-confidential / public-type source for that statement?

I'll gladly cough up AML-type identification to the security issuers and/or any regulating agencies for my jurisdiction (and that of GLBSE, and of the security issuer) if that's all it takes to un-freze my GLBSE portfolio

1. I did way back in July - and I'm still confident. Up to a price of 0.7 BTC I will hold NASTY shares, though block halving is coming two weeks earlier than I expected then.
2. It would be nice if there would be real bonds available.
I only know of perpetual bonds, like Gigamining, and worse, they have an unfair call mechanism (not even providing a guarantee on principle). Finally, some have unsettling similarities with ponzi-schemes, when they mix real MHash/s and virtual MHash/s, therefore would probably default, if difficulty would not rise enough.

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 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.

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?)

The right to the upgrade is proportional to the number of GIGAMINING bonds held. The PAID UPGRADE is not transferrable.

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.

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.  

From what I understood, there is no company pocket, only OgNasty's pocket.

We have "Ownership of Mining Equipment", not of any pocket.

@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.)

((...snip...))
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?
((...snip...))

The how has not been decided/implemented yet. There is no private account right now and I'm paying all costs out of pocket. I hoped to takeover MergedMining and convert it to a mining fund, which NASTY could invest in. That would keep everything transparent and also allow others to take part in NASTY's investment fund. I really liked that idea, but likuidxd seems to want to close the ticker symbol instead. We'll see. I prefer a public investment fund as opposed to a private one, but private may be the only option unless I can take over MergedMining somehow.

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 for the first place since that will be 100% paid to shareholders as dividends anyway and you would otherwise have no access to it. You can't just "claim it" so I wouldn't think this helps pay for electricity in any way whatsoever.

(finished re-proofreading and fixing. oops)  --  Last Edit: Wednesday October 3rd 2012 @ 18:50 GMT