Topic: 📈 NastyFans: The Bitcoin Enthusiast Fan Club (est. 2012) - page 79. (Read 958995 times)

It's close.  If you haven't voted yet, please consider carefully before you do. I believe debt elimination is very important and is the best option for everyone going forward. It's strange that we have heard no arguments against from the nay voters.

I agree - my first gut reaction to it was no way to the dilution.  Hopefully everyone will understand the full impact of debt elimination long term!

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.8795620

It was mentioned there.

Possibly the poll presents one side of the story: The seat dilution. Perhaps it is just a matter of people reading headlines and not digging deeper. Due to no longer paying on the debt, the per-seat payment should increase even with the dilution if my understanding is correct.

I must have missed that. Do you have a link?

I'm curious too - I am one of the lenders, and OG Nasty said that all lenders agreed to the proposal, so, I can't see why a non-lender would not agree to it... The only negative is the extra seats but that is offset by the change of percentage and the fact that there would be no debt.  Also, OG Nasty said something along the lines that he's working on a plan to re-absorb those extra seats later down the road (to get back to 25,000 seats)

32% still left to vote, gonna be needed if you want to get to 75%

Would love to hear feedback from the no voters on what made them decide that way

From a business outlook, this is a no brainer. Without this dilution nastyfans has a negative valuation; the balance sheet is fatally in the red.

What are the arguments against dilution?

I settled with Nasty a bit back, but I think this is a fair option for both lenders and other seat holders - as noted we're reducing our debt so we'll result in higher payments per seat.  Additionally, those who lended end up getting in a better position to reap the benefits of our new hardware which they helped fund in the first place.   I can certainly understand the hesitancy some have over this, but if we're out of debt we are better positioned to move forward and it'll raise the return to seat holders and should help prop up their value.

I appreciate the support.  I am a bit perplexed by the votes that are against the plan.


It looks like one of our PSU's died, which is the 2nd PSU we've lost since getting the Monarchs.  I have already placed an order for a replacement, and will exchange our dead unit so that we have a spare as soon as possible.

Agreed  I already voted yes with my tiny bit of shares that I own!

Debt free sounds good, getting higher donations sounds good as well

Pretty much a no brainer...NastyMining sheds over 200BTC of debt for only $17,000 from how I read it... Let it be known I will offer anyone here $17k for 200BTC any day of the week!  

Edit: we dilute the shares a bit by adding 5k more, but we then get higher payouts per share.

yeah, I saw it already

=squeak=

If you click the vote button on the main polls page you can read about history and motivation and poll goal. You can read all that without voting. That page includes much important information targeting mostly members like you that may not be familiar with history.

Ok, well, I came into the project only 1-2 months ago, so I will leave the discussion of that for those who were around at the time the loans were made, and will listen to their concerns before I vote.

Thank you for addressing my few questions.

=squeak=

Keep in mind it eliminates the debt and 25% of revenue that is currently being used to service the debt will be able to be paid out to seat holders.

ok, so the deal ends up creating 20% more seats...

was the loan that significant? to make the 20% seat increase as compensation, roughly proportional?

(not criticizing... wanting to put this into perspective for myself, before I vote)

=squeak=

25,000

create 5000 seats?

and... just how many seats are there to begin with?

=squeak=

The main idea is, that if you take "loan" then your main target is to pay principal back. When you take loan you describe people from what profits you are planing to pay back. And if that fails, you have to find another way. Usually u tell when you are going to pay back. But in case of Nasty, people decided not to worry about this as he "is so gentle and trustful", that he would definitely pay back sooner or later(depends on BFL shipment), but not 100+ years.
In this situation the loan was treated like a business proposition, when parties share risk (and usually profit).But he got low interest loan with huge risk, calling it low risk investment (loan). That is not right to me, because is was called "LOAN", not investment opportunity or etc.
Original agreement didnt`t covered a lot of cases, for instance what if NastyFan stop receiving "donations", or they would start to be called "dividends", so then Nasty wouldnt have to pay anyone anything? That does sounds scamy to me.
Even donations to NastyFans doesn`t have any strict agreement or obligations from anyone.
So its up to OggNasty to choose the way he would treat all of it. And IMHO, he haven`t done it right, so this is warning bell for all Fans and other "investors"/"debtors"/"what ever".
If some one things other way, then this is a right investment for you.