Topic: 📈 NastyFans: The Bitcoin Enthusiast Fan Club (est. 2012) - page 8. (Read 957542 times)

You’re wrong. It’s ok that you’re wrong. I can see why you want to ignore the Tesla example as it is easier to attack me than Tesla, but you cannot say NastyFans seats have lost value without also claiming Teslas sold for BTC have also experienced the same massive loss of value. It’s an idiotic stance to take in real world practice, and it is no different here. I feel like I owe it to people to say that if you try to claim a loss on the purchase of seats while they have gained value then you will likely run into problems with your government and personal finances. It is beyond irresponsible to push the loss of value false narrative for that reason and your incorrect comments could potentially be damaging to those who believe them. It is quite obvious you are in the wrong here and I would like to request you make your own thread to push your false narratives.



“Tesla is scamming! Look what they’ve done to my BTC investment! Elon Musk is a scammer!”

Yup, you sound that stupid...

First, I do not care about your truck purchase, spare me the ego trip. And this is certainly not the same thing as taking in BTC investments for a BTC mining group which offers weekly BTC returns.

Again, I'm not talking about "any BTC project, service, or good". I'm talking about a mining organization that took investments with the intent to return weekly distributions of BTC. Thus, a "return on investment" should be measured in BTC.

---

I technically paid 1.65... but as mentioned, to try and be as fair as possible here, I cut out some of the initial purchase because I did get an asset out of it (which I have to assume is real silver), but certainly no matter which way you cut the price up, even a basic online seat at that time wouldn't be anywhere near 100%, let alone 125%.

The 'donation' was apparently going to a guy who's purpose was to get BTC into the hands of NastyFans. Now he acts like his purpose was to get USD to NastyFans. 

As I've posted before, I lost hope a while ago on ever getting my BTC back out of this, but I just can't sit here and see Og claiming "125% ROI" on something I'm a part of, and not express any concerns.

I posted this in my Tesla thread but it seems appropriate as a response here. Claiming you’ve lost money because something you purchased didn’t rise in value as much as BTC is not only wrong, it’s an attack you could make against any BTC project, service, or good, and doing so makes you an enemy to anyone engaging in any of those activities (e.g. anyone who actually uses Bitcoin). Literally everything in the world “lost value” measured in BTC. Using that as a way to attack this project is not only dishonest, it’s an insult to people who understand basic finance and an attack on all those that actually accept Bitcoin.

So you paid 1.65 BTC and received a return of 0.0095 BTC?  That would be a ROI of 0.5%, or a loss of 99% of your money
If you had not used the nastyfans service, you would have been whole. What value did that forced donation provide to you?

I also noticed the way he deflected as if you had thanked him.  Since this ponzi has not been timed out by limitations, you should file a complaint about his ICO to the SEC.  :/

Thanks. I ended up voting no. I believe any lottery run here will not end well for me, or most seat holders, and this will likely benefit only the larger seat holders.

Looks like the latest statistics are now showing:

no: 1038 (6.4%)
yes: 1891 (11.6%)

37 members voted until now. 172 members not voted yet.

Is this 1 person voting with their 1,455 seats?  Or can you let us know how many seat owners the 1,455 includes? 
(I haven't voted yet.)

It's looking like the giveaway is something people want to see happen so far.  Don't forget to vote!

The current results for the poll are below and as of now the results are looking nearly unanimous. 

no: 1
yes: 1455

1 poll opened

[terminated seats] giveaway contest sponsored by NASTY MINING

ok so not just a single gpu. and I am not complaining - just asking. I am thinking that had you expanded over time, it might have proved to be more profitable, that is all.

I can get GPU's at cost - if I wanted to. but very limited quantity. as for asics, I agree they are quite overpriced atm. I am still only at +/- 200 TH because of that price. But I also don't have 16 btc saved up. If I did, I would most likely expand. However, I use my BTC for every day expenses and providing for my family, leaves very little left over at the end of the day. But it pays the bills - theirs and mine.

You should hold BTC. Diversification is key to any portfolio.

I’m glad you appreciate the work I have done to go green and the cycling machine that was donated to help generate electricity. I look forward to continuing to run miners with renewable energy and donating the hashes to NastyFans. I’d love to see growth in other areas. 

It was posted on the 5oz minted seats thread, which I'm a part of:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.56430671

I've done the analysis already on breaking out line-by-line where the costs went, including the seats, I just haven't posted it to avoid piling onto my posts in this thread.

To summarize my 1.65BTC payment, if we exclude the metal cost at the time (.41BTC), it leaves .62BTC going to NastyMining and .62BTC donation to NastyFans.
(disclaimer: I'd assume Og gets a piece of this .62 to NastyFans as well due to his ~1,200+ seats at the time, but I have no time to verify this amount and it may not be relevant here anyway.)

Out of the .62 to NastyMining, ~.27BTC in 'expenses', which included the seat "costs". At the time, 5 seats by themselves would have been sold for .102BTC.

Personally, I see .35BTC going to NastyMining.
But feel free to calculate using the raw seat price for 5 seats in 2015, .102BTC total.

Regardless of what number you want to use at this point, here is what has been received:
06-26-2015  0.00119760
08-07-2015  0.00126795
11-06-2015   0.00106160
01-08-2016  0.00102240
06-16-2016  0.00119575
06-19-2016   0.00162045
04-15-2017   0.00113970
11-19-2017   0.00100070
nothing at the coin's address in 2018 or 2019 or 2020 or 2021
Total received: 0.00950615 BTC
Ref: https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/1NASTY1Cerr1M7CU4RyV9yxsbq28TWkKKp

This is a 125% "ROI"  


We could all hold BTC. When did NastyMining turn into a no interest savings account?

The only major expanding that seemed to happen was relating to home improvements and exercise equipment for alternative energy sources... apparently to power all the miners we were not expanding on.

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?