Author

Topic: P/B ratio, or how to not get raped in the Bitcoin securities markets (Read 6397 times)

newbie
Activity: 28
Merit: 0

I know AM hash power is growing, and mine isn't. However, the future hashpower from AM has not been paid for. The 200TH priced at the same rate their previous power was priced will cost investors $2 million, or BTC20'000. Assuming AM percentage of the network at around 15% (which would mean network is 400TH and AM is 62TH) that is roughly 6 weeks of dividends from mining.

No, that has not happened yet, but it must for AM to get another 200TH of hashingpower. Even if they get their new chips for half the price of what friedcat has stated previously, we're looking at just under three weeks of no dividends at all to pay for it.

I know AM is selling hardware too, but since mining power is equal from one asset to another (assuming luck is equal) AM investors are paying 340% more for that future hardware sales than they are for mining.

In simpler terms, AM must sell hardware for 3,4 times more than they mine every month for their prices to be comparable to mine.

.b

EDIT: Corrected some decimal and thousand separator mistakes

You seem to be completely oblivious to the economics of semiconductor manufacturing.  And you are mixing the pricing of goods sold by ASICMINER with their shareholder's costs.

Let's ignore today's price to book because as EskimoBob rightly points out, there is less data than there should be.

Let's just compare IPO prices.

ASICMINER:  2
BFMINES   :  18
AMC         :  35  (sounds like 70 for Ken's next cash grab)
TAT.V       :  infinite

In order for a buyer to profit, the asset has to grow into their valuation.  Anyone buying your asset is starting from an 1800% deficit.

As I have said before, you offer a better deal than Kslaughter's ripoff, but that in no way makes your offering anything but a cash grab for yourself.








imo this appears to be the start of wild west cyber virtual capitalism...lol
hero member
Activity: 756
Merit: 501

I know AM hash power is growing, and mine isn't. However, the future hashpower from AM has not been paid for. The 200TH priced at the same rate their previous power was priced will cost investors $2 million, or BTC20'000. Assuming AM percentage of the network at around 15% (which would mean network is 400TH and AM is 62TH) that is roughly 6 weeks of dividends from mining.

No, that has not happened yet, but it must for AM to get another 200TH of hashingpower. Even if they get their new chips for half the price of what friedcat has stated previously, we're looking at just under three weeks of no dividends at all to pay for it.

I know AM is selling hardware too, but since mining power is equal from one asset to another (assuming luck is equal) AM investors are paying 340% more for that future hardware sales than they are for mining.

In simpler terms, AM must sell hardware for 3,4 times more than they mine every month for their prices to be comparable to mine.

.b

EDIT: Corrected some decimal and thousand separator mistakes

You seem to be completely oblivious to the economics of semiconductor manufacturing.  And you are mixing the pricing of goods sold by ASICMINER with their shareholder's costs.

Let's ignore today's price to book because as EskimoBob rightly points out, there is less data than there should be.

Let's just compare IPO prices.

ASICMINER:  2
BFMINES   :  18
AMC         :  35  (sounds like 70 for Ken's next cash grab)
TAT.V       :  infinite

In order for a buyer to profit, the asset has to grow into their valuation.  Anyone buying your asset is starting from an 1800% deficit.

As I have said before, you offer a better deal than Kslaughter's ripoff, but that in no way makes your offering anything but a cash grab for yourself.

full member
Activity: 160
Merit: 100
Unfortunately Furuknap you need to start comparing apples with apples.

BMF vs AM or AMC has zero revelance,

Compare BMF with other PMB's and you will show how much of a failed ripoff your investment is.

Take 100th currently not mining but a cost of ~0.4 for 200mhs so 0.002 per mhash(half price of yours and using the same company for the purchases)

or even TATvm currently floating around 0.0035 for 1mhs - this is currently earning dividends, so is a way better purchase than BMF

Or even Addiction currently 23mhs for 0.018 - using KNC's ASIC's

AMC and AM or BF mines and Nasty fans are not comparable as they will increasing hashing power over time, where as BMF will only ever stay the same.

The only way BMF will be profitable to anyone but yourself is if the difficulty drops, and continues to drop.

Use the math how ever you want, but start comparing "like" for "like"
sr. member
Activity: 294
Merit: 250
http://coin.furuknap.net/
Nonsense.  AM IPO'd at a price to book of 2, and I have shown a clear analysis that suggests their current P/B is on the order of 3.

Sorry, but your numbers simply don't add up, and if you apply the same numbers to my asset, you'll find that I have a lower P/B than AM in every case.

Of course, you seem to be OK applying different standards to different assets and then compare them, but such is easily refuted or countered so it doesn't hold a lot of merit.

Let's try with a simple table. For the sake of simplicity, I'm taking my own spare 20GHs out of the equation. Including it would work in my favor. I'm also using a BTC/USD price of $100.

FactorAMBFM
1Purchase Cost/GHs$10$22
2Selling Price/GHs (Blades)$500$400
3Proceed ratio (Blades)50x18.2x
4Selling Price/GHs (USB)$300$400
5Proceed ratio (USB)30x18.2x
6Hashrate in GHs62000120
7Value of Hashing ($300/GHs)$18'600'000$360'000
8Shares400000100000
9Share Price (today)BTC3.4BTC0.004
10Hashrate per share in mhs1551
11Market Cap$136'000'000$40'000
12Total value based on HW cost$620'000$2'200
13P/B based on HW cost (11/12)219.3518.18
14Total value based on hash at $300/GHs$18'600'000$36'000
15P/B based on hash value (11/14)8.091.1
16Price per mhsBTC0.022BTC0.004

I know AM hash power is growing, and mine isn't. However, the future hashpower from AM has not been paid for. The 200TH priced at the same rate their previous power was priced will cost investors $2 million, or BTC20'000. Assuming AM percentage of the network at around 15% (which would mean network is 400TH and AM is 62TH) that is roughly 6 weeks of dividends from mining.

No, that has not happened yet, but it must for AM to get another 200TH of hashingpower. Even if they get their new chips for half the price of what friedcat has stated previously, we're looking at just under three weeks of no dividends at all to pay for it.

I know AM is selling hardware too, but since mining power is equal from one asset to another (assuming luck is equal) AM investors are paying 340% more for that future hardware sales than they are for mining.

In simpler terms, AM must sell hardware for 3,4 times more than they mine every month for their prices to be comparable to mine.

.b

EDIT: Corrected some decimal and thousand separator mistakes
hero member
Activity: 756
Merit: 501

Okay.  So your price to book is 18.  Good to know.

And ASICMiner price to book using the same rules is roughly 240. Also good to know, I guess.


You are trying to sell a contract for hardware you bought at an 1800% markup.

Have you no shame?

Obviously I have more shame than friedcat who sells hardware he bought at a 5000% markup (thats 5 thousand percent, or 50 times what he paid) when he sold AM Blades at 50BTC that he bough for around 1BTC each, for 10GHs. I obviously have more shame than friedcat who now proposes to sell hardware with a 3300% markup, when he's selling USB miners he bought for ~$3 for ~$100.

Look, we can do this dance all night, but no matter which rules you apply, my asset is priced far below AM in P/B. I've said it before, it is a moot point because my contracts isn't a company, but you can't really win this comparison.

.b



Nonsense.  AM IPO'd at a price to book of 2, and I have shown a clear analysis that suggests their current P/B is on the order of 3.

You really should take a tip from Kslaughter and TAT.  They have the sense to not even try to defend their ripoffs of the public.

Be like Ken, go make a press release promising another press release like a wise stock sham promoter.  Trying to defend your attempt to price your shares at an 1800% markup isn't doing you any good.
hero member
Activity: 756
Merit: 500
It's all fun and games until somebody loses an eye

PS! MP sock puppet, I am still waiting for the number.
On the other hand you've missed out perhaps your best example possible: S.MPOE book 0, mkt cap ~780,000 BTC. 


Is that the number you are looking for?

I don't remember where she said it (and I don't feel like going through the work of searching), but in a reply to me in one of these threads she said S.MPOE does not include a balance sheet because the equity is 0, which I guess means that all the information you want should be in the profit/loss statement.
Peter, Peter, Peter... I told you to join Mr DipShit and his sock-muppet MPOE-PRBS, so you too can make yourself sound like a fkn idiot. It was a joke and not a serious recommendation Wink

I'm not trying to join them, I just though she had already answered the question you were asking?
legendary
Activity: 910
Merit: 1000
Quality Printing Services by Federal Reserve Bank

PS! MP sock puppet, I am still waiting for the number.
On the other hand you've missed out perhaps your best example possible: S.MPOE book 0, mkt cap ~780,000 BTC. 


Is that the number you are looking for?

I don't remember where she said it (and I don't feel like going through the work of searching), but in a reply to me in one of these threads she said S.MPOE does not include a balance sheet because the equity is 0, which I guess means that all the information you want should be in the profit/loss statement.
Peter, Peter, Peter... I told you to join Mr DipShit and his sock-muppet MPOE-PRBS, so you too can make yourself sound like a fkn idiot. It was a joke and not a serious recommendation Wink
legendary
Activity: 980
Merit: 1008
Here is my calculation of the Price To Book value of AMC

5.651 TH/s future hashing starting by August 31, 2013 at 40,000,000 Difficulty (Over 2X the current difficulty) by that time would generate $1,458,007.07 in eight months, the time left for the 40,000,000 Million shares to receive 100% of the dividends.
This is wrong. Unless the difficulty rises to 40M by August 31st and only rises 2% per difficulty adjustment from then on. I think we all knows this will not happen.

I think a fair figure would be a 10% increase in difficulty per adjustment, although I think it will be much more (the last two difficulty adjustments were +20% and +28% IIRC).

If we use the 10% figure per difficulty adjustment, mining with 5.651 TH/s in 8 months will net you 8776.84 BTC, or around $917,000 at the current exchange rate:

Code:
Reward for mining for 240 days at 5,651,000 MH/s, starting at
difficulty 40,000,000, with an initial daily profit of 71.05 BTC,
and an increase in difficulty of 10% per 14 days:
--------------------------------------------------
Total profit (day 1): 71.05 (profit per day: 71.05) (difficulty: 40,000,000)
Total profit (day 14): 994.69 (profit per day: 64.59) (difficulty: 44,000,000)
Total profit (day 28): 1898.95 (profit per day: 58.72) (difficulty: 48,400,000)
Total profit (day 42): 2721.01 (profit per day: 53.38) (difficulty: 53,240,000)
Total profit (day 56): 3468.33 (profit per day: 48.53) (difficulty: 58,564,000)
Total profit (day 70): 4147.72 (profit per day: 44.12) (difficulty: 64,420,400)
Total profit (day 84): 4765.34 (profit per day: 40.11) (difficulty: 70,862,440)
Total profit (day 98): 5326.82 (profit per day: 36.46) (difficulty: 77,948,684)
Total profit (day 112): 5837.25 (profit per day: 33.14) (difficulty: 85,743,552)
Total profit (day 126): 6301.28 (profit per day: 30.13) (difficulty: 94,317,907)
Total profit (day 140): 6723.13 (profit per day: 27.39) (difficulty: 103,749,698)
Total profit (day 154): 7106.62 (profit per day: 24.90) (difficulty: 114,124,668)
Total profit (day 168): 7455.25 (profit per day: 22.64) (difficulty: 125,537,135)
Total profit (day 182): 7772.19 (profit per day: 20.58) (difficulty: 138,090,848)
Total profit (day 196): 8060.32 (profit per day: 18.71) (difficulty: 151,899,933)
Total profit (day 210): 8322.25 (profit per day: 17.01) (difficulty: 167,089,926)
Total profit (day 224): 8560.37 (profit per day: 15.46) (difficulty: 183,798,919)
Total profit (day 238): 8776.84 (profit per day: 14.06) (difficulty: 202,178,811)
Total profit (day 240): 8804.96 (profit per day: 14.06) (difficulty: 202,178,811)
newbie
Activity: 28
Merit: 0
anyone tell me... if friedcat's email is public knowledge::: where is it..thanks
hero member
Activity: 756
Merit: 500
It's all fun and games until somebody loses an eye

PS! MP sock puppet, I am still waiting for the number.
On the other hand you've missed out perhaps your best example possible: S.MPOE book 0, mkt cap ~780,000 BTC. 


Is that the number you are looking for?

I don't remember where she said it (and I don't feel like going through the work of searching), but in a reply to me in one of these threads she said S.MPOE does not include a balance sheet because the equity is 0, which I guess means that all the information you want should be in the profit/loss statement.
legendary
Activity: 910
Merit: 1000
Quality Printing Services by Federal Reserve Bank
There is a "ASICMINER Speculation Thread" for pointless AM related spit balling. Can you please take it there?

Cheers

PS! MP sock puppet, I am still waiting for the number.
sr. member
Activity: 294
Merit: 250
http://coin.furuknap.net/
sure for you to be in this game you have to bring facts and links not just go quoting aliases off some message board...thanks

I still don't understand your point. You do realize friedcat is the spokesperson for ASICMiner, right? Anything coming from him should be taken as coming from ASICMiner. When he says that he pays, via the calculation I provided, roughly $3 for the hashingpower in the USB miners, I have no reason to doubt it.

Or are you questioning whether friedcat is indeed a spokesperson for ASICMiner?

.b

for all anyone knows you and him are the same person...you have his e:mail...thanks

Ah. I see. I'll just leave this here.

.b

PS: friedcat's email is public knowledge.
newbie
Activity: 28
Merit: 0
sure for you to be in this game you have to bring facts and links not just go quoting aliases off some message board...thanks

I still don't understand your point. You do realize friedcat is the spokesperson for ASICMiner, right? Anything coming from him should be taken as coming from ASICMiner. When he says that he pays, via the calculation I provided, roughly $3 for the hashingpower in the USB miners, I have no reason to doubt it.

Or are you questioning whether friedcat is indeed a spokesperson for ASICMiner?

.b


for all anyone knows you and him are the same person...you have his e:mail...thanks
sr. member
Activity: 294
Merit: 250
http://coin.furuknap.net/
sure for you to be in this game you have to bring facts and links not just go quoting aliases off some message board...thanks

I still don't understand your point. You do realize friedcat is the spokesperson for ASICMiner, right? Anything coming from him should be taken as coming from ASICMiner. When he says that he pays, via the calculation I provided, roughly $3 for the hashingpower in the USB miners, I have no reason to doubt it.

Or are you questioning whether friedcat is indeed a spokesperson for ASICMiner?

.b
newbie
Activity: 28
Merit: 0
do you know what DUE DILLIGENCE is it means you check and recheck the facts...thanks

Can you please make a point?

.b


sure for you to be in this game you have to bring facts and links not just go quoting aliases off some message board...thanks
sr. member
Activity: 294
Merit: 250
http://coin.furuknap.net/
do you know what DUE DILLIGENCE is it means you check and recheck the facts...thanks

Can you please make a point?

.b
newbie
Activity: 28
Merit: 0


do you know what DUE DILLIGENCE is it means you check and recheck the facts...thanks
sr. member
Activity: 294
Merit: 250
http://coin.furuknap.net/
if a message board is what you are relying for your research to push this claim i feel bad for you..thanks

Come again? What makes you think you can't trust friedcat's own words? I certainly have found little reason to doubt what he says in most cases. I'm not agreeing with his claim that transaction fees must reach 25BTC by 2016 to keep Bitcoin safe, but I don't think he's saying that knowing it is a lie.

.b

what does this have to do with your 3 dollar a unit claim...thanks

Did you not read this?

2. The final margin cost for 1TH/s is less than 10k$, the actual number depends on the volatile price of PCB components. Installing and power bill are currently low. We will be self-funded.

1TH=1000GHs=1000000mhs/300mhs per unit =3333 units.

$10000/3333 ~= $3/unit
newbie
Activity: 28
Merit: 0
if a message board is what you are relying for your research to push this claim i feel bad for you..thanks

Come again? What makes you think you can't trust friedcat's own words? I certainly have found little reason to doubt what he says in most cases. I'm not agreeing with his claim that transaction fees must reach 25BTC by 2016 to keep Bitcoin safe, but I don't think he's saying that knowing it is a lie.

.b




what does this have to do with your 3 dollar a unit claim...thanks
sr. member
Activity: 294
Merit: 250
http://coin.furuknap.net/
if a message board is what you are relying for your research to push this claim i feel bad for you..thanks

Come again? What makes you think you can't trust friedcat's own words? I certainly have found little reason to doubt what he says in most cases. I'm not agreeing with his claim that transaction fees must reach 25BTC by 2016 to keep Bitcoin safe, but I don't think he's saying that knowing it is a lie.

.b
newbie
Activity: 28
Merit: 0


u crazy man if a message board is what you are relying for your research~back up this claim with real data...thanks
sr. member
Activity: 294
Merit: 250
http://coin.furuknap.net/
I obviously have more shame than friedcat who now proposes to sell hardware with a 3300% markup, when he's selling USB miners he bought for ~$3 for ~$100.



ok please prove this ...a link please would be awesome..thanks

Sure, here you go:

2. The final margin cost for 1TH/s is less than 10k$, the actual number depends on the volatile price of PCB components. Installing and power bill are currently low. We will be self-funded.

1TH=1000GHs=1000000mhs/300mhs per unit =3333 units.

$10000/3333 ~= $3/unit

As for price, here you go:
Minimum Order Volume of 50 USB sticks. Price of 0.99 each. 2% sent as redundancy (not in warranty). Shipping is free.

BTC0.99*$103 per BTC = ~$100/unit.

.b
newbie
Activity: 28
Merit: 0
 I obviously have more shame than friedcat who now proposes to sell hardware with a 3300% markup, when he's selling USB miners he bought for ~$3 for ~$100.



that's wild!..please prove this ...a link to back this claim up would be awesome..thanks
sr. member
Activity: 294
Merit: 250
http://coin.furuknap.net/
Okay.  So your price to book is 18.  Good to know.

And ASICMiner price to book using the same rules is roughly 240. Also good to know, I guess.

.b

I'm not here to debate ASICMINER with you.

ASICMINER's IPO sold at a price to book of 2.  That is because all the investor funds went into the company, and the principals held 50% of the stock as sweat equity.  Today, I estimate the price to book of ASICMINER to be less than 3.  That is based upon valuing existing hash rate at 3 BTC / GH/s, and future hash rate at 0.2 BTC.

At almost 10x ASICMIMER's price to book, and 20x the cost of ASICs delivered in the time frame yours will arrive, it's obvious the security you are proposing is a bad deal.

There is no question that P/B isn't an absolute.  As I pointed out at the start, very low P/B value can be a bad deal.  And a company like facebook can be a great investment with a high P/B.

For mining investments it is a very good indicator.  ASICMINER is proof of that.

The entire history of bitcoin securities is a story of lost capital on investors part, with the sole exception of ASICMINER.  This will have to change if bitcoin is going to prosper.  Burnside and Uyko would do well to ban new issues of mining turds.

And the price to book for AMC is still 35.  Well over 10 times ASICMINER right now.

Hardly the 2 that ASICMINER sold at when they were raising funds, and certainly in no way comparable to the ~3 they are valued at today.  I wonder why you keep comparing yourself to Friedcat?

On valuation of AM and P/B:
62 TH/s at 3 B / GH/s, plus the 200 TH/s of hardware on the way, plus inventory of USB miners for sale, plus the business value of the sales of hardware.  P/B of 3 is probably low because I have know idea of the value of the capital equipment they have in terms of power supplies and cooling etc for the data centers.

I find P/B to be quite useful.  It told me that your hero Kslaughter is selling his penny stock scam at 20x the valuation that ASICMINER came to market at, and at least 10x their current valuation.

I was astonished when Erik claimed the 6100 BTC betting pool as his asset rather than SDICE's.  SDICE should have been the second big winner investment beside ASICMINER.  Instead it has become Erik's personal ATM.

ASICMINER has a price to book of ~3.  There is plenty of uncertainty about that number because there isn't a solid balance sheet to evaluate all the assets with.  That number is based upon 1) Valuation of the existing hashrate at 3 BTC / GH/s 2) The reported future hardware on order by ASICMINER at 0.2 BTC / GH/s, 3) an estimate of the inventory of USB miners and 4) a gross valuation of the value of the hardware sales business.

ASICMINER was selling hardware at ~3.9 BTC / GH/s until they ran out of blades.  Is that a good price?  I don't know.  It's certainly better than paying you 4 BTC / GH/s for a promise of hash power 3 months from now.

ASICMINER is far better than any comparable issue though.  They actually provide regular communications, pay like clockwork, and have a shareholder board.  Should they improve?  Absolutely yes.

Well, you could have fooled me...



You are trying to sell a contract for hardware you bought at an 1800% markup.

Have you no shame?

Obviously I have more shame than friedcat who sells hardware he bought at a 5000% markup (thats 5 thousand percent, or 50 times what he paid) when he sold AM Blades at 50BTC that he bough for around 1BTC each, for 10GHs. I obviously have more shame than friedcat who now proposes to sell hardware with a 3300% markup, when he's selling USB miners he bought for ~$3 for ~$100.

Look, we can do this dance all night, but no matter which rules you apply, my asset is priced far below AM in P/B. I've said it before, it is a moot point because my contracts isn't a company, but you can't really win this comparison.

.b

sr. member
Activity: 294
Merit: 250
http://coin.furuknap.net/
Okay.  So your price to book is 18.  Good to know.

And ASICMiner price to book using the same rules is roughly 240. Also good to know, I guess.

.b
sr. member
Activity: 294
Merit: 250
http://coin.furuknap.net/
It is the value of the hardware.  Since you do not have that hardware in hand, it is the future value of hardware.  KNC has established that value at $20 / GH/s.

So now it's the value of the hardware, not what you paid. Can you ever make up your mind?

Now, if you can point to recent sales of future hardware orders significantly above that valuation we might have something worthwhile to discuss.

Yes, I can point to AM sales. What did they charge? $300/GHs?

Oh, but you're right! They're charging 30x what they paid _now_ so that's not ripping people off, but when I charge people 18x what I paid, it's ripping people off.

And again:  How much did you pay for your hardware?

I believe you have pointed links to the prices before, but the hardware price is $2160. Thus my sales price vs purchase price is around 18x, or around 60% of the markup your favorite stock company charges, and even that is after they dropped prices by 50%. Until a week ago, my price had 1/5 of the markup AM adds.

But that's OK because you get a cut, right?

.b
hero member
Activity: 756
Merit: 501
Hmm, there is what they paid for it, and then there is what they could sell it for now. Those are not always the same thing.

I tried using that approach too, but then it became about what you paid for it. When I tried using what I paid for it, it became a matter of the value of hashing power (completely independent of both what was paid and for what it could sell). Regardless, my asset has a much better P/B than AM.

Of course, this entire point is moot because my asset isn't a company, it is a contract, so a measure of P/B is about as useful as a comparison of gasoline prices to cab fare.

.b

Again you fail to understand.

It is the value of the hardware.  Since you do not have that hardware in hand, it is the future value of hardware.  KNC has established that value at $20 / GH/s.

Now, if you can point to recent sales of future hardware orders significantly above that valuation we might have something worthwhile to discuss.

And again:  How much did you pay for your hardware?
sr. member
Activity: 294
Merit: 250
http://coin.furuknap.net/
Hmm, there is what they paid for it, and then there is what they could sell it for now. Those are not always the same thing.

I tried using that approach too, but then it became about what you paid for it. When I tried using what I paid for it, it became a matter of the value of hashing power (completely independent of both what was paid and for what it could sell). Regardless, my asset has a much better P/B than AM.

Of course, this entire point is moot because my asset isn't a company, it is a contract, so a measure of P/B is about as useful as a comparison of gasoline prices to cab fare.

.b
hero member
Activity: 756
Merit: 500
It's all fun and games until somebody loses an eye
Your hashpower is coming in 3 months.  Future hashrate is not worth as much as hashing today.

So when my hashpower comes, my P/B will be 1.1, right? That would make AMs P/B using the same formula be around 8.

Once again:  How much did you pay for your 120 GH/s ?  That is your book value.  If you massively overpaid for it, we can have a different discussion.

So because AM pays $10000/Ths, their book value is $620000. Trading at $150M means their P/B is around 240.

.b

Hmm, there is what they paid for it, and then there is what they could sell it for now. Those are not always the same thing.
sr. member
Activity: 294
Merit: 250
http://coin.furuknap.net/
Your hashpower is coming in 3 months.  Future hashrate is not worth as much as hashing today.

So when my hashpower comes, my P/B will be 1.1, right? That would make AMs P/B using the same formula be around 8.

Once again:  How much did you pay for your 120 GH/s ?  That is your book value.  If you massively overpaid for it, we can have a different discussion.

So because AM pays $10000/Ths, their book value is $620000. Trading at $150M means their P/B is around 240.

.b
legendary
Activity: 910
Merit: 1000
Quality Printing Services by Federal Reserve Bank
While the details may be a little off, the concept itself is useful in many places.

On the other hand you've missed out perhaps your best example possible: S.MPOE book 0, mkt cap ~780,000 BTC. 

Another important and quite Bitcoin-specific point is the Cost of Book. Ie, a company with 10k BTC worth of gear (call it SkepsiDyne in loving memory of the Global Scam Exchange) is actually to be discounted with the CP risk of the op, because the higher the book gets, the more heavily it weighs on the operator. Even small operations (take Usagi's now famous few-hundred BTC lolsecurities, or EskimoBob's Art pseudoasset) suffer from the same problem (as obviously you can find consciences for sale at any price).

MPOE-PR, can you please amuse forum readers with another number - S.MPOE shareholder's equity in BTC.



legendary
Activity: 910
Merit: 1000
Quality Printing Services by Federal Reserve Bank
While the details may be a little off, the concept itself is useful in many places.

On the other hand you've missed out perhaps your best example possible: S.MPOE book 0, mkt cap ~780,000 BTC. 

Another important and quite Bitcoin-specific point is the Cost of Book. Ie, a company with 10k BTC worth of gear (call it SkepsiDyne in loving memory of the Global Scam Exchange) is actually to be discounted with the CP risk of the op, because the higher the book gets, the more heavily it weighs on the operator. Even small operations (take Usagi's now famous few-hundred BTC lolsecurities, or EskimoBob's Art pseudoasset) suffer from the same problem (as obviously you can find consciences for sale at any price).

LOL! Popcorn time. This comedy is getting funnier.


Right, pop some popcorn. EskimoBob, she is insulting you, are you just going to take that?

No, Peter. As you can see, Mr Dipshit (or his sockmuppet aka PR scank) is making a complete fool out of him/her self. Let her write more BS and brag about his/her delusions. You are welcome to join them, btw. I bet you are good at it. Wink
hero member
Activity: 756
Merit: 500
It's all fun and games until somebody loses an eye
While the details may be a little off, the concept itself is useful in many places.

On the other hand you've missed out perhaps your best example possible: S.MPOE book 0, mkt cap ~780,000 BTC. 

Another important and quite Bitcoin-specific point is the Cost of Book. Ie, a company with 10k BTC worth of gear (call it SkepsiDyne in loving memory of the Global Scam Exchange) is actually to be discounted with the CP risk of the op, because the higher the book gets, the more heavily it weighs on the operator. Even small operations (take Usagi's now famous few-hundred BTC lolsecurities, or EskimoBob's Art pseudoasset) suffer from the same problem (as obviously you can find consciences for sale at any price).

LOL! Popcorn time. This comedy is getting funnier.


Right, pop some popcorn. EskimoBob, she is insulting you, are you just going to take that?
legendary
Activity: 910
Merit: 1000
Quality Printing Services by Federal Reserve Bank
While the details may be a little off, the concept itself is useful in many places.

On the other hand you've missed out perhaps your best example possible: S.MPOE book 0, mkt cap ~780,000 BTC. 

Another important and quite Bitcoin-specific point is the Cost of Book. Ie, a company with 10k BTC worth of gear (call it SkepsiDyne in loving memory of the Global Scam Exchange) is actually to be discounted with the CP risk of the op, because the higher the book gets, the more heavily it weighs on the operator. Even small operations (take Usagi's now famous few-hundred BTC lolsecurities, or EskimoBob's Art pseudoasset) suffer from the same problem (as obviously you can find consciences for sale at any price).

LOL! Popcorn time. This comedy is getting funnier.
hero member
Activity: 756
Merit: 522
While the details may be a little off, the concept itself is useful in many places.

On the other hand you've missed out perhaps your best example possible: S.MPOE book 0, mkt cap ~780,000 BTC. 

Another important and quite Bitcoin-specific point is the Cost of Book. Ie, a company with 10k BTC worth of gear (call it SkepsiDyne in loving memory of the Global Scam Exchange) is actually to be discounted with the CP risk of the op, because the higher the book gets, the more heavily it weighs on the operator. Even small operations (take Usagi's now famous few-hundred BTC lolsecurities, or EskimoBob's Art pseudoasset) suffer from the same problem (as obviously you can find consciences for sale at any price).
legendary
Activity: 910
Merit: 1000
Quality Printing Services by Federal Reserve Bank
 Huh
How do you calculate the book value for a Co if you have never seen their "books"? Or to be more precise, if you have never seen reports like P/L, C/F, and the the balance sheet for the last N months.
They "probably sold X units" and "had a IPO for N but..." are not numbers you can use to calculate the P/B because you do not know what the "B" is.

It truly amazes me that Co's lie ASICMINER or SDICE, who roll around in thousands of BTC (hundreds of thousands of EUR) can not find a bookkeeper, who is capable compiling a proper P/L, C/F and the the balance sheet. All I can say is: "WTF!"

For f*** sake people, AM guys managed to design and manufacture the first ASIC chip and distribute it all around the world but can not find a little chink lady to do the numbers for them? Seriously?
Same applies to Evorhees and SDICE. Co that has managed to generate over 70K profit in BTC, is incapable of standard bookkeeping and can not even produce  reports so investors can evaluate the Co? WTF!
Same "WTF!?" applies to all the listed Co's in all the exchanges. If you can not put together proper reports, find someone who can.
I honestly help that Exchanges take a lead here and start demanding standard reporting. It's good foe everyone.

Cheers!
full member
Activity: 224
Merit: 100
You can't kill math.
sr. member
Activity: 294
Merit: 250
http://coin.furuknap.net/
ASICMINER has a price to book of ~3.

So far, you have yet to prove that or come even close. Last I checked, you were hovering somewhere around the ~100 area of P/B or ~18 if you agree that the proceeds on my asset is half that of AM.

There is plenty of uncertainty about that number because there isn't a solid balance sheet to evaluate all the assets with.  That number is based upon 1) Valuation of the existing hashrate at 3 BTC / GH/s

OK, great, in that case, with my asset having 120GH/s of hashrate, the valuation would be 360BTC, so the P/B would be in the area of 1.1.

.b
hero member
Activity: 756
Merit: 501
(...)
AMC - Price: 100 000 000 * 0.0008  = 80000 BTC.  Book value (6 Avalons at 70 GH/s + 5 TH/s of future hashing) 2260 BTC.  Price to book 35

It should be obvious why these securities are beneficial only to their issuers, and why listings for BFMINES and AMC on BTCT.co should be rejected.

There is a difference between outstanding shares and authorized shares. I would suggest you looking into it before writing these shiny pearls of information... Roll Eyes

You are nothing but a useful idiot for Ken.  Ken has issued 100 Million shares.  He controls 60 million  of these shares.  20 million of those are a vehicle for retained earnings.  They are still outstanding shares.

And the price to book for AMC is still 35.  Well over 10 times ASICMINER right now.

There are only 40 Million Issued shares.  See the proof below:

From your asset profile on Bitfunder:

Quote
1 share of AMC on BitFunder represents 1/100,000,000th of 100% of the monthly profits after all expenses.

AMC shares offer no voting rights. Shares of AMC on BitFunder do not represent real world shares of the
company. The shares are solely a distribution mechanism for rights to profits.

20,000,000 shares will be retained by AMC to maintain a growth and expansion fund.

As of the time of this writing, up to 40,000,000 will be released over time to the public on a varying
time scale as capital is required to complete the project. Any remaining shares not included in the
IPO are owned/maintained/controlled by AMC. These shares will be used at the issuers discretion
for any uses deemed fit. These uses are not limited to, but may include employment.

1 share is one 100 millionth of AMC.  And AMC's assets are worth less than 1/35th of the share price.  Plus as you specifically state, "As long as AMC does not sell it's shares below 0.0005 then they may do as they please with their shares. It is their company, their ownership, and their shares."  So you can fuck your shareholders any way you want, if you ever decide that a 3500% mark up wasn't enough.  

SDICE shareholders are learning all about that experience right now.

It seems that Ken acknowledges that he lied about there only being 40M shares, and recognizes that the true value of one share of AMC is 1/100 Millionth of AMC, giving the company a price to book of 35.  It must be great to be able to sell assets to suckers at a 3500% markup.
hero member
Activity: 756
Merit: 501
To the OP. Don't let the PMB operators get you down. I read this thread and you opened my eyes. Plenty of other's eyes as well I'm sure. Keep up the good work. The fewer newbies to bitcoin who buy these junk bonds, the better

Thanks.  I do appreciate the positive feedback.  But you shouldn't worry about me.  These guys are pikers.  You should have seen the abuse I was taking last year at the hands of PatrickHarnett, Inaba, and GigaVPS.

Of course that fact that all 3 of those twats are completely discredited in this community today helps to strengthen my resolve.   Smiley
full member
Activity: 224
Merit: 100
To the OP. Don't let the PMB operators get you down. I read this thread and you opened my eyes. Plenty of other's eyes as well I'm sure. Keep up the good work. The fewer newbies to bitcoin who buy these junk bonds, the better
sr. member
Activity: 294
Merit: 250
http://coin.furuknap.net/
I did not call you a scammer.

I said issuing mining bonds is an inherently dishonorable practice.

Well, I distinctly recall you mentioned my asset specifically. In fact, I seem to recall you saying

You are trying to rip people off 50% less than Ken from AMC.  I'll give you that.

So I'm ripping people off, but that's not scamming. Is that correct?

Which it is because it is not possible to offer bonds at a fair price.  And 20x the price of hardware that will ship when yours arrives is a very bad price.

Ah, but AMs pricing (and yours) of 30x is OK? Isn't that a bit hipocritical? When AM does it far worse, it is fine because it builds your share value but when I do it, it's a very bad price? You just used 30x yourself as a reasonable pricing for the P/B rate yourself. Are you now backing down from that?

As for the rest, you misunderstand.  I don't need to prove anything to you.  I'm not trying to raise money.

Well, since we've dispensed with the need to prove our statements, I read that you're having intimate relations with sheep. It is now equally true to your valuation based on $2million of value just appearing out of nowhere.

.b
sr. member
Activity: 294
Merit: 250
http://coin.furuknap.net/
The 200 TH/s is paid for.  I priced it at the same value I used for your hardware in the calculations.

Is it? I haven't heard that from friedcat. Want to provide a link?

.b

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/asicminer-entering-the-future-of-asic-mining-by-inventing-it-99497

Go back a few months to where here ordered the wafers and you will see he held back coins to pay for them.

So do tell: how much did you pay for the hardware you purchased?

Thanks for bumping the thread.

Actually, I think you've misunderstood how it works. You made the claim and need to back it up. Saying I should find it myself isn't the way to prove your statements are true.

You see, from what I remember, he held back funds for the additional 50TH after the first test batch of 12 TH. I remember because it was one of the first updates after I bought AM. It was something around 700BTC or roughly $70K, nowhere near the $2M he needs to pay for 200TH assuming the price of $10K per TH.

To answer your question, I pay more than AM and charge less. Am I still a scammer?

.b
sr. member
Activity: 294
Merit: 250
http://coin.furuknap.net/
The 200 TH/s is paid for.  I priced it at the same value I used for your hardware in the calculations.

Is it? I haven't heard that from friedcat. Want to provide a link?

.b
hero member
Activity: 756
Merit: 500
It's all fun and games until somebody loses an eye
Pretty much pointless to continue this discussion. Everyone has already made their mind based on their way of looking into things and what they value most.

One problem with trying to value companies in this way (P/B) is that it is so hard to figure out what the book value is. This should be pretty straightforward check of previous company statements, but it seems to be hard for some of the companies around here to actually say what their assets are.
Vbs
hero member
Activity: 504
Merit: 500
Pretty much pointless to continue this discussion. Everyone has already made their mind based on their way of looking into things and what they value most.

Entropy, I hope you took my comments to you lighthearted, I meant to spike, not to offend. Smiley
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
The money's always in selling spades not in digging.  That's why ASICMINER is so much better than most - as they do both.

PMBs rent you a spade - usually at a price that's a LOT more than actually buying a spade yourself.

Mining shares use YOUR (investors) money to buy spades, dig with them and keep some of whatever's produced by digging themselves.  Even when the spade never digs enough to cover its cost.

AMC uses YOUR money so another company owned by Ken can make profit from building and selling spades.  You get some spades yourself in return, but have to pay for your them in advance to him even though by the time the spades arrive you could probably buy them elsewhere cheaper.  There's no guarantee the spades will ever be delivered - and no penalty in the contract if they're late.

I think Entropy's P/B valuation is unfair on AMC - as it should also include whatever cash AMC has.  But Ken pretending his personal shares don't count as they aren't shown as issued on Bitfunder is hilarious.

I agree with your spades metaphor. However, he is valuing AMC against assets that are selling a fixed amount of spades, at a fixed price, so they have a static book value.

As AMC is buying more spades with any shares sold+dividends (income), its book value is constantly increasing, as the maximum share number is already fixed.

Book value is today.  Future profits that are retained for reinvestment are in the future.

A mining asset that reinvests is a good concept.  AT THE RIGHT PRICE.

And only if it reinvests so that the profit from that reinvestment gos to the company investing - rather than to a different one not owned by investors.

This is a very good point.  One look at the corporate structure of V/AMC would be enough for any rational investor to refuse to touch it with a 10 foot pole.

I especially like how AMC has been 'incorporated' in a different country every time I look.

Yes - I lost all interest in AMC once it became apparent it only existed to finance VML, with a few crumbs of mining income thrown investors' way.   That plus the one-sided contract where there's no penalty for late delivery and if AMC cancel, VML can repay the cash paid with whatever spare parts it has lieing around.  In something time-critical (which mining is) a contract without a penalty clause for late delivery is useless - as the purchaser takes on all the risk and costs of full/partial failure by the supplier.
Vbs
hero member
Activity: 504
Merit: 500
You can't include future projected profits into a book value (much as some idiots here would like to).  Book value isn't the only way to value things (and I'd say it isn't a good way at all for PMBs) but if you're going to use it at all then you can only look at the current value of things.  Which is either what you paid for them (less depreciation) or what they could be sold for.

This is why book value is a blinded valuation for any of this. Zero forecast. The credits for its use are definitely for the Economics Nobel on this tread, not me. I'm just AMC's useful idiot, remember? Grin
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
Book value is today.  Future profits that are retained for reinvestment are in the future.
BTW, why would reinvestment from the company matter? If investors want, they can use returns to buy additional shares. When the mining business model doesn't change, it won't matter whether the company invests 10% more in mining or the investor buys 10% more shares.

In theory that's why mining shares CAN be compared to PMBs (for value).  It breaks down in practice because until recently the price of PMBs wasn't falling in line with their value - making reinvestment in them far worse value than internal reinvestment.

Internal reinvestment works better for companies than relying on new share sales because they can predict cash-flow better and so plan further ahead.

In practice it works WORSE for investors as they have no way to stop it when they realise that it's losses being compounded not profits - which is the case for the vast majority of crypto 'businesses'.  The issuer gets to keep reinvesting and taking a cut out of it even when it's obvious investors are losing - with no way for investors to pull the plug or stop the waste (they can only try to find a bigger idiot to pass them on to).
hero member
Activity: 756
Merit: 501
The money's always in selling spades not in digging.  That's why ASICMINER is so much better than most - as they do both.

PMBs rent you a spade - usually at a price that's a LOT more than actually buying a spade yourself.

Mining shares use YOUR (investors) money to buy spades, dig with them and keep some of whatever's produced by digging themselves.  Even when the spade never digs enough to cover its cost.

AMC uses YOUR money so another company owned by Ken can make profit from building and selling spades.  You get some spades yourself in return, but have to pay for your them in advance to him even though by the time the spades arrive you could probably buy them elsewhere cheaper.  There's no guarantee the spades will ever be delivered - and no penalty in the contract if they're late.

I think Entropy's P/B valuation is unfair on AMC - as it should also include whatever cash AMC has.  But Ken pretending his personal shares don't count as they aren't shown as issued on Bitfunder is hilarious.

I agree with your spades metaphor. However, he is valuing AMC against assets that are selling a fixed amount of spades, at a fixed price, so they have a static book value.

As AMC is buying more spades with any shares sold+dividends (income), its book value is constantly increasing, as the maximum share number is already fixed.

Book value is today.  Future profits that are retained for reinvestment are in the future.

A mining asset that reinvests is a good concept.  AT THE RIGHT PRICE.

And only if it reinvests so that the profit from that reinvestment gos to the company investing - rather than to a different one not owned by investors.

This is a very good point.  One look at the corporate structure of V/AMC would be enough for any rational investor to refuse to touch it with a 10 foot pole.

I especially like how AMC has been 'incorporated' in a different country every time I look.
sr. member
Activity: 294
Merit: 250
http://coin.furuknap.net/
Book value is today.  Future profits that are retained for reinvestment are in the future.

So the ordered, not-paid-for 200THs from AM shouldn't be included in the P/E of 3 you mention, right?

BTW, why would reinvestment from the company matter? If investors want, they can use returns to buy additional shares. When the mining business model doesn't change, it won't matter whether the company invests 10% more in mining or the investor buys 10% more shares.

.b

Hint: There is an answer in there for you, one that will help you in your cause. See if you can find it.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
The money's always in selling spades not in digging.  That's why ASICMINER is so much better than most - as they do both.

PMBs rent you a spade - usually at a price that's a LOT more than actually buying a spade yourself.

Mining shares use YOUR (investors) money to buy spades, dig with them and keep some of whatever's produced by digging themselves.  Even when the spade never digs enough to cover its cost.

AMC uses YOUR money so another company owned by Ken can make profit from building and selling spades.  You get some spades yourself in return, but have to pay for your them in advance to him even though by the time the spades arrive you could probably buy them elsewhere cheaper.  There's no guarantee the spades will ever be delivered - and no penalty in the contract if they're late.

I think Entropy's P/B valuation is unfair on AMC - as it should also include whatever cash AMC has.  But Ken pretending his personal shares don't count as they aren't shown as issued on Bitfunder is hilarious.

I agree with your spades metaphor. However, he is valuing AMC against assets that are selling a fixed amount of spades, at a fixed price, so they have a static book value.

As AMC is buying more spades with any shares sold+dividends (income), its book value is constantly increasing, as the maximum share number is already fixed.

Book value is today.  Future profits that are retained for reinvestment are in the future.

A mining asset that reinvests is a good concept.  AT THE RIGHT PRICE.

And only if it reinvests so that the profit from that reinvestment gos to the company investing - rather than to a different one not owned by investors.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
The money's always in selling spades not in digging.  That's why ASICMINER is so much better than most - as they do both.

PMBs rent you a spade - usually at a price that's a LOT more than actually buying a spade yourself.

Mining shares use YOUR (investors) money to buy spades, dig with them and keep some of whatever's produced by digging themselves.  Even when the spade never digs enough to cover its cost.

AMC uses YOUR money so another company owned by Ken can make profit from building and selling spades.  You get some spades yourself in return, but have to pay for your them in advance to him even though by the time the spades arrive you could probably buy them elsewhere cheaper.  There's no guarantee the spades will ever be delivered - and no penalty in the contract if they're late.

I think Entropy's P/B valuation is unfair on AMC - as it should also include whatever cash AMC has.  But Ken pretending his personal shares don't count as they aren't shown as issued on Bitfunder is hilarious.

I agree with your spades metaphor. However, he is valuing AMC against assets that are selling a fixed amount of spades, at a fixed price, so they have a static book value.

As AMC is buying more spades with any shares sold+dividends (income), its book value is constantly increasing, as the maximum share number is already fixed.

You can't include future projected profits into a book value (much as some idiots here would like to).  Book value isn't the only way to value things (and I'd say it isn't a good way at all for PMBs) but if you're going to use it at all then you can only look at the current value of things.  Which is either what you paid for them (less depreciation) or what they could be sold for.
Vbs
hero member
Activity: 504
Merit: 500
Book value is today.  Future profits that are retained for reinvestment are in the future.

A mining asset that reinvests is a good concept.  AT THE RIGHT PRICE.

Great. You should start updating them daily then, from now on. Smiley
hero member
Activity: 756
Merit: 501
The money's always in selling spades not in digging.  That's why ASICMINER is so much better than most - as they do both.

PMBs rent you a spade - usually at a price that's a LOT more than actually buying a spade yourself.

Mining shares use YOUR (investors) money to buy spades, dig with them and keep some of whatever's produced by digging themselves.  Even when the spade never digs enough to cover its cost.

AMC uses YOUR money so another company owned by Ken can make profit from building and selling spades.  You get some spades yourself in return, but have to pay for your them in advance to him even though by the time the spades arrive you could probably buy them elsewhere cheaper.  There's no guarantee the spades will ever be delivered - and no penalty in the contract if they're late.

I think Entropy's P/B valuation is unfair on AMC - as it should also include whatever cash AMC has.  But Ken pretending his personal shares don't count as they aren't shown as issued on Bitfunder is hilarious.

You are correct.  Any cash assets that are owned by AMC should be included in the book value.  But I don't see any clear accounting that shows such cash on hand.  SDICE shareholders found themselves out 6100 BTC when Erik decided that dice funds were actually his.  I don't see any documentation that would prevent the same gambit from Ken.

In any event it would be immaterial.  Changing the P/B from 35 to 32 isn't going to make AMC a good investment.
Vbs
hero member
Activity: 504
Merit: 500
The money's always in selling spades not in digging.  That's why ASICMINER is so much better than most - as they do both.

PMBs rent you a spade - usually at a price that's a LOT more than actually buying a spade yourself.

Mining shares use YOUR (investors) money to buy spades, dig with them and keep some of whatever's produced by digging themselves.  Even when the spade never digs enough to cover its cost.

AMC uses YOUR money so another company owned by Ken can make profit from building and selling spades.  You get some spades yourself in return, but have to pay for your them in advance to him even though by the time the spades arrive you could probably buy them elsewhere cheaper.  There's no guarantee the spades will ever be delivered - and no penalty in the contract if they're late.

I think Entropy's P/B valuation is unfair on AMC - as it should also include whatever cash AMC has.  But Ken pretending his personal shares don't count as they aren't shown as issued on Bitfunder is hilarious.

I agree with your spades metaphor. However, he is valuing AMC against assets that are selling a fixed amount of spades, at a fixed price, so they have a static book value.

As AMC is buying more spades with any shares sold+dividends (income), its book value is constantly increasing, as the maximum share number is already fixed.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
The money's always in selling spades not in digging.  That's why ASICMINER is so much better than most - as they do both.

PMBs rent you a spade - usually at a price that's a LOT more than actually buying a spade yourself.

Technically, PMBs also dig for you, if you want the analogy correct :-) However, you're right that this usually costs you more than if you bought the spade and dug yourself.

.b

I was talking about the outcome - the analogy isn't correct in terms of where the spade physically resides and who does the digging.  Lease would probably have been a better term than rent - the buyers don't own the spades but DO get all that it produces.

EDIT: And yes - it HAS to be more than the cost of buying a spade or there'd be no point anyone selling a PMB.  The issue isn't the "more" it's the "LOTS".
sr. member
Activity: 294
Merit: 250
http://coin.furuknap.net/
The money's always in selling spades not in digging.  That's why ASICMINER is so much better than most - as they do both.

PMBs rent you a spade - usually at a price that's a LOT more than actually buying a spade yourself.

Technically, PMBs also dig for you, if you want the analogy correct :-) However, you're right that this usually costs you more than if you bought the spade and dug yourself.

.b
sr. member
Activity: 294
Merit: 250
http://coin.furuknap.net/
OK, so my acquisition cost is aroud $10000/THs. I sell it at $500000/THs. My P/B is thus 50 right?

If you are selling something for 50 times the value of the underlying assets, you have a price to book of 50.  Did the hashpower you have on order cost you 2% of your proposed bond price?

Oh, sorry, my bad, I got the numbers wrong; those were the numbers for AM and their sales of Erupter blades.

.b
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
The money's always in selling spades not in digging.  That's why ASICMINER is so much better than most - as they do both.

PMBs rent you a spade - usually at a price that's a LOT more than actually buying a spade yourself.

Mining shares use YOUR (investors) money to buy spades, dig with them and keep some of whatever's produced by digging themselves.  Even when the spade never digs enough to cover its cost.

AMC uses YOUR money so another company owned by Ken can make profit from building and selling spades.  You get some spades yourself in return, but have to pay for your them in advance to him even though by the time the spades arrive you could probably buy them elsewhere cheaper.  There's no guarantee the spades will ever be delivered - and no penalty in the contract if they're late.

I think Entropy's P/B valuation is unfair on AMC - as it should also include whatever cash AMC has.  But Ken pretending his personal shares don't count as they aren't shown as issued on Bitfunder is hilarious.
hero member
Activity: 756
Merit: 501
Absolutely.  If I didn't have a method to value the future hardware that is on order your darling AMC would have a price to book of 100:1.  You would howl like a baby then wouldn't you.

AuuuUUUuuuUUU (can I be a baby wolf?)

My darling AMC has currently sold 5M shares to investors at a minimum of BTC0.0005/share, so BTC2500 minimum. Using your math it has only BTC2260 in "assets" (seems like the wallet balance doesn't count for you). Pretty good I'd say. But you already knew that.

Your book value also assumes all shares are sold to investors, which is false ofc. Once more shares are sold, the price to book can only go down. But you already knew that too.

Only 40M shares receive dividends so far. Again, you already knew that.

Failing to use all available information for transparency is what really makes this thread a joke. Smiley (Not that I'm complaining, as I love a daily dose of humor! Grin)


Here is the exact statement from AMC's bitfunder profile.

"1 share of AMC on BitFunder represents 1/100,000,000th of 100% of the monthly profits after all expenses."

Regardless of any short term arrangement, that is what you own when you buy AMC.

Laugh all you want.  In less than 6 months you will be crying about the money you lost.  I've seen at least 3 cycles of this already.
hero member
Activity: 756
Merit: 501
How much did you pay for the hardware you have ordered?

That is the value of the assets you are selling.

Cool, thanks for the clarification. You're using acquisition cost and AM now has a P/B of around 100.

How much are you pricing the assets at?

Divide the 2.  That is a price to book value.

OK, so my acquisition cost is aroud $10000/THs. I sell it at $500000/THs. My P/B is thus 50 right?

.b

If you are selling something for 50 times the value of the underlying assets, you have a price to book of 50.  Did the hashpower you have on order cost you 2% of your proposed bond price?

You seem to be confused about valuing assets that are on hand and operating, versus hardware that will arrive sometime in the future.  Hardware on hand is substantially more valuable than a promise of hardware sometime in the future.

KNC sold hashpower to be delivered this fall at $20 / GH/s, so that is a decent valuation for hardware delivered at that time.

Folks on here seem to think that $300 / GH/s is a reasonable number for hardware on hand today.  So I used that value for all my comparisons.  I actually think it is a bit high, since the clearing price for Avalons seems to be closer to 2 BTC / GH/s but I used 3 to save on debating the precise valuation.

Your asset could be worth more if you waited until the hardware arrives and is operational.  Or it could be delayed greatly.  You are trying to offload that risk, and take a handsome profit in advance.
Vbs
hero member
Activity: 504
Merit: 500
Absolutely.  If I didn't have a method to value the future hardware that is on order your darling AMC would have a price to book of 100:1.  You would howl like a baby then wouldn't you.

AuuuUUUuuuUUU (can I be a baby wolf?)

My darling AMC has currently sold 5M shares to investors at a minimum of BTC0.0005/share, so BTC2500 minimum. Using your math it has only BTC2260 in "assets" (seems like the wallet balance doesn't count for you). Pretty good I'd say. But you already knew that.

Your book value also assumes all shares are sold to investors, which is false ofc. Once more shares are sold, the price to book can only go down. But you already knew that too.

Only 40M shares receive dividends so far. Again, you already knew that.

Failing to use all available information for transparency is what really makes this thread a joke. Smiley (Not that I'm complaining, as I love a daily dose of humor! Grin)
sr. member
Activity: 294
Merit: 250
http://coin.furuknap.net/
How much did you pay for the hardware you have ordered?

That is the value of the assets you are selling.

Cool, thanks for the clarification. You're using acquisition cost and AM now has a P/B of around 100.

How much are you pricing the assets at?

Divide the 2.  That is a price to book value.

OK, so my acquisition cost is aroud $10000/THs. I sell it at $500000/THs. My P/B is thus 50 right?

.b
hero member
Activity: 756
Merit: 501
62 TH/s at 3 B / GH/s, plus the 200 TH/s of hardware on the way, plus inventory of USB miners for sale, plus the business value of the sales of hardware.  P/B of 3 is probably low because I have know idea of the value of the capital equipment they have in terms of power supplies and cooling etc for the data centers.

I see.

So, selling at 3BTC/Ghs, or $300/Ghs, is not ripping people off, when selling at $400/Ghs is? Where is the line between ripoff and not ripoff? Halfway between? Would you then agree that at $350/GHs, my investment would be a good investment? Or do you expect that the valuation of AM must be based on finding $120 million in sucker's pockets?

Besides, as I understand it, AM doesn't hold funds back much at all, certainly not enough for paying off 200TH at $10K/THs. They had to hold back dividends to pay for USB miners for one. Investors have always needed to pay for additional blades from their dividends. That's fine, but it's a bit of a stretch to account for TH they haven't paid as part of book value.

The inventory of USB miners were around 6,000 last I checked, so that's another ~$600,000 with the latest price of 0,99/333mhs. Keep going, you're down to not accounting for $31 million.

But let's give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you were able to sell off your blades at $300/GHs. With 62TH owned (assuming they didn't sell a single blade, just to be nice) we're talking about $18 million, which would get AM to a much more respectable P/B of 6. Of course, it's still nowhere near 3, so you'd need to conjure up another $15 million and still find that sucker with $40 million in cash.

.b

How much did you pay for the hardware you have ordered?

That is the value of the assets you are selling.

How much are you pricing the assets at?

Divide the 2.  That is a price to book value.

What's a good price to book?  That depends upon the investment, and the investor's view of the future of the asset.

I am just showing a straightforward benchmark.  If you don't like what it tells you, then maybe you need to restructure your deal.
sr. member
Activity: 294
Merit: 250
http://coin.furuknap.net/
62 TH/s at 3 B / GH/s, plus the 200 TH/s of hardware on the way, plus inventory of USB miners for sale, plus the business value of the sales of hardware.  P/B of 3 is probably low because I have know idea of the value of the capital equipment they have in terms of power supplies and cooling etc for the data centers.

I see.

So, selling at 3BTC/Ghs, or $300/Ghs, is not ripping people off, when selling at $400/Ghs is? Where is the line between ripoff and not ripoff? Halfway between? Would you then agree that at $350/GHs, my investment would be a good investment? Or do you expect that the valuation of AM must be based on finding $120 million in sucker's pockets?

Besides, as I understand it, AM doesn't hold funds back much at all, certainly not enough for paying off 200TH at $10K/THs. They had to hold back dividends to pay for USB miners for one. Investors have always needed to pay for additional blades from their dividends. That's fine, but it's a bit of a stretch to account for TH they haven't paid as part of book value.

The inventory of USB miners were around 6,000 last I checked, so that's another ~$600,000 with the latest price of 0,99/333mhs. Keep going, you're down to not accounting for $31 million.

But let's give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you were able to sell off your blades at $300/GHs. With 62TH owned (assuming they didn't sell a single blade, just to be nice) we're talking about $18 million, which would get AM to a much more respectable P/B of 6. Of course, it's still nowhere near 3, so you'd need to conjure up another $15 million and still find that sucker with $40 million in cash.

.b
Vbs
hero member
Activity: 504
Merit: 500
62 TH/s at 3 B / GH/s, plus the 200 TH/s of hardware on the way, plus inventory of USB miners for sale, plus the business value of the sales of hardware.  P/B of 3 is probably low because I have know idea of the value of the capital equipment they have in terms of power supplies and cooling etc for the data centers.

 Shocked Shocked Shocked Shocked Shocked Shocked You are valuing Book Value using future hardware now?

I need some popcorn!!! Grin Grin Grin Grin
hero member
Activity: 756
Merit: 501

And the price to book for AMC is still 35.  Well over 10 times ASICMINER right now.



@Entropy-Uc  Have you ever disclosed that AMC is your competitor, because you are a miner yourself.

LOL.  Yes, you are a terrifying competitor to me.  Because as you say, I have mining hardware.  In fact I hold a deep hatred for anyone with a GPU and a copy of cgminer.

Get a grip on reality.  Your business is selling shares to suckers.  I don't sell shares to suckers.  So I am not your competitor.

I do have more hashpower than you and your 'company' on order, all of it paid for with profits from bitcoin mining.  And it does disgust me the way people like you rip off newbies to bitcoin.  And I worry that this kind of scamming, much like the more blatant ripoffs that are endemic here will damage the long term value of bitcoin. That is my stake in the argument.

By the way.  Nice try to change the topic from your lie that there are only 40 Million shares in AMC.

Your stake, since you are a miner is to try and keep AMC down, so that your hashing rate will make you more bitcoins.

You have said this in your post before and I will paraphrase "Mining is a zero sum game you have to take it away from some other miner to make it yourself".

So that is your stake in attacking AMC.  AMC is building a very large mining farm and you want to do everything you can to stop what we are doing.  It has nothing
to do with you trying to protect newbies and everything to do with protecting your mining income.  Yes, you are a competitor AMC mines bitcoins you mine bitcoins, very
simple.  

That is the truth, there are only 40 Million Issued shares of AMC.

I have said no such thing but go ahead and imagine what you will.

1 share entitles you to 100 Millionth of the profits after expenses.  Whether there are 6 or 60 million circulating doesn't matter.  In terms of valuation there are effectively 100 Million.

Ukyo has busted you for lying about revenues.  I doubt he would be pleased to see you deceiving people about the ownership rights of the shares on these boards.
sr. member
Activity: 476
Merit: 250

And the price to book for AMC is still 35.  Well over 10 times ASICMINER right now.



@Entropy-Uc  Have you ever disclosed that AMC is your competitor, because you are a miner yourself.

LOL.  Yes, you are a terrifying competitor to me.  Because as you say, I have mining hardware.  In fact I hold a deep hatred for anyone with a GPU and a copy of cgminer.

Get a grip on reality.  Your business is selling shares to suckers.  I don't sell shares to suckers.  So I am not your competitor.

I do have more hashpower than you and your 'company' on order, all of it paid for with profits from bitcoin mining.  And it does disgust me the way people like you rip off newbies to bitcoin.  And I worry that this kind of scamming, much like the more blatant ripoffs that are endemic here will damage the long term value of bitcoin. That is my stake in the argument.

By the way.  Nice try to change the topic from your lie that there are only 40 Million shares in AMC.

Your stake, since you are a miner is to try and keep AMC down, so that your hashing rate will make you more bitcoins.

You have said this in your post before and I will paraphrase "Mining is a zero sum game you have to take it away from some other miner to make it yourself".

So that is your stake in attacking AMC.  AMC is building a very large mining farm and you want to do everything you can to stop what we are doing.  It has nothing
to do with you trying to protect newbies and everything to do with protecting your mining income.  Yes, you are a competitor AMC mines bitcoins you mine bitcoins, very
simple.  

That is the truth, there are only 40 Million Issued shares of AMC.  Just look at the image posted in this thread.
Vbs
hero member
Activity: 504
Merit: 500
Guys!!! Angry

Please stop! You are ruining his chances on getting the next Nobel on Economic Sciences on the use of Book Value as the mother of all measures! Kiss Kiss Kiss
sr. member
Activity: 294
Merit: 250
http://coin.furuknap.net/
Hardly the 2 that ASICMINER sold at when they were raising funds, and certainly in no way comparable to the ~3 they are valued at today.  I wonder why you keep comparing yourself to Friedcat?

Hang on...

Your valuing AM at ~3? What is the asset value of AM? It certainly cannot be any existing blades because by your own definition, those will never make a profit. In other words, in a situation where AM would be liquidated, they would need to sell those blades at market value, which you've claimed is never profitable and only sold to idiots (their market price for their blades were 0,005/mhs and my asset priced 20% lower will according to you never make a profit).

Or are you pricing them based on acquisition cost? If so, would they be able to sell them at acquisition cost? I think I read that AM pays about $10,000 per TH/s, which is $10 per GH/s, and according to your earlier statements, that's ripping people off (or rather, selling at anything above 2x that would be ripping people off).

Because AM currently mines at  ~43TH/s and probably has a bit more in reserve (say the original 62TH/s they claimed they ordered) their book value must be 62*$10000*2 which is $1,24 million. With a price of all 400K shares of 3BTC, however, the price of AM is $120 million or a P/B of almost 100.

Where do you get your remaining $58.6 million in book value? Does AM have 600TH in mining blades on hold somewhere? Do they have a stock of 580,000 USB miners in their warehouse?

.b

Edit: My bad, I used P/B of 2, not 3. you only need to account for $31.06 million to reach a P/B of 3.

.b
sr. member
Activity: 476
Merit: 250
Here is my calculation of the Price To Book value of AMC

5.651 TH/s future hashing starting by August 31, 2013 at 40,000,000 Difficulty (Over 2X the current difficulty) by that time would generate $1,458,007.07 in eight months, the time left for the 40,000,000 Million shares to receive 100% of the dividends.  Now, take 50% of that revenue stream and reinvested that back in mining to keep the revenue stream up with the rise of the difficulty for the next 8 months.  Now, the revenue stream after the 50% reductions would be $729,003.535.  Now, lets convert that to BTC at the conversion rate used in the profit calculation which was $104.87 so that is 6951.497425384 BTC.  Now, lets calculate the Price To Book Value which would be (40,000,000 * .0008) / 6951.497425384  = 4.603324729 Price To Book Value, which makes AMC at this point a great value. 

Of course, Bitcoinx.com "Extrapolating bitcoin difficulty or price is pure voodoo", but above we have tried to take a stab at something that just might be close.  This does give us some idea of what the value of AMC is at this point in time.

Kenneth E. Slaughter, CEO/CTO
Active Mining Corporation
95 Wilton Road
Suite 3
London
SW1V 1BZ
United Kingdom
Fax: +44 (0)20 3004 1756

Active Mining Corporation (AMC) is a Belize International Business Company DBA Active Mining Cooperative and
is a wholly owned subsidiary of Virtual Mining Corporation (VMC) a Delaware Corporation.

You are talking about earnings, and in an incredibly disingenuous way.

Book Value
is the value of the assets owned by a company.  That is your 6 Avalons, and the orders you have for Avalon chips - although it's not clear what is owned by VMC your company versus AMC the shell company you are selling shares in. The Avalons I priced at 3 BTC / GH/s which is about 50% higher than Avalons are selling for at auction today. I also attributed a generous valuation to the chips on order at the cost of hashpower when they would be ready, rather than the purchase price of the chips.

Still I get a price to book of 35.

Hardly the 2 that ASICMINER sold at when they were raising funds, and certainly in no way comparable to the ~3 they are valued at today.  I wonder why you keep comparing yourself to Friedcat?

You are exactly right about Book Value, however in the Bitcoin world Book Value really does mean anything.  Where can you buy anything for $4,500 which is what the 3 Avalon's AMC has hashing now cost and get ~$4,500 a week for that asset which is what the Avalon's are making at this time.  So, I used the income stream over the next 8 months as the value of the asset, makes a lot more since in the world of Bitcoin than what you tried to prove with you high Price To Book Value example.  
hero member
Activity: 756
Merit: 501

And the price to book for AMC is still 35.  Well over 10 times ASICMINER right now.



@Entropy-Uc  Have you ever disclosed that AMC is your competitor, because you are a miner yourself.

LOL.  Yes, you are a terrifying competitor to me.  Because as you say, I have mining hardware.  In fact I hold a deep hatred for anyone with a GPU and a copy of cgminer.

Get a grip on reality.  Your business is selling shares to suckers.  I don't sell shares to suckers.  So I am not your competitor.

I do have more hashpower than you and your 'company' on order, all of it paid for with profits from bitcoin mining.  And it does disgust me the way people like you rip off newbies to bitcoin.  And I worry that this kind of scamming, much like the more blatant ripoffs that are endemic here will damage the long term value of bitcoin. That is my stake in the argument.

By the way.  Nice try to change the topic from your lie that there are only 40 Million shares in AMC.
sr. member
Activity: 476
Merit: 250
(...)
AMC - Price: 100 000 000 * 0.0008  = 80000 BTC.  Book value (6 Avalons at 70 GH/s + 5 TH/s of future hashing) 2260 BTC.  Price to book 35

It should be obvious why these securities are beneficial only to their issuers, and why listings for BFMINES and AMC on BTCT.co should be rejected.

There is a difference between outstanding shares and authorized shares. I would suggest you looking into it before writing these shiny pearls of information... Roll Eyes

You are nothing but a useful idiot for Ken.  Ken has issued 100 Million shares.  He controls 60 million  of these shares.  20 million of those are a vehicle for retained earnings.  They are still outstanding shares.

And the price to book for AMC is still 35.  Well over 10 times ASICMINER right now.

There are only 40 Million Issued shares.  See the proof below:

From your asset profile on Bitfunder:

Quote
1 share of AMC on BitFunder represents 1/100,000,000th of 100% of the monthly profits after all expenses.

AMC shares offer no voting rights. Shares of AMC on BitFunder do not represent real world shares of the
company. The shares are solely a distribution mechanism for rights to profits.

20,000,000 shares will be retained by AMC to maintain a growth and expansion fund.

As of the time of this writing, up to 40,000,000 will be released over time to the public on a varying
time scale as capital is required to complete the project. Any remaining shares not included in the
IPO are owned/maintained/controlled by AMC. These shares will be used at the issuers discretion
for any uses deemed fit. These uses are not limited to, but may include employment.

1 share is one 100 millionth of AMC.  And AMC's assets are worth less than 1/35th of the share price.  Plus as you specifically state, "As long as AMC does not sell it's shares below 0.0005 then they may do as they please with their shares. It is their company, their ownership, and their shares."  So you can fuck your shareholders any way you want, if you ever decide that a 3500% mark up wasn't enough.  

SDICE shareholders are learning all about that experience right now.

@Entropy-Uc  Have you ever disclosed that AMC is your competitor, because you are a miner yourself.
hero member
Activity: 756
Merit: 501
Here is my calculation of the Price To Book value of AMC

5.651 TH/s future hashing starting by August 31, 2013 at 40,000,000 Difficulty (Over 2X the current difficulty) by that time would generate $1,458,007.07 in eight months, the time left for the 40,000,000 Million shares to receive 100% of the dividends.  Now, take 50% of that revenue stream and reinvested that back in mining to keep the revenue stream up with the rise of the difficulty for the next 8 months.  Now, the revenue stream after the 50% reductions would be $729,003.535.  Now, lets convert that to BTC at the conversion rate used in the profit calculation which was $104.87 so that is 6951.497425384 BTC.  Now, lets calculate the Price To Book Value which would be (40,000,000 * .0008) / 6951.497425384  = 4.603324729 Price To Book Value, which makes AMC at this point a great value. 

Of course, Bitcoinx.com "Extrapolating bitcoin difficulty or price is pure voodoo", but above we have tried to take a stab at something that just might be close.  This does give us some idea of what the value of AMC is at this point in time.

Kenneth E. Slaughter, CEO/CTO
Active Mining Corporation
95 Wilton Road
Suite 3
London
SW1V 1BZ
United Kingdom
Fax: +44 (0)20 3004 1756

Active Mining Corporation (AMC) is a Belize International Business Company DBA Active Mining Cooperative and
is a wholly owned subsidiary of Virtual Mining Corporation (VMC) a Delaware Corporation.

You are talking about earnings, and in an incredibly disingenuous way.

Book Value
is the value of the assets owned by a company.  That is your 6 Avalons, and the orders you have for Avalon chips - although it's not clear what is owned by VMC your company versus AMC the shell company you are selling shares in. The Avalons I priced at 3 BTC / GH/s which is about 50% higher than Avalons are selling for at auction today. I also attributed a generous valuation to the chips on order at the cost of hashpower when they would be ready, rather than the purchase price of the chips.

Still I get a price to book of 35.

Hardly the 2 that ASICMINER sold at when they were raising funds, and certainly in no way comparable to the ~3 they are valued at today.  I wonder why you keep comparing yourself to Friedcat?
vip
Activity: 812
Merit: 1000
13
Giga was issuing shares at 3.

No, I said 2, not 3.

I remember that clearly because I realized I could make a quarter million dollars of profit if I sold bonds against the hardware I had at the time.  Then I woke up and realized that the only reason I could capture such a huge gain was because the bonds were a huge ripoff.  At 20x it has just gone to insane lengths.

You are the world champion at losing money with mining shares.  Keep at it, there has to be a different outcome someday.   Wink

You seem to have a problem remembering things, much like a fundamentalist, religiously vegetarian fur-hating atheist. Every mining issue lost money during the time GLBSE closed. Just look at PAJKA.BOND, YABMC, etc. They all lost many times more than BMF. Which is really no surprise, since BMF is accretes mhash vs. a PMB which does not. And then there's TU.SILVER, which is so successful it was able to temporarily convert into the highest paying daily dividend bond in the market in order to protect it's shareholders from the silver crash. But as they say in France, "C'est la vie".

I do however agree with you when you said "At 20x it has just gone to insane lengths". With this you raise a valid point. Although my personal calculations peg it more in the 30x range, it just goes to show that you cannot hide the truth, only obscure it, from some of the people, and not all the time but just some of the time. Beyond that I think we need to disagree about the huge gains and the huge ripoffs mainly because I think they are relational antonymns instead of graded antonymns -- and as everyone knows, while graded antonymns are self-exclusionary, relational antonymns are not. For example, master and slave, or "top" and "bottom" could be considered relational antonymns because they are only contextually opposite. Sounds good?
sr. member
Activity: 476
Merit: 250
Here is my calculation of the Price To Book value of AMC

5.651 TH/s future hashing starting by August 31, 2013 at 40,000,000 Difficulty (Over 2X the current difficulty) by that time would generate $1,458,007.07 in eight months, the time left for the 40,000,000 Million shares to receive 100% of the dividends.  Now, take 50% of that revenue stream and reinvested that back in mining to keep the revenue stream up with the rise of the difficulty for the next 8 months.  Now, the revenue stream after the 50% reductions would be $729,003.535.  Now, lets convert that to BTC at the conversion rate used in the profit calculation which was $104.87 so that is 6951.497425384 BTC.  Now, lets calculate the Price To Book Value which would be (40,000,000 * .0008) / 6951.497425384  = 4.603324729 Price To Book Value, which makes AMC at this point a great value. 

Of course, Bitcoinx.com "Extrapolating bitcoin difficulty or price is pure voodoo", but above we have tried to take a stab at something that just might be close.  This does give us some idea of what the value of AMC is at this point in time.

Kenneth E. Slaughter, CEO/CTO
Active Mining Corporation
95 Wilton Road
Suite 3
London
SW1V 1BZ
United Kingdom
Fax: +44 (0)20 3004 1756

Active Mining Corporation (AMC) is a Belize International Business Company DBA Active Mining Cooperative and
is a wholly owned subsidiary of Virtual Mining Corporation (VMC) a Delaware Corporation.
hero member
Activity: 756
Merit: 501
(...)
AMC - Price: 100 000 000 * 0.0008  = 80000 BTC.  Book value (6 Avalons at 70 GH/s + 5 TH/s of future hashing) 2260 BTC.  Price to book 35

It should be obvious why these securities are beneficial only to their issuers, and why listings for BFMINES and AMC on BTCT.co should be rejected.

There is a difference between outstanding shares and authorized shares. I would suggest you looking into it before writing these shiny pearls of information... Roll Eyes

You are nothing but a useful idiot for Ken.  Ken has issued 100 Million shares.  He controls 60 million  of these shares.  20 million of those are a vehicle for retained earnings.  They are still outstanding shares.

And the price to book for AMC is still 35.  Well over 10 times ASICMINER right now.

There are only 40 Million Issued shares.  See the proof below:

From your asset profile on Bitfunder:

Quote
1 share of AMC on BitFunder represents 1/100,000,000th of 100% of the monthly profits after all expenses.

AMC shares offer no voting rights. Shares of AMC on BitFunder do not represent real world shares of the
company. The shares are solely a distribution mechanism for rights to profits.

20,000,000 shares will be retained by AMC to maintain a growth and expansion fund.

As of the time of this writing, up to 40,000,000 will be released over time to the public on a varying
time scale as capital is required to complete the project. Any remaining shares not included in the
IPO are owned/maintained/controlled by AMC. These shares will be used at the issuers discretion
for any uses deemed fit. These uses are not limited to, but may include employment.

1 share is one 100 millionth of AMC.  And AMC's assets are worth less than 1/35th of the share price.  Plus as you specifically state, "As long as AMC does not sell it's shares below 0.0005 then they may do as they please with their shares. It is their company, their ownership, and their shares."  So you can fuck your shareholders any way you want, if you ever decide that a 3500% mark up wasn't enough.  

SDICE shareholders are learning all about that experience right now.
Vbs
hero member
Activity: 504
Merit: 500
You are nothing but a useful idiot for Ken.  Ken has issued 100 Million shares.  He controls 60 million  of these shares.  20 million of those are a vehicle for retained earnings.  They are still outstanding shares.

And the price to book for AMC is still 35.  Well over 10 times ASICMINER right now.

Thank you "Oh Enlightened One" for shedding your light into the great unwashed. I am also delighted to know that, being an idiot, at least I'm still an useful one! Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin
sr. member
Activity: 476
Merit: 250
(...)
AMC - Price: 100 000 000 * 0.0008  = 80000 BTC.  Book value (6 Avalons at 70 GH/s + 5 TH/s of future hashing) 2260 BTC.  Price to book 35

It should be obvious why these securities are beneficial only to their issuers, and why listings for BFMINES and AMC on BTCT.co should be rejected.

There is a difference between outstanding shares and authorized shares. I would suggest you looking into it before writing these shiny pearls of information... Roll Eyes

You are nothing but a useful idiot for Ken.  Ken has issued 100 Million shares.  He controls 60 million  of these shares.  20 million of those are a vehicle for retained earnings.  They are still outstanding shares.

And the price to book for AMC is still 35.  Well over 10 times ASICMINER right now.

There are only 40 Million Issued shares.  See the proof below:

hero member
Activity: 756
Merit: 501
ASICMINER's IPO sold at a price to book of 2.  That is because all the investor funds went into the company, and the principals held 50% of the stock as sweat equity.  Today, I estimate the price to book of ASICMINER to be less than 3.  That is based upon valuing existing hash rate at 3 BTC / GH/s, and future hash rate at 0.2 BTC.

Now let's look at a couple other offerings.

TAT.V - no assets, just a promise from a psuedonym on the internet.  Price to book value here is infinite.  
BFMINES - hash rate purchased at $20 / GH/s and selling for $400 / GH/s.  Price to book of 20.
AMC - Price: 100 000 000 * 0.0008  = 80000 BTC.  Book value (6 Avalons at 70 GH/s + 5 TH/s of future hashing) 2260 BTC.  Price to book 35

It should be obvious why these securities are beneficial only to their issuers, and why listings for BFMINES and AMC on BTCT.co should be rejected.

As I recall, both GIGAMINING and YABMC launched with a price to book of 2. And yes, this is why I have ignored most of the recent offerings. Virtualmine is a little different, although I must say I did not expect TAT to satiate demand by calculating the price and selling into the market. To a great extent you're simply not supposed to do that, as it is a means of manipulating the market. In this particular case it's a virtual security so it's a bit of a grey area, but it looks very dangerous to me. I still bought some tho Smiley

Giga was issuing shares at 3.  I remember that clearly because I realized I could make a quarter million dollars of profit if I sold bonds against the hardware I had at the time.  Then I woke up and realized that the only reason I could capture such a huge gain was because the bonds were a huge ripoff.  At 20x it has just gone to insane lengths.

You are the world champion at losing money with mining shares.  Keep at it, there has to be a different outcome someday.   Wink
Vbs
hero member
Activity: 504
Merit: 500
(...)
AMC - Price: 100 000 000 * 0.0008  = 80000 BTC.  Book value (6 Avalons at 70 GH/s + 5 TH/s of future hashing) 2260 BTC.  Price to book 35

It should be obvious why these securities are beneficial only to their issuers, and why listings for BFMINES and AMC on BTCT.co should be rejected.

There is a difference between outstanding shares and authorized shares. I would suggest you looking into it before writing these shiny pearls of information... Roll Eyes
vip
Activity: 812
Merit: 1000
13
ASICMINER's IPO sold at a price to book of 2.  That is because all the investor funds went into the company, and the principals held 50% of the stock as sweat equity.  Today, I estimate the price to book of ASICMINER to be less than 3.  That is based upon valuing existing hash rate at 3 BTC / GH/s, and future hash rate at 0.2 BTC.

Now let's look at a couple other offerings.

TAT.V - no assets, just a promise from a psuedonym on the internet.  Price to book value here is infinite
BFMINES - hash rate purchased at $20 / GH/s and selling for $400 / GH/s.  Price to book of 20.
AMC - Price: 100 000 000 * 0.0008  = 80000 BTC.  Book value (6 Avalons at 70 GH/s + 5 TH/s of future hashing) 2260 BTC.  Price to book 35

It should be obvious why these securities are beneficial only to their issuers, and why listings for BFMINES and AMC on BTCT.co should be rejected.

As I recall, both GIGAMINING and YABMC launched with a price to book of 2. And yes, this is why I have ignored most of the recent offerings. Virtualmine is a little different, although I must say I did not expect TAT to satiate demand by calculating the price and selling into the market. To a great extent you're simply not supposed to do that, as it is a means of manipulating the market. In this particular case it's a virtual security so it's a bit of a grey area, but it looks very dangerous to me. I still bought some tho Smiley
hero member
Activity: 756
Merit: 501
You're the undercutter at the moment, I'm sure that someone with a similar lack of scruples will come along to undercut you as well

Of course, this is the nature of business. Someone with access to cheaper or better technology or resources will out-maneuver existing competition, like I am now with BFMines and like someone may very well do if or rather when cheaper resources become available.

If you think this is a lack of scrouples, however, I encourage you to build an actual business case around an asset like this. If you don't have experience running businesses and building business plans, run your new plan by someone with experience. I've previously started and run eight businesses around the world, but I still felt the need to run the numbers by someone with more experience.

If you think this is a pot of gold, again, feel free to join the competition; if it is as luxurious as you claim, I'm fairly certain we'd see a lot of cheaper options on the market, considering that the only thing that really differentiates one contract from the next is the price.

.b

You are wrong.  There is no possibility of offering a mining bond at a fair price.  Which is the reason that only dishonest opportunists bring this crap to the market.

As a buyer, a fair price would have to be competitive with the cost of buying your own hardware and operating it.  Once you come up with a value for that, you then have to discount the price to account for default risk on the part of the operator of the bond.  That discounted value is an actual fair price for a mining bond.  But, such a price would be less than the hardware value, as operations costs are minimal, and the default risk is very high (I know this very well, having operating an FPGA farm that was over 1% of the total network last fall).  Since no one would offer a bond for less than the cost of the hardware there is actually no possibility of mining bonds ever being offered at a fair price.

The entire history of bitcoin securities is a story of lost capital on investors part, with the sole exception of ASICMINER.  This will have to change if bitcoin is going to prosper.  Burnside and Uyko would do well to ban new issues of mining turds.
sr. member
Activity: 294
Merit: 250
http://coin.furuknap.net/
You're the undercutter at the moment, I'm sure that someone with a similar lack of scruples will come along to undercut you as well

Of course, this is the nature of business. Someone with access to cheaper or better technology or resources will out-maneuver existing competition, like I am now with BFMines and like someone may very well do if or rather when cheaper resources become available.

If you think this is a lack of scrouples, however, I encourage you to build an actual business case around an asset like this. If you don't have experience running businesses and building business plans, run your new plan by someone with experience. I've previously started and run eight businesses around the world, but I still felt the need to run the numbers by someone with more experience.

If you think this is a pot of gold, again, feel free to join the competition; if it is as luxurious as you claim, I'm fairly certain we'd see a lot of cheaper options on the market, considering that the only thing that really differentiates one contract from the next is the price.

.b
legendary
Activity: 1386
Merit: 1000
Once again:  You are attempting to sell assets you purchased at a 20x markup.  That is dishonest.  

Once again: Because your assumption is false so is this argument.

The fact that you aren't willing to work for the same fee you want me to work is irrelevant. If running a mining contract was so lucrative as you think it is, don't you think the market would be saturated with cheaper contracts?

.b

You're the undercutter at the moment, I'm sure that someone with a similar lack of scruples will come along to undercut you as well
sr. member
Activity: 294
Merit: 250
http://coin.furuknap.net/
Once again:  You are attempting to sell assets you purchased at a 20x markup.  That is dishonest.  

Once again: Because your assumption is false so is this argument.

The fact that you aren't willing to work for the same fee you want me to work is irrelevant. If running a mining contract was so lucrative as you think it is, don't you think the market would be saturated with cheaper contracts?

.b
hero member
Activity: 756
Merit: 501
P/B ratio is mostly of interest when analyzing shares in a company.

Most constructions on BTCT aren't proper shares. They're not really your regular flavour of bonds either (in case of PMBs).

So I don't think you can simply apply P/B analysis to PMBs. As an example, if mining hardware breaks down and the company suffers heavy losses, its shares will lose considerable value. A PMBs contract requires continuous payments independent of external factors like said hardware breakdowns.

 I know it's all the rage to throw mud at anything resembling a PMB this week, but lets try to keep it a bit objective and apply metrics that aren't really made for the oddball financial product that is a PMB.

You are missing the point.  These fundamental metrics exist to do basic value analysis on an investment.  They are a straightforward way to address a simple question: Am I being offered a good value?  Buying bonds backed by hardware that costs 5% of offer pricing is an obvious ripoff.

There is no question that P/B isn't an absolute.  As I pointed out at the start, very low P/B value can be a bad deal.  And a company like facebook can be a great investment with a high P/B.

For mining investments it is a very good indicator.  ASICMINER is proof of that.
hero member
Activity: 756
Merit: 501
Price to book is a well understood metric to evaluate companies.  It doesn't account for any other factors.  It just tells you if the price is reasonable.

At almost 10x ASICMIMER's price to book, and 20x the cost of ASICs delivered in the time frame yours will arrive, it's obvious the security you are proposing is a bad deal.

By all means, price it at 2x the assets to account for your effort.  Or better yet, create an honest expense model.  But don't mark up an existing order 20x and try to pretend you are offering a fair deal for anyone but yourself.

I'm fairly certain you misunderstand how P/B is used, especially considering this isn't a company, it is a contract. Thus, there are no future income of any sort in these assets; it's the IPO income for the entire future.

However, I can tell you that just the direct costs are also above 2x what you proposed. In fact, not accounting for any work, the total cost of putting this asset online, not covering any running expenses, no risk, and no work, is much closer to 100$/GHs than $20/GHs. Your P/B, if this was indeed a company, would thus be much closer to 4, which from your analysis you think is more reasonable.

You are of course free to believe or not believe this as much or little as you like, but let me ask you this: If you think it's so profitable to do this at 2x the backing cost, and that such a ratio would be fair pricing to investors, where is your asset priced at $40/ghs?

.b

Analyzing the offering as a bond makes everything much worse as you very well know.

Once again:  You are attempting to sell assets you purchased at a 20x markup.  That is dishonest.  

I have no interest in running a mining company or a mining bond.  I do have an interest in the future of bitcoin, and every investor you or TAT or Kslaughter rip off is someone who may turn away from bitcoin and influence others to avoid it as well.

Grow some balls, become a man, and earn an honest living for yourself.
hero member
Activity: 728
Merit: 500
P/B ratio is mostly of interest when analyzing shares in a company.

Most constructions on BTCT aren't proper shares. They're not really your regular flavour of bonds either (in case of PMBs).

So I don't think you can simply apply P/B analysis to PMBs. As an example, if mining hardware breaks down and the company suffers heavy losses, its shares will lose considerable value. A PMBs contract requires continuous payments independent of external factors like said hardware breakdowns.

 I know it's all the rage to throw mud at anything resembling a PMB this week, but lets try to keep it a bit objective and apply metrics that aren't really made for the oddball financial product that is a PMB.
sr. member
Activity: 294
Merit: 250
http://coin.furuknap.net/
Price to book is a well understood metric to evaluate companies.  It doesn't account for any other factors.  It just tells you if the price is reasonable.

At almost 10x ASICMIMER's price to book, and 20x the cost of ASICs delivered in the time frame yours will arrive, it's obvious the security you are proposing is a bad deal.

By all means, price it at 2x the assets to account for your effort.  Or better yet, create an honest expense model.  But don't mark up an existing order 20x and try to pretend you are offering a fair deal for anyone but yourself.

I'm fairly certain you misunderstand how P/B is used, especially considering this isn't a company, it is a contract. Thus, there are no future income of any sort in these assets; it's the IPO income for the entire future.

However, I can tell you that just the direct costs are also above 2x what you proposed. In fact, not accounting for any work, the total cost of putting this asset online, not covering any running expenses, no risk, and no work, is much closer to 100$/GHs than $20/GHs. Your P/B, if this was indeed a company, would thus be much closer to 4, which from your analysis you think is more reasonable.

You are of course free to believe or not believe this as much or little as you like, but let me ask you this: If you think it's so profitable to do this at 2x the backing cost, and that such a ratio would be fair pricing to investors, where is your asset priced at $40/ghs?

.b
hero member
Activity: 756
Merit: 501
You're missing key elements in your pricing. The cost of BFMines is far above $20/GHs. In fact, just the purchase of the miner is above that, not taking anything else into account.

For one, you can add the BTCT expected time of 10-15 hours of work per week for the lifetime of the asset. This doesn't generate any revenue and must thus be added to the cost. Even if I 'pay' myself minimum wage of $7/hour, that's $10K-$15K over three years or around 30% of the IPO proceeds.

Second, you can add the overhead of risk of hardware failure, again not producing any revenue but must be locked in. If the hardware fails after 1 day of operation (ignoring warranty for a moment) then in 1 month, the payouts must be covered from that initial IPO funds. I bear that risk, are you willing to assume the same for free?

Your evaluation is the equivalent of pricing Apple based on their purhase price of components from their vendors.

.b

Price to book is a well understood metric to evaluate companies.  It doesn't account for any other factors.  It just tells you if the price is reasonable.

At almost 10x ASICMIMER's price to book, and 20x the cost of ASICs delivered in the time frame yours will arrive, it's obvious the security you are proposing is a bad deal.

By all means, price it at 2x the assets to account for your effort.  Or better yet, create an honest expense model.  But don't mark up an existing order 20x and try to pretend you are offering a fair deal for anyone but yourself.

You are trying to rip people off 50% less than Ken from AMC.  I'll give you that.
sr. member
Activity: 294
Merit: 250
http://coin.furuknap.net/
You're missing key elements in your pricing. The cost of BFMines is far above $20/GHs. In fact, just the purchase of the miner is above that, not taking anything else into account.

For one, you can add the BTCT expected time of 10-15 hours of work per week for the lifetime of the asset. This doesn't generate any revenue and must thus be added to the cost. Even if I 'pay' myself minimum wage of $7/hour, that's $10K-$15K over three years or around 30% of the IPO proceeds.

Second, you can add the overhead of risk of hardware failure, again not producing any revenue but must be locked in. If the hardware fails after 1 day of operation (ignoring warranty for a moment) then in 1 month, the payouts must be covered from that initial IPO funds. I bear that risk, are you willing to assume the same for free?

Your evaluation is the equivalent of pricing Apple based on their purhase price of components from their vendors.

.b
hero member
Activity: 756
Merit: 501
The recent controversies over mining bonds has made me realize that people are missing a fundamental of value analysis.  If you use a few simple tools, being ripped off by the sharks issuing bitcoin securities becomes a lot less likely.

A simple measure is price to book value.
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/price-to-bookratio.asp

This is simply the market value of the security divided by the value of it's assets.  In very basic terms it is the markup that the shares are being offered at relative to the existing assets.  It gives you an idea of the value that could be recovered from the security in receivership.  Note that it is common for stocks to trade at a price to book under 1.  This could indicate a great bargain, or it could indicate a stock where management is actively skimming value to themselves at the expense of shareholders.

ASICMINER's IPO sold at a price to book of 2.  That is because all the investor funds went into the company, and the principals held 50% of the stock as sweat equity.  Today, I estimate the price to book of ASICMINER to be less than 3.  That is based upon valuing existing hash rate at 3 BTC / GH/s, and future hash rate at 0.2 BTC.

Now let's look at a couple other offerings.

TAT.V - no assets, just a promise from a psuedonym on the internet.  Price to book value here is infinite
BFMINES - hash rate purchased at $20 / GH/s and selling for $400 / GH/s.  Price to book of 20.
AMC - Price: 100 000 000 * 0.0008  = 80000 BTC.  Book value (6 Avalons at 70 GH/s + 5 TH/s of future hashing) 2260 BTC.  Price to book 35

It should be obvious why these securities are beneficial only to their issuers, and why listings for BFMINES and AMC on BTCT.co should be rejected.
Jump to: