Topic: Starting a new FPGA mining farm/contract! Cognitive Resurrected on[Havelock] - page 125. (Read 300616 times)

Sorry, I did all calculations for 0.5 per share. I've readjusted the passthrough price accordingly.

Great addition, I missed when this was added.

You mean via API?  There is an OAuth 1.0a API (similar to twitter) setup.  You can query your portfolio, buy, sell, and cancel orders so far.  This is in addition to the standard read-only JSON endpoints that provide complete market data, so really the only commands missing are internal transfer and coin withdrawal.

FAQ here: https://btct.co/faq?tab=tab5

I put together a stand-alone demo app here: https://btct.co/burnside-exchange-client/

It's pretty rough, but you can see how it all works.  You can download the demo app php code here: https://btct.co/dl/burnside-exchange-client_0.8.zip

Should be really simple to get going on your own LAMP stack.

Cheers.

Does BTCT.CO have automated trading yet?

You sure you've done your math right?

The cheapest ask on BTC.CO is .34 - equivalent to about 113 LTC.  Your "discounted" ones are at 177 LTC.

The first big ask on BTC.CO is at just under .5 - equivalent to about 167 LTC.  Your main sell is at 255 LTC.

I run pass-throughs myself - and know you have to be careful not to be caught by exchange-rate moves. But a markup of over 50% AND keeping 5% of all dividends?  That seems just a little bit greedy.

Sorry for not clarifying my intentions; I'm doing #1. I would by no means abuse my abilities as the asset issuer for the main Cognitive.

Just to make everything crystal clear: I will be buying shares on the open market, and it is my responsibility to pay the equivalent dividends. If I underprice passthrough shares, I am the one who eats the difference.

In celebration of the passthrough launch and to get things rolling, I put up some passthrough shares at a discounted rate. So snag them up before they're gone https://www.litecoinglobal.com/security/COGNITIVE-PT

Best,
Garrett

Just a quick request for clarification about the pass-through on LTC-GLobal.

It isn't entirely clear from the description where the backing shares will come from.  There were three alternatives:

1.  (The one I think you're doing) : You buy the shares on the open market from whoever happens to be selling.
2.  You sell shares from treasury at equivalent to the price they're listed at on BTC.CO.
3.  You sell treasury shares at the equivalent of market price on BTC.CO.

Numbers 1/2 are both fine - number 3 would be out of order as shares would be being sold to you privately (to operate the pass-through) at a discounted rate without their sale price having been officially lowered.

I'm pretty sure you're doing #1 - so outstanding shares won't increase but price on BTC.CO should rise (probably slightly) due to increased demand.

I agree with you here. Also, while your way is a better way of wording the motion, it has already been issued, and they mean the same thing so we'll keep it that way.


I agree with you here as well. I will raise another motion that will negate the #2 that you pointed out. I suppose if there is ever an incident where I don't feel confident in using Cognitive's funds, I can still raise a motion and see what other shareholders want to do!

Hmm seems to make sense having a motion for purchases considering the current track record for asic manufacturers.

Not sure, what are we voting here:

1) idea to allocate 50% of mining revenue to our reserve ?
or
2) the need to rise a motion every time Cognitive needs to purchase a new hardware ?

1 - yes, good idea
2) - no, bad idea. Why delay every purchase of new equipment. Imagine, if a real life Co has to ask shareholders every time they need to purchase equipment they use to run their daily business. It make sens, if you like to buy a pair of new skates - stuff, that has NOTHING to do with running a mining business. And even this is never taken to the shareholders meeting, unless those skates cost as much as the yacht.
Check out, how this stuff is done in real life business.

It looks like the motion requires a 60% quorum.

Pretty sure the second of those statements is unneeded.

If there's 1000 shares then a 40% quorum requirement means 400 need to vote for any result to count.

If the other 60% do nothing it doesn't matter.  You CAN'T remoe them from the quorum requirement (40%/400 votes) as that would give a negative number (-20%/-200 Votes).

So wording should be more along the lines of:

At least 40% of outstanding shares must register a vote (Yes/No/Abstain)
Of those that express an opinion (Yes/No) at least 70% must vote Yes for the motion to pass.
Motions will always be worded such that a Yes vote is required to make any change to the contract.

Last point is needed otherwise some tricky operator could make a motion to leave the contract the same - and the motion failing would mean it changed

So if there were 1000 shares outstanding, 300 voted Yes, 50 voted No, 100 Abstained then:

45% would have voted - so quorum was achieved (at least 40% of shares voted in the motion).
300/350 = 85.7% voted Yes
And motion would pass.

Had the 100 who abstained done nothign then the motion would fail as only 35% showed any awareness of there being motion.

In principle I'm not keen on minority changes to a contract - but with a 2 week period minimum and the fairly low level activity of many investors, what you propose seems a reasonable compromise.

No and no: the majority shareholder owns less than 20%. Also, those 500 shares are a part of my holdings, so they always vote with what I vote for. In this case, I have voted yes for all the raised motions.

Is there anyone that owes more than 40% of outstanding shares or at least 2 people with 20%?  Also, how will the 500 shares used to cover the expenses be used in the voting?

What terms did you have in mind on the pt?

I highlighted the sentence that I am basing the following on:

I believe we should set it up as similarly as possible to the original contract. So here's what I propose:

Quorum: 40% (because of the rather learge amount of shares that are owned by those who do not check this forum or btc-tc frequently enough to see that a motion has been set in motion )
Motion passes: 70%
Poll duration: 2 week minimum
and again, undeclared shares: removed from the quorum requirement

I will post a motion where we will change the voting strategy to this. For that motion, we will use the GLBSE style voting, which is calculated by: YES shares divided by total voting shares.

I will also raise the motion for offering the forwards contracts, and for the growth fund. How the outcome is calculated for these will depend on the outcome of the motion regarding the outcome of future motions. Now that's a mouthful.

In addition to these, I would like to open a Cognitive passthrough on https://www.litecoinglobal.com/ , which is owned and maintained by the same guy as our current exchange. This would allow for an additional gateway for investing in Cognitive, which ultimately leads to higher share prices. If there are no objections to this, I plan on listing the passthrough this weekend.

Cheers,
Garrett

That's all correct except the IPO was BTC0.50


Yes, Seven BitForce SC Singles are paid for and were ordered quite a while ago. Although they claim they will ship by the end of this month, I have as good of an idea as anyone with regards to BFL's ASIC delivery timeline. They're really good about not communicating their plans clearly :/

Do you know when your ASIC's are coming in?
[you are ordering some, right?]

Sorry I miscalculated. Everything adds up 

The 8619 shares were initially sold when bitcoins were valued at ~$5/BTC.  I think the rest were sold during the summer when it was about $7/BTC.  It is now +$20/BTC.  I also believe that the IPO was priced at 0.55 BTC per share at the IPO.  So during the IPO if someone purchased bitcoins to purchase shares of Cognitive they would have bought each share for about $2.75/share.  Currently, to buy a share of Cognitive would cost someone $7.27/share with a dividend yield (based on the last trade of 0.339BTC/share) of 20% per year.