Topic: T - page 7. (Read 41045 times)

@Mila: I was thinking the same thing, but didn't bother to suggest it because I don't think Goat will want to.  I was thinking this because he believes better FPGAs than the BFL singles will arrive quickly, but our brains (mine vs goats) could work in opposite ways, so there may be a motion on selling GPUs, we will see.  Selling GPUs and buying FPGAs with the income would decrease the earnings per share, but would also decrease electrical costs.  I don't know how this would affect the dividend, but if share price isn't preventing small investors from getting in (leaving large ones who want out undercutting one another because there aren't many large ones), then switching to FPGAs may not be a problem even if it lowered the dividend, as investors may see more long-term value in FPGAs (in spit of the fact that we don't know how quickly the FPGAs might fail).  My feeling is that investor logic won't do a lot of good in GLBSE yet, as very few people have that much faith in BTC, so, for instance, the passed motion to keep half of the dividend may drive prices down even faster in spite of the fact that the shares will have more intrinsic value, but that doesn't mean that treating the shares like a true investable security doesn't make sense and won't be beneficial in the long run.

@The00Dustin I was thinking about swapping GPU rigs for FPGA only if they can be sold to gamers at a price close to fair, just as means of rising capital if new shares won't sell good. As long as they yield profit it would not make much sense to do anything with them other then keep them mining.
on the other hand swapping TyGrr stock 1:10 to ease liquidity could help keep the price less volatile (/me is noob investor, read with caution)

I also thought about suggesting this, but he doesn't seem to think that a 10 for 1 split would make sense or increase share value (and the assets I can suggest for comparison with lower per share value (but massive liquidity / demand) don't prove anything, as they are different [fpga.contract {fpga mining vs gpu mining} and tygrr-bank {weekly interest unheard of absent hyper-inflation}]), and I figure selling GPUs would be less logical than a split until they are unprofitable (at which point they may not be as valuable with more people selling GPUs), but perhaps I will be proving wrong.

I voted yes to cut dividends to 50% and voted no to issue more shares, but someone bought me out and both motions passed.  I assumed they wanted to change the vote as I made enough to cover months of dividends.

If you want to see the share price go up, don't pay out dividends. 

Accumulate capital and the corporate value per share will increase.  This could be done as a short term measure (say for a month or two).

This sort of thing happened before when GLBSE 1.0 started, the asset seller said "OK guys, now were selling shares for 1BTC each" (they had had a vote on deciding the new share price).

They put up their shares for sale, at 1BTC each, the result was others on the market put theirs up for sale at 0.99999BTC

The issuer wasn't happy, then said "OK contact me personally and I'll sell you the shares at 1BTC each, this stupid market thing keeps undermining me".  No one contacted him.

The reality is you can't MAKE people buy your shares for the price you want if others are willing to sell for less. You can try to sell outside the market but why would anyone want to buy from you when they can get it cheaper from the market?

This isn't a GLBSE specific issue, this is a market issue. You have a few choices

1)Don't sell any more shares, and just focus on paying out dividends, result - share price will go up (maybe sell more shares later)

2) Sell shares for less than what you sold before, this will piss off your shareholders who bought for higher prices.

3)Create a new class of share which gets higher dividends (you should also only sell a limited quantity of these).

Thats about it, market rules, end of story.

On a related note, GLBSE.com is back up, should have fixed the problems.

Nefario.

It increases the value of what they purchase. If aftermarket shares cost ฿1.2 compared to an IPO share for ฿3, then yeah, that'd be pretty irrational. If aftermarket shares cost ฿2.9 or ฿2.8 (I think we were often @ ฿2.74 in the past few weeks) or something compared to ฿3 IPO shares, then I think it'd be pretty reasonable to assume that if you're making a large-ish buy, it makes sense to buy from Goat because the gains from increased dividends, and the increased share price from increased dividends, and the increased equity of the stock justifies spending a smidgen more up-front.

If the aftermarket shares are consistently and significantly below the price of IPO shares, then IPO shares are being sold for too much (or not enough effort is being put in drumming up demand).

from a (theoretical) fund manager point of view it might be almost a criminal offense to buy the same share at a much higher price than market offers (clause about effective management of trusted wealth) and the day GLBSE 2.0 went live there were a handful of trades in range 1.0-2.0 btc per share. illogical and moral dilemma. is the fund share owners best interest to get more shares for the same price or to sponsor the growth (and maybe diversification) of the operation and give free ride to others?
should not be the new shares offered at a discount? 2.60 maybe? goat wrote somewhere he would buy them back at 10 us$ each. I did not made up my mind yet, came here to discuss things. imho with current setup it would take either longer to raise the funds or I'm completely wrong and someone will buy 1500, 1200 or all 150 shares the day they will be offered. I don't have other practical experience with primary vs secondary market trading beside glbse.
goat also mentions that the rigs have high resell value as gaming pcs. if the trend says fpga mining is the new tulip mania, let's raise a motion to see if fpga boards could be purchased from gpu sales : ) if new shares @3.00 will not sell

But what rational investor pays more for shares than the price the market is offering? I'm not complaining if people do, because it increases the value backing of shares for existing shareholders, but it seems illogical.

Bump for GLBSE 2 being up and running. Just to re-enforce - aftermarket shares do not help expansion. Buying IPO shares from Goat helps expand, increasing dividends & "should" increase share price down the road.

We'll be switching over to 2.0 in the next few hours, this means GLBSE will be down for one or two hours.
Assets,shares and bitcoin will be carried over, history (for the moment) will not.

Nefario

Voted. Was putting off voting on cutting dividends. Instead voted to try issuing more IPO shares. Hopefully, it goes well.

ETA: When someone asks why the opposite happened -- I changed my mind, but am too tired to explain what I was thinking right now. For my own referral: Mentions in the marketplace, stocks need growth strategy. To feel confident, should be built in, not unknown sudden bursts of growth. Personally, I disagree. I'd prefer to have a voice in when TyGrr grows, but my preference is irrelevant -- TyGrr is its own entity, and ensuring a larger tent of people are satisfied enough to place bid orders is ultimately all that matters to me, a share-holder.

Things have moved on since this comment, we've delayed the release for another week. We're going to have more testing to ensure 2.0 works smoothly.

There will be fee changes, in 2.0 you can see what's there.

@nefario don't be. it's more or less friendly teasing.

my worries are
- untested interface to bitcoin (we did nothing with testnet bitcoins, only dev.glbse which uses dummy coins)
- short testing of the 'final' release, some nasty bugs still inside might be hiding
- unannounced changes (trading fees?)
- really nefarious transition from 1.0 to 2.0

this will affect all shareholders that's why I post it here and don't think it would be completely off topic in TyGrr's thread, since he has 2 big products on the exchange.
I really like what you do (both, goat and nefario) and just bitch a bit about how unreasonably fast deployment of glbse 2.0 might spoil something.

I'm hurt 

GLBSE2.0 test version, here is working now (caused by differences between my local setup and the test server).

Transferring accounts from 1.0 to 2.0 should be smooth without any issues. All assets(that are live on GLBSE 1.0), asset accounts, and bitcoin will be transfered. History and such records will not, but will be made available in the coming weeks after launch.

The transfer process will be simple, a switch will be flipped, and every action using GLBSE1.0 will return a transfer code. After creating an account on GLBSE2.0 you can then reclaim all your bitcoin and assets by entering the transfer code.

Simples.

beware!
seems no worky

// I'm not going to post in every asset forum to reply in each copy of nefario's post but be cautious in coming days
some elementary stuff seems not to work and transferring accounts from 1.0 to 2.0 is nowhere properly described and we don't know what shi*storm may come from that.

yes, i also think that the public offering is better..

the hassle with BFL is the delivery time, the hassle with the others is simply that they do not have the same price/profit ratio than BFL.

i think if we can finance each BFL for 100 BTC, we should do it, althought we may have 2 months waiting time for delivery.

Notice:GLBSE2.0 launching on Monday.

I'd like to address the reserve idea first.  I think it would be a good idea to build some reserves for future expansion.  If we had considered that from the start, we might not need to consider issuing additional shares to fund a FPGA expansion.  25-30% seems like a reasonable amount.

Goat, if you are willing to handle a direct transfer type offering, you can probably find buyers although I'm sure it will be a pain in the ass to manage the sale.  I'm sure many of us would be willing to buy direct so that the funds go to TyGrr for expansion.  Does the company have any shares available to sell, or would we need to issue more shares?  If we need to issue shares, how many and what FPGA solution would we want to buy?  BFL looks good but we do know that shipping will probably take a long time.

honestly, i don't know.

i myself plan on doubling my position, if both this motions pass. means i would buy 20 shares.

my thought is the following: if it is possible, to raise 600 BTC in a short period of time and straight exchange them to buy BFL-singles with it, the overall return of tygrr will increas significant, making a share worth ~3BTC at near-future exchange courses. maybe 2.9 to 2.7 is more adequate, but since FPGAs do mine good and need only very less energy, they drive down overall costs per coin mined, and therefore make the company more valuable.

i think offering all shares to the public at BTC 3 on GLBSE is to be favored instead of selling them on your own. please discuss this matter. who is willing to finance tygrrs expansion at what price?! ..

i myself can only participate with a relative tiny capital (~60 BTC) since i simply can't afford more bitcoin