Topic: [TAT.VIRTUALMINE] - page 20. (Read 39878 times)
Since you seem to be really committed to it, let's have a 100 BTC wager - this vs Coinlenders over 3 months. Escrowed with John. Let me know and we can make a new thread.
Also, here is exactly why you cannot use YAMBC as an example:
ASICs changes the game, just like the effect GPUs and FPGAs had on the mining difficulty.
ASICs changes the game, just like the effect GPUs and FPGAs had on the mining difficulty.
We'll see if that makes any difference soon enough. Its share price still hasn't felt an impact. It's also still going to be sitting at nice interest per week. Higher than AM, and people buy into AM right before dividends. There's no reason to bail yet.
Read my previous comment on faster difficulty means TAT has less reason to "pull a fast one". It's like you guys are throwing 2 different competing arguments at eachother for why this is a bad bond, but they both conflict logically.
Try taking it for what it is, and read the mans words.
Try taking it for what it is, and read the mans words.
So, yes it applies to the next difficulty in fact.
Sorry, I should be more clear. Yes, it technically applies to the next difficulty. I said that earlier, when I agreed with Deprived. What I mean is TAT did this for additional capital. I don't expect TAT wants to give his new capital back so soon. I don't see the point. AM keeps maintains or increases their hashrate, the difficulty goes up, he pays less dividends. It's a loan that he isn't making enough to pay initially but slowly is able to cover it, then it's just free money. He did the math, I don't know what it is, but I'm sure it ends up with free several thousand dollars at some point in the future. At least a few months, depending on AM.
Also, here is exactly why you cannot use YAMBC as an example:
ASICs changes the game, just like the effect GPUs and FPGAs had on the mining difficulty.
ASICs changes the game, just like the effect GPUs and FPGAs had on the mining difficulty.
Just as an FYI, my intent is for this asset to last as long as possible. The buyback terms are there as a way to exit the asset if necessary (something I hope to avoid as long as possible) not as a design to "pull a fast one" the moment it appears profitable to do so. I can't predict the future, and I definitely needed a way to stop the train if that's what's called for.
Keep in mind that if/when this asset depreciates, new bonds could still be issued at market prices, which could keep this asset afloat longer than most. The inspiration for this offering was indeed to find the bottom price for mining hashes, and provide that price, thus correcting the entire PMB (and some regular hardware mining) asset market.
I'm not saying this asset will last forever, or be perpetually profitable, or will never depreciate, or will never close down. I'm simply saying it was built to be used an instrument to anyone that understands how to use it, as well as any that don't.
Keep in mind that if/when this asset depreciates, new bonds could still be issued at market prices, which could keep this asset afloat longer than most. The inspiration for this offering was indeed to find the bottom price for mining hashes, and provide that price, thus correcting the entire PMB (and some regular hardware mining) asset market.
I'm not saying this asset will last forever, or be perpetually profitable, or will never depreciate, or will never close down. I'm simply saying it was built to be used an instrument to anyone that understands how to use it, as well as any that don't.
FYI, the asset issuer will be able to buyback bonds for around 0.006 BTC when the next difficulty hits. It's going to be around 16 million.
So, yes it applies to the next difficulty in fact. I highly doubt the asset issuer will buy back through, this is simply pure profit for TAT.
So, yes it applies to the next difficulty in fact. I highly doubt the asset issuer will buy back through, this is simply pure profit for TAT.
Are you aware of the price that YAMBC initially traded at?
Irrelevant.
The difference is that this one has a buy-back allowed at a low multiple of daily dividend.
If the price stays high then not only can he buy back the shares for far less - but immediately before doing so he can fill the markt bids so as to make an immediate profit on purchases that never receive a single dividend.
It's already hard for people who haven't managed to flip yet - as when they sell they're competing against the issuer who's steadily selling more into Bids.
I agree that buyback clause sucks. I still don't think it applies for the next few difficulties. I'm also not sure TAT is in the business of screwing people over. Would be good to amend it that he won't fill bids after he does a buyback, or it must be a complete buyback, or buy back at the IPO price. Shouldn't be allowed to IPO and buyback immediately either, because next difficulty if he IPO's at 0.007 he could immediate buyback at 0.0066, technically, even though I doubt he will, the agreement allows for it.
Paint it as sketchy as you want, but it's all about trust in the end. I have enough trust that TAT is aiming for a win/win situation. Which results in a few good months of divs if ya'll don't freak out with insecurity and theorycrafting.
It doesn't matter if people drop out before "15% APR", the price will go down because mining itself only produces a fixed amount of BTC. Every single BTC paid out is one less BTC that could be mined.
It is not like a company that can grow in the future. It's like a company making products for a market that always shrinks in numbers. In addition, as the difficulty increases the price will drop.
It is not like a company that can grow in the future. It's like a company making products for a market that always shrinks in numbers. In addition, as the difficulty increases the price will drop.
Your theory doesn't really hold up in the real world. Yes, obviously, it's perpetual mining, *the BTC mined* is going to go down. Yet people still buy and hold onto it.
Initially rocky, but look since March, it's become more stable and gone up on average. Yet look at the dividends slowly dwindling.
The difference is that this one has a buy-back allowed at a low multiple of daily dividend.
If the price stays high then not only can he buy back the shares for far less - but immediately before doing so he can fill the markt bids so as to make an immediate profit on purchases that never receive a single dividend.
It's already hard for people who haven't managed to flip yet - as when they sell they're competing against the issuer who's steadily selling more into Bids.
Are you aware of the price that YAMBC initially was traded at?
It also has tiny volume, and yes sometimes markets are illogical.
It also has tiny volume, and yes sometimes markets are illogical.
It doesn't matter if people drop out before "15% APR", the price will go down because mining itself only produces a fixed amount of BTC. Every single BTC paid out is one less BTC that could be mined.
It is not like a company that can grow in the future. It's like a company making products for a market that always shrinks in numbers. In addition, as the difficulty increases the price will drop.
It is not like a company that can grow in the future. It's like a company making products for a market that always shrinks in numbers. In addition, as the difficulty increases the price will drop.
Your theory doesn't really hold up in the real world. Yes, obviously, it's perpetual mining, *the BTC mined* is going to go down. Yet people still buy and hold onto it.
Initially rocky, but look since March, it's become more stable and gone up on average. Yet look at the dividends slowly dwindling.
It doesn't matter if people drop out before "15% APR", the price will go down because mining itself only produces a fixed amount of BTC. Every single BTC paid out is one less BTC that could be mined.
It is not like a company that can grow in the future. It's like a company making products for a market that always shrinks in numbers. In addition, as the difficulty increases the price will drop.
It is not like a company that can grow in the future. It's like a company making products for a market that always shrinks in numbers. In addition, as the difficulty increases the price will drop.
The first few numbers are correct. Predicting difficulty after the next change is guess-work. But yes - you don't want to be holding them (if bought at initial price) after the next 3 difficulty changes for sure, possibly after next 2. I would NOT expect him to buy back that quickly - the longer he waits the more profit he makes. But at some point that crosses over with the opportunity cost of not using the ASIC-MINER shares to secure some other revenue stream (or ASIC-MINER share price starts to fall and he wants to sell so has to recall these to free up the shares).
Yah, Deprived is right, and I don't expect TAT wants to give his new capital back so soon. Maybe at 0.004 or less. That'll be a while.
But this 200x buyback is kind of bull. You should have to buy back at the IPO value IMO.
20% APR is horrible if after a year the shares are worth 75% of what they are before.
I agree, but as I said, I don't expect people to drop out before 15% APR, thus the shares would be worth 100% of what they were before until that breaking point. B.YABMC is doing just fine at 55% APR - it's actually going up.
I don't expect the difficulty to go down. I didn't expect it to go up that much though. If you're right, this bond won't last my proposed 8 months, but it's still fine for 2-3 months at least. We'll see.
I'm not disagreeing, I'm just a bit more optimistic.
Why are BTCT mods so lazy? So far only 4 votes.
buying them for 0.004 btc each
Thanks for clearing that up with me on the options. Basically if I understand correctly: in summary if the option is never covered before the buyback the shares are gone so option can never be covered?
Some interesting math for the issuer to determine how soon he does the buy back.
current they can buy [email protected]
40 hours from now they can buy [email protected]
+2 weeks they can buy back at under 0.005? 0.004?
Assuming my math is correct this is an explosively hot potato.. The math for the issuer is how long will he wait to buy it back vs. paying the divs....
I hope my numbers are wrong....
Some interesting math for the issuer to determine how soon he does the buy back.
current they can buy [email protected]
40 hours from now they can buy [email protected]
+2 weeks they can buy back at under 0.005? 0.004?
Assuming my math is correct this is an explosively hot potato.. The math for the issuer is how long will he wait to buy it back vs. paying the divs....
I hope my numbers are wrong....
The first few numbers are correct. Predicting difficulty after the next change is guess-work. But yes - you don't want to be holding them (if bought at initial price) after the next 3 difficulty changes for sure, possibly after next 2. I would NOT expect him to buy back that quickly - the longer he waits the more profit he makes. But at some point that crosses over with the opportunity cost of not using the ASIC-MINER shares to secure some other revenue stream (or ASIC-MINER share price starts to fall and he wants to sell so has to recall these to free up the shares).
Thanks for clearing that up with me on the options. Basically if I understand correctly: in summary if the option is never covered before the buyback the shares are gone so option can never be covered?
Some interesting math for the issuer to determine how soon he does the buy back.
current they can buy [email protected]
40 hours from now they can buy [email protected]
+2 weeks they can buy back at under 0.005? 0.004?
Assuming my math is correct this is an explosively hot potato.. The math for the issuer is how long will he wait to buy it back vs. paying the divs....
I hope my numbers are wrong....
Buy-back for a bond would normally be at face value. This (and just about ALL 'fixed-rate mining bonds') aren't actually bonds. This is just a way for people who don't understand the math of mining to donate BTC to TAT - which isn't as bad as it sounds as you may donate less than on many other mining offerings based on actual hardware.
Mining securities, in general, make a profit for the issuers NOT for investors. That's why they don't buy back at face value - as that would keep the risk with the issuer.
On options there is no buy-back : the transfer of value there occurs either at purchase or at execution of the option (depending on how you value it). Here it'll primarily occur at buy-back as - until then - people will be exchanging them via the market at prices which ignore the reality of an impending buyback at below the traded price.
Some interesting math for the issuer to determine how soon he does the buy back.
current they can buy [email protected]
40 hours from now they can buy [email protected]
+2 weeks they can buy back at under 0.005? 0.004?
Assuming my math is correct this is an explosively hot potato.. The math for the issuer is how long will he wait to buy it back vs. paying the divs....
I hope my numbers are wrong....
TAT.hot_potato
One question I have: Is the issuer restricted in their ability to restructure the contract? (I have seen in the past where a bond very much like this one recalculated the 'share' value from 1mh/s to something like 7mh/s)? ....options trading
For that matter why not just get right down to the heart of it and setup a futures market trading in projected network hashrate, just sayin...
and as 'Deprived' pointed out above me.. how does buyback fit into options trading? how is this normally calculated?
One question I have: Is the issuer restricted in their ability to restructure the contract? (I have seen in the past where a bond very much like this one recalculated the 'share' value from 1mh/s to something like 7mh/s)? ....options trading
For that matter why not just get right down to the heart of it and setup a futures market trading in projected network hashrate, just sayin...
and as 'Deprived' pointed out above me.. how does buyback fit into options trading? how is this normally calculated?
Buy-back for a bond would normally be at face value. This (and just about ALL 'fixed-rate mining bonds') aren't actually bonds. This is just a way for people who don't understand the math of mining to donate BTC to TAT - which isn't as bad as it sounds as you may donate less than on many other mining offerings based on actual hardware.
Mining securities, in general, make a profit for the issuers NOT for investors. That's why they don't buy back at face value - as that would keep the risk with the issuer.
On options there is no buy-back : the transfer of value there occurs either at purchase or at execution of the option (depending on how you value it). Here it'll primarily occur at buy-back as - until then - people will be exchanging them via the market at prices which ignore the reality of an impending buyback at below the traded price.
TAT.hot_potato
One question I have: Is the issuer restricted in their ability to restructure the contract? (I have seen in the past where a bond very much like this one recalculated the 'share' value from 1mh/s to something like 7mh/s)? ....options trading
For that matter why not just get right down to the heart of it and setup a futures market trading in projected network hashrate, just sayin...
and as 'Deprived' pointed out above me.. how does buyback fit into options trading? how is this normally calculated?
One question I have: Is the issuer restricted in their ability to restructure the contract? (I have seen in the past where a bond very much like this one recalculated the 'share' value from 1mh/s to something like 7mh/s)? ....options trading
For that matter why not just get right down to the heart of it and setup a futures market trading in projected network hashrate, just sayin...
and as 'Deprived' pointed out above me.. how does buyback fit into options trading? how is this normally calculated?
Buy-back for a bond would normally be at face value. This (and just about ALL 'fixed-rate mining bonds') aren't actually bonds. This is just a way for people who don't understand the math of mining to donate BTC to TAT - which isn't as bad as it sounds as you may donate less than on many other mining offerings based on actual hardware.
Mining securities, in general, make a profit for the issuers NOT for investors. That's why they don't buy back at face value - as that would keep the risk with the issuer.
On options there is no buy-back : the transfer of value there occurs either at purchase or at execution of the option (depending on how you value it). Here it'll primarily occur at buy-back as - until then - people will be exchanging them via the market at prices which ignore the reality of an impending buyback at below the traded price.
TAT.hot_potato
One question I have: Is the issuer restricted in their ability to restructure the contract? (I have seen in the past where a bond very much like this one recalculated the 'share' value from 1mh/s to something like 7mh/s)? ....options trading
For that matter why not just get right down to the heart of it and setup a futures market trading in projected network hashrate, just sayin...
and as 'Deprived' pointed out above me.. how does buyback fit into options trading? how is this normally calculated?
One question I have: Is the issuer restricted in their ability to restructure the contract? (I have seen in the past where a bond very much like this one recalculated the 'share' value from 1mh/s to something like 7mh/s)? ....options trading
For that matter why not just get right down to the heart of it and setup a futures market trading in projected network hashrate, just sayin...
and as 'Deprived' pointed out above me.. how does buyback fit into options trading? how is this normally calculated?
Jump to: