Topic: This is where "the community" kisses my feet. Again. - page 2. (Read 3878 times)

If it relates to S.Dice price appreciation, then I'm looking forward to it.

Yeah. That part is me "taking credit for the success of S.DICE". You know...


Not possible, price was specified in the contract.

Nice to see someone who actually gets it tho.

Nice, there's going to be material for the laughs of next Spring too.

The issue here is not whether or not S. Dice is profitable, or investing the stock is/was profitable.

The real issue is that MPOE-PR has taken credit for the success of S. Dice!

So arrogant! So absurd! So absurdly arrogant! So typical!

MPOE-PR at his finest!

I was under impression, that those 90Mil shares held by evorhees and someone else (evorheese) are the same type shares as the ones he sold to the market from his private stash.
If I recall correctly, if a company decides to pay divs of X% of net income, then all the shares will get the divs. If one shareholder refuses to pick up the dividends and asks the coin to be left on a corporate accounts, this will not be called retained earnings. This is more like money owned to investor X and it will not be part of the shareholders' equity on the balance sheet.
If this really happened, the rest of your analysis can not be correct because you magically converted unpaid coin to the shareholders equity.
If S.DICE 90% is held in another type/name of stock, the yes, Co can decide to pay % of net earnings to divs only for S.DICE holders but not to S.DICE-B. so you will have retained earnings to work with, but this is not the case here.
Feel free to correct me.

Cheeky, aren't you.

Satoshi Dice is actually probably undervalued compared to the Aug/Sep timeframe MPOE-PR was referring to.

While not being a fan of the vices, this does present a fairly finance textbook example of a melt-up due to good news. Let me run through the analysis for the fun of it.

Although December had unusually high earnings of 3.2% (17,206.44888669 /537,375.97) the intriguing part is the strengthening of the SD balance sheet to the tune of about 28,000 BTC retained earnings.

To be conservative we will assume the public float dividend were doubled and paid out to the anonymous investor holding the other 90%. After all, the anonymous investor owns 9x more than the public float and would not want to jeopardize SD's solvency potentially having to shutter it due to bad luck and has probably not taken any dividends since they probably have plenty of cash from the IPO and could probably fly private wherever they want with this type of monthly cash-flow.

This leaves about 25,000 BTC of retained earnings which to exhaust would require about -4.795% negative luck on 550,000 BTC of bets compared to the Dec beginning retained earnings of -2.22%. Assuming the anonymous investor has taken no dividends then the luck probabilities change to -5.11% and -2.29%.

In other words, if you do the probability (some other math whiz can solve this if they feel particularly magnanimous) that SD will exhaust its RE's due to bad luck in the dice game and cease being a going concern then it reveals that solvency risk just plummeted massively causing an increase in the expected discounted future cash flows.





Everything else being equal, this additional 15,500 BTC of retained earnings, makes SD much safer of an investment with a much higher NPV which is already corrected for BTC exchange rate risk.

Consequently, a melt-up in the price is to be expected. What is fairly exceptional is that the issuer did not cancel the IPO's at .0037 or at least move the bid up; or maybe the anonymous investor bought them using some dividends. But that is neither here nor there, using a similar risk premium before Dec's earnings would put a price around at least .0075. So it will be interesting to see how long it takes to get there; assuming an average Jan luck.

I don't think anyone was arguing that there would never be a time when one could have sold one's original shares for a profit. The question is one of how much risk there is and whether it's likely that you could actually find the right time to sell it a profit. A similar argument a month before Pirate defaulted would have shown that investing in Pirate was a good idea.

Note that I'm making the strongest possible case in the opposite direction. The truth is in-between. Satoshi Dice is not like Pirate who never made any actual profits from any actual business activity and where the prospects for ever having an actual, legitimate return were always zero.

Ha, far from a hater. I respect that you have a good stock on your exchange. If only there was a way to convince evoorhees to move to another exchange...then your delusions of grandeur and superiority complex might finally end

Gotta say, it feels great to be a winner.

Dun be a hater.

It's not often that Bitcoin actually has a public corp worth the mention. In fact, S.DICE is only the second in the history of this little experiment we call BTC. What'd you want me to do, not point out the obvious because some failures might get their feelings hurt?

Let them.

I love how MPOE has been talking about how amazing Satoshi Dice is on their exchange. But I think I've had my fill...want to talk about all the other great stocks you host?

Oooohhhh...oohh wait...sorry, I forgot you don't have any

My reply was on topic. Your reply however has nothing whatsoever to do with my post (except that you quote it for some reason).

Here, have a graph to go with your very on topic observation.

There's a reason ASIC manufacturers promise delivery each month, as it passes, and I'm sure it has nothing to do with what "long term" means in BTC.

Do I need to explain the difference between long term and short term to you? Even the largest companies in the world have a large perceptual difference between their 52-week highs and lows respectively.

XOM high 21.4% above low
AAPL high 68.4 % above low

Looking at the share price proves nothing about the underlying business. So your great conclusion proves exactly nothing.

I'm not making any such insinuation.

It is a point of fact that as the time interval considered approaches infinity, the probability of loss from any definite investment approaches one.

The discussion of the greater fool theory is again moot. We're not interested in explaining history. Whether this attempt is carried on in terms that are palatable or unpalatable it is equally irrelevant. We are simply interested in noticing that definite statements in the past have already been contradicted by definite events in the relative future, which meanwhile is also past. That is all. There's no finessing out of it, either.


Perhaps you should research the meanings of idiomatics before using them.


Yes.


Yes.

No you do not. Those feet are ugly. There was a picture posted.. brrrrr really ugly stuff.

MPOE-PR , you fail at your job every time you write something.

LOL, nothing really. I am happy it kept you busy for few hours and stopped you from spamming other forum threads.

I haven't actually looked at the contract, but were the above figures accurate that 3200BTC would buy 1% of the company during the IPO?
If so, wouldn't that imply that 1000BTC would buy 0.3125% of the company?
If 1000BTC (0.3125%) has returned 97.34BTC in divs in the last 20 weeks, that would be a total dividend payout of of about 31,500 BTC in less than half a year. Is SatoshiDice really that profitable?

All you've done is illustrate the Greater Fool theory. These shares are ridiculously overvalued, and while the market can stay irrational longer than investors can stay solvent, the shares are no less overvalued.

Your insinuation that the stock will not be productive for a longer term interval also shows that you are aware of the ridiculous overvaluation of these shares and are in fact pushing a product on your exchange that you are certain will amount to taking money from your users given a long enough time frame. That sounds borderline scammish. Hardly worth kissing your feet. This post is almost certainly a red herring to shareholders that they should grab any profits they may have and run before reality comes knocking.

Your analogy is moot, because the discussion was never whether a stock (in BTC or in any fiat, now or ever) will be productive for an infinite time interval.

The discussion was whether this particular one will be productive at all.