You're entitled to a different opinion but please stop the trash-talk saying deterministic assets should be "filtered out".
In the end, the market is always the judge, not my opinion, nor yours. There are good mining-related investments, and bad ones, and I know which is which because I have the hard numbers on all mining assets from my research. When I filter something out, I always do it because it has a negative expectation, not because I have a certain "gut feeling" about it. From what I can see, at the present time most (but not all) non-upgradable fixed-rate mining bonds have a negative expectation relative to holding bitcoins directly, although there are some notable exceptions to this guideline.
It's not personal, so don't take it that way. It's business.
Exactly, it's about the market. You can certainly say assets A, B and C are currently overvalued and are thus a bad investment. If you found a "rule of thumb" that these assets happen to be those with property X it's ok to say this as well. But it's unacceptable for you to say that PDMIs are inherently bad, which you did - and for that purpose it doesn't matter if you're harming my business, disparaging my invention, or just being wrong on the internet.
(even if its one thats not backed by any mining power, but thats largely irrelevant. I think Meni does it like this? )
I'm backed by hardware.
Wrong: If the operator doesn't run a scam he would be able to sell equipment in order to acquire new equipment with higher profitability. (if earnings on sale > price for new equipment with same GH/s) After that he could easily increase the MH/share. Doing not so is irrational and tells us that the operator either:
1. exchanges equipment for OWN profit by emitting additional shares
2. doesn't have equipment and runs a scam
This makes sense only in very specific circumstances. In general nobody will want to buy the equipment at a price which will make this profitable. This is viable if he's selling GPUs to gamers to get ASICs (also at some loss), but again this is a once in a lifetime event.
If more is traded than is actually mining it does affect me. Demand is covered by non existent supply and therefore prices fall.
Maybe but they have every right to affect you in this way.
Can you apply for mortgage without actually buying a house as long as you stick to your payment plan?
No, because then the bank has no way of knowing that you'll be willing and able to stick to your payment plan. But you can offer a car as collateral to get a loan for a purpose which has nothing to do with cars. Similarly, an issuer doesn't need mining hardware to be good on a mining asset, but he does need to be honest and responsible with his liabilities and assets (and could also offer unrelated assets as collateral if applicable).
If you don't mine why do you mislead your investors by letting them think their investment is backed?
Who said anything about misleading? If someone is offering a naked PDMI he should definitely make it very explicit.
As for synthetic bonds lowering the price; it shouldnt. If it does, then you paid too much for yours. The price should reflect expected future mining earnings, nothing else. I might offer 1 trillion terrahash in mining bonds, but unless Im crazy, I wont sell them at a price I dont expect to make a profit; nor should you buy them at any other price. More "supply" (or demand for that matter), in this case would only serve to find the right price.
That's extremely simplistic. It's a market and there are only so many people interested in the asset, and so much they can and will spend on it. Utility of money is sublinear and as you scale an investment the risk (which is quadratic) increases proportionally, requiring a higher expected profit (i.e., lower price) to compensate.
. 
