My argument is weakened by the existence of the upgrade plan, but I still claim that the most natural objective measure for the worth of such a share, which doesn't leave any party disadvantaged, is in proportion to hashrate.
Meni, this is the second time you mention hashrate in this conversation. I let it go the first time, but I think a clarification is in order.
Under the original contract terms of BFLS (which existed long before BFLS.RIG was even proposed), it was made clear that purchasers were buying shares of
hardware, not
hashrate. 1 share of BFLS represented exactly 1/200th of the cash value of a Single (that is, exactly $3). One could calculate that the hashrate of that share was 832/200 (4.16MHps), but that is irrelevant to the contract terms. The key selling point of BFLS, and what made it unique at the time, was that the shares could be converted to actual hardware at any time.
If I had enough BFLS shares, I could ask Inaba to convert them to a Single and ship it to me
today. And I could get a $600 discount under BFL's upgrade program for an ASIC upgrade
today. Which makes a BFLS share worth exactly $3 today ($600/200 = $3).
Similarly if I had enough BFLS.RIG shares, I could ask Inaba to ship convert them to a MiniRig and ship it to me
today. And I could get a $15295 discount under BFL's upgrade program for an ASIC upgrade
today. Which makes a BFLS.RIG share worth exactly $2.52 today ($15295/6058).
So if those $3 BFLS shares are now to be converted to BFLS.RIG, a BFLS shareholder would expect to get the same $3 worth of hardware for their BFLS share. Unfortunately, we know that 1 BFLS.RIG share is not worth $3; it is only worth $2.52. The Singles are on hand now, as are the MiniRigs. There is no 'delay' associated with a share conversion.
Meni loves math, only when it is in his favor.