Quote from: S3052 on December 09, 2012, 10:34:42 AM

Quote from: Deprived on December 09, 2012, 06:31:06 AM

Quote from: MoPac on December 09, 2012, 06:02:50 AM

I was doing the math on this reversal idea earlier, and I think there is an aspect being overlooked.

There were five tranches of shares issued, starting at 5k and eventually reaching 40k. Just for demonstration, I'll focus on shares in the first tranche.

If I understand correctly, the contracts were sold for 1 BTC. This generated approximately $5.12 for Giga to spend in the normal economy on hardware and other business costs for the operation.

Counting up until the last dividend that was actually paid, the share generated a total of about 0.48 BTC for the owner, leaving 0.52 BTC to pay to the owner in order to negate the original contract, according to what has been proposed here.

But due to the dramatic increase in BTC value, Giga would actually have to spend about $6.49 today just to cover that 0.52 BTC, significantly more than the dollar capital that the whole share generated in the first place to actually buy equipment, space, and electricity!

One other factoid that you might or might not find to be relevant: it is easy to calculate the fair market value in dollars of each dividend at the time it was paid. The cumulative FMV of all the dividends that were actually paid through GLBSE is $3.68 on that trache of shares, or 72% of what went in. If you sum all the way through the Dec 10 dividend payment in the queue, the total rises to about $4.84, or 95%.

That would all be fine and well if the investment was made in USD - but it wasn't. I DO accept that BTC increasing so strongly vs USD may not have been anticipated by Giga - obviously it was never a certainty to happen. But that doesn't alter a few facts:

1. Investment was in BTC. If contract is reversed then repayment would be in the currency originally paid. Intent of reversing a contract is to revert the situation to how it would have been had the contract never been entered into. Investors had 1 BTC in their wallet prior to purchasing so should have a BTC afterwards. Not really relevant what would have happened had he took investments in USD, LTC, Russian Roubles or Zimambwean Dollars - as he didn't.
2. By your figures this was basically always going to be a loss for investors from day 1. Less than half investment returned so far and with block reward halving and ASICs imminent investors would die of old age before the remainder got generated in dividends. Dividends generated are largely unaffected by exchange-rate - there's some small amount of impact rising BTC has on rate of increase of difficulty but for a fixed-rate bond the main impact on dividends for shares (reduced cost of power) isn't relevant.
3. Note also that BTC increasing in value doesn't only cause hardware to depreciate faster, it also helps in the other direction by reducing the percentage of mining output that Giga needed to spend on power costs.

In short it appears that he sold a lemon that was never going to make a profit for investors - and now wants to make their loss even larger by forcing them to jump through hoops that he could (and should) have identified and disclosed before ever offering the contracts. He's the one who fucked up by selling a wortless (compared to just holding BTC) investment. He's the one who didn't bother working out what he needed to do to in order to comply with the regulations/laws in HIS jurisdiction - and has now belatedly decided to do so.

When BTC rose vs USD did he start paying higher dividends as his costs to operate had reduced? I don't think so. So when it's now suddenly convenient for him to refer to that change would it be fair for him to do so?

If he wants to play it by the book then that's cool - and whether he raises the funds by selling hardware, selling his house or magicking it out of his ass is not really any concern of investors is it? If he was concerned about the impact exchange-rate would have then he could hedged against it or just done his homework in first place and made sure he dotted his i's and crossed his t's before accepting every BTC thrown in his direction.

Bottom line, cutting through all the crap, is he knowingly entered into a contract he knew was on dodgy legal ground. Many investors may well have known they were on dodgy legal ground as well. But now he's got cold feet over it, it's not investors responsibility to incur significant (for many, compared to investment) costs to cover HIS ass. Same as it's not HIS responsibility to incur costs sending THEM every bit of paper and jumping through every hoop that they ask for.

agree.

apostilles / affidavits are hugely expensive in many countries here in Europe and in my case would be about 80 CHF = 85 USD.

This was not part of the contract,

Now, Gigamining either needs to pay this on top of the asset buybacks and dividends or do the buybacks / dividend payments based on ID only

+1

I emailed Giga & his lawyer on the 25th November, 2 weeks ago now, on exactly this point & to send in my other info as requested, I have not as yet heard anything back or had any acknowledgment that my claim matches the info that Nefario sent, I would be amazed if it costs me under $100 here in Spain or if they even have apostilles & expect that everything would have to be officially translated in to Spanish at more expense, time & effort - there has never been any question of my holdings as I have been open about them all along & can prove receipt of the dividends from them, Gigavps please be reasonable about this for those who are not in the States & have submitted all the other info you requested when we are in good standing with this community.