Ninjastic
PostEdited versionsQuotes to this post
Post
Topic
Board Securities
Re: ASICMINER: Entering the Future of ASIC Mining by Inventing It
by
matauc12
on 07/02/2013, 02:45:30 UTC
Quote from: Deprived on February 06, 2013, 05:00:43 PM
Quote from: matauc12 on February 06, 2013, 04:44:31 PM
Quote from: DiabloD3 on February 06, 2013, 07:44:11 AM
Quote from: matauc12 on February 06, 2013, 07:31:07 AM
Quote from: niko on February 06, 2013, 02:33:51 AM
Quote from: VJai n on February 06, 2013, 01:07:50 AM
Were there any ASICMINER stocks not purchases (owned by friedcat/the company)  before GLBSE went down? If so, how will these be priced upon the exchange being brought back up? Will the value be at the same (0.1000BTC/per) or will it be adjusted based on market value//trade price after X days?
The IPO was finished long before GLBSE went down. Not all 200`000 IPO shares were sold before sufficient funds were raised, and the IPO closed. Initially, hundred percent of the profits will be diverted to dividends until 0.1 btc per share is paid out. From there on, each public share's dividend is worth 1/400`000 of the profits, regardless of how many shares were sold originally. It's all buried somewhere in this thread.
The only thing I fail to comprehend is if its 1/400000 of the profit per share, isn't 12% of the profits not gonna be distributed?

I'm not sure how you get to 12%. That would require 24% of the ASICMINER shares to be unsold and withdrawn from sale. I imagine ASICMINER"s parent company owns the unsold amount in addition to the other 50% of the profits.
There is about 150k share from the 200k IPO sold, so its 350k/400k, if you decide the profit by 1/400k per share, there would be 12% of the profit bit distributed. Shouldn't the profit dived by 1/350k per share?

No, because the definition at launch was 1/400k per share.  Had exchange-rate moved the other direction (or costs been higher than predicted) and they needed to sell more than 200k then the extra would have come from Bitfountain's share - so only fair they get the surplus when it moved the way it did.

Our cut was defined before we bought the shares - so no reason why it should be changed.
I do not mean to imply it should be done otherwise. I just didn't really conclude how it worked from available information (either by my incomprehension or maybe it is not possible to conclude without abstraction).

So if I understand correctly, from what you say, bitfountain now effectively owns 250k shares?