Quote from: FloatesMcgoates on July 07, 2013, 07:59:50 PM

The amount of BTC just sitting there in cash form is still kind of high, any chance you could spend more on investments?

If SELLING holders want me to invest more I will. But that needs two things:

1. Proposed investments.
2. A vote approving them.

If cash continues to rise then I already intend to take out a new Coinlenders CD - 2 weeks after previous one started so as to give best possible spread on maturity dates.

Just-Dice there was opposition to investing more than 10%. In fact we're doing very well there (someone lost a 640 BTC not long back which means we made nearly 3 BTC there today). I plan to send a top up there after next difficulty change (once we know what capital left will be after that).

There's no more LTC-ATF.B1 available at face value or near. LTC-ATF.B2 is being approved so I could take some of that - but there's not going to be a lot of that issued initially anyway.

Other options we have are :

Namworld's BTC-Bond on BTC-TC. That only pays 0.03% per day (.21% per week, not much over 10% per year) - so I've been reluctant to propose it as it's so low and I can't anywhere find details of what assets currently back it.

Graet's loan on Bitfunder. Pays a decent rate and he has a good rep but problem with it I'm not convinced it's properly backed. The funds are largely being used to replace BTC stolen from the mining pool he runs - so any time he pays out he has to borrow back money that isn't even his. And if there are mass withdrawals from the pool then the backing for the bond vanishes and he has to borrow from somewhere else to payout any bond-holders who want to cash out. Other stated use was to buy servers - which are obviously valued in fiat and so not appropriate to be the backing for a BTC-denominated bond. Whilst I don't doubt his willingness and good intentions to pay I'm sceptical of his ability to do so if something gos wrong. For me to trust funds to someone I need to be convinced not just that they're honest and well-intentioned but also that they have the capability to fulfil their end of the deal even if there are significant problems. I'm not convinced of that with Graet.Loan.

Other option is doing secured loans ourself (this was mentioned in the contract and would be fine). Basic terms would be:

We'd only do secured loans.
Loans would have to be secured by providing collateral to us - in the form of solid securities - with a value significantly in excess of the loan value.
We'd charge a pretty low rate - reflecting the very low level of risk to us. Something like a 1% setup fee then .1% per day.
Loans would be small ones (10-100 BTC). Micro loans (under 10 BTC) aren't worth the hassle and we don't have the capital to do medium (100s) or large (1000s) ones.

I'm fine with doing that - but do SELLING holders want me to? Feed-back welcome - don't worry about the details just whether you'd like it done in principle. Before any loans would be made a contract for borrowers would need to be approved by SELLING (and so would the securities we'd accept as collateral).