Quote from: vandinn on September 25, 2013, 11:32:19 AM

Deprived, I really do not understand, why we should only get 99% of NAV/U? It's ok if people want to continue, but the ones who do not should be given the chance to get a fair deal.

The contract is quite explicit in terms of what will happen in unforseen circumstances.

Cease making new investments,
Liquidate investments where possible,
Cease selling new DMS.PURCHASE
Offer redemption at 100% (less any exchange fees) of NAV/U for DMS.PURCHASE and bundles of equal numbers of DMS.MINING and DMS.SELLING where it is possible to do so whilst retaining at least 50 days dividend cover in liquid BTC for the remaining DMS.MINING.

Either way, the fund is closing down. It may reopen on a different exchange, with very similar contract (but not quite the same), it may offer the redemption of Mining and Selling for Mining and Selling on the new exchange. That is all fine with me. You have proceeded with the first three steps, I believe you should with the last one as well. (I have read everything up until now and agree that we wait for the CL coins.)

Disclaimer: I own slightly above 6% of Mining and Selling. I bought the overpriced Mining only after the BTCT announcment of its closure, exactly because of this part of the contract.)

In theory I agree with you - and if ALL investments were 100% BTC then I'd do that. Problem is that it's highly unlikely we'll have the option to convert CIPHERMINE.B1 into BTC by then. Even if we're promised it'll later become liquid it still can't truly be valued at full face value whlst it isn't tradable. So some discount to its value has to be applied.

Easiest way around it to be totally fair would be to do all redemptions by sending cash plus a portion of CIPHERMINE.B1 - but we still have the problem of very small holdings too low to give even 1 CIPHERMINE.B1.

If I have the option of liquidiating it then yes - I'd give 100% NAV/U. If I don't have that option then I'd probably have to give cash + some of them and then slightly under NAV/U for tiny holdings.

As you correctly point out - if the contract changes then it MUST be considered as being an effective closure/reopening, so the general rule is that anyone choosing to sell out should get precisely their fair share of NAV/U. The 99% NAV/U was intended as a means to pay in all cash whilst reflecting the fact that a significant portion of assets weren't actually liquid (assuming I was satisifed there was every intent to honour the bond commitments). Any time risk is passed to someone else there MUST be a cost associated with it.

EDIT: Just realised in a previous post I'd referred to paying 99% of NAV/U + some bonds. That is incorrect - if everything bar the bonds is in cash then one-time redemptions before moving would be at 100% NAV/U (excluding bonds) + bonds. That much is definite.