Post
Topic
Board Securities
Re: [NastyFans.org] NASTY MINING | NASTY POOL
by
Yogafan00000
on 23/12/2013, 14:10:14 UTC

I still oppose. 75% is too much and will reduce donation payouts drastically and hurt seat values. The debt is not in and of itself harmful, and especially the idea of paying off "all" debt is misguided. The market cap of the group (see post 1) is over 1200 BTC which is more than 3x the total debt. This is not an unhealthy debt ratio for a business like mining. As we have seen in the past several weeks bitcoin is not always deflationary (in fact at present and for the forseeable future it is massively inflationary, with 3600 BTC being "printed" out of thin air every day), which was part of the argument against using debt. If we had paid off the debt at $1200/BTC, we would be much worse off today.

It is unfortunate that the debt holders have been holding the bag longer than perhaps expected, but they were told up front what the debt was being used for and how it was to be paid off. They took a risk that mining using pre-ordered gear would pay off (in BTC) less and more slowly than expected, which is exactly what happened.



I am not concerned with seat price, or liquidity or debt ratios or any other banking nonsense.  My biggest fear is the fact that the debt is 100% denominated in BTC and that could have disastrous consequences if the market moves the wrong way.

We have already seen a taste, the past fall with the price moving 10x, and now all of a sudden, we owe 10x more, when valued against fiat.

I would feel a lot safer if we had borrowed fiat to purchase equipment priced in fiat.