Quote from: MonkeyBear68 on February 21, 2014, 12:49:32 AM

Quote from: XliptTit on February 20, 2014, 10:56:17 PM

this isnt nice, of course cryptsy can argue that the operation started to be deployed within the time frame but it isnt honest, I wouldnt do that. Are we going to receive the dividend like if we were hasing at full power since 14 february? If not you are acting with "bad faith"(I dont know how you say that in english).I am holding this share till prices hit a fair value then I am leaving

The insurance was at place to protect us, the shareholder, and when it is just going to do that you use an interpretation that beneficts you.

Thank you for making this point. I know exactly what you are trying to say. Since the mine has started deployment and each share is entitled to 2.88 GH/sec, then Friday's per share dividend should be based on what 2.88 GH/sec would provide at current difficulties. IMHO it is NOT fair for CryptX to deny the 20% increase based on starting prior to mid-February and then provide dividend payouts based on the small fraction of mining power currently implemented.

In the prospectus it clearly says that each share is entitled to 2.88 GH/sec. For the investors this means:

1) If CryptX has declared that the mine has been deployed and started, then this Friday's dividends should be based on 2.88 GH/sec.

2) If CryptX does not declare the mine as deployed and started, then dividends are not due this Friday, but the 20% extra should apply giving each share 3.45 GH/sec.

In my opinion CryptX cannot have it both ways and claim the mine has been deployed and started and then proceed to pay a dividend per share any less than what 2.88 GH/sec would generate at current difficulty levels.

You make some very valid points there and I hope for all our sakes that you are right with all of that and cryptx follows suit accordingly