Quote from: rdyoung on July 24, 2014, 12:17:33 AM

Quote from: Netwerked on July 23, 2014, 11:19:26 PM

Quote from: rdyoung on July 23, 2014, 10:12:59 PM

Quote from: Netwerked on July 23, 2014, 09:37:34 PM

Quote from: rdyoung on July 23, 2014, 08:44:28 PM

Quote from: JRBeagle on July 23, 2014, 08:24:18 PM

Quote from: rdyoung on July 23, 2014, 02:19:13 PM

Quote from: dyask on July 23, 2014, 06:53:42 AM

Quote from: rdyoung on July 23, 2014, 04:26:42 AM

Quote from: pedrog on July 22, 2014, 11:53:18 PM

Quote from: dyask on July 22, 2014, 11:38:30 PM

Quote from: JRBeagle on July 22, 2014, 08:17:18 PM

Im thinking that whenever news is released that they move 100% hashrate to P2P pool the price shoots back to .005

Why? PETA is already extremely overvalued.

Well, if you look to CEX.io GH/s price it is not...

Exactly, but cex is a whole other story. I have a feeling that the price is being propped up by the people behind cex. They have said that they release new ghs onto the market they do it in a way to not affect the price. They are making a shitton of money, they are run by bitfury so their cost for hardware is nothing compared to the market rate. if they are able to produce hardware at say 25c/ghs and they are selling it .0048 I think was the last price I saw, thats over 2.5$/GHS profit, an 800% markup.

Comparing one overvalued asset against another doesn't change the facts.

Bahhhh What? Huh

How did I change the facts. If you look closely at almost everything I post I go straight down the middle laying out facts and trying to not sound like I fall on either side of the fence.

To sum up both of my posts in a way that might be easier to understand.

ALL valuations on any asset are whatever a person is willing to pay. If I am extremely thirsty and am willing to pay 5$ for a bottle of water, than at that moment in time that bottle of water is worth 5$ to ME. Peta in my opinion is not extremely overvalued, its sitting at maybe 25% over where it should be. In either case of peta of or cex, you will pay a premium over buying your own hardware. When your purchasing GHS in this scenario, (A perpetually paying asset) you are not purchasing the hardware, your asset is more abstract, if some of the hardware dies and gets replaced, your ghs still remains, if you purchased your own hardware and it goes down, your SOL.

Yes the dividend will eventually go to zero

If this were to ever happen then the entire network would cease to function.

I strongly disagree. PETA has fixed costs such as electricity and data center rental. At some point, the total mining income will be less than the fixed costs, and the dividend will eventually be zero. At that point, the share price will be worth almost zero. The Bitcoin network will continue to function with newer, faster, and more efficient ASICs.

I owned some PETA shares. My assumption was a 14% difficulty increase every 14 days. With that scenario, the current share price is higher than the sum of all future dividends. It looks like we're only jumping 9% in 2 days, so maybe I was overly pessimistic. In any case, don't think that PETA is a perpetually paying asset. I would think sometime next summer the dividends will end.

You are of course assuming that cryptx doesn't swap out the current hardware for the next gen when it comes available.
IF and this is a big IF, cryptx has the same zeal for this project as pre ipo, they would be looking for the next gen to upgrade to. They are making some very nice residuals off the energy/hosting, it would be against their interest to just let the mine dwindle to zero profits.

Yes, I'm assuming that the hardware is not swapped out down the road for a few reasons.

Originally, mining income was allocated to three areas. It first paid for overhead/electricity. 40% of the remaining income went to dividends, and 60% went towards equipment. The equipment fund is vital to the success of PETA, because without new equipment the old equipment eventually becomes worthless and the dividend goes to zero.

I'm not sure what prompted a shareholder vote to be called, but in early June, shareholders decided that dividends should be raised to 50%. This lowered the amount of money used to pay back the loan and save up for new equipment. It still looked like the loan could be paid off, but due to the difficulty increases, the dividend was falling and there wouldn't be much of an equipment reinvestment fund.

Probably because of that fear, another vote was called earlier this month to convert the loan into outstanding shares and change dividends to 100%. The shareholders approved. Now there is no loan to repay and no budget for new equipment.

How do we get new equipment? Capital will need to be raised. How is capital raised? Another IPO. If a new IPO is successful, then equipment could be replaced with more energy efficient miners. This would extend the life of shares for existing shareholders. Without another IPO, I think the fund's days are numbered.

Yes, dividends going to zero are not in the interest of cryptx, but they may launch other projects that can leverage their data center. Their data center does not exist solely to support PETA.

Your are forgetting 1 large source of funds, the existing equipment. They could easily list hardware for sale and as soon as it sells they buy new hardware with those funds. They also apparently have quite a bit of personal funds they have invested in this project. Don't forget that while the shareholders hold the bag currently so to speak, they bought the original and second set of hardware out of their own pocket. They could very easily estimate what they could resell equipment for and do a short term loan for the new hardware so that their is no downtime while selling/swapping.

You mustn't also ignore the fact that if they for example were able to swap out the 1150ghs we have now for say 2000ghs, thats an extra 850ghs they can list on havelock or wherever to offload the mining risk.

I took the existing equipment into account. I wouldn't say it is a large source of funds. It may be worth a large amount of money today, but by the time new equipment is needed, it won't be worth too much. Mining equipment depreciates quickly. Rationally speaking, why would a prospective buyer spend more $$/GH on older mining equipment than what can be purchased brand new? Also, newer equipment is more energy efficient-- more GH/watts, which makes older equipment less attractive, thus cheaper. Yes, they can sell the existing equipment for some residual value, but more capital is required to fully replace today's equipment.

Where does PETA get that extra capital? I suppose if cryptx uses his own money to buy the new equipment, then selling the old equipment will offset some of the cost. Perhaps he can use the excess capacity of the new equipment to do some mining to repay the loan, then do an IPO to sell those new shares. As long as the IPO price is less than CEX, that might be a good strategy.