At 10:36 PM -0700 08/21/2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Craig Spencer wrote:
Jim was right. You should try opening a commodities account yourself
and learn something about the futures markets!
Boy, you are a sadistic SOB. I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy.
(MAJOR Just Kidding!!!
The weird thing (to me) is, there are now FAR
more ways to get lots more kinds of physical gold for your e-gold
than there ever were in the days of the coins, and to me the
only other difference is semantic, between get and redeem I
end up with a piece of yellow metal in my hand if I
Craig Spencer wrote:
Most derivatives are like that. Consider a futures contract, say
for pork bellies. Very very few people who trade in pork belly
futures have the capacity to execise the rights that give their
contract value and take delivery of a few tons of pork bellies. Many
don't
James M. Ray wrote:
Gosh, I'd say just about any comodity plays like that.
We're talking about derivatives in general.
Presumably,
it's planned that 99% or so of the people who trade in pork bellies
never will redeem a contract for them, but as long as about 1%
of the players CAN,
Jim,
Viking Coder wrote:
The important thing to keep in mind is that the *only* reason you
can get *any* coins is because it is possible to redeem (even if
this right is almost never exercised). This is *not* a mere semantic
distinction.
The point being made is that it doesn't matter if
Boy, do you have the wrong impression of how futures work!!!
(From a professional futures trader),
Hans.
Bob wrote:
I would say the opposite. Most pork belly futures contract owners do
have the financial capability to take delivery. Say a single contract
is worth USD 100,000. And the
Bob wrote:
it's planned that 99% or so of the people who trade in pork bellies
never will redeem a contract for them, but as long as about 1%
of the players CAN,
Jim, it doesn't work like that. The brokers aim for 100% of players
that *CAN* take delivery of the underlying security.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bob wrote:
Uh, definitely WRONG. You can open an account with some brokers for
only a couple G's. Presently Belly margin is around $2.5K, and that
is ALL you need. No need to show/prove the ability to assume the
whole contract.
I noticed you said some. I
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Boy, do you have the wrong impression of how futures work!!!
(From a professional futures trader),
Hans.
Bob wrote:
quote buster
I would say the opposite. Most pork belly futures contract owners do
have the financial capability to take delivery. Say a
Bob,
Hans is right. Your conception of how the futures markets work is
entirely wrong.
Many don't even have the financial capacity to do so;
I would say the opposite. Most pork belly futures contract owners do
have the financial capability to take delivery.
I said many not most.
Bob wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bob wrote:
Lyris buster
Uh, definitely WRONG. You can open an account with some brokers for
only a couple G's. Presently Belly margin is around $2.5K, and that
is ALL you need. No need to show/prove the ability to assume the
whole contract.
Bob:
I would say the opposite. Most pork belly futures contract owners do
have the financial capability to take delivery. Say a single contract
is worth USD 100,000. And the owner put down 5% to buy it. Where did
the other USD 95,000 come from? The broker loaned it to the owner.
Craig Spencer wrote:
Jim was right. You should try opening a commodities account yourself
and learn something about the futures markets!
Boy, you are a sadistic SOB. I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy.
(MAJOR Just Kidding!!! Really!)
For most futures contracts there never was any
At 11:07 AM +1000 08/20/2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...(much discussion deleted)
I'm fascinated by the debate in general, and I am only uncomfortable
with the idea of a human (especially me) instead of a machine in:
where you fone up Jim for a spend,
...(ULP!)
Some people have that job,
Also, from http://www.e-gold.com/unsecure/terms.htm it seems that
the word bailment works better than deposit, which has banking
connotations IMO. (IANAL, though.) Also, just because it usually does
not make sense to redeem something doesn't mean it's never going
to be redeemed. Stuff
Craig Spencer wrote:
snip
No. I only included the under certain circumstances qualifier so
that people would not introduce an irrelevancy by objecting that they
couldn't redeem a 1oz coin. But then Bob did it anyway!
that makes it not-storage/ownership/non-backyness?
They are storing
At 08:33 PM -0400 08/20/2001, Bob wrote:
...
Now there may be some under certain circumstances derivatives
other than these so called GBCs, but I don't know of any. Do you?
Gosh, I'd say just about any comodity plays like that. Presumably,
it's planned that 99% or so of the people who trade in
Maybe I'm not getting this, but I think the answers are all in the
user agreements. The weird thing (to me) is, there are now FAR
more ways to get lots more kinds of physical gold for your e-gold
than there ever were in the days of the coins, and to me the
only other difference is semantic,
Maybe I'm not getting this, but I think the answers are all in the
user agreements.
Jim, I think that's absolutely correct. Do you 'own' gold when you have
e-gold in your account, or is the gold a contractual obligation? The Terms
of Use should tell us, because that's the agreement under which
The weird thing (to me) is, there are now FAR
more ways to get lots more kinds of physical gold for your e-gold
than there ever were in the days of the coins, and to me the
only other difference is semantic, between get and redeem I
end up with a piece of yellow metal in my hand if I want
bravo -- perhaps at last a straight answer on this from egold? one day!
JP, I would argue that that answer has already been provided:
3.3.4. Right of Redemption - Except as provided in Section 4.6.1, will
Issuer will not attempt to suspend or revoke User's conditional right of
Redemption.
On 19 Aug 2001, at 14:29, Craig Spencer wrote:
Both are transferable *derivatives* of gold. That is, they are
contractual obligations whose value derives from that of gold. The
principal contractual commitment is the obligation to redeem e-
gold in gold on demand (under certain
Claude,
there is one major element that characterizes derivatives, and it
is leverage.
Many derivatives afford leverage. But that is not an essential or
necessary characteristic.
If you use the pure definition of a derivative, which is a bi-lateral
contract whose value derives from the
there's nothing backed about e-gold. the day e-gold is backed by
gold is the day we all stop using e-gold.
E-Gold is 'backed' by gold. It is not gold. It is one step removed, and
exists as a 'credit' for gold, issued on the word of the issuer, 'E-Gold'.
From the website:
e-gold is an
e-gold isn't and has never been backed by gold. It can't be. It's
a payment system. What's so hard to understand about this. So what
if people are calling e-gold a GBC. The terminology doesn't decide
what reality is. It's the payment system that allows gold itself
to circulate
I think 'DGC' is a better acronym!
...and everyone has their own opinion, this is yours.
there's nothing backed about e-gold. the day e-gold is backed by
gold is the day we all stop using e-gold.
...yeah, and if you Fly the friendly skies, are you truly in friendly
skies?
e-gold is
No, e-gold is NOT gold (nor is GoldMoney, despite their assertions).
Both are transferable *derivatives* of gold. That is, they are
contractual obligations whose value derives from that of gold. The
principal contractual commitment is the obligation to redeem e-gold
in gold on demand
Bob wrote:
Craig Spencer wrote:
Both are transferable *derivatives* of gold. That is, they are
contractual obligations whose value derives from that of gold.
I'm not so sure about that Craig. A derivative's value is a function
of more than the underlying security.
You are
Very convincing, David!
---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Did you know that e-gold Ltd. stores more gold on behalf of customers
than many countries? See http://www.gold.org/Gra/Gra1.htm and the
e-gold
Craig,
{Firstly,
Namely, that altho they are right about ownership transfer and the
depository nature of the system the key issue is NOT the fugibility
or (non-allocated nature) of the gold storage.
Yes, Ken Snowy are wrong that that issue is relevant, IMHO.
However, IMHO, you're wrong
JP,
However, IMHO, you're wrong that the fact that it is a derivative is
the clincher.
Both are transferable *derivatives* of gold. That is, they are
contractual obligations whose value derives from that of gold. The
principal contractual commitment is the obligation to redeem e-gold
Ok JP
there's nothing backed about e-gold.
You obviously want a chace to redefine 'backed'. Please explain...
Dave
---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Did you know that e-gold Ltd. stores more gold on behalf
I think 'DGC' is a better acronym!
Not really. That acronym makes no distinction between the true gold
currencies and OSGold.
there's nothing backed about e-gold.
uh... What word would you suggest that means that all the database entries
in our accounts is equivalent to hard metal in
Ok JP
there's nothing backed about e-gold.
You obviously want a chace to redefine 'backed'. Please explain...
Dave
'backed' means 'backed', Dave, it only has, ever, or can mean what it means.
Say I had a kilobar of gold in my hand and I showed it to you and
said Dave, this bar of gold is
JP, I'm honestly sorry that I asked. In the interests of NOT confusing
users of GBC's, I will continue to say that e-Gold IS backed by gold,
because the gold is really there. Better yet, let's tell everyone how the
fiat currencies are NOT 'backed', which makes more sense and will attract
more
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are you familiar with those self-storage units you see by the highway
where for $30 a month you can rent a garage-like room with a lock --
and you can store say your excess furniture, old bikes, etc, in the
storage unit?
e-gold is
*exactly*
like
Viking Coder wrote:
The day e-gold isn't backed by gold is the day most people will stop using
e-gold. (Most because there are people that use OSGold)
e-gold isn't and has never been backed by gold. It can't be. It's
a payment system. What's so hard to understand about this. So what
if
e-gold isn't and has never been backed by gold. It can't be. It's
a payment system. What's so hard to understand about this. So what
if people are calling e-gold a GBC. The terminology doesn't decide
what reality is. It's the payment system that allows gold itself
to circulate
Shouldn't we take this one step further and realize that what is circulating
is not actually the gold which stays in one place at least as far as
account to
account transfers
but rather the currency in this case is the digital exchange of ones and
zeroes generated buy computers. Hence we have
Gold is not backed by gold.
Gold is backed by the Strong Nuclear Force :)
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionaryva=strong+force
A fundamental physical force that acts on hadrons and is responsible for
the binding together of protons and neutrons...
Is this example right??
If
Actually, JP, I have to disagree with you on this one.
Here is the difference between Viamat or any other custodial storage vault,
and e-gold and other digital deposit currencies:
CUSTODIAL STORAGE
Viamat is a custodian. Each piece of gold in the Viamat vault has a serial
number, unique
www.loavesandfishessoupkitchen.com
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: e-gold Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2001 9:53 PM
Subject: [e-gold-list] Re: GBC
In that thought experiment, in what sense would you say egold is
backed by gold or has
Well put, Ken! However I disagree, there are numerous situations
where a storage facility stores a commodity in a non-specificized way
- this is the case in almost all bulk storage as your example of
grain storage, or the international trade in sweet light crude for
delivery ... (you just
If you're saying that's BS and it really is a note .. I guess that's fair
enough!
Yep, that's what I'm saying.
The question is what the legal definition of a title is versus a claim.
My understanding of title is that it requires that the thing owned be
distinctly identifiable as belonging to a
44 matches
Mail list logo
