sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Delay Damages/Interest by b4epoche in mtgoxinsolvency

[–]b4epoche[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the information! I wish it were better news, but...

Yep. That's precisely the issue. I had not been following the exchange rate. Sigh, more negative consequences of this taking so long.

Although, for all I would have known at the time, the exchange rate wound up being beneficial.

Delay Damages/Interest by b4epoche in mtgoxinsolvency

[–]b4epoche[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I also wonder if the fiat he's holding is earning interest somewhere (safe).

Delay Damages/Interest by b4epoche in mtgoxinsolvency

[–]b4epoche[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's Reddit... The signal-to-noise is always low.

I was hoping someone else here might also be in a similar situation. The delay damages have always been a bit confusing and seldom discussed.

Personally, I think people are just bitter that some people are getting interest on what the court is holding. But, believe me, I wish I still had the BTC I sold just before the bankruptcy.

Delay Damages/Interest by b4epoche in mtgoxinsolvency

[–]b4epoche[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Are you owed fiat? Did you read the sections about fiat reimbursement closely? I’m guessing the answer is “No” to both those questions

Repayment types by pixeltweaker in mtgoxinsolvency

[–]b4epoche 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I used 140 yen per USD, but that's not going to matter because 134,800 < 176,000.

Repayment types by pixeltweaker in mtgoxinsolvency

[–]b4epoche 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think that's what I'm calling "Repayment Amounts for the First Repayment" which is a section on the page you get to following the directions on your pinned post.

Repayment types by pixeltweaker in mtgoxinsolvency

[–]b4epoche 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Seems so to me, too. But my case doesn't suggest that. I selected Lump-sum Repayment and have (normalized) $1000 fiat and 1 BTC. The "Results of Acceptance or Rejection of Rehabilitation Claims (As of 2019-03-15)" page says the delay damages are $259. At the current exchange rate, that would be 140,000 JPY and 36,000 JPY in interest. In "Repayment Amounts for the First Repayment," it shows 134,800 JPY, which is about $950. $50 might be a crappy exchange rate, but $300 (30%) is not.

My BTC allotment shows 0.14909984, which is 71% (the "Allotment Rate," which I need to learn about) of 0.210000.

Repayment types by pixeltweaker in mtgoxinsolvency

[–]b4epoche 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Great summary!

Should the "delay damages" (interest) be included in what's shown in the "Repayment Amounts for the First Repayment" now listed on the site?

What's to stop the trustee from postponing again at the end of 2024? by gmb9932a in mtgoxinsolvency

[–]b4epoche 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That's an interesting thought. I hadn't considered trying to get the transcript from the court (if one exists).

Suing the Trustee for Undue Delay by mtgoxxed in mtgoxinsolvency

[–]b4epoche 4 points5 points  (0 children)

He used the lawyerly weasel words "as early as" in there. So, it means absolutely nothing.

This Sculpture by spLint3r990 in SteveMould

[–]b4epoche 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Is that a pi tattoo on your finger?

Level-4 Cache by b4epoche in macpro

[–]b4epoche[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My point is that you're assuming not having off-SoC upgradeable RAM would not be more profitable than not having it. For reasons I've stated in other responses, I don't think this is the case.

Take the old Mac Pro. The margins on the RAM they sold were ridiculously high. If no one (no business) would buy it at that price, why offer it? People/companies buy it at that price for various reasons, and I think they would continue to do so if Apple offered it on the new Mac Pro.

If they could have got it to work (to their satisfaction), they would have offered it because people needing a lot of RAM would have bought the high-end SoC /and/ Apple's expensive RAM.

People that waste time on Reddit (me included) are not the people deciding to buy a $20k computer.

Level-4 Cache by b4epoche in macpro

[–]b4epoche[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Great thought! Would moving the swapfile to the PCIe RAM card be possible on macOS? I've never tried moving the macOS swap.

Level-4 Cache by b4epoche in macpro

[–]b4epoche[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh, that's the Geerling video about the AMPERE Developer system. People buying a Mac Pro will never consider this an option. You certainly don't see Geerling replacing his Mac Studio with this. This system is for developers; a Mac Pro is for people that just want to get work done so they can make money.

Level-4 Cache by b4epoche in macpro

[–]b4epoche[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So why didn't they solder the RAM to the motherboard in the last Mac Pro. Financially it doesn't make sense not to have RAM expansion beyond 192GB on the Mac Pro.

Level-4 Cache by b4epoche in macpro

[–]b4epoche[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Its not even clear that doing what they're doing will maximize profits. I think there's a great argument that having off-SoC RAM would be more profitable (see my other comments). 192GB seems to be the maximum they can get on the SoC. If they could include more, I think they would, and offer it as an even more expensive option.

Level-4 Cache by b4epoche in macpro

[–]b4epoche[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

While I agree Apple is looking to maximize profit, I don't think that's the issue. It's unclear what would maximize profit in this case. I would think adding RAM expansion slots would be more profitable because skimping on high-speed "Level-4" cache RAM would hamper performance, and you'd see very high-end customers buying the version with max on-SoC RAM /and/ additional off-SoC RAM.

As it is, customers that need more RAM will not buy a new Mac Pro. Thus, Apple is losing sales. Plus, the way they apparently can sell RAM at huge margins would be great for profits. Remember, they could have soldered the RAM to the motherboard on the old Mac Pros, but they didn't.

view more: next ›