I would think that most of your potential clients (the people who would consider buying a Trezor) own 10 bitcoins or more.  Let N be the the number of such persons in the world.

Check the distribution of bitcoins by addresses as of block #320000 (2014-09-10 13:55:18)

There are only ~115'000 addresses with 10 BTC or more in them.  Methinks that this number is an upper bound for N.  (While there may be people who own more than 10 BTC, but keep them split among several addresses, there must be also people who own several addresses with 10 BTC or more in each. So these two errors should cancel to some extent.)

So, if you sold several thousand units already, you may have already attracted several % of the potential clients.  That is quite good for a product barely out of the factory. 

It is also likely that several tens of thousands of those N clients cannot read English and the other languages that Trezor supports, and therefore are temporarily out of the market.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_the_beast

The Number of the Beast is either 666 or 616 (there are ancient Gospels copies attesting both, it is not clear which version is correct).  In the Greek number system, they are written χξϛ  (khi-ksi-sigma) and χις (khi-iota-sigma), respectively.  Those letters could perhaps be transcribed in the Roman alphabet as KXS and KIS. 

So, keep an eye open for an implanted chip manufacturer with those initials... 
 

"No VeriChip inside" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VeriChip

How much did the various BFL models really cost to build?

Suppose a company collects (say) 5 M$ from 5'000 customers, charging 1000$ each for one piece of equipment that cost them only 250$.  They promptly build 20'000 machines with that money, and set them to mine.  Only a year later, when the machines are uselss, they deliver 5'000 of them to the customers.  In that year they mined 50 M$ worth of bitcoin.

How much have they stolen from their customers?  How much should they be forced to return to them?

Only to the extent that it seems to be not worse than bitcoin for the level of investment that I prefer to be in. 

Order books on some chart sites (such as BitcoinWisdom) are truncated after a certain number of entries.  Robots spam the order books of Huobi and OKCoin with zillions of small orders, so the books are often truncated at shallow depths.

This trunctation is very confusing to traders who are not aware of it.  The sites should print "..." or some other indication that the order books are truncated.

Does "grumming" have anything to do with grommets?

I may have heard of a grim groom who took grum in gram doses, is it true?

Since it seems that the official bears are taking a nap:

That lengthy document basically says "Hey banks, please do NOT close the accounts of EVERY money service business; evaluate case-by-case, and close only the accounts of the fishy ones."

E.g., those that deal with cryptocoins.   

Since January, Ukraine's currency lost 43% of its dollar value.  Bitcoin lost 56%.  Not yet, maybe soon... 

(Erm, it used to be the evil bankers who drooled when a coutry was collapsing.)

Has anyone tried to contact the FTC and/or the Receiver to make sure thay are aware of the 1QAH events?

True, they can't do that without the person's being "in"; but that does not mean much.

Here in Brazil those money laundering props are called "oranges", I don't know why.  They usually are low rank employees -- drivers, janitors,  construction workers.  They will do what the boss says, without trying to understand what it implies or is for.

Unfortunately, those computer-naive bitcoiners are also the most likely to fall for "social engineering" hacks, misuse the Trezor, and lose their coins in spite of it.

According to some estimates of bitcoin's wealth distribution, most of the people who own some bitcoin own only 1 bitcoin or less.  The Trezor is not worth the expense for them.

I guess that the easiest way out for an unverified account holder is to borrow the legit ID of some poor chap, without his knowledge or in exchange for a small sum; and then withdraw BTC to the holder's wallet.  That route is used for money laundering, but it is risky since the money can be followed through the chap's bank account to the holder; whereas the BTC can't.

‘You can play with you bitcoins, but you can’t pay with them’: Russia may ban cryptocurrencies by 2015
http://rt.com/business/187440-bitcoin-ban-russia-cryptocurrency/

If it had been turned over, the receiver should have transferred all the coins to a new address.  That was the only way to secure them, akin to freezing their bank accounts.  Either it was not turned over, or it was but the receiver did not realize that he had to transfer them.

The thread owner is doing his best to interpret scant data that SMBIT publishes.  If that data is inaccurate or misleading, blame SMBIT.  I don't recall he ever presented this site as anything else, in particular as a trading guide. 

And, by the way, SMBIT is supposed to buy or sell 0.1 BTC whenever the public buys or liquidates one of the fund's shares.  Thus, them buying or selling is independent of what they think the price will do, it only reflects what their customers think.  They are no more likely to have "insider info" than the traders at the exchanges.

This data is very valuable as an indication of the public acceptance of bitcoin funds like SMBIT.  I wish there was similar data for PBP and other funds.  I hope the thread owner continues to post it.

When was that, in the Middle Ages?

The point is that the assets of BFL are supposed to be seized in order to refund the customers.  Those bitcoins formerly in 1QAH are believed to be assets of BFL, and perhaps mined with the customers machines.

Follow those transfers out of 1QAH, they branch out into many chunks of weird sizes (all in quick succession).