Are you planning to fill out the SEC's forum D, register and then pay the fee for every state you have shareholders in? Do you realize how much time and money this costs? If you are planning to go this route like it has been stated before the trading platform will not matter.. The other thing that does not matter is by allowing us to trade our shares, all your doing is giving us what we have already bought from you. How do we know coloredcoins are going to be allowed by the SEC when we already know Havelock has all its proper credentials. In the SEC's eyes this is a very minor crime and at the very worst you get a small fine.. If there has been some kind of infraction committed you have already committed it,, you can't get charged for the same crime twice.
Give us back what we own Ken, they are not your shares anymore.
https://www.sec.gov/answers/formd.htm
Topic: [ActiveMining] Official Shareholder Discussion Thread [Moderated] - page 159. (Read 629902 times)
April 17, 2014, 06:46:18 PM
April 17, 2014, 06:40:24 PM
I want to get the shares trading; however, I don't want to pour gas on the MSD Investigation. I have a number of solutions to the problem, one of which is getting the shares registered. The problem with bitcoin exchanges are that they are not registered. So, my thinking is CC. CC is not an exchange, it is a way shareholders can direct trade shares with each other. So, my thinking is if I can get the shares registered, then shareholder could use CC to trade direct and the SEC would not have a problem with that as long as the shares are registered.
Thank you.
translation: we're fucked.
April 17, 2014, 06:29:47 PM
Thanks for this info Ken. As long as I know you are trying your best for your shareholders I am happy to wait it out. I no longer feel as though you are simply ignoring this issue and very much hope is can be resolved in a timely manner. Like many others here I am not looking to simply sell out I just want to be able to have control over my investment. Also thanks to whoever put these questions to Ken.
April 17, 2014, 06:12:10 PM
I want to get the shares trading; however, I don't want to pour gas on the MSD Investigation. I have a number of solutions to the problem, one of which is getting the shares registered. The problem with bitcoin exchanges are that they are not registered. So, my thinking is CC. CC is not an exchange, it is a way shareholders can direct trade shares with each other. So, my thinking is if I can get the shares registered, then shareholder could use CC to trade direct and the SEC would not have a problem with that as long as the shares are registered.
Thank you.
Wouldn't it be the same thing to just get the shares registered and allow us to trade on Havelock?
FTFY
April 17, 2014, 06:08:27 PM
I want to get the shares trading; however, I don't want to pour gas on the MSD Investigation. I have a number of solutions to the problem, one of which is getting the shares registered. The problem with bitcoin exchanges are that they are not registered. So, my thinking is CC. CC is not an exchange, it is a way shareholders can direct trade shares with each other. So, my thinking is if I can get the shares registered, then shareholder could use CC to trade direct and the SEC would not have a problem with that as long as the shares are registered.
Thank you.
Wouldn't it be the same thing to just get the shares registered and allow us to trade on Havelock or Crypto-Trade?
April 17, 2014, 06:01:48 PM
Quote
Hi Ken,
What is the time frame for listing our shares on an exchange? Is it days, weeks or months?
What is the time frame for listing our shares on an exchange? Is it days, weeks or months?
I think it will be sooner rather than later; however, it is somewhat controlled by the MSD Investigation.
Quote
If there must be a further delay, will you consider completing the verification process sooner and before we have access to our shares? This will create a better mood amongst shareholders and would be a good PR move. If this isn't going to happen please explain why it is not possible. If it can be done, could you tell me how soon you could do it.
I am planning on doing the verification process sooner. There are are number of events which are affecting the process.
Quote
Are you able to pay out dividends to bitcoin addresses before the shares get listed on an exchange? This would also be a good PR move on your part.
At the moment the MSD Investigation is controlling this.
Quote
You said you are working on some ideas regarding getting us access to our shares. Can you explain what these are please?
I can't at this time due to the MSD Investigation as they are reading the forum.
Quote
If the MSD investigation is preventing you from listing our shares then can you explain why shares continue to be tradable on two other exchanges and why you didn't cease this activity to when you became aware that you couldn't list the tendered shares from Bitfunder.
The shares on the exchanges were being traded before the MSD Investigation.
Quote
If this final question can't be answered for legal reasons, I understand, however I would really appreciate you giving as much info as you can.
I want to get the shares trading; however, I don't want to pour gas on the MSD Investigation. I have a number of solutions to the problem, one of which is getting the shares registered. The problem with bitcoin exchanges are that they are not registered. So, my thinking is CC. CC is not an exchange, it is a way shareholders can direct trade shares with each other. So, my thinking is if I can get the shares registered, then shareholder could use CC to trade direct and the SEC would not have a problem with that as long as the shares are registered.
Thank you.
[/quote]
April 17, 2014, 04:49:11 PM
Ken's got us by the balls and he knows it.
I believe he has explicitly said this too back in
April 17, 2014, 01:27:43 PM
pretty much… the thought that any law establishment knowing what to do about this or even bothering with it reminds me of: "I'll just check with the boys down at the crime lab…"
Knybe, my advice to do a bit of research rather than falling back on your prejudices is sound. Please read at least some of these releases:
http://www.sec.gov/News/Page/List/Page/1356125649507
This one is useful- Washington D.C., April 8, 2014 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced fraud charges against a Honolulu woman posing as an investment banker and soliciting investors through Twitter, Facebook, and other social media.
Or this one- Washington D.C., April 8, 2014 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced fraud charges and an asset freeze against the operators of a South Florida-based Ponzi scheme targeting investors through YouTube videos
April 17, 2014, 01:24:55 PM
explain to me how any legal body will even begin to approach this situation let alone even know how to from a technical standpoint? From what they can tell we (Ken) have been trying to do this under the radar of the SEC et. al. to begin with so why would they "help" us with this?
Well they'd confiscate Ken's computer and microwave oven, then get the biggest cop on shift to break it open with a rock, then take a DNA smear from the hard drive parts and compare it to the fingerprints on their rolodex. After which they'd put out an all points bulletin, running an artists sketch off on the mimeograph, asking any policeman out on his horse or bicycle to climb a telegraph pole with his handset and tap in a report if they sighted Ken.
pretty much… the thought that any law establishment knowing what to do about this or even bothering with it reminds me of: "I'll just check with the boys down at the crime lab…"
Ken's got us by the balls and he knows it.
April 17, 2014, 01:23:02 PM
Knybe, you cannot patch stupid. Don't even bother trying, you are not delusional and we are not part of the same world minerpart is in
'Bitlind' - is there any need for personal insults? Have I insulted you in this debate?
I thought you were the guy who didn't post on forums because you are not into character assasination??
LOL talk about the pot calling the kettle black. You called knybe delusional and then singled me out as not being part of this world you live in, as in I am delusional. You are too funny.
"You cannot patch stupid" is a saying in the tech industry, I do not expect you to understand or see that I was not insulting or singling out you.
https://www.google.com/#q=you+cannot+patch+stupid
April 17, 2014, 01:21:10 PM
explain to me how any legal body will even begin to approach this situation let alone even know how to from a technical standpoint? From what they can tell we (Ken) have been trying to do this under the radar of the SEC et. al. to begin with so why would they "help" us with this?
Well they'd confiscate Ken's computer and microwave oven, then get the biggest cop on shift to break it open with a rock, then take a DNA smear from the hard drive parts and compare it to the fingerprints on their rolodex. After which they'd put out an all points bulletin, running an artists sketch off on the mimeograph, asking any policeman out on his horse or bicycle to climb a telegraph pole with his handset and tap in a report if they sighted Ken.
April 17, 2014, 01:17:59 PM
Knybe, you cannot patch stupid. Don't even bother trying, you are not delusional and we are not part of the same world minerpart is in
'Bitlind' - is there any need for personal insults? Have I insulted you in this debate?
I thought you were the guy who didn't post on forums because you are not into character assasination??
look up hypocrite in the dictionary.
April 17, 2014, 01:16:33 PM
edit: btw, any "proof" that you speak of from this site is laughable… this place looks and reads like any other rant filled gaming forum.
Internet forum scammers have been and will in the future be brought to justice and jailed. There is no more conclusive evidence than that found in electronic communications. The SEC have prosecuted a long long list of securities fraud operators. You need to do a bit of background reading to alter your misheld belief that there is no useful evidence trail here.
April 17, 2014, 01:14:43 PM
I cannot see any way whatsoever that any of us can prove that we "own shares" in said farm/business.
You don't, you own shares in the profits.
There is a paper trail on here as long as your arm x50. There are dozens of statements from Ken (including the IPO document) that clearly and unequivocally maintain that we as a group of shareholders own 10Million profit shares. There are thousands of trades on Bitfunder, BTC-TC, CT, CS that show Ken sold 10M shares to us as a community. There are bank transfers likely dozens of them showing the money Ken took from WeEx to the company account and spent. Everything is open and accessible to any investigation body.
You are literally delusional if you think that cannot be proven in a court of law.
The precise number of shares you own will be provable by your tender details and any investigators with access to BF records will cross-check corroborate that. You really need to be sensible about this.
Lol! I'm delusional? Like Jonny Law is gonna come to our rescue...
explain to me how any legal body will even begin to approach this situation let alone even know how to from a technical standpoint? From what they can tell we (Ken) have been trying to do this under the radar of the SEC et. al. to begin with so why would they "help" us with this?
yeah, I'm delusional.
edit: btw, any "proof" that you speak of from this site is laughable… this place looks and reads like any other rant filled gaming forum.
Knybe, you cannot patch stupid. Don't even bother trying, you are not delusional and we are not part of the same world minerpart is in
Miner: the post was made collectively, not to be stripped into parts that fit your argument. Snipping out pieces is not right, read my post again? LOL I wrote it. Pattern of deception was the first sentence, it was the outline and objective to the rest of the post, and I expounded upon it with my points about the shares and financials, that was it. The pattern of deception referred to those two main facts, and I hit those over and over so the likes of you and others like you don't think I am straying from my two points. I even went as far as to point out the positives, so that you knew they were separate from the whole. I am not accusing Ken of scamming, I said it wasn't a scam. You are good and contorting others messages into points that you need to defend. I just don't get you.
April 17, 2014, 01:12:35 PM
If you take a step back from all of this and analyze the updates at their entirety, you see a pattern of deception.
Bitlind maybe you should read YOUR OWN post again. I hope I've made that clear enough for you.
I mentioned the datacentre as part of my point about Ken's information release - it has nothing to do with your post.
You are accusing Ken of scamming. End of.
The situation could be that Ken has been warned not to alter the share situation after the UKyo sale and this has already been mentioned but you are ignoring that. It could also be that Ken needed to take the risk with the Uyko sale to safeguard the funds (which Ukyo was threatening legal action over) and acted despite advice not to list them.
This is a complex business you would make more useful and accessible posts if you condensed your points and learned to see the possible complexities at work in this situation.
April 17, 2014, 01:08:03 PM
I cannot see any way whatsoever that any of us can prove that we "own shares" in said farm/business.
You don't, you own shares in the profits.
There is a paper trail on here as long as your arm x50. There are dozens of statements from Ken (including the IPO document) that clearly and unequivocally maintain that we as a group of shareholders own 10Million profit shares. There are thousands of trades on Bitfunder, BTC-TC, CT, CS that show Ken sold 10M shares to us as a community. There are bank transfers likely dozens of them showing the money Ken took from WeEx to the company account and spent. Everything is open and accessible to any investigation body.
You are literally delusional if you think that cannot be proven in a court of law.
The precise number of shares you own will be provable by your tender details and any investigators with access to BF records will cross-check corroborate that. You really need to be sensible about this.
Lol! I'm delusional? Like Jonny Law is gonna come to our rescue...
explain to me how any legal body will even begin to approach this situation let alone even know how to from a technical standpoint? From what they can tell we (Ken) have been trying to do this under the radar of the SEC et. al. to begin with so why would they "help" us with this?
yeah, I'm delusional.
edit: btw, any "proof" that you speak of from this site is laughable… this place looks and reads like any other rant filled gaming forum.
April 17, 2014, 01:03:38 PM
I cannot see any way whatsoever that any of us can prove that we "own shares" in said farm/business.
You don't, you own shares in the profits.
There is a paper trail on here as long as your arm x50. There are dozens of statements from Ken (including the IPO document) that clearly and unequivocally maintain that we as a group of shareholders own 10Million profit shares. There are thousands of trades on Bitfunder, BTC-TC, CT, CS that show Ken sold 10M shares to us as a community. There are bank transfers likely dozens of them showing the money Ken took from WeEx to the company account and spent. Everything is open and accessible to any investigation body.
You are literally delusional if you think that cannot be proven in a court of law.
The precise number of shares you own will be provable by your tender details and any investigators with access to BF records will cross-check and corroborate that. You really need to be sensible about this.
April 17, 2014, 12:58:53 PM
I think many of you are mistaking Ken's somewhat unique ability to mis-communicate clearly in forum posts with lies and subterfuge.
When we were weeks away from opening a 100TH/s datacentre did Ken come on and say 'We are about to open a 100TH/s datacentre'. No. He hardly mentioned anything except to say 'great things are happening soon'. Does that mean he lied to us about the datacentre? Or does he just play with cards close to his chest?
There is a shit-load of stuff he could tell us about the SEC and the share issue nodoubt. He wont though, just as he never bragged or even let on about the datacentre. I'm not saying the lack of clarity is excusable or the repeated failed predictions about getting shares up is very professional - I'm just saying IT DOES NOT MEAN KEN IS LIEING OR TRYING TO SCAM US OF DIVS. He is either mis-communicating, not allowing for time to do what he promises, having issues outwith his control. But that does not mean he is trying to scam us.
You all invested in this CEO so deal with it in a grown up manner. A blind man could see Ken is not trying to scam anyone. He is releasing more details of new miners, the datacentre hash is open for our inspection, we can see EXACTLY what he has done with our money so far. We can see to the satoshi how much is in the 'Dividend wallet'. Why would a scamer be so open?
Before anymore of you come out with 'great posts' that basically accuse Ken of setting us all up have a think about the BIG picture. Unregistered Exchanges, offshore companies, unregistered securities, digital currency, Attourney Generals Office complaints, MSD investigations, SEC inquiries.
THINK FFS. What is it about 'I am in a difficult position at the moment' that you do NOT understand???
I know, you didn't read my post in its entirety, and that is ok, it was long. I never said anything bad about his progress on the data center, nor said he was scamming. I actually backed him up on that front. I assumed I have handled everything in a grown up manner, much more than most, but I guess I need to do better by your standards. I can only assume you are speaking of me in your entire post with your quotes around great posts, because sparky was commenting on mine. Not only this, but I didn't say anything about Ken setting us all up, I have only spoken to the glaringly obvious issues to all of us, but feel free to put words and assumptions into others mouths and release it as fact.
We are all in a difficult situation here minerpart, it is never going to be easy. But basically you are saying that if he misses his self imposed deadlines, continues to hold our shares, that it is ok because it is difficult for him. Ok, I am fine with that, so why allow some to trade and not all? If he is truly in a difficult place, which he is, why still allow this? Go back, read my post fully, you will see I was not stating anything you are referring to here.
April 17, 2014, 12:50:15 PM
Ken really buried himself on this last update,
I think that is complete speculation/fantasy. There is nothing in the update that you can say is a lie and nothing that would be unexpected considering the MSD, SEC and AG Office are involved in some way with this company. Are you in the real world that i inhabit?
April 17, 2014, 12:50:03 PM
I wanted to quote you, but do not want to be censored...
I'd like to point out that your claims regarding Ken's financial and legal professional are weak and would've been better left out entirely.
That said, your point regarding at least getting share verification setup is spot on. This should not be dismissed, even by The Faithful. If we aren't trading then the questions raised by bitlind and many before him need to be answered and we need to be given a reason regarding why we can't even verify our share ownership. This has gone on for far too long, Ken. We want answers and proof of ownership at the very least.
From your point of view, unsubstantiated probably would have been the better adjective to use. Which I can attest, they are unsubstantiated, but they certainly are not weak. Of course I do not know if it is true or not if he has these individuals on his staff, wouldn't it surely seem he does not or has not taken on such council? The claim is strengthened by the fact that he allows trading for a small minority, but the majority are devoid of shares, during an investigation he cites as the reason for holding back our shares, yet the small minority continues to trade, including the CEO. Are you stating that my claims are weak because the attorney actually may have insisted he leave things as is, allow trading across two exchanges, but block the majority of shareholders? Do you think an attorney has actually advised him in this manner? What makes my claims weak? Just curious is all, I am not upset by your counter argument, I just don't see your detail backing up why you think my claim is weak.
Jump to: