Topic: [ActiveMining] Official Shareholder Discussion Thread [Moderated] - page 268. (Read 630051 times)

Well, there has to be SOME sort of exchange or user-interface, right?  Otherwise how are we going to see sell and buy offers, put in trade orders, etc?

Coloured Coins will be part of the Bitcoin network (the actual blockchain) so they will be as safe from regulatory control as Bitcoin is itself. There will be no exchange I think just methods of transacting with the CC on the network?

Colored Coins are decentralized just like bitcoin so in theory, it is out of reach of jonny law to a certain extent, just as any p2p network…
Although it would probably be a good idea to report CC income for tax purposes etc.

Regarding Colored Coins/Chroma Wallet - is the idea here that shares listed this way are beyond the control of any regulatory/legal/external entity?

Is a Colored Coins exchange essentially above the law?

Since shares may stay untradable for a long time, I think shareholders would appreciate an asicminer-style direct dividend payment. IE use satoshis to signify number of shares, and pay out that ~55 BTC sitting in the mining account. Verifying share ownership in some way would help a lot with investor sentiment.

I will happily discuss this with you as will many others. It is as far as I see a grey area. The current legislation has not been written to encompass new technologies (like digital currencies) and offshore virtual exchanges and securities (like ACtM shares) as far as I know. So the answer most lawyers would give is until there is a test case (or legislation is updated) the legality is uncertain.

There are a few other questions one of which is jurisdiction.

If trading of shares has a spanner thrown in it, I'd like to know from Ken whether or not the share claiming app he's written can still be used to verify existing shares in order to pay dividends to (even if minuscule at this stage).

I am in the process of researching the legality of the current situation. So far nothing is screaming 'illegal' to me, but this is a complicated topic. I shall update at a later date, I'm very busy so it might take a week for me to get this together.

zumzero: This is a pm from ken the other day in response to me asking about shares. It's definitely looking like the inquiry is throwing a wrench in the way of us getting trading. With that being said, it's hard NOT to have the shade of doubt about just how convenient it is that this issue is coming up after months of broken promises and selling all of Ukyo's shares.

It's business as usual for Ken and he was to have a meeting with his lawyer either Monday or yesterday.  From this I take it there won't be any developments to report regarding further contact with the MSD and I would also expect that Ken can't go into too many details about his meeting with his lawyer.  I'd expect tonight's weekly report to mention the meeting went ahead with his lawyer and that's it on that matter.  We should get used to the fact that reporting of the MSD issue will be thin on the ground, akin to the restrictions during the eAsic NDA, until there has been a resolution.  That's not a big issue for me provided the core business is not being hampered and that the final outcome is in ActiveMining's favour.  Of course I'd welcome more details if Ken is permitted to share.

I'm not too sure how this MSD issue will affect us trading again.  I suppose it depends on what the MSD have to say and what line of enquiries they are following.  As Chroma Wallet nears completion one wonders if the best solution might be to abandon Crypto-Trade altogether, although if it turns out that the MSD have jurisdiction and enforce a doomsday scenario on us, then centralised or decentralised won't really matter.  I'm optimistic that we'll still be in business after the MSD enquiries however and reckon we should be thinking about Colored Coins given that Chroma Wallet may be practical in only a couple of weeks time.

Did you read what I wrote? When did Ken say he was stopping anything besides getting shares tradable on Crypto-Trade?

They will look at and see if it affects their Missouri state residents and depending on how they determine it affects those they serve they will then proceed forward. That could mean anything from inaction, to starting a formal investigation into the matter, could even be a fine of some sort. We just don't know, but we do know that most legal entities in the United States are theoretically there to serve the people and they were put in place by those people that they serve.

When did Ken say he was stopping anything besides getting shares tradable on Crypto-Trade?

I'm not sure that your synopsis truly represents the situation at hand, but we can't really know until Ken informs us.

Well frankly I can't see how a wild wild west-style security offering from a company that issued shares through a now-defunct, gray-market exchange can possibly get a glowing review from any sort of legal entity.  

I mean, how can a person/group who isn't immersed in bitcoin culture look at all of this and just give it a thumbs and say "No problems here - good luck, capitalists!"

It is very unsettling that Ken seems to have stopped everything to wait for some commission of some kind to decide all of our fates.

I'm curious as to shareholders' thoughts on the whole being investigated by the MSD and how it both currently affects us and will affect us in the future.

Does it look better or worse for ActM to withhold share trading until the investigation is settled one way or the other? On the one hand, it would seem very questionable to suspend all trading when it can reasonably occur but on the other, would allow trading of a potentially illegal security be seen as a challenge or brazen disregard of securities laws that could cause the hammer to fall harder upon us?

The current nature of share ownership is pseudonymous, could we be forced to identify ourselves to claim ownership of our shares?

Will all trading be halted indefinitely until this MSD issue is resolved (not paying out accumulated dividends over the past three months certainly can't look good) or will we be able to trade any earlier?

This is not my area of expertise so I welcome all informed thoughts (and I'm sure other less vocal shareholders would also like to know these things!)

Good to see a new clean thread!

Excellent list of questions kleeck.

In addition to your Q6 I would add:

Will we be hiring space in a data centre or opening a custom location for our mining farm?
If using a data centre will you be employing a project manager to organise the assembly of rigs and the installation of rigs into the data centre?
Or if building a custom location will you be employing a project manager to organise the selection of location, electrical installation work, miner assembly and deployment of mining rigs on the custom farm?

Thanks Vince.

Vince,

Have we lined up questions for the Wednesday Update? If not let's get some together. I'd like to add:

1. Please provide details on why we are still, after months, not trading. If it is legal issues please explain what the issues are and the path for resolution.
2. What happened with the 55nm power draw? Your announcement on these forums was significantly different from the advertised specs on the website. How do you plan on ensuring the proper data is presented consistently, moving forward?
3. The 55nm chip is currently priced @ ~$3/gh, a price point which makes it significantly less competitive than our competition's offering (namely AsicMiner).

• 3a. Do you plan on reducing this price?
• 3b. Do you plan on using these chips for the ActM mining operation?

4. Could you provide details regarding the eASIC NRE and how it will be utilized now that VMC is moving to a 28nm Full Custom chip?
5. Have you decided on a vendor for the 28nm FCIC?
6. Have you established a data center for the ActM Mining Operation?
7. When will we got a complete financial report including both ActM and VMC?
8. Could you provide documentation of your partnership with People's ASIC as well as proof of tape-out and any other official documentation for the 55nm chip?

Of course, I could PM these to Ken but I want to respect the process that we have in place - which seems to be working well.

I would be happy to get that much over a couple of years. No need to be greedy.