Ken,
Can you give some information about the future prospects of the business so investors can decide to keep their shares or have them reimbursed.
Assuming all investors shares are reimbursed for those who choose so, what then for the rest of the company?
What are your plans?
What are the prospects?
Topic: [ActiveMining] Official Shareholder Discussion Thread [Moderated] - page 83. (Read 629899 times)
June 02, 2014, 10:29:56 PM
June 02, 2014, 10:17:28 PM
Yes. Don't laugh. I got some fool to break their redic .00006 wall when the news broke. I just bought 100 of their 100000 shares and the .0006 and .0005 folded like a house of cards. lol
June 02, 2014, 10:13:30 PM
thanx
Is that you who kept trying to get above my bids? Always 0.00000001 higher...lol
June 02, 2014, 10:11:50 PM
thanx
June 02, 2014, 10:10:18 PM
Wow a 2,000,000 AMC buy order.
Whoa.
Whoa.
June 02, 2014, 10:09:09 PM
You guys are really selling like this!!!! Thank you!!!
June 02, 2014, 10:05:55 PM
Under the rules I should get:
40,000 * 0.0025 @ $100
= $10,000 + 8% interest =
$10,800.
I look forward to the proceedings.
40,000 * 0.0025 @ $100
= $10,000 + 8% interest =
$10,800.
I look forward to the proceedings.
June 02, 2014, 10:02:35 PM
Ken,
-Will the company continue?
-Why is the company in a good position?
-Will the company continue?
-Why is the company in a good position?
June 02, 2014, 09:57:40 PM
Quote
Ken, as per your statement:
Slaughter said he reached an agreement with the Secretary of State's office to provide refunds to any investors who want out, but he will continue sell virtual shares to people who still want to invest in the still emerging technology, He said those who want refunds will have 45 days to request them.
I would like out please.
Please advise how to go about doing this?
Slaughter said he reached an agreement with the Secretary of State's office to provide refunds to any investors who want out, but he will continue sell virtual shares to people who still want to invest in the still emerging technology, He said those who want refunds will have 45 days to request them.
I would like out please.
Please advise how to go about doing this?
We will post a refund offer after it is approved by the MSD.
June 02, 2014, 09:48:26 PM
And got my shares to boot. Thanks Ken. Keep on truckin man.. 
June 02, 2014, 08:41:18 PM
I sold a lot weeks ago... I'm out a lot. Should I re purchase what I sold? For refund/accounting purposes?
The refund will only be for the current price you purchased at this time, not for your previous price.
answer me too ken please
update me on the rest of share verification, sended before deadline,
say not yet, if you didnt, for peace of my mind
Working on getting the shares verified and transferred today.
nice, i will check by tomorrow, unless you did it already?
June 02, 2014, 08:40:00 PM
Is Active Mining being shut down, or is there a court order for Active Mining to accept refund requests of which ever price the wheel of fortune lands on? If the former is not the case and Active Mining can continue operations with the remaining money, after the refundmegashitstorm, I'd be very intrigued to know the plans of the company, post apocalypse.
Another point:
From what I understand you need to be able to prove that you purchased shares from the IPOing entity. I'm extremely interested in how many people bought in the two IPO's and never touched their shares again. I saw lots of volume in the summer of 2013 as the price more than tripled off speculation. This leads me to believe that not many people will be able to actually claim their IPO purchases because of the massive exchanging of share ownership, thus the highest amount Ken would have to pay out for reimbursement is probably not near the upper limit. (Unless I am misunderstanding this.)
A funny scenario I find in my head...everybody wants money, therefore:
- Nobody requests reimbursement and active mining can try to battle against all the entities that I'm sure everyone knows.
- Mostly all shareholders want out and the company is suffocated both monetarily and with respect to time & energy as a result of the stampede of its own investors.
But I feel as though most shareholders will give up and either sell or do nothing, in light of the necessary time and effort required for a refund coupled with the increasing BTC price, and Active Mining's timeline drags on.
Regardless this is better than TV.
Another point:
From what I understand you need to be able to prove that you purchased shares from the IPOing entity. I'm extremely interested in how many people bought in the two IPO's and never touched their shares again. I saw lots of volume in the summer of 2013 as the price more than tripled off speculation. This leads me to believe that not many people will be able to actually claim their IPO purchases because of the massive exchanging of share ownership, thus the highest amount Ken would have to pay out for reimbursement is probably not near the upper limit. (Unless I am misunderstanding this.)
A funny scenario I find in my head...everybody wants money, therefore:
- Nobody requests reimbursement and active mining can try to battle against all the entities that I'm sure everyone knows.
- Mostly all shareholders want out and the company is suffocated both monetarily and with respect to time & energy as a result of the stampede of its own investors.
But I feel as though most shareholders will give up and either sell or do nothing, in light of the necessary time and effort required for a refund coupled with the increasing BTC price, and Active Mining's timeline drags on.
Regardless this is better than TV.
June 02, 2014, 08:31:21 PM
@arousedrhino: What you are hearing from Ken is Ken's reading* of MSD ruling. Knowing Ken, he's simply making stuff up.
*Try not to imagine him reading.
*Try not to imagine him reading.
He might be reading it wrong, we'll find out when the MSD posts. My point is that its now the MSD's decision. We can't bitch all they want but whatever they agree to with Ken and post is what they have decided to do.
June 02, 2014, 08:19:26 PM
While I agree with you in the business world, in the eyes of the state that isn't how it works. They need to follow their own statutes. Really now that btc is defi ed as property actm shares are a deriviative of that property yet still property, but all that is irrlelvant . The state only cares about the exchange of value as denominated in legal tender. They don't distinct between btc and actm shares. Trust me I know how they think.....I work for them. It is a special way of thinking.....logical....yes,...but in an infantile sort of way. But these laws are written by simpletons. This is a classic example of what people talk abiut when they say "by the time the govt figures it out and regulates it, their laws won't apply since the speed of the technology moves so fast" remember the state just needs to be legally sufficient as interpreted by their laws.....no more no less.
Thank you for your insightfulness,
I'm sure with your connections you would be able to provide me direct access with talking to someone who has authority and not a "trust me I know how they think" buckle on their belt.
They will be publishing the final order and you can read for yourself.
Great, not very formal coming from a news article. Might be cheaper to sue if your correct!
June 02, 2014, 08:18:27 PM
What is the outlook for active for the test of the year?
June 02, 2014, 08:17:30 PM
While I agree with you in the business world, in the eyes of the state that isn't how it works. They need to follow their own statutes. Really now that btc is defi ed as property actm shares are a deriviative of that property yet still property, but all that is irrlelvant . The state only cares about the exchange of value as denominated in legal tender. They don't distinct between btc and actm shares. Trust me I know how they think.....I work for them. It is a special way of thinking.....logical....yes,...but in an infantile sort of way. But these laws are written by simpletons. This is a classic example of what people talk abiut when they say "by the time the govt figures it out and regulates it, their laws won't apply since the speed of the technology moves so fast" remember the state just needs to be legally sufficient as interpreted by their laws.....no more no less.
Thank you for your insightfulness,
I'm sure with your connections you would be able to provide me direct access with talking to someone who has authority and not a "trust me I know how they think" buckle on their belt.
Anytime you involve the government you give up control of the situation. If you call the cops to your house, they then get to to control the outcome. You can't say but I don't agree with that. You called them. If you file a complaint with a security division they get to control the outcome.
June 02, 2014, 08:16:28 PM
While I agree with you in the business world, in the eyes of the state that isn't how it works. They need to follow their own statutes. Really now that btc is defi ed as property actm shares are a deriviative of that property yet still property, but all that is irrlelvant . The state only cares about the exchange of value as denominated in legal tender. They don't distinct between btc and actm shares. Trust me I know how they think.....I work for them. It is a special way of thinking.....logical....yes,...but in an infantile sort of way. But these laws are written by simpletons. This is a classic example of what people talk abiut when they say "by the time the govt figures it out and regulates it, their laws won't apply since the speed of the technology moves so fast" remember the state just needs to be legally sufficient as interpreted by their laws.....no more no less.
Thank you for your insightfulness,
I'm sure with your connections you would be able to provide me direct access with talking to someone who has authority and not a "trust me I know how they think" buckle on their belt.
I don't....I just know the mind set, and now that the state is involved, the rules of the game change. This is what happenes when red tape and bureaucrats get in the way......I'm one of them I know. I know your mad, but the law is the law, lets get some cheap shares!!!
June 02, 2014, 08:13:41 PM
While I agree with you in the business world, in the eyes of the state that isn't how it works. They need to follow their own statutes. Really now that btc is defi ed as property actm shares are a deriviative of that property yet still property, but all that is irrlelvant . The state only cares about the exchange of value as denominated in legal tender. They don't distinct between btc and actm shares. Trust me I know how they think.....I work for them. It is a special way of thinking.....logical....yes,...but in an infantile sort of way. But these laws are written by simpletons. This is a classic example of what people talk abiut when they say "by the time the govt figures it out and regulates it, their laws won't apply since the speed of the technology moves so fast" remember the state just needs to be legally sufficient as interpreted by their laws.....no more no less.
Thank you for your insightfulness,
I'm sure with your connections you would be able to provide me direct access with talking to someone who has authority and not a "trust me I know how they think" buckle on their belt.
They will be publishing the final order and you can read for yourself.
June 02, 2014, 08:12:15 PM
While I agree with you in the business world, in the eyes of the state that isn't how it works. They need to follow their own statutes. Really now that btc is defi ed as property actm shares are a deriviative of that property yet still property, but all that is irrlelvant . The state only cares about the exchange of value as denominated in legal tender. They don't distinct between btc and actm shares. Trust me I know how they think.....I work for them. It is a special way of thinking.....logical....yes,...but in an infantile sort of way. But these laws are written by simpletons. This is a classic example of what people talk abiut when they say "by the time the govt figures it out and regulates it, their laws won't apply since the speed of the technology moves so fast" remember the state just needs to be legally sufficient as interpreted by their laws.....no more no less.
Thank you for your insightfulness,
I'm sure with your connections you would be able to provide me direct access with talking to someone who has authority and not a "trust me I know how they think" buckle on their belt.
June 02, 2014, 08:08:18 PM
You are wrong, the language states the original purchase price. It is what you paid in USD to acquire the shares, it is what your cost basis is in the shares plus 8%, that is what the Missouri law states and that is what the MSD is going to make us do.
Actually I'm correct, what do you think the original purchase price was when you IPO'd at 0.0025BTC and traded shares for a 1:1 Ratio?
The original purchase was was 0.0025BTC as soon as you took our AMC shares. This is how business works. Instead of taking USD or BTC, you took shares that you valued at 0.0025 BTC Each.
This is exactly how they will see it, there's no funny games here. I have records showing the transaction of AMC Shares for ActiveMining Shares (At ActiveMining's Original IPO) that were valued at 0.0025 BTC on July 8th 2013.
While I agree with you in the business world, in the eyes of the state that isn't how it works. They need to follow their own statutes. Really now that btc is defi ed as property actm shares are a deriviative of that property yet still property, but all that is irrlelvant . The state only cares about the exchange of value as denominated in legal tender. They don't distinct between btc and actm shares. Trust me I know how they think.....I work for them. It is a special way of thinking.....logical....yes,...but in an infantile sort of way. But these laws are written by simpletons. This is a classic example of what people talk abiut when they say "by the time the govt figures it out and regulates it, their laws won't apply since the speed of the technology moves so fast" remember the state just needs to be legally sufficient as interpreted by their laws.....no more no less.
Jump to: