I would have reinvested my dividends from mining with the Avalon chips, although the share price would have been significantly higher than it is now, due to that success.
If we reinvest this refund into the company, I lose the ability to purchase more shares at a lower price thus expanding my ActM ownership which benefits me in the long run.
Topic: [ActiveMining] The Official Active Mining Discussion Thread - page 103. (Read 479317 times)
It's no secret iCEBREAKER is an ActM supporter.
iCEBREAKER's latest comment on "Re: [BTC-TC] CryptX introduces the PETA-MINE - IPO launched" thread.
"I've learned an expensive/valuable lesson today, by missing the opportunity to buy cheap Ice.Drill/ACTM shares on BF because my coins are stuck in BTCT's completely shitty manual withdrawal queue."
"I've learned an expensive/valuable lesson today, by missing the opportunity to buy cheap Ice.Drill/ACTM shares on BF because my coins are stuck in BTCT's completely shitty manual withdrawal queue."
The answer is it depends. Is there a clear plan Ken can articulate for reinvesting the funds at a high IRR (higher than we can achieve on our own) along the lines of the core business of ACTM that fits reasonably within his business plan? If yes then he should re-invest it. If not he should give it back as a dividend.
Until you know that you cant make a decision about what to do with the money..
Until you know that you cant make a decision about what to do with the money..
I believe the money shall be used as a bribe for eASIC to throw away NDA and let us know what the fuck is going on. I would pay big money for that.
$5k?
I would pay that.. yes.
Go pay them and see if it works
Okay.. after tomorrow
I believe the money shall be used as a bribe for eASIC to throw away NDA and let us know what the fuck is going on. I would pay big money for that.
LOL VE, good to see you back to your usual voluble self.
IDK why you are so eager to know whether ACTM's <20GH failASIC is on schedule or not.
Wouldn't you rather pay the cancellation fee to get back whatever we can salvage out of eASIC, and buy some real 28nm chips to deploy down the Batcave?
OMG you are so right! You just convinced me to sell my shares!... heyyy... wait a minute..
get the fuck away from my shares boy!
I believe the money shall be used as a bribe for eASIC to throw away NDA and let us know what the fuck is going on. I would pay big money for that.
$5k?
I would pay that.. yes.
Go pay them and see if it works
Is ordering the cheaper friedcat blades out of the question?
You're joking right?
Um. No?
I believe the money shall be used as a bribe for eASIC to throw away NDA and let us know what the fuck is going on. I would pay big money for that.
LOL VE, good to see you back to your usual voluble self.
IDK why you are so eager to know whether ACTM's <20GH failASIC is on schedule or not.
Wouldn't you rather pay the cancellation fee to get back whatever we can salvage out of eASIC, and buy some real 28nm chips to deploy down the Batcave?
Clearly if Ken reinvests the money then it's better in the long term as long as all the plans are followed through.
If an investor isn't confident about a total re-invest they wouldn't be happy holding any shares atall surely? I'd just be putting my 'super-div' (TM) into more shares, but if a reinvest makes the shares I hold already worth 10% more in the long run that's a better deal?
I believe the money shall be used as a bribe for eASIC to throw away NDA and let us know what the fuck is going on. I would pay big money for that.
$5k?
I would pay that.. yes.
I believe the money shall be used as a bribe for eASIC to throw away NDA and let us know what the fuck is going on. I would pay big money for that.
$5k?
The original funds were for hashing power, they should be used for hashing power. There are also serious considerations and concerns with paying out a disproportionately large dividend this early on in the piece.
The one thing that is lacking from the board is business acumen. Also, there isn't "some support" for 100% reinvestment, the MAJORITY favour this option.
The one thing that is lacking from the board is business acumen. Also, there isn't "some support" for 100% reinvestment, the MAJORITY favour this option.
Vince, a key part was earning dividends from Avalon in the very near future, if not now. It's not Ken's fault that's gone screwy, but you don't speak for all shareholders. Also, a refund doesn't have to be paid back in one dividend.
I've clearly said it's better for the business (to reinvest) and I've also clearly said that there are also shareholders of various kinds to consider who have given us different feedback (certainly on more than this public page).
When I said 'some' support I meant that in a positive sense BTW and let Ken know accordingly.
I believe the money shall be used as a bribe for eASIC to throw away NDA and let us know what the fuck is going on. I would pay big money for that.
I voted for 50/50 earlier but if the Board and Ken think the company would be better to re-invest it all and that would improve long term prospects then that's cool.
Clearly if Ken reinvests the money then it's better in the long term as long as all the plans are followed through.
That decision ought to have strong back though, so please keep posting.
But FFS it just doesn't make financial sense for the company to pay these back as dividends. I personally believe it would be very irresponsible.
Vince, if you're a public company and you raise money with a prospectus defining what it'll be used for, you can't then just change it's use. If you're a private company then you can do what you want.
ActiveMining is in a grey area in between.
It's not as simple as, "it's ActiveMining's money to do with as they wish" - shareholders have different opinions too.
I can go either way but 50:50 works for me. Other opinions may differ.
The original funds were for hashing power, they should be used for hashing power. There are also serious considerations and concerns with paying out a disproportionately large dividend this early on in the piece.
The one thing that is lacking from the board is business acumen. Also, there isn't "some support" for 100% reinvestment, the MAJORITY favour this option.
Is ordering the cheaper friedcat blades out of the question?
You're joking right?
Is ordering the cheaper friedcat blades out of the question?
Vince, if you're a public company and you raise money with a prospectus defining what it'll be used for, you can't then just change it's use. If you're a private company then you can do what you want.
ActiveMining is in a grey area in between.
It's not as simple as, "it's ActiveMining's money to do with as they wish" - shareholders have different opinions too.
I can go either way but 50:50 works for me. Other opinions may differ.
ActiveMining is in a grey area in between.
It's not as simple as, "it's ActiveMining's money to do with as they wish" - shareholders have different opinions too.
I can go either way but 50:50 works for me. Other opinions may differ.
It's going to be hard to argue that 100% reinvestment isn't in the company's best long term interest.
It's Ken's money, not ACTM's.
As Chairman Emeritus, it is my humble suggestion that he reserve it for additional hashpower, whether from our own or other companies' chips.
We've let Ken know there is some support at 100%.
We appreciate it!
Jump to: