Topic: [ActiveMining] The Official Active Mining Discussion Thread - page 104. (Read 479317 times)

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.

In pure company terms absolutely, but there are shareholders who have been unhappy and understandably so, and there are shareholders who expected dividends sooner rather than later.

We've let Ken know there is some support at 100%.

Yes. We are all excited to see them enter the market in December.  

+1

It's going to be hard to argue that 100% reinvestment isn't in the company's best long term interest.

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.

I'm in favor of 100% reinvestment.

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.

Why is it awkward?  Because HashFast managed to tape-out a full custom 28nm chip without a Board of Yes-men?  

Or because those Yes-men wasted a lot of money by ignoring me, anchoring their oar-less little canoes in front of my 75,000 horsepower, dual nuclear reactor-powered icebreaker?  

There is room for other 28nm players, provided they are full custom.  Cointerra will play AMD to Hashfast's Intel.  KnC may be the nVidia.  

But ACTM is destined to be the Cyrix of Bitcoin ASICs.  Sure, they'll spin their wheels and waste a lot of money.  But their 386SX ('sucks') chip won't compete with the full custom Golden Nonce which taped out yesterday and is on its merry way to TSMC, Fujitsu, or whatever advanced fab has the honor of making them.  

I'm in favour of 50:50 (or 50:50 after Avalon related costs) but I personally could accept 100% reinvested for the reasons you say.

However, Avalon was part of the deal. It's easy to forget that amongst the eASIC stuff and you can't assume that all shareholders (going back to AMC) made their decision fully on eASIC.

Reinvesting all of the 'proceeds' from Avalon when originally some would have been paid as dividends doesn't feel right to me. If the chips had arrived and been used/sold for break-even-ish (given their lateness), people would have expected dividends.

For the record, we've had people saying 100% dividends, 50:50, and 100% reinvest. Rock and hard place.

Edit: This one is firmly down to Avalon's mess but we just have to make the best of it.

There's room for everyone, as long as nobody's planning to make money.

I personally have no intention of bailing out right away if the refund were to go to dividends. My thinking was that this initial capital was allocated as a temporary solution to generate mining revenue for the shareholders while the chips went in to production. I say for the shareholders and not the company because the initial mining revenue was promised as dividends paid entirely to the shareholders until we were to reach .0025 per share if I am not mistaken, which is entirely possible and I apologize if that is the case. Getting this refund for the Avalon chips seems to be a good thing as they have been held up and at this point we could not see a profitable return on this investment. If they had been received on schedule and we were hashing at the expected rate, the shareholders would benefit by getting a piece of that through dividends. I recognize this as a short term benefit, but the money for the Avalon chips a short term benefit anyway. I can also see the benefit as well of putting that money towards the future. I do believe the company is on track, and we soon will have an official announcement stating this which should put to rest some of the concern for ActiveMining in the longterm. I put my opinion towards the dividend repayment as the future of ActiveMining was planned out just fine without this chunk allocated towards eAsic. I thought it would be a nice for us since we don't have an immediate solution now to increase our hashing while we wait for our 28 nm chips, but the idea of bailing out didn't even enter my head as I am fully along for this ride. I do see however that there doesn't seem to be a lot of agreement towards this, so I will ultimately yield to whatever Ken and the board decide is best for this particular matter.

Yes. I'm eager to have the NDA lifted in this regard as well.

Also, just to be clear: HashFast is not going to be providing any devices in the short-term: "However, he admitted that fabrication will take a little bit over two months and due to that reason the chips cannot be shipped anytime before October to customers." (Source: http://www.forexminute.com/bitcoin/now-get-the-new-bitcoin-mining-chip-from-hashfast-technologies-llc-12140) So they'll hit just in time to compete with the December crew.

ActM has an incredibly good shot at being the first 28nm on the block. Rah, rah and all that jazz.

I love how those heavy on the critique are acting as if there's only room for a single player to make 28nm chips.

It's kind of awkward that everyone is entering chip fab and are piecing together their prototypes while we're being reminded there's an NDA.

Meanwhile, in a real (IE full custom) 3rd gen ASIC company...


As the ACTM Cheerleaders dither about how best to waste an Avalon refund which belongs to Ken...

Using the refund money for dividends would be bad idea in my view for a couple reasons

1. It might artificially inflate the price of ACTM for the time being, which would make it unfair for unsuspecting investors

and

2. the 1500 BTC reinvested into chip fab or whatever it might be would be the better long term decision.


Im sure alot of people realize this and it will be important for Ken to notify us on this matter when he can.

Copied from IRC:

A thought on the reinvestment/dividend question - 100% of shareholders are invested in ActM for future growth, not current dividends. If it was about current dividends they wouldn't be invested in ActM - so it really only makes sense to reinvest, and it's really the only thing which would reflect investors sentiment - I think this is a pretty fair rationale.

But at the end of the day the question for the board is, what is in the best interests of share holders? If paying dividends is in shareholders best interests, then 100% of ActM should be liquidated and paid back to shareholders, which would mean things are going terribly. If things are going well, $200k of BTC will be worth 10-20x that for shareholders in potential for future dividends.

I think it basically comes down to: Dividend = short term view, Reinvest = long term view. If you've got a short term view you shouldn't be invested in ActM... simple really.

Also its up to the company to act in the best interests of all shareholders, really regardless of what "the people" think "the people" want - because frankly if you want this paid back in dividend, you don't know what is in your own best interests, or you don't care about shareholders (hence not in shareholders best interests).

TLDR; the only sensible business decision is to reinvest those funds.

I think that is the idea. There is a company actually making chips now.

+1

seriously let me have a few cents now instead of a few dollars later.  that really makes no sense, unless you want the dividend now so you can bail right away and move onto other things.  anyone asking for dividends now on a POSSIBLE Avalon refund isnt really concerned about ActiveMining for the longterm.