Topic: [ActiveMining] The Official Active Mining Discussion Thread - page 285. (Read 479317 times)

How would we ever know?  Can you tell which shares are his?
He will account for the 50k now that I posted it, guaranteed.

How would we ever know?  Can you tell which shares are his?
He will account for the 50k now that I posted it, guaranteed.

I see a small wall on bitfunder and btc-tc of under 100k shares, but there is now way to know if those are Kens or not.

I play online poker and there have been much more drawn out and much more elaborate scams when big amounts of money are at play. While your rationale is logical there's not much weight to it in this case as there is $1M+ at play. In the end only time will tell how AMC will pan out so we're all just speculating as to whether this is legit or not or if it will succeed.

He said he was putting them up in small chunks.  They're all over the place.

He said he was putting them up in small chunks.  They're all over the place.

I dont see any real walls anywhere. Did Ken end up putting any other walls up?

I play online poker and there have been much more drawn out and much more elaborate scams when big amounts of money are at play. While your rationale is logical there's not much weight to it in this case as there is $1M+ at play. In the end only time will tell how AMC will pan out so we're all just speculating as to whether this is legit or not or if it will succeed.

You just implied he could steal 50k shares from us. That would be quite a serious accusation, if made, which is why I asked.

I have no reason to lie.  I'm a shareholder and have verified that in the past.  I would have no reason to cut Ken's funding short by 50k shares. 

The obvious conclusion is it would have been easier to pull off a scam and do a runner before now, than continue to the IPO stage and beyond. So we either have an incompetent group of scammers (would have been banged up by now), or a competent team who have successfully delivered the first tranche of a start up, yet are probably cursing the day they agreed to start out, lol.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.2325968

Just a name check he doesn't go into much except Bitfury a little, I would assume someone on the AsicMiner team is at least reading this thread, this is good for them though and they realize the need for diversity in the BTC Mining world.

on the phone ken told me he had put up 50,000 shares and they went pretty fast.  If he puts up a 500k wall instead of a 450k then I can see 50k that has nothing to do with funding, at least as we know it.  

hi all,

I've lurked in this thread for quite a long time and let me state this right up front:  yes I do hope that everything is above board and it's a win/win for Ken and shareholders alike.  I'm not a manipulative FUDster troll.  I am, however, someone who holds a few shares and would like a little clarification for the record.

As was mentioned a few posts ago, I also remember when the wall was all that was required for the NRE funds to pan out. Then I see that there are pre-orders in for ASICs that could help with the start-up funds as well. Excellent! So if BTC stays low, there would be something to draw from at least to aid in the NRE.  Suddenly there is mention of a new wall of shares for extra expenses.

Now I really want to give the benefit of the doubt here, but my spider senses are tingling.  Confidence is shaken somewhat when a load of new shares is added shortly after a massive wall has finally been eaten up.  It gives it more of a cash grab feel than planned capital.  As was started before by someone, it would be much better if instead of just stating "adding more shares now" and leaving it at that, if you would both provide some lead-time as well as state some numbers behind the request.  Transparency is key here, especially when this (and everything BTC, let's face it) is extremely high-risk.  Knowing how much is left to fully fund eASIC for example, and what these other expenses are and their relative cost would be crucial to investor confidence.

Again, don't take this as FUD please. I feel this is a valid point and something that should be expanded upon.

hi all,

I've lurked in this thread for quite a long time and let me state this right up front:  yes I do hope that everything is above board and it's a win/win for Ken and shareholders alike.  I'm not a manipulative FUDster troll.  I am, however, someone who holds a few shares and would like a little clarification for the record.

As was mentioned a few posts ago, I also remember when the wall was all that was required for the NRE funds to pan out. Then I see that there are pre-orders in for ASICs that could help with the start-up funds as well. Excellent! So if BTC stays low, there would be something to draw from at least to aid in the NRE.  Suddenly there is mention of a new wall of shares for extra expenses.

Now I really want to give the benefit of the doubt here, but my spider senses are tingling.  Confidence is shaken somewhat when a load of new shares is added shortly after a massive wall has finally been eaten up.  It gives it more of a cash grab feel than planned capital.  As was started before by someone, it would be much better if instead of just stating "adding more shares now" and leaving it at that, if you would both provide some lead-time as well as state some numbers behind the request.  Transparency is key here, especially when this (and everything BTC, let's face it) is extremely high-risk.  Knowing how much is left to fully fund eASIC for example, and what these other expenses are and their relative cost would be crucial to investor confidence.

Again, don't take this as FUD please. I feel this is a valid point and something that should be expanded upon.