[ActiveMining] The Official Active Mining Discussion Thread [Self-Moderated] - page 101.

drawingthesun

legendary

Activity: 1176

Merit: 1015

Why would Ukyo be holding ActM money? Is Ken investing your coin on the side? Lol, nevermind, he did trade Ghash.io to show you some hashpower, according to Bargraphics, so the answer's yes Cheesy

Dude, this is why the discussion here derails into a turdfest. You are throwing baseless accusations at Ken. This is a matter where we ask Ken what the deal is, and I do remember he said they were ActiveMining funds.

And also, he was buying shares to move to CryptoStock at one point remember? Those Bitcoins could have been apart of that process and easily belong to the company.

minerpart

sr. member

Activity: 280

Merit: 250

IIIIII====II====IIIIII

Quote from: ?? on ??

Why would Ukyo be holding ActM money? Is Ken investing your coin on the side? Lol, nevermind, he did trade Ghash.io to show you some hashpower, according to Bargraphics, so the answer's yes Cheesy

I try not to talk to Trolls....

ACtM had BTC in WeEx for a few reasons, two of which were to pay divs and funds from the sale of IPO shares.

Please try to keep up.

zumzero

hero member

Activity: 602

Merit: 500

myBitcoin.Garden

Let's keep this as civil as we can without name calling as it will only degrade from there. We should all know better by now, water under the bridge and all that.

drawingthesun

legendary

Activity: 1176

Merit: 1015

Quote from: minerpart on January 22, 2014, 12:29:22 PM

Quote from: drawingthesun on January 22, 2014, 12:25:42 PM

if it was personal funds Ken has no basis to hold UKYO's shares hostage.

You are wrong. If it is Kens personal money (which he said it is not) he has just as much right as any Bank or any individual to claim someone elses assets to recover a loss. Why do you think lien only applies to a company and not individuals???

Actually you are wrong here, in all cases of asset seizure there is a pecking order for debts. In the case of a loan the bank comes first and then individuals after.

If the funds UKYO owes are personal, then Ken is abusing his position. Think about it, Ken can only do this because the exchange closed down and Ken now gets to control the investor list. In the real world Apple can't go to NASDAQ and start taking peoples shares, no matter how much they owe.

drawingthesun

legendary

Activity: 1176

Merit: 1015

Quote from: minerpart on January 22, 2014, 12:27:30 PM

Quote from: drawingthesun on January 22, 2014, 12:23:53 PM

Dude you sound like an idiot, we are only entitled to the 100+ bitcoin that UKYO owes us, nothing more.

Minerpart, do you really believe we are entitled to more than the owed sum?

No I do not. I agree that we are only entitled to recover our losses and costs. Where did you get the idea that I thought otherwise???

PS - try to be civil.

Sorry my mistake, I read that as you wanting to hold all the assets to sell or incase we needed whatever amount of money.

I'm just getting frustrated that this subject keeps surfacing, Ken just put up 2000 bitcoin worth of UKYO's shares for all we know, it's not very professional and needs to be dealt with.

We need clarification whose shares are being offered for sale and if they are UKYO's the amount must be reduced to only cover the owed debt and nothing more.

minerpart

sr. member

Activity: 280

Merit: 250

IIIIII====II====IIIIII

Quote from: drawingthesun on January 22, 2014, 12:25:42 PM

if it was personal funds Ken has no basis to hold UKYO's shares hostage.

You are wrong. If it is Kens personal money (which he said it is not) he has just as much right as any Bank or any individual to claim someone elses assets to recover a loss. Why do you think lien only applies to a company and not individuals???

minerpart

sr. member

Activity: 280

Merit: 250

IIIIII====II====IIIIII

Quote from: drawingthesun on January 22, 2014, 12:23:53 PM

Dude you sound like an idiot, we are only entitled to the 100+ bitcoin that UKYO owes us, nothing more.

Minerpart, do you really believe we are entitled to more than the owed sum?

No I do not. I agree that we are only entitled to recover our losses and costs. Where did you get the idea that I thought otherwise???

PS - try to be civil.

drawingthesun

legendary

Activity: 1176

Merit: 1015

Quote from: ?? on ??

^^Backyard lawyering at its finest. The money Ken lost to Ukyo was his personal coin, not Active Mining funds. Selling off Ukyo's shares is intermingling of personal/corporate funds, trashing the corporate shield that protects Ken from ActM liability.

Of course, applying IRL corporate law to this sideshow is pretty lulzy.

I remember Ken saying that the money belonged to ActiveMining, if it was personal funds Ken has no basis to hold UKYO's shares hostage.

Ken, please make sure the money UKYO owes is ActiveMining funds, if not you can't touch his property (Which his shares are).

drawingthesun

legendary

Activity: 1176

Merit: 1015

Quote from: minerpart on January 22, 2014, 12:22:11 PM

Quote from: JoTheKhan on January 22, 2014, 12:09:53 PM

No reason to be so rash and impulsive about this. Ken should take his time, talk to lawyers and Ukyo and work something out

This has already run for months and Ken has already consulted for legal advice. We do need access to all of out funds. Who knows what BTC price will go to. If it falls 30% we could need these funds.

Ukyo is unable to return the BTC. He does not have it.

The only way we can get all of our money back is to take control of Ukyo's ACtM assests and sell them. If we return the shares to him he will sell them and we will get a tiny split. Remember this is OUR money for OUR business. In the absence of an over-riding court order, we have a legal right to take controll of Ukyo's ACtM assests with the aim of recovering our money.

Dude you sound like an idiot, we are only entitled to the 100+ bitcoin that UKYO owes us, nothing more.

Minerpart, do you really believe we are entitled to more than the owed sum?

minerpart

sr. member

Activity: 280

Merit: 250

IIIIII====II====IIIIII

Quote from: JoTheKhan on January 22, 2014, 12:09:53 PM

No reason to be so rash and impulsive about this. Ken should take his time, talk to lawyers and Ukyo and work something out

This has already run for months and Ken has already consulted for legal advice. We do need access to all of our funds. Who knows what BTC price will go to. If it falls 30% we could need these funds.

Ukyo is unable to return the BTC. He does not have it.

The only way we can get all of our money back is to take control of Ukyo's ACtM assests and sell them. If we return the shares to him he will sell them and we will get a tiny split. Remember this is OUR money for OUR business. In the absence of an over-riding court order, we have a legal right to take controll of Ukyo's ACtM assests with the aim of recovering our money.

canth

legendary

Activity: 1442

Merit: 1001

Quote from: Stuartuk on January 22, 2014, 12:13:45 PM

Quote from: drawingthesun on January 22, 2014, 12:10:30 PM

Ken should sell 100btc worth of UKYO's shares or whatever is the amount UKYO owes ActM(Ken).

I agree with this. We can only recover our losses and costs (including legal costs). Same as the banks when they repossess and sell your house. Anything over their reimburse and costs is returned to you.

I'd also suggest that ActM hold the BTC in a separate account for at least a year. In the event that Ukyo manages to pay back the WeEx losses, he or his creditors can place a claim against ActM, especially if the value of ActM shares substantially rise during that time.

Ken - there's no reason that you need to do this rashly and no reason that it needs to be done ahead of the availability of investors ability to trade their shares. Wait the week out, please.

Stuartuk

sr. member

Activity: 266

Merit: 250

Quote from: drawingthesun on January 22, 2014, 12:10:30 PM

Ken should sell 100btc worth of UKYO's shares or whatever is the amount UKYO owes ActM(Ken).

I agree with this. We can only recover our losses and costs (including legal costs). Same as the banks when they repossess and sell your house. Anything over their reimburse and costs is returned to you.

drawingthesun

legendary

Activity: 1176

Merit: 1015

I know everyone and their dog has an opinion on this, so here's mine:

Ken should sell 100btc worth of UKYO's shares or whatever is the amount UKYO owes ActM(Ken).

After we are square, the remaining shares must be returned to UKYO as it's got nothing to do with Ken what is UKYO's business. Ken must not sell all the shares to be a good guy and allow for redistribution, UKYO can deal with the shares once we are square.

If Ken sells all of UKYO's shares beyound the amount needed to reimburse our debt then UKYO easily has grounds for striking legal action.

Ken please do the right thing, get the 100 or so bitcoin back from his shares, then make that the end of it.

JoTheKhan

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 250

Quote from: Stuartuk on January 22, 2014, 11:58:10 AM

Quote from: bobboooiie on January 22, 2014, 11:52:24 AM

Ukyo default runs away.
People owned money and shareholders of his loan sue Ken.
Ken is dragged to courts and what not.
Ken is pretty much one man operation and if he gets into this spiral actm is going to get hurt.

I understand your worry but I don't see how people owed money by Ukyo could take Ken to court.

Ken has passed this with his lawyers and he has the widely recognised legal concept of lien on his side. He can claim Ukyo's assets as that is based on Ken's loss via Ukyo's handling/mishandling of Ken's funds. Banks do this sort of thing everyday when they re-poses your house or car and sell it to get their mortgage-lend back. While that is written into your mortgage contract, any such clause is based on the laws and precedents relating to the practice of lien.

We're not pressed for money to continue the operation at this point right? No reason to be so rash and impulsive about this. Ken should take his time, talk to lawyers and Ukyo and work something out that doesn't hit some sort of illegal grey area like this.

Stuartuk

sr. member

Activity: 266

Merit: 250

Quote from: bobboooiie on January 22, 2014, 11:52:24 AM

Ukyo default runs away.
People owned money and shareholders of his loan sue Ken.
Ken is dragged to courts and what not.
Ken is pretty much one man operation and if he gets into this spiral actm is going to get hurt.

I understand your worry but I don't see how people owed money by Ukyo could take Ken to court.

Ken has passed this with his lawyers and he has the widely recognised legal concept of lien on his side. He can claim Ukyo's assets as that is based on Ken's loss via Ukyo's handling/mishandling of Ken's funds. Banks do this sort of thing everyday when they re-poses your house or car and sell it to get their mortgage-lend back. While that is written into your mortgage contract, any such clause is based on the laws and precedents relating to the practice of lien.

bobboooiie

hero member

Activity: 656

Merit: 500

Quote from: Stuartuk on January 22, 2014, 11:48:29 AM

Quote from: bobboooiie on January 22, 2014, 11:45:41 AM

I feel like selling ukyos shares without even consulting it with anybody will get Ken into way more trouble than it can make good. And even if there would be any good reason to do that Iam pretty sure selling them at public exchange is the worst possible way.

It's perfectly legal.
There is precedent.
If Ukyo takes Ken to court over it he will need to admit the reasons why and how he lost everyones BTC.
Those reasons will get him sent to jail
Therefore, he won't take Ken to court.

Ukyo default runs away.
People owned money and shareholders of his loan sue Ken.
Ken is dragged to courts and what not.
Ken is pretty much one man operation and if he gets into this spiral actm is going to get hurt.

(Iam not defending ukyo or anything like that just bringing up some worries)

Stuartuk

sr. member

Activity: 266

Merit: 250

Quote from: bobboooiie on January 22, 2014, 11:45:41 AM

I feel like selling ukyos shares without even consulting it with anybody will get Ken into way more trouble than it can make good. And even if there would be any good reason to do that Iam pretty sure selling them at public exchange is the worst possible way.

It's perfectly legal.
There is precedent.
If Ukyo takes Ken to court over it he will need to admit the reasons why and how he lost everyones BTC.
Those reasons will get him sent to jail
Therefore, he won't take Ken to court.

'Lien':

Law. the legal claim of one person upon the property of another person to secure the payment of a debt or the satisfaction of an obligation.

bobboooiie

hero member

Activity: 656

Merit: 500

I feel like selling ukyos shares without even consulting it with anybody will get Ken into way more trouble than it can make good. And even if there would be any good reason to do that Iam pretty sure selling them at public exchange is the worst possible way.

Stuartuk

sr. member

Activity: 266

Merit: 250

Quote from: Anibad on January 22, 2014, 11:26:32 AM

Any news about share from Bitfunder and dividend?

Yes. The shares will be put onto CryptoTrade within the next 7days. Keep checking back here for details.

https://crypto-trade.com/tradex/ipo/amc_btc

Anibad

newbie

Activity: 31

Merit: 0

Any news about share from Bitfunder and dividend?

Topic: [ActiveMining] The Official Active Mining Discussion Thread [Self-Moderated] - page 101. (Read 771280 times)