I don't understand what's behind all this commotion.
Are people just waking up to Ken's shiftiness?
Is it surprising that some panic buys happened when the asks got dropped from .1 to .0005 (err... two-hundred-fold)? People like "bargains," panic buying is a thing.
And there's nothing worth mentioning being sold anyhow.
Really a tempest in a teacup.
Topic: [ActiveMining] The Official Active Mining Discussion Thread [Self-Moderated] - page 44. (Read 771276 times)
February 04, 2014, 08:28:46 AM
February 04, 2014, 08:25:10 AM
interj
I agree we should have our shares back by now but that is not the issue I've been talking about.
If you want to ensure this company has the best chance of paying back the shareholder div of 0.0025 then selling these shares now to guarantee the company gets its assets back is the ONLY logical step to take.
I agree we should have our shares back by now but that is not the issue I've been talking about.
If you want to ensure this company has the best chance of paying back the shareholder div of 0.0025 then selling these shares now to guarantee the company gets its assets back is the ONLY logical step to take.
February 04, 2014, 08:06:27 AM
Minerpart: Ken's main responsibility is to his shareholders. Period. The investment you speak of is an extension of this responsibility, but not all encompassing of it. I think that (*regardless of the reasoning behind why*, because I do think Ken's in the right to sell Ukyo's shares) the act of using the market to retrieve company credit while withholding trading from shareholders is just straight up unethical. As shareholders, we have shares on an open market for a reason - to express our confidence in the company. This is just a big "fuck you" to shareholders from Ken.
Basically, I think it's a moot point to argue what's in our best interest when we lack the ability to express our opinions in a meaningful way: by trading our shares on an open market.
Ken: Why. The. Fuck. Do. We. Not. Have. Our. Shares.
Basically, I think it's a moot point to argue what's in our best interest when we lack the ability to express our opinions in a meaningful way: by trading our shares on an open market.
Ken: Why. The. Fuck. Do. We. Not. Have. Our. Shares.
+1
February 04, 2014, 08:04:06 AM
Minerpart: Ken's main responsibility is to his shareholders. Period. The investment you speak of is an extension of this responsibility, but not all encompassing of it. I think that (*regardless of the reasoning behind why*, because I do think Ken's in the right to sell Ukyo's shares) the act of using the market to retrieve company credit while withholding trading from shareholders is just straight up unethical. As shareholders, we have shares on an open market for a reason - to express our confidence in the company. This is just a big "fuck you" to shareholders from Ken.
Basically, I think it's a moot point to argue what's in our best interest when we lack the ability to express our opinions in a meaningful way: by trading our shares on an open market.
Ken: Why. The. Fuck. Do. We. Not. Have. Our. Shares.
Basically, I think it's a moot point to argue what's in our best interest when we lack the ability to express our opinions in a meaningful way: by trading our shares on an open market.
Ken: Why. The. Fuck. Do. We. Not. Have. Our. Shares.
February 04, 2014, 08:03:05 AM
Look at it this way, Ken's main responsibility is to his shareholders investment. If he did not act to safeguard these monies and we later came to need them he could also be taken to court by the shareholders.
This could represent quarter of a million dollars by Q3 and we could need these funds at that time, they could become crucial. So Ken is looking after the company's bottom line. That is his role.
This could represent quarter of a million dollars by Q3 and we could need these funds at that time, they could become crucial. So Ken is looking after the company's bottom line. That is his role.
Dear minerpart:
A gutter full of retarded junkies who just discovered crack would have better "safeguarded shareholders' investment."
Your particular blend of desperation and imbecility is getting tiresome.
Now stop.
February 04, 2014, 07:55:03 AM
Look at it this way, Ken's main responsibility is to his shareholders investment. If he did not act to safeguard these monies and we later came to need them he could also be taken to court by the shareholders.
This could represent quarter of a million dollars by Q3 and we could need these funds at that time, they could become crucial. So Ken is looking after the company's bottom line. That is his role.
EDIT - if he just held the shares at 0.01 someone could lay claim to then before they make up out money back. Then we would not get our funds ever. If the company went under in Q3 because of a shortfall of 250k how would you all feel then?
This could represent quarter of a million dollars by Q3 and we could need these funds at that time, they could become crucial. So Ken is looking after the company's bottom line. That is his role.
EDIT - if he just held the shares at 0.01 someone could lay claim to then before they make up out money back. Then we would not get our funds ever. If the company went under in Q3 because of a shortfall of 250k how would you all feel then?
February 04, 2014, 07:53:28 AM
ActM is and will be the worst investment decision of my life.
It is an absolute truism that you don't invest in companies - you invest in people.
And my god i am so sorry i ever invested in Ken and his lies.
It is an absolute truism that you don't invest in companies - you invest in people.
And my god i am so sorry i ever invested in Ken and his lies.
February 04, 2014, 07:24:22 AM
Let's not forget normal action for Ken would be to sue Ukyo for the money owed and Ukyo has already stated that if anyone were to sue him he'd just declare bankruptcy and that no one would get paid.
Ken has no obligation to Ukyo's debts and only has obligation to his shareholders regarding this transaction.
That said; I don't think anyone really has issue with the price... the real issue is that Ken has started trading shares before he's returned access to our own. If we were open trading right now the market would set that price not Ken. We should have resumed normal trading before Ken dumped those shares; you can make what ever excuse you want about it... it just is wrong to do it this way.
Ken has no obligation to Ukyo's debts and only has obligation to his shareholders regarding this transaction.
That said; I don't think anyone really has issue with the price... the real issue is that Ken has started trading shares before he's returned access to our own. If we were open trading right now the market would set that price not Ken. We should have resumed normal trading before Ken dumped those shares; you can make what ever excuse you want about it... it just is wrong to do it this way.
February 04, 2014, 07:13:46 AM
I am ashamed to be an shareholder and yes I'm stupid. Thanks Ken for letting me know.
February 04, 2014, 07:00:01 AM
Happy to be proven wrong of course, this just a conjecture for the conspiracy minded..
Could we please do without goofball theories? The situation is dire enough. 
February 04, 2014, 06:39:51 AM
Assume for a moment that AMC, Bitfunder and Weex are in it together, WEEX was the trap, AMC the lure:
Maybe more complex than most scams to try make it harder to spot? Happy to be proven wrong of course, this just a conjecture for the conspiracy minded..
- Put together a good story for an mining asset - the next AM. Heaps of people buy in on Bitfunder
- Close the BF/Weex exchanges (with a similar non reason like BTCT.CO) and stop everyone trading the shares.
- Ukyo comes up with a non story about "the coins are gone"
- Dump another round of shares onto another exchange (take more coins). We can blame Ken/AMC for a loss of some BF/Ukyo/Weex money.
- The scammers involved bugger off to a nice island with thousands of easy to smuggle bitcoins leaving behind a couple of battered forum accounts and an empty garage (after selling the workbenches).
Maybe more complex than most scams to try make it harder to spot? Happy to be proven wrong of course, this just a conjecture for the conspiracy minded..
February 04, 2014, 06:31:53 AM
Time for another reality check.
Observable reality is
1) Announcements are being made, promises are being broken over and over since September (?). Since then, Ken is sitting on all our funds.
2) Further coins for Ken's pocket are being generated by any means possible, latest stunt (currently happening): Fire sale of >200k shares to the last willing buyers out there by excluding everyone else.
3) The share price is moving more and more towards it's realistic valuation (which in my opinion is ZERO)
Which leads me to the conclusion that not only ActM's CEO is not in any way competent to lead an operation like this, but he is actively trying to SCAM more money before this amassment of promises finally collapses.
There, I said it. omgz.
Observable reality is
1) Announcements are being made, promises are being broken over and over since September (?). Since then, Ken is sitting on all our funds.
2) Further coins for Ken's pocket are being generated by any means possible, latest stunt (currently happening): Fire sale of >200k shares to the last willing buyers out there by excluding everyone else.
3) The share price is moving more and more towards it's realistic valuation (which in my opinion is ZERO)
Which leads me to the conclusion that not only ActM's CEO is not in any way competent to lead an operation like this, but he is actively trying to SCAM more money before this amassment of promises finally collapses.
There, I said it. omgz.
February 04, 2014, 06:23:05 AM
sorry but lol to us paying damages to Ukyo. He won't go near a court, they would lock him up. Zero chance of him going to court over this.
The issue won't with be Ukyo directly. It will be with the people who Ukyo owns money to. Ken has completely killed the value of his 200k shares and is claiming his money first. Technically whatever these shares sell for should be split between all the people who are owed money by Ukyo evenly based on a percentage. So if Ukyo owes 1000BTC and these sell for 100BTC, everyone gets 10% of what they are owed. Instead, Ken gets 100% what he is owed and everyone else gets 0%.
He is basically stealing money out of everyone who lost money in the Bitfunder/Weexchange closure.
No need to debate this. This is the truth.
Image this. We had access to our shares in December; Ukyo would have then been able to sell his shares (maybe even for more than what they are being sold for now) and that money would have went straight to refunding everyone percentage wise.
Unfortunately for the people on this website and Ukyo. You are right, there is a slim chance Active Mining will be brought to court (atleast in the near future). But this is what happens when there is no regulation.
Anyways I don't think we should worry about Ukyo's shares and should show more concern for our own. It is unreasonable that Ukyo's shares get listed before ours.
It may seem this way to you, but legally speaking you are wrong.
I can't take bob to court because bobs mate fred owes us both money and bob sold freds car.
I didn't say the Bitfunder users will take Ken to court, I said the Bitfunder users will have an issue with what Ken is doing. If anything, The Bitfunder users will take Ukyo to court and Ukyo will bring up the information about Ken's seizure and dump of his 230k active mining shares to recoup his loses; when the loses should have been dispersed equally.
Of course the Bitfunder users aren't going to take Ken to court directly but it could end up with Ken wasting time and money in a court of law due to the Bitfunder users taking Ukyo to court.
February 04, 2014, 06:18:13 AM
sorry but lol to us paying damages to Ukyo. He won't go near a court, they would lock him up. Zero chance of him going to court over this.
The issue won't with be Ukyo directly. It will be with the people who Ukyo owns money to. Ken has completely killed the value of his 200k shares and is claiming his money first. Technically whatever these shares sell for should be split between all the people who are owed money by Ukyo evenly based on a percentage. So if Ukyo owes 1000BTC and these sell for 100BTC, everyone gets 10% of what they are owed. Instead, Ken gets 100% what he is owed and everyone else gets 0%.
He is basically stealing money out of everyone who lost money in the Bitfunder/Weexchange closure.
No need to debate this. This is the truth.
Image this. We had access to our shares in December; Ukyo would have then been able to sell his shares (maybe even for more than what they are being sold for now) and that money would have went straight to refunding everyone percentage wise.
Unfortunately for the people on this website and Ukyo. You are right, there is a slim chance Active Mining will be brought to court (atleast in the near future). But this is what happens when there is no regulation.
Anyways I don't think we should worry about Ukyo's shares and should show more concern for our own. It is unreasonable that Ukyo's shares get listed before ours.
It may seem this way to you, but legally speaking you are wrong.
I can't take bob to court because bobs mate fred owes us both money and bob sold freds car.
February 04, 2014, 06:16:48 AM
Ken, will the 100 BTC be paid to shareholders as dividends?
Presumably it will be used to buy hashrate.Personally I'm pretty pissed that Ken has stuck up a sell wall at 0.0005 - it's unnecessary and devalues everyone elses investment. That said, Ken isn't selling these shares on his personal behalf, they are being sold on behalf of the company.
I'm right there with ya. I thought it was .005 at first...but .0005 --IPO price, fuck that's cheap. Decisions, decisions...
FIRST ipo price.... second IPO was 0.0025
February 04, 2014, 06:14:21 AM
sorry but lol to us paying damages to Ukyo. He won't go near a court, they would lock him up. Zero chance of him going to court over this.
The issue won't with be Ukyo directly. It will be with the people who Ukyo owns money to. Ken has completely killed the value of his 200k shares and is claiming his money first. Technically whatever these shares sell for should be split between all the people who are owed money by Ukyo evenly based on a percentage. So if Ukyo owes 1000BTC and these sell for 100BTC, everyone gets 10% of what they are owed. Instead, Ken gets 100% what he is owed and everyone else gets 0%.
He is basically stealing money out of everyone who lost money in the Bitfunder/Weexchange closure.
No need to debate this. This is the truth.
Image this. We had access to our shares in December; Ukyo would have then been able to sell his shares (maybe even for more than what they are being sold for now) and that money would have went straight to refunding everyone percentage wise.
Unfortunately for the people on this website and Ukyo. You are right, there is a slim chance Active Mining will be brought to court (atleast in the near future). But this is what happens when there is no regulation.
Anyways I don't think we should worry about Ukyo's shares and should show more concern for our own. It is unreasonable that Ukyo's shares get listed before ours.
February 04, 2014, 05:44:52 AM
Ken, will the 100 BTC be paid to shareholders as dividends?
Presumably it will be used to buy hashrate.Personally I'm pretty pissed that Ken has stuck up a sell wall at 0.0005 - it's unnecessary and devalues everyone elses investment. That said, Ken isn't selling these shares on his personal behalf, they are being sold on behalf of the company.
I'm right there with ya. I thought it was .005 at first...but .0005 --IPO price, fuck that's cheap. Decisions, decisions...
February 04, 2014, 05:22:12 AM
sorry but lol to us paying damages to Ukyo. He won't go near a court, they would lock him up. Zero chance of him going to court over this.
February 04, 2014, 05:21:13 AM
Sorry for the question but i can't constantly follow the thread ... some news on the shares / dividends?
Thank you so much
Thank you so much
February 04, 2014, 04:58:49 AM
If we have the shares and he sues, the court could keep us from selling the shares. This way if he sues I have the 100 BTC to pay our legal fees. If he sues, we would definitely counter sue for our 100 BTC that he owes us. Since our chances to prevail on our counter suite would be very high, I think the chances of him suing us is very low. Also, It takes cash to sue someone, and I don't think he has any, so he says.
Seems a very dangerous gamble to me. IF he sues and wins, The company might have to buy back all the shares (maybe even at a higher price) or pay him more than 106 BTC.
Do we still have enough money for the development of a full 28nm custom ASIC or is this a hail mary maneuver to make enough BTC till the court might order the company to pay damages to Ukyo?
Jump to: