Topic: [ActiveMining] The Official Active Mining Discussion Thread [Self-Moderated] - page 497. (Read 771302 times)

Lets just focus on getting ActM on either Bitfunder or Havelock (since looking Havelock does seem to be a much better choice)

It would be nice to have a 1 time option to decide where we want our shares, HL or BF.

If HL becomes an option I would like all my BF shares one time moved over too please.

After that we need to focus on making miners and selling miners. This should be priority and any new exchange system should really take a backseat right now. We need income and profits big time.

This may not be sufficient, depending how much they want to go for you. You may need to use a proper ID service to stay off their radar properly and that is only the US. Gambling companies went through all of this pain at one point.

Also note that ActiveMining itself is based on Belize. This is good on the one hand but 'virtual shares' have no coverage by law there either and they have a strict securities commission. There is the risk for a C&D in Belize unless they have said ActM doesn't need compliance (unlikely - no one knows how to deal with this stuff yet but it'd likely be considered a public offering and that's what I was told when I enquired about doing my own IPO). Also note that ActM's legal documentation basically says this is all totally at the buyer's risk when you get down to it. That's not a criticism by the way, they at least had some lawyers do it.

Ken's done what he can other than being completely legal somewhere which is easier said than done unfortunately, but investors should understand the risks with all securities. They are dependent on the law not having caught up, that's all there is to it.

A new exchange may not even make it off the ground or may push the boat only for a bit longer, or may expose the owners to a tricky legal situation (Ken is in the US and that's exposure enough IMHO). Any new exchange needs to be set up in a location with -no- securities commission - suspect Bitfunder is. Or based nowhere. And be anonymous yet trustworthy. Which will probably happen.

Running an exchange is non-trivial in the extreme. Ask UKYO. It'll cost a fortune in legal fees alone.

From the way i understand it the exchange would be an additional subsidiary of AMC.

"

He also stated that he would have to move the exchange under a different corporation due to licensing issues... So, if it isn't owned by AMC do we get a stake in the transfer fees?

Hi Ken, Have a look at the PM I sent you for Havelock contact details.

according to Ken, yes

Ken, would our ActM shares also grant us a stake in the AMC Exchange, in the event that it goes live? 

Are we able to send money to BTCT right now? I'm trying to buy up more shares.

+1 this 

This is actually very bullish news

I´m definitely gonna buy more shares

I will look in to Havelock; however, we will have to get approved and pay the fee if required.

Look at all these weak hands panic selling way below market value. I refuse to panic sell.



Many thanks Ken for your communication & work on the matter.

Please allow us to have to option to choose on which exchange we want the shares (Havelock, BF).

We had two exchanges set up just in case something happened like this. Then as a backup plan, we developed our own.   So, I think it is better to have two exchanges trading the shares. 

If so, can we move all BF shares too? I want them joined as I have shares on both exchanges. Also 1 big liquid market is far better than 2 smaller ones.

IMHO Havelock is a much better choice.

I will be putting together a plan today and will post it here.

Ken, do you have an ETA until we can move to BF?

I see what you mean; however, see my post about the Stock Exchange being spun off.

Yes, it would.