The sooner you worrywarts sell up and fuck off, the better. I swear anyone would think the American Dream is dead given the doom and hopelessness that accompanies many of the posts in this thread.
A lot of you sit there mouthing off criticism after criticism when some of us are making a real effort to crunch some numbers and invite discussion so that we can come to a better understanding of where we are at.
So unless you intend on hanging around and benefitting from the success of this company might I suggest you button it, sell up and leave quietly and let the rest of us get on with things.
Topic: [ActiveMining] The Official Active Mining Discussion Thread [Self-Moderated] - page 92. (Read 771512 times)
January 23, 2014, 04:11:34 PM
January 23, 2014, 03:49:30 PM
I truly hope you have some plans for the following:
a. be able to distribute funds from the sale to weex users in debt.
or
b. explain to a court appointed handler where portions of my assets are.
(As well as explain to other weex users why your debt is more important than theirs)
a. be able to distribute funds from the sale to weex users in debt.
or
b. explain to a court appointed handler where portions of my assets are.
(As well as explain to other weex users why your debt is more important than theirs)
I think youre correct here ukyo. Regardless if the 106BTC owned are ActM-Funds or Ken's private funds. He cant simply sell them because the shares belong to a private person not weexchange. As long as ken cant proof that ukyo is personally liable he cant sell them because weexchange is in debt. Its a legal risk he takes. It would b different if ukyo personally is in debt because then it would be legal i believe.
On top this sell means lowering the shareprice for all shareholders.
If the shares are owned by weexchange it would be legal too. It would be luck for the person that has something that belongs to weexchange. Though it would be unfortunate for all other weexchange victims. The shares would belong to the company and not to a specific person then.
This has been gone over ad nauseam please let it die. Ken holds Uyko's property and Uyko holds Ken's 106BTC… Now unless Ukyo pays this back then Ken can and should sell off enough of Uyko's shares as lien to recover lost funds. Whatever outstanding debts Uyko and Co. have are his responsibility, no one else's.
Besides this is not for any of us to decide as I'm sure Ken has consulted with his lawyers and made his decision… let it go.
January 23, 2014, 03:42:06 PM
No but we have both looked at this and both worked it out with similar results. He and I both agree with this method of valuing the shares and want everyone to understand this. It is what professionals do to value any companies stock.
Let's talk about this valuation method.
Let's talk about this valuation method.
tell me more about the other companies you have done valuations on that turned out to be accurate...
January 23, 2014, 03:08:45 PM
Are they going to be cheap though? You have no idea. You guys make estimates on the most vague Ideas. Ken can come on here and ONLY say "Don't worry guys I have a plan" and you guys will be on here an hour later with strategic planning, estimates of ROI, share value, and an info graphic and some pie charts with the title "We're gonna be Rich!" and "To the Moon!".
+1
The only thing that happened recently (in reality) is Ken trying to get a hold of 2,320 BTC.
January 23, 2014, 03:04:50 PM
I truly hope you have some plans for the following:
a. be able to distribute funds from the sale to weex users in debt.
or
b. explain to a court appointed handler where portions of my assets are.
(As well as explain to other weex users why your debt is more important than theirs)
a. be able to distribute funds from the sale to weex users in debt.
or
b. explain to a court appointed handler where portions of my assets are.
(As well as explain to other weex users why your debt is more important than theirs)
I think youre correct here ukyo. Regardless if the 106BTC owned are ActM-Funds or Ken's private funds. He cant simply sell them because the shares belong to a private person not weexchange. As long as ken cant proof that ukyo is personally liable he cant sell them because weexchange is in debt. Its a legal risk he takes. It would b different if ukyo personally is in debt because then it would be legal i believe.
On top this sell means lowering the shareprice for all shareholders.
If the shares are owned by weexchange it would be legal too. It would be luck for the person that has something that belongs to weexchange. Though it would be unfortunate for all other weexchange victims. The shares would belong to the company and not to a specific person then.
January 23, 2014, 02:34:29 PM
OK if we sell these shares Ukyo wants all the proceeds divided equally not us first and everyone else later. Now do the maths. I don't know how much he owes and to how many people.
I've done a little digging and figure that if Ken managed to sell all Ukyo's shares at 0.01btc per share, then after we recouped 106btc for ActM and paid the other 2214btc to the community, there would still be just over 3500btc outstanding that Ukyo would still owe the community.
Random fact for the day - After recouping 106 BTC, the entire Weex debt could be cleared if the remaining shares sold for ~0.026 BTC each.
In summary then: Predicted sales plus 1.25% of hash through 2014 gives an average share price of 0.031 BTC in 2014.
January 23, 2014, 02:24:04 PM
and this still assumes that 1.25% of network hashrate is even a remote possibility.
My projections on that, seem to say we'll need 2 Petahash online By June and double it every 6 weeks from then, unless/until things calm down... which they won't if we hit $5000/BTC
January 23, 2014, 02:11:05 PM
What did Ken get from eASIC for the $1 million he gave them, which he got from selling shares? What's happened to the shareholders $1 million?
That's probably still a part of a undergoing contract with eAsic. It's not like we dropped them cold turkey or vice versa right? They are working on our 28nm full custom chip right?
January 23, 2014, 02:08:04 PM
What did Ken get from eASIC for the $1 million he gave them, which he got from selling shares? What's happened to the shareholders $1 million?
January 23, 2014, 01:32:03 PM
...and then "you other guys" come with nothing except "you're all doomed", "Ken's a cheat" and "Unicorns and Rainbows" so w/e.
Some tried resorting to math and logic, but were faced with an audience incapable of understanding either. So they were left with pointing out what's universally understood and plentiful in Active Mining - lies and magical thinking.
January 23, 2014, 01:31:31 PM
I respect your opinion but look at it this way.
If ACtM can mine 1% of the bitcoins mined in 2014 - in other words if we can take and hold 1.25% of the global hash by beginning April - then we will mine 13,140 coins in 2014.
At current prices that is 13Mill dollars.
But lets assume an average price of Bitcoin of 5k USD in 2014assumption(10k USD target is widely talked about now for 2014)nonsense - so we will generate 5,000x13,140=65.7Million USDLETS USE $1000 since thats what a bitcoin is actually worth now
So Holding just 1.25% of global hash from April will make us65.713.5 Mill USD in 2014.
Lets round that down to5010Mill in pure profit from mining.
Add408Mill USD profit from chip orders for our 28nm chip in 2014
Add102 Mill profit from chip orders for our 55nm chip
Add255 Mill profit in miner sales for 2014.
You have a yearly profit of12525Mill USD.
Now to repay 0.0025BTC per share (10Mill publicly held shares) you need about 25Mill USD in todays price.But taking into account price rise of BTC through the year by say begining Q3 we would have 0.0025 paid back in full at a cost of 50Mill USD.
So the next 75Mill USD profit will be split between all shares (25Mill shares) giving a further div payout for the year of around 0.0006.
So in total each publicly held share will recieve approx 0.0031BTC in divs in 2014.
Now - a fair share price can be worked out when you know the expected total yearly divs. That's how professional investors value a stock.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dividend_yield
All IMO. Let's have a heated debate?
If ACtM can mine 1% of the bitcoins mined in 2014 - in other words if we can take and hold 1.25% of the global hash by beginning April - then we will mine 13,140 coins in 2014.
At current prices that is 13Mill dollars.
But lets assume an average price of Bitcoin of 5k USD in 2014assumption
So Holding just 1.25% of global hash from April will make us
Lets round that down to
Add
Add
Add
You have a yearly profit of
Now to repay 0.0025BTC per share (10Mill publicly held shares) you need about 25Mill USD in todays price.
Now - a fair share price can be worked out when you know the expected total yearly divs. That's how professional investors value a stock.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dividend_yield
All IMO. Let's have a heated debate?
your opion includes several different BTC valuations. using today's rate, the math is MUCH different. and this still assumes that 1.25% of network hashrate is even a remote possibility.
January 23, 2014, 01:29:46 PM
Thankfully I fall in neither category. I'm a realist, I think this company will pay off for me but I'm not gonna cheer lead it all the way to the finish line.
I agree that you are a realist, and one of the few who doesn't fill this thread with mindless drivel (either cheerleading or trolling). January 23, 2014, 01:24:18 PM
Yes I am talking about market supply running out because of high BTC and the resulting high demand. That is our best (only) bet for selling our 55nm chips realistically speaking. Now if we want to add fantasy and unicorns and stuff then hell we might have some rich idiot buy all our chips for 200% Mark up.
The desirability of any chip is not based on it's clock speed but on it's value on the MH/s/$ scale (with GH/W being important)
You could bring out a 8nm ASIC but if it costs 500% more than a 28nm chip but only does 150% more hashing then no-one will buy it.
Our 55nm just needs to be cheap, if they are they will sell. No unicorns need to be employed in this venture.
Are they going to be cheap though? You have no idea. You guys make estimates on the most vague Ideas. Ken can come on here and ONLY say "Don't worry guys I have a plan" and you guys will be on here an hour later with strategic planning, estimates of ROI, share value, and an info graphic and some pie charts with the title "We're gonna be Rich!" and "To the Moon!".
...and then "you other guys" come with nothing except "you're all doomed", "Ken's a cheat" and "Unicorns and Rainbows" so w/e.
Thankfully I fall in neither category. I'm a realist, I think this company will pay off for me but I'm not gonna cheer lead it all the way to the finish line. I'm going to scrutinize all the bullshit that hits this fan. You can ask anyone here, have I said "Fuck this company is gonna fail, omg were doomed."? Nope, check my entire post history.
January 23, 2014, 01:22:10 PM
Yes I am talking about market supply running out because of high BTC and the resulting high demand. That is our best (only) bet for selling our 55nm chips realistically speaking. Now if we want to add fantasy and unicorns and stuff then hell we might have some rich idiot buy all our chips for 200% Mark up.
The desirability of any chip is not based on it's clock speed but on it's value on the MH/s/$ scale (with GH/W being important)
You could bring out a 8nm ASIC but if it costs 500% more than a 28nm chip but only does 150% more hashing then no-one will buy it.
Our 55nm just needs to be cheap, if they are they will sell. No unicorns need to be employed in this venture.
Are they going to be cheap though? You have no idea. You guys make estimates on the most vague Ideas. Ken can come on here and ONLY say "Don't worry guys I have a plan" and you guys will be on here an hour later with strategic planning, estimates of ROI, share value, and an info graphic and some pie charts with the title "We're gonna be Rich!" and "To the Moon!".
...and then "you other guys" come with nothing except "you're all doomed", "Ken's a cheat" and "Unicorns and Rainbows" so w/e.
January 23, 2014, 01:20:35 PM
Yes I am talking about market supply running out because of high BTC and the resulting high demand. That is our best (only) bet for selling our 55nm chips realistically speaking. Now if we want to add fantasy and unicorns and stuff then hell we might have some rich idiot buy all our chips for 200% Mark up.
The desirability of any chip is not based on it's clock speed but on it's value on the MH/s/$ scale (with GH/W being important)
You could bring out a 8nm ASIC but if it costs 500% more than a 28nm chip but only does 150% more hashing then no-one will buy it.
Our 55nm just needs to be cheap, if they are they will sell. No unicorns need to be employed in this venture.
The reason real ASIC companies are working on 28nm chips is those chips *are* cheaper per GH/s.
Do you really think they're after the novelty of paying more for exotic tech?
January 23, 2014, 01:19:40 PM
Yes I am talking about market supply running out because of high BTC and the resulting high demand. That is our best (only) bet for selling our 55nm chips realistically speaking. Now if we want to add fantasy and unicorns and stuff then hell we might have some rich idiot buy all our chips for 200% Mark up.
The desirability of any chip is not based on it's clock speed but on it's value on the MH/s/$ scale (with GH/W being important)
You could bring out a 8nm ASIC but if it costs 500% more than a 28nm chip but only does 150% more hashing then no-one will buy it.
Our 55nm just needs to be cheap, if they are they will sell. No unicorns need to be employed in this venture.
Are they going to be cheap though? You have no idea. You guys make estimates on the most vague Ideas. Ken can come on here and ONLY say "Don't worry guys I have a plan" and you guys will be on here an hour later with strategic planning, estimates of ROI, share value, and an info graphic and some pie charts with the title "We're gonna be Rich!" and "To the Moon!".
January 23, 2014, 01:11:35 PM
Yes I am talking about market supply running out because of high BTC and the resulting high demand. That is our best (only) bet for selling our 55nm chips realistically speaking. Now if we want to add fantasy and unicorns and stuff then hell we might have some rich idiot buy all our chips for 200% Mark up.
The desirability of any chip is not based on it's clock speed but on it's value on the MH/s/$ scale (with GH/W being important)
You could bring out a 8nm ASIC but if it costs 500% more than a 28nm chip but only does 150% more hashing then no-one will buy it.
Our 55nm just needs to be cheap, if they are they will sell. No unicorns need to be employed in this venture.
January 23, 2014, 01:09:19 PM
The only way our 55nm chips have a chance of selling out is if we peg the price to a fiat value (which Ken actually does) and then the price of BTC soars through the roof
I don't think so. They need to be priced competitively to the other alternatives on the market, that's all. If BTC goes through the roof, it does so for everyone and all chips rise by the same desirability factor.
Unless you are talking about market supply running out because of high BTC and the resulting high demand for any hashable chip creating business.
Yes I am talking about market supply running out because of high BTC and the resulting high demand. That is our best (only) bet for selling our 55nm chips realistically speaking. Now if we want to add fantasy and unicorns and stuff then hell we might have some rich idiot buy all our chips for 200% Mark up.
"some rich idiots" are rare. Usually wealth is kept pretty well by those who know how to use a calculator..
Yup I know they are, that's why I said "if we want to add fantasy." These delusions by the usual trio need to be a little more grounded.
January 23, 2014, 01:07:32 PM
Not sure if anybody is interested in this, but I'd be willing to get a price set for my shares before trading starts. We can use an escrot service to transfer once trading begins again. Gauging interest for selling 10,000 of my shares for 12 BTC total. PM me if interested.
January 23, 2014, 01:04:02 PM
The only way our 55nm chips have a chance of selling out is if we peg the price to a fiat value (which Ken actually does) and then the price of BTC soars through the roof
I don't think so. They need to be priced competitively to the other alternatives on the market, that's all. If BTC goes through the roof, it does so for everyone and all chips rise by the same desirability factor.
Unless you are talking about market supply running out because of high BTC and the resulting high demand for any hashable chip creating business.
Yes I am talking about market supply running out because of high BTC and the resulting high demand. That is our best (only) bet for selling our 55nm chips realistically speaking. Now if we want to add fantasy and unicorns and stuff then hell we might have some rich idiot buy all our chips for 200% Mark up.
"some rich idiots" are rare. Usually wealth is kept pretty well by those who know how to use a calculator..
Jump to: