bigdude raises some good points.
Scenario A: bigdude buys 2,000,000 shares from Ken at 0.0008. AMC thus receives BTC1600.
Scenario B: bigdude buys 2,000,000 shares at market price. AMC receives god knows how many BTC. Speculators rub their hands.
As a long-term investor in AMC there is not a doubt what is my choice of scenario. I am also personally withholding buying more shares on BitFunder until Ken sells another batch there.
Topic: [AMC]-The Official Active Mining Cooperative Discussion - page 117. (Read 223316 times)
When we are talking in the real world with new share issues, IPO's and similar - the large investors 99.99999% are able to buy shares cheaper than retail investors.
It all comes down to who is more desperate. Ken is in a good spot right now (he was supposed to release more shares when the Avalons started arriving, he has not). His actions (or lack thereof) and his words from a few posts back say that he does not desperately need money at the moment and that he would not sell below .0008.
If I were Ken, I would sell to you or any other big slugger at a markup.
BigDude,
The best way to buy shares of AMC is through bitfunder.com
The price is set based upon supply and demand as determined by the bids and asking prices of people who use Bitfunder.
Essentially, you are saying that because you are prepared to buy 2,000,000 shares at the artificially low price of .0005 right now, that Ken should make a deal with you, outside of the market.
Your post seems like you are soliciting such a deal. As long as you are making an argument for why Ken should sell shares directly, why shouldn't he make an offer to the investors who have shown confidence in AMC already, and offer those 2,000,000 million shares to all the investors who already own over 1,000,000 shares? Why should such an offer be made to you, BigDude?
And, why should 2,000,000 shares at .0005 be sold to you? You have no obligation not to just turn around and sell those shares immediately for .0008. Essentially, you are asking Ken to just give you 600 bitcoin for buying a large block of shares. At the moment, that is a gift of $60,000 for buying $100,000 shares.
How does AMC benefit from that sort of deal with you instead of just offering the 2,000,000 shares at market price and waiting for smaller investors, as an aggregate to buy up the shares?
2 million shares at .0008251 (the price now) is 1650.2 bitcoin. If sold to you and .0005, AMC would only get 1000 bitcoin. Should AMC lose out on a potential 650 bitcoin (or $65,000 at today's exchange rate) just because you are a "large investor"?
Further, even a deal done outside of the exchange would affect the market price, if not immediately, then eventually, since eventually, those share would get sold and that increased supply, when it does hit the market, would lower the price of the stock. It is simple economics and supply and demand.
No, BigDude, the only one who would benefit from such an outside deal would be you. AMC would not benefit, existing large investors in AMC would not benefit and Ken would not benefit from such a deal.
Actually, that's a very good question. There should be a way to buy shares directly from Ken.
Imagine he posts a batch at 0.0008 and gets immediately undercut at prices like 0.000799, etc, from flippers. Even if cheaper, I don't want to buy from them, I want to buy from Ken.
AMC doesn't see a satoshi from shares bought from flippers, but any shares bought from Ken is a direct AMC investment.
In the end, any shareholder is getting more bang for their BTC by buying shares directly from Ken, as that translates to AMC growth, while buying from flippers does not.
There is another side to the coin which I think few are taking into account.
When we are talking in the real world with new share issues, IPO's and similar - the large investors 99.99999% are able to buy shares cheaper than retail investors.
So, myself for example, I am serious looking at buying a very large number of shares in AMC, but I would not go and by 2,000,000 shares right now from the market (bitfunder) for these reasons:
1. I would be driving the price up in order to soak up 2,000,000 shares - which initially looks good for investors, bad for me, but the price will most likely drop again anyway.
2. Why would I pay more than .0008 on the market, when I know that is the limit set by kslaughter
3. As a large investor, I would most certainly want and hope for a discounted rate than the present market rate.
How that would happen is probably best as a private transaction, but WITH public knowledge. Nothing under the table. I am a firm believer in that.
Then, as it is a private transaction, those shares released would then need to be stapled on to the market again.
My 2 satoshi's as an investor.
And yes, I am seriously interested in a large investment.
[/quote]
The best way to buy shares of AMC is through bitfunder.com
The price is set based upon supply and demand as determined by the bids and asking prices of people who use Bitfunder.
Essentially, you are saying that because you are prepared to buy 2,000,000 shares at the artificially low price of .0005 right now, that Ken should make a deal with you, outside of the market.
Your post seems like you are soliciting such a deal. As long as you are making an argument for why Ken should sell shares directly, why shouldn't he make an offer to the investors who have shown confidence in AMC already, and offer those 2,000,000 million shares to all the investors who already own over 1,000,000 shares? Why should such an offer be made to you, BigDude?
And, why should 2,000,000 shares at .0005 be sold to you? You have no obligation not to just turn around and sell those shares immediately for .0008. Essentially, you are asking Ken to just give you 600 bitcoin for buying a large block of shares. At the moment, that is a gift of $60,000 for buying $100,000 shares.
How does AMC benefit from that sort of deal with you instead of just offering the 2,000,000 shares at market price and waiting for smaller investors, as an aggregate to buy up the shares?
2 million shares at .0008251 (the price now) is 1650.2 bitcoin. If sold to you and .0005, AMC would only get 1000 bitcoin. Should AMC lose out on a potential 650 bitcoin (or $65,000 at today's exchange rate) just because you are a "large investor"?
Further, even a deal done outside of the exchange would affect the market price, if not immediately, then eventually, since eventually, those share would get sold and that increased supply, when it does hit the market, would lower the price of the stock. It is simple economics and supply and demand.
No, BigDude, the only one who would benefit from such an outside deal would be you. AMC would not benefit, existing large investors in AMC would not benefit and Ken would not benefit from such a deal.
Actually, that's a very good question. There should be a way to buy shares directly from Ken.
Imagine he posts a batch at 0.0008 and gets immediately undercut at prices like 0.000799, etc, from flippers. Even if cheaper, I don't want to buy from them, I want to buy from Ken.
AMC doesn't see a satoshi from shares bought from flippers, but any shares bought from Ken is a direct AMC investment.
In the end, any shareholder is getting more bang for their BTC by buying shares directly from Ken, as that translates to AMC growth, while buying from flippers does not.
There is another side to the coin which I think few are taking into account.
When we are talking in the real world with new share issues, IPO's and similar - the large investors 99.99999% are able to buy shares cheaper than retail investors.
So, myself for example, I am serious looking at buying a very large number of shares in AMC, but I would not go and by 2,000,000 shares right now from the market (bitfunder) for these reasons:
1. I would be driving the price up in order to soak up 2,000,000 shares - which initially looks good for investors, bad for me, but the price will most likely drop again anyway.
2. Why would I pay more than .0008 on the market, when I know that is the limit set by kslaughter
3. As a large investor, I would most certainly want and hope for a discounted rate than the present market rate.
How that would happen is probably best as a private transaction, but WITH public knowledge. Nothing under the table. I am a firm believer in that.
Then, as it is a private transaction, those shares released would then need to be stapled on to the market again.
My 2 satoshi's as an investor.
And yes, I am seriously interested in a large investment.
[/quote]
The best way to buy shares of AMC is through bitfunder.com
The price is set based upon supply and demand as determined by the bids and asking prices of people who use Bitfunder.
The price is set based upon supply and demand as determined by the bids and asking prices of people who use Bitfunder.
Hello,
Is it possible to buy shares directly to AMC ?
(...)
Thank you
Is it possible to buy shares directly to AMC ?
(...)
Thank you
Actually, that's a very good question. There should be a way to buy shares directly from Ken.
Imagine he posts a batch at 0.0008 and gets immediately undercut at prices like 0.000799, etc, from flippers. Even if cheaper, I don't want to buy from them, I want to buy from Ken.
AMC doesn't see a satoshi from shares bought from flippers, but any shares bought from Ken is a direct AMC investment.
In the end, any shareholder is getting more bang for their BTC by buying shares directly from Ken, as that translates to AMC growth, while buying from flippers does not.
There is another side to the coin which I think few are taking into account.
When we are talking in the real world with new share issues, IPO's and similar - the large investors 99.99999% are able to buy shares cheaper than retail investors.
So, myself for example, I am serious looking at buying a very large number of shares in AMC, but I would not go and by 2,000,000 shares right now from the market (bitfunder) for these reasons:
1. I would be driving the price up in order to soak up 2,000,000 shares - which initially looks good for investors, bad for me, but the price will most likely drop again anyway.
2. Why would I pay more than .0008 on the market, when I know that is the limit set by kslaughter
3. As a large investor, I would most certainly want and hope for a discounted rate than the present market rate.
How that would happen is probably best as a private transaction, but WITH public knowledge. Nothing under the table. I am a firm believer in that.
Then, as it is a private transaction, those shares released would then need to be stapled on to the market again.
My 2 satoshi's as an investor.
And yes, I am seriously interested in a large investment.
Can anyone remind me what are the dividends per share are going to be like with the 3 avalons running, also are they daily or weekly? I remember reading about it when the forum was only like 15 pages longs. Cant seem to find it though.
These early dividends will likely be really small, like 10's of satoshis, since there are so many shares issued and not that much income yet. The real dividends will come if Ken pulls through with the thousands of Avalon chips and such. I believe dividends are either every week or less frequently, certainly not daily or we would have already seen one.
Can anyone remind me what are the dividends per share are going to be like with the 3 avalons running, also are they daily or weekly? I remember reading about it when the forum was only like 15 pages longs. Cant seem to find it though.
or if you like ... he can use "Options Trading" set the price and sell directly to buyer..
Yea thats definitely an option, but it depends if KSlaughter wants to manually do this himself.
We're looking for an Easy Button, and not a work around.
Any idea on when the next 3 avalons will be coming in?
Guys, the problem is pretty simple actually.
AMC needs to sell more shares, as it only sold 5M out of the initial 15M. --> AMC tries to sell more shares, at market price. --> AMC keeps being undercut. --> AMC thus, doesn't sell anything, or very little. --> AMC doesn't get the additional funds it needs, at the time it needs. --> AMC dies of starvation.
Please provide ways to solve the problem entitled "death by starvation".
My solution is an OPEN primary/secondary market like everyone else is doing outside bitcoin.
In BitFunder, I'd be happy with something like this (mock-up):
or if you like ... he can use "Options Trading" set the price and sell directly to buyer.. AMC needs to sell more shares, as it only sold 5M out of the initial 15M. --> AMC tries to sell more shares, at market price. --> AMC keeps being undercut. --> AMC thus, doesn't sell anything, or very little. --> AMC doesn't get the additional funds it needs, at the time it needs. --> AMC dies of starvation.
Please provide ways to solve the problem entitled "death by starvation".
My solution is an OPEN primary/secondary market like everyone else is doing outside bitcoin.
In BitFunder, I'd be happy with something like this (mock-up):
Todays Earnings Report:
One other income stream although related to hardware sales, is chip sales. Avalon sold ~7.5 Million Dollars in chips is less than 2 months, should AMC have a better chip it could do the same or better. So a 10% royalty whould bring in ~$750,000 to AMC confers and that would be about 0.01875/share or 22.218272307 X the current price of .00084390.
That sounds like a great idea, but you need to release the information of the chips asap so that third party individuals (like burnin and bkkcoins) start designing boards for the chips We will be designing the boards for the chips. However, the chips are still in R & D.
One other income stream although related to hardware sales, is chip sales. Avalon sold ~7.5 Million Dollars in chips is less than 2 months, should AMC have a better chip it could do the same or better. So a 10% royalty whould bring in ~$750,000 to AMC confers and that would be about 0.01875/share or 22.218272307 X the current price of .00084390.
That sounds like a great idea, but you need to release the information of the chips asap so that third party individuals (like burnin and bkkcoins) start designing boards for the chips Guys, the problem is pretty simple actually.
AMC needs to sell more shares, as it only sold 5M out of the initial 15M. --> AMC tries to sell more shares, at market price. --> AMC keeps being undercut. --> AMC thus, doesn't sell anything, or very little. --> AMC doesn't get the additional funds it needs, at the time it needs. --> AMC dies of starvation.
Please provide ways to solve this problem.
My solution is a primary/secondary market like everyone else is doing outside bitcoin.
AMC needs to sell more shares, as it only sold 5M out of the initial 15M. --> AMC tries to sell more shares, at market price. --> AMC keeps being undercut. --> AMC thus, doesn't sell anything, or very little. --> AMC doesn't get the additional funds it needs, at the time it needs. --> AMC dies of starvation.
Please provide ways to solve this problem.
My solution is a primary/secondary market like everyone else is doing outside bitcoin.
If Ken wants to sell @ .0008, but people undercut him, it means there is not enough demand for the share at that price.
Then he needs to lower the price, it's quite simple actually.
Any way of distorting the market by selling behind closed doors, will eventually affect the share price and shareholders in a negative way.
I don't want to be a part of "what will be ken's next move" - speculation game once again. And that is what it will become if we have closed market selling.
If someone wanted to buy 1 millions shares at 0.0008 BTC then there would obviously be demand. As Vbs points out, Ken selling share privately is a good thing for AMC and it's investors and is a bad thing ONLY for flippers. It doesn't surprise me that some people would be against that, as it would cut into their profits. Flippers do not care whether or not AMC succeeds and likewise, I don't care in the slightest if selling shares privately cuts flippers profits.
Some people on these forums treat the market like some religious people treat their god. The market is not infallible, in fact, it's quite easily manipulated.
+1 for Ken selling shares privately if needed.
He does not need to sell them privately, it ends up the same as putting them on open market at the correct price. So what if the flippers bail out and undercut him for a day, it'll iron itself out if he prices them realistically.
Well, if he needed the money to buy hardware, it would mean he would have to sell more shares than intended in order to purchase that hardware. That would mean less hardware could be bought, which means a lower percentage of the network hash rate, which leads to lower mining profits, which leads to lower dividends. How is that good for long term investors?
Investors... most of the people in here are speculators that just wanna see the high price of AMC maintained. The fact is that his original plan only called for the funding necessary raised by selling shares at .0005. If AMC is ready to raise more money quickly, all he needs to do is stick with his plan. No need for illusory BF features.
Buy and hold or flipping as soon as possible: buying assets for a profit is always speculation, but on the short term side, share price is relevant right here and now, while for the long term, current share price is irrelevant, except for peace of mind or changing your mind.
And other thoughts I want to spew:
Buying a mining asset, is mainly speculation on future dividends since the underlying asset is not does not retain its value well: it's buying hardware which becomes obsolete in a short time frame and which you mine till it die or direct costs become too high. So your money is burned and then you depend on machines, management and environment.
An interesting feature though of AMC (and some other miners), is structural withholding part of the profits to reinvest in new hardware. This should give enough purchasing power to gain and retain a share of the daily minted BTC. Dreaming on, this could render a gross 1188 satoshi @ 33% @ 25 BTC per block per share. Net revenue will decline by marginal costs of mining. I see a share in the cooperative mainly as a right to this potential revenue stream.
And next to reinvestment, there should be some indirect profit on hardware sales by VMC through royalties. However, BTC-revenues from hardware are declining fast, so it could be an interesting venture from a fiat perspective, but isn't for a BTC-denominated share.
If someone is more optimistic on the (time frame of the) ROI, I'll sell. And if someone is more pessimistic, I'll buy. Or I do anything I feel like, for tons of other, irrational reasons.
One other income stream although related to hardware sales, is chip sales. Avalon sold ~7.5 Million Dollars in chips is less than 2 months, should AMC have a better chip it could do the same or better. So a 10% royalty whould bring in ~$750,000 to AMC confers and that would be about 0.01875/share or 22.218272307 X the current price of .00084390.
Guys, the problem is pretty simple actually.
AMC needs to sell more shares, as it only sold 5M out of the initial 15M. --> AMC tries to sell more shares, at market price. --> AMC keeps being undercut. --> AMC thus, doesn't sell anything, or very little. --> AMC doesn't get the additional funds it needs, at the time it needs. --> AMC dies of starvation.
Please provide ways to solve this problem.
My solution is a primary/secondary market like everyone else is doing outside bitcoin.
AMC needs to sell more shares, as it only sold 5M out of the initial 15M. --> AMC tries to sell more shares, at market price. --> AMC keeps being undercut. --> AMC thus, doesn't sell anything, or very little. --> AMC doesn't get the additional funds it needs, at the time it needs. --> AMC dies of starvation.
Please provide ways to solve this problem.
My solution is a primary/secondary market like everyone else is doing outside bitcoin.
If Ken wants to sell @ .0008, but people undercut him, it means there is not enough demand for the share at that price.
Then he needs to lower the price, it's quite simple actually.
Any way of distorting the market by selling behind closed doors, will eventually affect the share price and shareholders in a negative way.
I don't want to be a part of "what will be ken's next move" - speculation game once again. And that is what it will become if we have closed market selling.
If someone wanted to buy 1 millions shares at 0.0008 BTC then there would obviously be demand. As Vbs points out, Ken selling share privately is a good thing for AMC and it's investors and is a bad thing ONLY for flippers. It doesn't surprise me that some people would be against that, as it would cut into their profits. Flippers do not care whether or not AMC succeeds and likewise, I don't care in the slightest if selling shares privately cuts flippers profits.
Some people on these forums treat the market like some religious people treat their god. The market is not infallible, in fact, it's quite easily manipulated.
+1 for Ken selling shares privately if needed.
He does not need to sell them privately, it ends up the same as putting them on open market at the correct price. So what if the flippers bail out and undercut him for a day, it'll iron itself out if he prices them realistically.
Well, if he needed the money to buy hardware, it would mean he would have to sell more shares than intended in order to purchase that hardware. That would mean less hardware could be bought, which means a lower percentage of the network hash rate, which leads to lower mining profits, which leads to lower dividends. How is that good for long term investors?
Investors... most of the people in here are speculators that just wanna see the high price of AMC maintained. The fact is that his original plan only called for the funding necessary raised by selling shares at .0005. If AMC is ready to raise more money quickly, all he needs to do is stick with his plan. No need for illusory BF features.
Selling shares to pay for hardware is part of the original plan. From the description on BitFunder:
Quote
As of the time of this writing, up to 40,000,000 will be released over time to the public on a varying time scale as capital is required to complete the project.
Guys, the problem is pretty simple actually.
AMC needs to sell more shares, as it only sold 5M out of the initial 15M. --> AMC tries to sell more shares, at market price. --> AMC keeps being undercut. --> AMC thus, doesn't sell anything, or very little. --> AMC doesn't get the additional funds it needs, at the time it needs. --> AMC dies of starvation.
Please provide ways to solve this problem.
My solution is a primary/secondary market like everyone else is doing outside bitcoin.
AMC needs to sell more shares, as it only sold 5M out of the initial 15M. --> AMC tries to sell more shares, at market price. --> AMC keeps being undercut. --> AMC thus, doesn't sell anything, or very little. --> AMC doesn't get the additional funds it needs, at the time it needs. --> AMC dies of starvation.
Please provide ways to solve this problem.
My solution is a primary/secondary market like everyone else is doing outside bitcoin.
If Ken wants to sell @ .0008, but people undercut him, it means there is not enough demand for the share at that price.
Then he needs to lower the price, it's quite simple actually.
Any way of distorting the market by selling behind closed doors, will eventually affect the share price and shareholders in a negative way.
I don't want to be a part of "what will be ken's next move" - speculation game once again. And that is what it will become if we have closed market selling.
If someone wanted to buy 1 millions shares at 0.0008 BTC then there would obviously be demand. As Vbs points out, Ken selling share privately is a good thing for AMC and it's investors and is a bad thing ONLY for flippers. It doesn't surprise me that some people would be against that, as it would cut into their profits. Flippers do not care whether or not AMC succeeds and likewise, I don't care in the slightest if selling shares privately cuts flippers profits.
Some people on these forums treat the market like some religious people treat their god. The market is not infallible, in fact, it's quite easily manipulated.
+1 for Ken selling shares privately if needed.
He does not need to sell them privately, it ends up the same as putting them on open market at the correct price. So what if the flippers bail out and undercut him for a day, it'll iron itself out if he prices them realistically.
Well, if he needed the money to buy hardware, it would mean he would have to sell more shares than intended in order to purchase that hardware. That would mean less hardware could be bought, which means a lower percentage of the network hash rate, which leads to lower mining profits, which leads to lower dividends. How is that good for long term investors?
Investors... most of the people in here are speculators that just wanna see the high price of AMC maintained. The fact is that his original plan only called for the funding necessary raised by selling shares at .0005. If AMC is ready to raise more money quickly, all he needs to do is stick with his plan. No need for illusory BF features.
Buy and hold or flipping as soon as possible: buying assets for a profit is always speculation, but on the short term side, share price is relevant right here and now, while for the long term, current share price is irrelevant, except for peace of mind or changing your mind.
And other thoughts I want to spew:
Buying a mining asset, is mainly speculation on future dividends since the underlying asset is not does not retain its value well: it's buying hardware which becomes obsolete in a short time frame and which you mine till it die or direct costs become too high. So your money is burned and then you depend on machines, management and environment.
An interesting feature though of AMC (and some other miners), is structural withholding part of the profits to reinvest in new hardware. This should give enough purchasing power to gain and retain a share of the daily minted BTC. Dreaming on, this could render a gross 1188 satoshi @ 33% @ 25 BTC per block per share. Net revenue will decline by marginal costs of mining. I see a share in the cooperative mainly as a right to this potential revenue stream.
And next to reinvestment, there should be some indirect profit on hardware sales by VMC through royalties. However, BTC-revenues from hardware are declining fast, so it could be an interesting venture from a fiat perspective, but isn't for a BTC-denominated share.
If someone is more optimistic on the (time frame of the) ROI, I'll sell. And if someone is more pessimistic, I'll buy. Or I do anything I feel like, for tons of other, irrational reasons.
This happens all the time in the real equity markets, large desk trades are routinely done OTC and then just printed to the market later.
Guys, the problem is pretty simple actually.
AMC needs to sell more shares, as it only sold 5M out of the initial 15M. --> AMC tries to sell more shares, at market price. --> AMC keeps being undercut. --> AMC thus, doesn't sell anything, or very little. --> AMC doesn't get the additional funds it needs, at the time it needs. --> AMC dies of starvation.
Please provide ways to solve this problem.
My solution is a primary/secondary market like everyone else is doing outside bitcoin.
AMC needs to sell more shares, as it only sold 5M out of the initial 15M. --> AMC tries to sell more shares, at market price. --> AMC keeps being undercut. --> AMC thus, doesn't sell anything, or very little. --> AMC doesn't get the additional funds it needs, at the time it needs. --> AMC dies of starvation.
Please provide ways to solve this problem.
My solution is a primary/secondary market like everyone else is doing outside bitcoin.
If Ken wants to sell @ .0008, but people undercut him, it means there is not enough demand for the share at that price.
Then he needs to lower the price, it's quite simple actually.
Any way of distorting the market by selling behind closed doors, will eventually affect the share price and shareholders in a negative way.
I don't want to be a part of "what will be ken's next move" - speculation game once again. And that is what it will become if we have closed market selling.
If someone wanted to buy 1 millions shares at 0.0008 BTC then there would obviously be demand. As Vbs points out, Ken selling share privately is a good thing for AMC and it's investors and is a bad thing ONLY for flippers. It doesn't surprise me that some people would be against that, as it would cut into their profits. Flippers do not care whether or not AMC succeeds and likewise, I don't care in the slightest if selling shares privately cuts flippers profits.
Some people on these forums treat the market like some religious people treat their god. The market is not infallible, in fact, it's quite easily manipulated.
+1 for Ken selling shares privately if needed.
He does not need to sell them privately, it ends up the same as putting them on open market at the correct price. So what if the flippers bail out and undercut him for a day, it'll iron itself out if he prices them realistically.
Well, if he needed the money to buy hardware, it would mean he would have to sell more shares than intended in order to purchase that hardware. That would mean less hardware could be bought, which means a lower percentage of the network hash rate, which leads to lower mining profits, which leads to lower dividends. How is that good for long term investors?
Investors... most of the people in here are speculators that just wanna see the high price of AMC maintained. The fact is that his original plan only called for the funding necessary raised by selling shares at .0005. If AMC is ready to raise more money quickly, all he needs to do is stick with his plan. No need for illusory BF features.
Guys, the problem is pretty simple actually.
AMC needs to sell more shares, as it only sold 5M out of the initial 15M. --> AMC tries to sell more shares, at market price. --> AMC keeps being undercut. --> AMC thus, doesn't sell anything, or very little. --> AMC doesn't get the additional funds it needs, at the time it needs. --> AMC dies of starvation.
Please provide ways to solve this problem.
My solution is a primary/secondary market like everyone else is doing outside bitcoin.
AMC needs to sell more shares, as it only sold 5M out of the initial 15M. --> AMC tries to sell more shares, at market price. --> AMC keeps being undercut. --> AMC thus, doesn't sell anything, or very little. --> AMC doesn't get the additional funds it needs, at the time it needs. --> AMC dies of starvation.
Please provide ways to solve this problem.
My solution is a primary/secondary market like everyone else is doing outside bitcoin.
If Ken wants to sell @ .0008, but people undercut him, it means there is not enough demand for the share at that price.
Then he needs to lower the price, it's quite simple actually.
Any way of distorting the market by selling behind closed doors, will eventually affect the share price and shareholders in a negative way.
I don't want to be a part of "what will be ken's next move" - speculation game once again. And that is what it will become if we have closed market selling.
If someone wanted to buy 1 millions shares at 0.0008 BTC then there would obviously be demand. As Vbs points out, Ken selling share privately is a good thing for AMC and it's investors and is a bad thing ONLY for flippers. It doesn't surprise me that some people would be against that, as it would cut into their profits. Flippers do not care whether or not AMC succeeds and likewise, I don't care in the slightest if selling shares privately cuts flippers profits.
Some people on these forums treat the market like some religious people treat their god. The market is not infallible, in fact, it's quite easily manipulated.
+1 for Ken selling shares privately if needed.
He does not need to sell them privately, it ends up the same as putting them on open market at the correct price. So what if the flippers bail out and undercut him for a day, it'll iron itself out if he prices them realistically.
Well, if he needed the money to buy hardware, it would mean he would have to sell more shares than intended in order to purchase that hardware. That would mean less hardware could be bought, which means a lower percentage of the network hash rate, which leads to lower mining profits, which leads to lower dividends. How is that good for long term investors?
Guys, the problem is pretty simple actually.
AMC needs to sell more shares, as it only sold 5M out of the initial 15M. --> AMC tries to sell more shares, at market price. --> AMC keeps being undercut. --> AMC thus, doesn't sell anything, or very little. --> AMC doesn't get the additional funds it needs, at the time it needs. --> AMC dies of starvation.
Please provide ways to solve the problem entitled "death by starvation".
My solution is an OPEN primary/secondary market like everyone else is doing outside bitcoin.
AMC needs to sell more shares, as it only sold 5M out of the initial 15M. --> AMC tries to sell more shares, at market price. --> AMC keeps being undercut. --> AMC thus, doesn't sell anything, or very little. --> AMC doesn't get the additional funds it needs, at the time it needs. --> AMC dies of starvation.
Please provide ways to solve the problem entitled "death by starvation".
My solution is an OPEN primary/secondary market like everyone else is doing outside bitcoin.
I like this idea: more choice for market participants and it is quite transparant. One can only spend his BTC once on a asset and investment it does matter in whose pockets your money ends up.
Great Idea Joris. Now get Ukto to do it. Well, he is off to who know where do some other deal, not taking care of bitfunder.
I've talked to him about this idea, he seemed receptive to analyse it furter.
The primary/secondary market idea is currently implemented in Havelock, for example look at: https://www.havelockinvestments.com/fund.php?symbol=HIM
The primary market is under the "Public Offerings" tab, while the secondary market is under the "Buy / Sell on Market" page.
Guys, the problem is pretty simple actually.
AMC needs to sell more shares, as it only sold 5M out of the initial 15M. --> AMC tries to sell more shares, at market price. --> AMC keeps being undercut. --> AMC thus, doesn't sell anything, or very little. --> AMC doesn't get the additional funds it needs, at the time it needs. --> AMC dies of starvation.
Please provide ways to solve the problem entitled "death by starvation".
My solution is an OPEN primary/secondary market like everyone else is doing outside bitcoin.
I like this idea: more choice for market participants and it is quite transparant. One can only spend his BTC once on a asset and investment it does matter in whose pockets your money ends up.
AMC needs to sell more shares, as it only sold 5M out of the initial 15M. --> AMC tries to sell more shares, at market price. --> AMC keeps being undercut. --> AMC thus, doesn't sell anything, or very little. --> AMC doesn't get the additional funds it needs, at the time it needs. --> AMC dies of starvation.
Please provide ways to solve the problem entitled "death by starvation".
My solution is an OPEN primary/secondary market like everyone else is doing outside bitcoin.
I like this idea: more choice for market participants and it is quite transparant. One can only spend his BTC once on a asset and investment it does matter in whose pockets your money ends up.
Great Idea Joris. Now get Ukto to do it. Well, he is off to who know where do some other deal, not taking care of bitfunder.
Jump to: