Topic: [AMC]-The Official Active Mining Cooperative Discussion - page 118. (Read 223316 times)

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.

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.

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.

At this point, I trust Ken. He said he had ordered loads of ASIC Chips and Avalon machines, many people doubted him, and he shared photos proving he had the machines delivered and proved on BTCGUILD.com that he could get them up and running.  We all learned from the incident with that offering of new shares at .0005 when market was above .0008. I trust Ken and am sure he will do the right thing about new stock offerings.

VPS, when you say "My solution is an OPEN primary/secondary market like everyone else is doing outside bitcoin." and that without it AMC will die of starvation, you could not be any more inaccurate.

First of all, an IPO and when companies sell shares they are holding, it should never be to get funds for ongoing operations expenses. IPOs and selling shares they are holding should be for capital expenses, and to expand development and develop expansion. If a company cannot meet daily operating costs through their own income, then the business model is seriously flawed. Yes, I know AMC JUST now got their mining machines up and running, and it takes time to get the BTC/money flow happening, but, operating costs have to be generated from mining income and other investments and not from stock sales. On the other hand, I fully support the plan to sell more stock and use the proceeds of those sales to buy more mining equipment and betting security (fire alarm system, insurance on equipment, monitored facility) to build up confidence and profits. Also, on real exchanges like NYSE, sales of stock outside of the exchange itself always follow the market price. There are such things as options to buy at a lower price which are often given to executives as part of salary packages, but those deals happen ultimately on the open, public market. Any trades or sales in the bitcoin world that are not done on the public market would bring suspicion. If AMC needs more capital to buy more mining computers, and needs to sell stock, it should be sold within the BitFunder exchange and at the market price.

It doesn't matter if flippers, speculators or investors buy at the market price as long as the sales are public and generate income for capital investments for AMC.  There is no need to worry about flippers undercutting the market price or the price that AMC decides to sell, because the fund of shares the flippers are selling will eventually be bought up and then the stock of shares AMC is selling will eventually sell. Also, if AMC owned shares don't sell at market price, then it is clear that the price of AMC is too high. After all, the market, supply and demand, determines the price. Individuals only can provide bids and asks.

If AMC needs fast cash and THAT is the reason it needs to unload a large block of shares, then the conversation has to switch to why it has not managed the cash it has. Profits should come from mining and not from stock sales. All of these issue are very important. AMC has the potential of becoming a very big, successful and great company. There are many important and difficult decisions that will need to be made. Ken is a great guy but no one can do everything and I hope that soon, he decides to establish a corporate board of directors to help not just make decisions but share in the responsibility of  all the upcoming difficult decisions that go in the day to day operations of running a potential million dollar company.

I never said I wanted a closed market. Please read my posts again. They were never about that.

Ditto +1

+1

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.

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):

I will not sell any shares in a private transaction lower than the current market price.  As I have said, I want to increase shareholder value which is indicated by the spot price.  Shareholders do not have to worry, as I am in for the long run and want to increase the value of the company.

To me it is obvious that he should sell the shares on an open market, ALWAYS.

If Ken start selling on a "closed market", the share price will get an artificial roof @ .0008.
Since no one would ever want to bid higher than .0008.
Why would they? You can buy shares directly from Ken for that price.

I don't see how it is good for the shareholders that Ken sets the maximum price of the share.

In my eyes that is pure manipulation.

Nope, that paragraph is about the remaining 60M shares when AMC goes into being a 100M share asset. Read the contract better.

I'll try to better explain my position then.

First, lets get something straight: I'm talking about selling shares through BitFunder, not outside it. BitFunder supports sending shares between accounts.

This issue is very clear to me. If you are an investor in AMC you want the money to go to AMC!

You can't have an asset issuer compete in a secondary market. You need new shares to be sold in a primary market. Otherwise, every long-term shareholder gets screwed!

For example, lets say Ken needs to sell 1,000,000 shares now for the (imminent) purchase of materials to build Avalon boards/ new order of chips/ whatever:

• He puts them to sell on BitFunder at 0.0008.
• Next minute, he is immediately undercut at 10,[email protected] by someone, and the other minute at 5,[email protected] by another guy, etc.
• This keeps going and after a week he has sold nothing, while the undercutters were steadily selling their shares.
• Who do you think gets screwed by not getting the necessary BTC in time for buying the actual hardware? Hint: not the flippers!

Competing in a secondary market means that Ken will be forced to sell at 0.0005 if he gets constantly undercut and needs the BTC to move AMC forward, as that's the only price he's guaranteed no undercutting. Do you want that to happen again???

The more shares you own of AMC (long-term investment) the more you'll be interested that AMC sells its shares when it needs to, and the more you'll want to buy from Ken only! Every income BTC to AMC is directly increasing the value of ALL shares, while sales from flippers mean nothing to increase AMC value.

I'm done talking to the wall.

Go AMC!

Better? lol

You are both under the assumption that AMC would sell shares at a loss relative to the current price. The whole reason why a buyer and an issuer would collude to exchange shares/BTC would be at a minimum these reasons:

Buyer: No liquidity for the buyer.
Issuer: Needs to raise funds.

Given these variables, it would be safe to assume that:
the buyer, were he to invest a large amount of money into the company, he would end up paying an enormous markup as his buys increase the price.
the issuer, needs money but realizes that the buyer is in a predicament, and at the same time does not want to debase his share value.

Therefore it would be reasonable to expect that AMC would offer the Shares at a markup ABOVE the current price depending on how much the buyer wanted to invest.

P.S. There is precedent however for issuing shares below current value with the caveat that you are not allowed to sell them before a given date (only in a last ditch effort to raise money for the company). But this isn't NASDAQ, is it? In an unregulated market that would be extremely risky.


The contract says that AMC can use them as they see fit, that does not mean that he won't. You're creating a fallacy in order to create an argument. There is no fallacy save yours. Your last sentence contradicts what you said in the previous paragraph

I've said this before, VBS I appreciate your enthusiasm, but unfortunately, I'm afraid you aren't seeing the issue clearly.

All shares should be sold through the exchange, please stop encouraging outside sales (this is basic, I really don't get why this is an issue).  If someone wants to buy $80,000 worth of shares, let all share holders benefit from that purchase.  All share holders are speculating on future value, even you.  If Ken decided to sell 'off-exchange' for cheaper, then nobody would buy from the exchange until the price equalized (driving the spot price down).

Ken has already ran afoul of investor sentiment, lets not make it 500 times worse by selling off-exchange.

Also, to clear up one misconception.  I've previously stated that it is crazy that the remaining 15mil unsold shares are being paid dividends.  I accept it however as it was in the original write up.  However, you are wrong in thinking that the dividends paid to these shares will directly go back into buying more equipment.  This is a falicy that you seem to have convinced yourself of.  The actual verbiage is:


As you can see, Ken can use those funds for whatever he wants.

It would be a big mistake for Ken, or anyone who owns a company to sell shares outside of an exchange because it would undermine confidence in that exchange.  Undermine the exchange and you undermine the confidence of investors.  In addition, although flippers might get in, flippers actually benefit AMC.

Here is why: Let's say the price of AMC goes to 0.00085
And let's say that AMC decides in need more capital to buy more mining equipment, or pay for a more secure facility from which to operate the miners, and AMC puts 1,000,000 shares on the market for less than market price, let's say at 0.00005. That would undermine flippers, but it would also anger existing large investors. It would also cause a drop in confidence in anyone who might want to hold on to AMC stock for the long term, because none of us would have confidence that the price would hold.  Sure, some of the bigger investors have faith that Ken will get all the machines he ordered and will get them all up and running and will generate returns, but manipulate the price of the stock and some of us will lose confidence and might just dump our shares and that would be damaging to overall public confidence in AMC as a trustworthy, stable company.

Let's AMC needs more capital and releases 1,000,000 shares at market price. Well, some flippers could come in and offer their shares as at a lower price. They would make profit as their shares sold, but after the flippers sold out what they have, the shares AMC put on the market would sell, and would be sold at a higher price, generating more income for AMC.

The price of shares of any stock is determined by the market. If someone who does not already hold shares were for whatever reason sold shares at below market price outside of the exchange, it would cause great concern to those large share holders who are currently believe in AMC for the long haul but who would feel undermined by such a sale outside of the exchange.

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.