[AMC]-The Official Active Mining Cooperative Discussion - page 150.

Minor Miner

legendary

Activity: 2464

Merit: 1020

Be A Digital Miner

Quote from: rikur on May 24, 2013, 05:43:55 PM

I contacted BitFunder and they are now investigating this IPO.

Really? But the assumptions of OP seem so reasonable. He was only assuming taking (and maintaining) 25% of the entire network for the next 24 months by purchasing 8% of the available avalons (he sent Yifu an email you know) and then making his own chips....
Not sure if he assumed no one else would have any interest in competing with him. He is only 8 months behind friedcat so why not?

auto2nr1

sr. member

Activity: 350

Merit: 250

There is good questions in regards to AMC/VMC in this thread. Would you be able to answer all questions asked with clarity in detail? This would help bring confidence and trust to those of us who are already invested and potential future investors. Thanks.

rikur

full member

Activity: 216

Merit: 100

I contacted BitFunder and they are now investigating this IPO.

kslaughter

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 250

Quote from: carnitastaco on May 24, 2013, 04:50:27 PM

Hi KSlaughter-

Can you provide more info about your development of 45 and 28 nm chips? I'm not asking for intricate technical details, but as a point of comparison, when Friedcat was posting about development of the Block Eruptor chip, he provided info like an IC layout (https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1092163) and discussion of the software packages his team was using (https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1100925) that allowed observers to have some confidence that his team actually knew what they were talking about and was really producing something.

Also, no offense intended whatsoever, but a lot of your posts read like English is a second language for you, based on sentence structure, conjugations (especially the lack thereof), typos, and lack of clarity. What's up with that? A "Kenneth Slaughter" of Missouri who's been doing business (presumably in the US) with his nephew Gerald for 30 years shouldn't write supposedly official docs like the ones you've posted, and the best case scenario for you, that you're just rushed/sloppy enough to misspell the name of the state you're registered in in the very first line of your description of "who is VMC" does not exactly inspire confidence- "Herefore" isn't even a word. I'm not trying to be a grammar nit, just my impression from reading through this whole thread.

We are in the process of porting our Bitcoin mining software to 45nm and 28nm chips using the semiconductors tools. This is being done to see if it is feasible to continue the development process on this chip. Should it turn out to be feasible, then we would go to production on the chip.

The RTL is written in Verilog and is highly optimized for Bitcoin mining. The code has been synthesised in Xilinx and the semiconductor company is currently porting the code using
its tool to see if it feasible to run the code on their chip.

I hope this helps.

rikur

full member

Activity: 216

Merit: 100

Quote from: kslaughter on March 26, 2013, 12:36:07 AM

AMC is a hybrid Bitcoin mining and development cooperative describing itself as "the next big mining cooperative" is releasing today an offering to early-adopters of Five million (5,000,000) BitFunder virtual shares and issuing another twenty million (20,000,000) BitFunder virtual shares which will be used for the growth and expansion fund, which will receive a total of 100% of the company's virtual-currency profits after all expenses until the total dividends paid is equal to the offering price of .0005 BTC per share and 12 months have elapsed since the initial offering. The Cooperative is hoping to raise up to 2,500 Bitcoins. The offering price will be 0.0005 Bitcoins for the first 20,000,000 early-adopter shares thereafter the price will be .001 BTC per share. If demand is strong enough then share prices may increase throughout the IPO.

If the IPO of the first 20 000 000 shares is stlll ongoing, why aren't they priced at 0.0005 as per the initial offering?

carnitastaco

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 250

Hi KSlaughter-

Can you provide more info about your development of 45 and 28 nm chips? I'm not asking for intricate technical details, but as a point of comparison, when Friedcat was posting about development of the Block Eruptor chip, he provided info like an IC layout (https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1092163) and discussion of the software packages his team was using (https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1100925) that allowed observers to have some confidence that his team actually knew what they were talking about and was really producing something.

Also, no offense intended whatsoever, but a lot of your posts read like English is a second language for you, based on sentence structure, conjugations (especially the lack thereof), typos, and lack of clarity. What's up with that? A "Kenneth Slaughter" of Missouri who's been doing business (presumably in the US) with his nephew Gerald for 30 years shouldn't write supposedly official docs like the ones you've posted, and the best case scenario for you, that you're just rushed/sloppy enough to misspell the name of the state you're registered in in the very first line of your description of "who is VMC" does not exactly inspire confidence- "Herefore" isn't even a word. I'm not trying to be a grammar nit, just my impression from reading through this whole thread.

fently

member

Activity: 66

Merit: 10

Bleh!

Quote from: Vbs on May 24, 2013, 04:37:17 PM

Wow, so many people after the quick money.

So basically, the tantrum is because only other people can benefit from increased share prices, while AMC has to be content on selling as low as possible?

Nice.

The reason people invest is for the potential returns. Your reference to "quick money" completely ignores the deception on the part of the issuer and instead chooses to attack those who were deceived. It means you have no substance to your argument.

Remember, they didn't just increase the price, they increased it, and then decreased it, let it rise, then decreased it again, over and over again, effectively trapping anyone who bought at anything higher than 0.0005 into either taking a loss or hoping beyond hope that there aren't more deceptions down the line.

Vbs

hero member

Activity: 504

Merit: 500

Wow, so many people after the quick money.

So basically, the tantrum is because only other people can benefit from increased share prices, while AMC has to be content on selling as low as possible?

Nice.

rikur

full member

Activity: 216

Merit: 100

Quote from: fently on May 24, 2013, 04:07:56 PM

The IPO is still going on.

See: https://bitfunder.com/assetlist

The two largest holders used to add up to almost 40 million shares. Some of those shares were put up in a single ask at around 4.5 million or so. During that time maybe about 300k were sold. Then the ask was pulled, and the price rose. Large volume buying ensued, so that right now they have sold over 1 million shares. Much of that has sold at well above 0.0005. You can find out whether one of those larger accounts is selling at 0.0005 by taking a snapshot of the assets list, buying one share, and then taking another snapshot to compare. How long that strategy remains useful is hard to know because we may have some sales happening between two people who own the same account -- a possibility that is very real given the circumstances.

For the record, I'm one of the top ten shareholders, and this activity does not serve my interests.

Thanks for taking the time to explain this.

AMC: I've been following this stock closely and own a relatively nice chunk of them, however I will stop buying more unless I see them at the IPO price. Heck, might stop for good: I feel very stupid now because I paid upto 0.0008 for some of my shares. I thought the IPO was over because there were no asks at IPO price.

fently

member

Activity: 66

Merit: 10

Bleh!

The IPO is still going on.

See: https://bitfunder.com/assetlist

The two largest holders used to add up to almost 40 million shares. Some of those shares were put up in a single ask at around 4.5 million or so. During that time maybe about 300k were sold. Then the ask was pulled, and the price rose. Large volume buying ensued, so that right now they have sold over 1 million shares. Much of that has sold at well above 0.0005. You can find out whether one of those larger accounts is selling at 0.0005 by taking a snapshot of the assets list, buying one share, and then taking another snapshot to compare. How long that strategy remains useful is hard to know because we may have some sales happening between two people who own the same account -- a possibility that is very real given the circumstances.

For the record, I'm one of the top ten shareholders, and this activity does not serve my interests.

rikur

full member

Activity: 216

Merit: 100

AMC: is it you who keeps on selling massive amounts of shares to push the price down to 0.0005? I can't see how it would be anyone else and I think this is very misleading, since people have put up offers 50% over the IPO price in good faith. Please elaborate.

I love the mining concept, but something isn't right here or at least needs more transparency.

fently

member

Activity: 66

Merit: 10

Bleh!

Wonder how people would have responded if the issuer had informed people that he was going to both increase and decrease the price throughout the IPO. I was planning to quadruple my investment in AMC. I decided against it due to this behavior.

nebulus

hero member

Activity: 490

Merit: 500

... it only gets better...

Ok, let me elaborate...

5 million of early-adopter shares were on the market for sale on May 15, 2013. These are no longer there because issuer realised he screwed up. This is what I call retrieval and he should own up to that. Maybe explain why the placement is no more. Something like "early-adopter volume no longer trading, sorry".

Now, the whole "shares may increase in price" bit usually applies to the following releases not what was put on the market. If he wants to get them off he should buy them that way it does not appear like fuckery. Since what happened the contract started appearing quite misleading. It uses fancy terms but is out of touch with reality. When I read it I saw 5 mil shares on the market and an ongoing IPO, now I don't know what is going on.

Any more questions?

Vbs

hero member

Activity: 504

Merit: 500

Quote from: nebulus on May 24, 2013, 02:19:41 PM

IPO volume issued to the market was retrieved. Any more questions?

Quote from: kslaughter on March 26, 2013, 12:36:07 AM

AMC is a hybrid Bitcoin mining and development cooperative describing itself as "the next big mining cooperative" is releasing today an offering to early-adopters of Five million (5,000,000) BitFunder virtual shares and issuing another twenty million (20,000,000) BitFunder virtual shares which will be used for the growth and expansion fund, which will receive a total of 100% of the company's virtual-currency profits after all expenses until the total dividends paid is equal to the offering price of .0005 BTC per share and 12 months have elapsed since the initial offering. The Cooperative is hoping to raise up to 2,500 Bitcoins. The offering price will be 0.0005 Bitcoins for the first 20,000,000 early-adopter shares thereafter the price will be .001 BTC per share. If demand is strong enough then share prices may increase throughout the IPO.

I'm still seeing him selling them, so I'm sorry but I fail to see the retrieval. Also, upon closer inspection, the contract also states that share prices may increase throughout the IPO.

nebulus

hero member

Activity: 490

Merit: 500

... it only gets better...

Quote from: Vbs on May 24, 2013, 02:01:49 PM

Quote from: fently on May 24, 2013, 11:53:45 AM

I read every word. I am objecting to the issuer playing the market.

If you wouldn't make a fuss unless they violate the contract, then you wouldn't object to the scenario where they spend 100% of funds on wages to produce a technology that is never used.

I'm further perturbed by how the issuer seems only sorry that people are upset, not about his actions.

Playing the market? Huh

IPO volume issued to the market was retrieved. Any more questions?

kslaughter

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 250

Quote from: Vbs on May 24, 2013, 02:01:49 PM

Quote from: fently on May 24, 2013, 11:53:45 AM

I read every word. I am objecting to the issuer playing the market.

If you wouldn't make a fuss unless they violate the contract, then you wouldn't object to the scenario where they spend 100% of funds on wages to produce a technology that is never used.

I'm further perturbed by how the issuer seems only sorry that people are upset, not about his actions.

Playing the market? Huh

Please link the part stating the issuer has the obligation to sell at a specific price past IPO. In fact, I would be more worried if the issuer only sells at a minimum price, as that would mean less coin for AMC to buy what it needs and more coin for the market traders that just want a quick profit.

I could not say it better myself.

Vbs

hero member

Activity: 504

Merit: 500

Quote from: fently on May 24, 2013, 11:53:45 AM

I read every word. I am objecting to the issuer playing the market.

If you wouldn't make a fuss unless they violate the contract, then you wouldn't object to the scenario where they spend 100% of funds on wages to produce a technology that is never used.

I'm further perturbed by how the issuer seems only sorry that people are upset, not about his actions.

Playing the market? Huh

Please link the part stating the issuer has the obligation to sell at a specific price past IPO. In fact, I would be more worried if the issuer only sells at a minimum price, as that would mean less coin for AMC to buy what it needs and more coin for the market traders that just want a quick profit.

fently

member

Activity: 66

Merit: 10

Bleh!

Quote from: Vbs on May 24, 2013, 11:48:52 AM

Thanks for the heads up. Unfortunately not everyone read the contract with due care, which lead to this fuss.

I read every word. I am objecting to the issuer playing the market.

If you wouldn't make a fuss unless they violate the contract, then you wouldn't object to the scenario where they spend 100% of funds on wages to produce a technology that is never used.

I'm further perturbed by how the issuer seems only sorry that people are upset, not about his actions.

Vbs

hero member

Activity: 504

Merit: 500

Thanks for the heads up. Unfortunately not everyone read the contract with due care, which lead to this fuss.

kslaughter

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 250

Quote from: fently on May 24, 2013, 10:54:25 AM

Quote from: Vbs on May 24, 2013, 10:46:40 AM

Quote from: fently on May 24, 2013, 10:06:34 AM

Absolutely. But misleading potential investors can be dramatically more costly.

I still don't understand all this fuss. Noone read the initial statement before knowing what they were getting into?

Quote from: kslaughter on March 26, 2013, 01:31:30 AM

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. Any remaining shares not included in the
IPO are owned/maintained/controlled by AMC. These shares will be used at the issuers discretion
for any uses deemed fit. These uses are not limited to, but may include employment.

If this is how they act at the outset, then you won't make a fuss when I refer you to the IPO contract where it says they are free to use the funds for wages, and then tell you they had to spend it all on wages. And you wouldn't make a fuss about VMC not using the technology that AMC developed, with the result that VMC doesn't have to pay 10% to AMC. It's not about the contract. It's about trust.

Sorry, to get everyone upset. Here is my intention.

I am going to do everything to the best of my ability to make investors investment in AMC pay off for them.

As our contract with VMC states I will do what is in the best interest of AMC and its investors.

I just want to thanks all of the investors who have invested in AMC. I am working hard to make this work for
you.

Topic: [AMC]-The Official Active Mining Cooperative Discussion - page 150. (Read 223316 times)