Topic: [AMC]-The Official Active Mining Cooperative Discussion - page 151. (Read 223316 times)

While I respect your opinion, remember that "trust" is also very subjective. Maybe the asset turned worthless for you, but that does not mean the same for everybody. In the end, everyone must read the contract carefully, decide what they find "fair" and proceed accordingly.

They can completely screw you over without violating the contract. Above I described just such an example: AMC spends all their money on wages to develop new technology. VMC decides not to use the technology, so they don't have to give 10% royalties to AMC. In the end, AMC just turns into a buyer of products from VMC, at cost of manufacturing. But what if ALL units wind up getting sold at cost of manufacturing, with cost of manufacturing including a well compensated executive staff?  All of this can be accomplished without breaking the contract. So the only reason to invest is because you trust the issuer. When that trust is broken, the asset is worthless.

4mil was released and then retrieved.

Let's say I was hypothetically putting a sum of money to buy that. The market was supposed to prevent me from making the deal not the issuer.

What they are doing is not IPO.

Yes, and the world can also end tomorrow. Trust is lost when lines are crossed. I still haven't seen them break anything they stated in the initial contract. Please correct me if you noticed something that I didn't.

Those are real risks, your trust should be in the contract and a clear interpretation of it, not something you do by crossing your fingers and toes.

The problem is this...

Once they are released they should stay released.

Not some back and forth Mumbo-Jumbo shit.

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.

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

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

Selling any shares right now will be more beneficial for AMC than paying 10% APR interest on the loan's outstanding balance to VMC.

As far as I can tell, they haven't violated their initial contract. But their actions have absolutely been misleading:

1) Place over 4 million shares on offer, and up selling a bit under 300k shares
2) State they have alternative funding, pull the ask
3) Sell approximately 600k more shares into the market

Granted, as far as I can tell, they didn't sell for less than 0.0005, which was the terms of the IPO. But given the facts, they were obviously deceptive.

Knowing may indeed be not the right word for my proposition. With proper representation of the shares, AMC is able to show the shares they hold themselves.

It requires trust in the asset manager to give a proper representation of reality, but thinking someone is giving a proper representation of reality, is a definition of trust.

The issuer is free to sell as many shares as he wants, when deemed necessary, as long as he is following the rules stated in the initial contract offering.

I find it funny people always want to buy everything as cheap as possible, especially since the raised funds are fundamental for AMC's success.

Transparency will not be sufficient at this point. The problem will be regaining trust. Then again, even Ziggap still sells shares every now and then

My objections is that there seems to be some flux in how the issuer approaches the market, which creates uncertainty for investors.

For a new asset, it is vital to build trust in the issuer because we are in an unregulated market where that trust is essentially the only thing separating a gold nugget and painted manure.

I mentioned this before the IPO as well, that the most important thing for an investor would be to be able to rely on the issuer to stick to their plans. Right now it seems that those plans are somewhat up for interpretation.

If an issuer says that "In this IPO we're going to issue X shares at Y price" that's fine, and the market can see whether the issuer indeed issues X shares at Y price. If the do not, either by no issuing those shares, issues more shares, issues at different prices, or fail to issue any shares at any price, then that taints the perception that the issuer's statements can be trusted.

In fact, it doesn't matter what those statements are. If the issuer says that "In our next update, we'll mention Slartibartfast" and then don't, they are not fulfilling what they are saying they will.

One of the key arguments proponets of ASICMiner has, for example, is that friedcat's goals align with his deliveries. He says "we'll to X" and they do X, or say why they can't do X and realign X based on new information. That way, the market is informed and can know what to expect when friedcat says "we're expecting more sales next week" or "we'll have 10% of the total network hashrate on average" or whatever prediction he comes up with.

.b

Capital raised for who? The company? Right... You don't know what goes back in. He can be rebuying back what he sells and you will never get out of the IPO. The 20mil * 0.0005 he supposedly owns to the shareholders will never sell out because he will always repenish his stock. This is flat out manipulation I don't know what else you would call it.

.b,

I'm trying to understand your objections and I agree there should be better practices than how its going right now.

e.g.

To create transparancy, kslaughter could make the bitfunder adressen clear for:

1. investment fund - exactly 20M shares
2. shares to be sold for fundraising of AMC (productive investment) - about 19M shares atm?

In this way it is clear no one should pay more than 0.0005 BTC (risking an investment in someone elses wallet instead of AMC), but anyone is still free to pay more. Also an assessment off the value of the asset is than a possibility, knowing the capital raised.

Since removing the sell wall they have sold more than 3 times as many shares as they had beforehand. I bought a few shares, and then realized what was going on, that they were periodically buying down to 0.0005.  So I decided to sell a few, and was repeatedly outbid on the sell. We're making high risk investments and placing a lot of trust on the issuer. In contrast, the issuer gets non-revocable funds from us up front. It's worth letting people know that the issuer is indeed still selling shares. I think this action by the issuer, first removing the wall, stating they had alternative financing, and then resuming the share sales, to be deceptive. It may not have violated the letter of what was said, but it certainly has violated my trust. I do still hold a few shares in this company but I won't be buying any more.

I may not have been clear in what I meant. The plan was to offer up to 20M shares. Price is not the point. If they offer 20M shares but then take it away, then re-offer at a different price, then possibly withdraw that, re-offering at yet another price... This means that early investors don't know what they will have to pay, which isn't really a feasible option.

In other words, this isn't an IPO any more, it is a regular market in which the issuer keeps dumping more shares into the market. That is not a good thing because the issuer suddenly becomes the judge of what a share should cost. This is the same thing that happened to 100th today, when the issuer decided to set up a sell-wall at a certan level because they felt the market was paying too high a price.

.b

I suppose that with the recent rise of BTC value compared to the $, even with less than 20 million shares sold, their goals should be met.