[AMC]-The Official Active Mining Cooperative Discussion - page 42.

lewicki

sr. member

Activity: 294

Merit: 250

Quote from: kslaughter on July 02, 2013, 02:22:34 PM

Quote from: Thalum on July 02, 2013, 02:12:55 PM

Quote from: lewicki on July 02, 2013, 02:06:27 PM

Quote from: SoylentCreek on July 02, 2013, 01:55:53 PM

I wonder if there should be somewhere in the contract that states that VMC cannot issue new shares to the market at a certain percentage above current market value. Many investors, myself included, were facepalming really hard when Ken dropped 2,000,000 shares out there at three times the value of what they were currently going for. Thoughts?

Enacting a board will go a long way in stamping peculiarities out.

+1

It also spreads the load somewhat.

When we put out the 2M shares, the price was above our ask.

I think in hindsight though, a lot of energy(money) was wasted to move the price from .008 to .04 then back to .0025. AMC didn't catch any of that (all profits went to flippers). Once AMC released the shares, they then had to fight tooth and nail against everyone to bought between .0008 and .0025.

matuszed

full member

Activity: 154

Merit: 100

Quote from: kslaughter on July 02, 2013, 02:22:34 PM

Quote from: Thalum on July 02, 2013, 02:12:55 PM

Quote from: lewicki on July 02, 2013, 02:06:27 PM

Quote from: SoylentCreek on July 02, 2013, 01:55:53 PM

I wonder if there should be somewhere in the contract that states that VMC cannot issue new shares to the market at a certain percentage above current market value. Many investors, myself included, were facepalming really hard when Ken dropped 2,000,000 shares out there at three times the value of what they were currently going for. Thoughts?

Enacting a board will go a long way in stamping peculiarities out.

+1

It also spreads the load somewhat.

When we put out the 2M shares, the price was above our ask.

True. The market was a little under .0040 before the ask wall went up.

kslaughter

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 250

Quote from: Thalum on July 02, 2013, 02:12:55 PM

Quote from: lewicki on July 02, 2013, 02:06:27 PM

Quote from: SoylentCreek on July 02, 2013, 01:55:53 PM

I wonder if there should be somewhere in the contract that states that VMC cannot issue new shares to the market at a certain percentage above current market value. Many investors, myself included, were facepalming really hard when Ken dropped 2,000,000 shares out there at three times the value of what they were currently going for. Thoughts?

Enacting a board will go a long way in stamping peculiarities out.

+1

It also spreads the load somewhat.

When we put out the 2M shares, the price was above our ask.

Thalum

newbie

Activity: 49

Merit: 0

Quote from: lewicki on July 02, 2013, 02:06:27 PM

Quote from: SoylentCreek on July 02, 2013, 01:55:53 PM

I wonder if there should be somewhere in the contract that states that VMC cannot issue new shares to the market at a certain percentage above current market value. Many investors, myself included, were facepalming really hard when Ken dropped 2,000,000 shares out there at three times the value of what they were currently going for. Thoughts?

Enacting a board will go a long way in stamping peculiarities out.

+1

It also spreads the load somewhat.

lewicki

sr. member

Activity: 294

Merit: 250

Quote from: SoylentCreek on July 02, 2013, 01:55:53 PM

I wonder if there should be somewhere in the contract that states that VMC cannot issue new shares to the market at a certain percentage above current market value. Many investors, myself included, were facepalming really hard when Ken dropped 2,000,000 shares out there at three times the value of what they were currently going for. Thoughts?

Enacting a board will go a long way in stamping peculiarities out.

Entropy-uc

hero member

Activity: 756

Merit: 501

Quote from: steveioio on July 02, 2013, 09:35:36 AM

Look I'm no rocket scientist but what sort of company holding lots of peoples money has it's structure organized and formulated by some random strangers on an internet thread?

Think about it - your money is in the hands of a company with NO CLUE.

If they can't sort out their own share structure (and have already F-ed up bigtime once already) HOW THE HELL ARE THEY GOING TO MAKE MILLIONS WITH INCREDIBLY COMPLEX ASIC MACHINES? BLF has a team of complete experts yet look at the trouble, the delays, the let downs. How do you think one guy from Springfield who used to run a web hosting server in his garage do? If he's no scammer then he is a very very naive and incompetent businessman. If you want to invest in success you need to invest in talent. I don't see any here.

You are vastly overstating BFL's competence. But you are on the edge of an important question for evaluating an investment.

The real question to ask is:

If someone with as few qualifications as Ken can deliver ASICs, how many others will have custom chips available?

SoylentCreek

sr. member

Activity: 266

Merit: 250

I wonder if there should be somewhere in the contract that states that VMC cannot issue new shares to the market at a certain percentage above current market value. Many investors, myself included, were facepalming really hard when Ken dropped 2,000,000 shares out there at three times the value of what they were currently going for. Thoughts?

Thalum

newbie

Activity: 49

Merit: 0

Phew, so I'm not mad then! And yes, I think it would be best that Uyko be approached and asked to implement something like this. So it seem that unsold shares receiving dividends seems to be a product of bitfunder's architecture, but I think that it needs to be dealt with. I'm not sure whether making small batches of shares available is the right way to go though. Companies should know roughly how much money it needs for various expenses. As such, it would be good to know from Ken what the company's accounts look like: how much has been raised thus far, what the total assets are, future outgoings, etc etc etc, so we get a fuller idea of where we need to be heading in the future.

Look at this eh? Crowd-sourced business enterprises!

Vbs

hero member

Activity: 504

Merit: 500

Quote from: auto2nr1 on July 02, 2013, 01:26:25 PM

Looks like that is the only way. Ken can put up small walls at a fixed price and as those shares start to disappear he can make more available until he feels enough capital has been raised. Thanks for the explanation VBS.

Np. I'm welcoming the feeling of typing anything here and it not disappearing behind 3 pages, just 5 minutes later! Grin

auto2nr1

sr. member

Activity: 350

Merit: 250

Quote from: Vbs on July 02, 2013, 01:22:52 PM

Quote from: auto2nr1 on July 02, 2013, 01:19:31 PM

I understand. I did not know that is not supported by BitFunder. Maybe we can ask exchange owner Ukyo to take a look into this and make some changes? I know it's a long shot but if we can get this implemented where only sold shares would get dividends it would be great.

Yes. That would be the best choice. The current workaround is to only create those shares in small batches as they are being bought, so a minimum amount of "unissued" shares exist.

Looks like that is the only way. Ken can put up small walls at a fixed price and as those shares start to disappear he can make more available until he feels enough capital has been raised. Thanks for the explanation VBS.

Vbs

hero member

Activity: 504

Merit: 500

Quote from: auto2nr1 on July 02, 2013, 01:19:31 PM

I understand. I did not know that is not supported by BitFunder. Maybe we can ask exchange owner Ukyo to take a look into this and make some changes? I know it's a long shot but if we can get this implemented where only sold shares would get dividends it would be great.

Yes. That would be the best choice. The current workaround is to only create those shares in small batches as they are being bought, so a minimum amount of "unissued" shares exist.

auto2nr1

sr. member

Activity: 350

Merit: 250

Quote from: Vbs on July 02, 2013, 01:15:30 PM

Quote from: auto2nr1 on July 02, 2013, 01:10:29 PM

This is another issue we need to work on. The dividends are being paid on all the 40m shares issued sold and unsold. This does not make sense for unsold shares to be paid dividends. Only sold shares should be paid dividends. I hope this can be changed so only sold shares can be paid dividends.

It's not supported by BitFunder. It only supports splitting dividends by all, even if they are not sold. That's why they must not be "created" at all, until they are about to be sold.

I understand. I did not know that is not supported by BitFunder. Maybe we can ask exchange owner Ukyo to take a look into this and make some changes? I know it's a long shot but if we can get this implemented where only sold shares would get dividends it would be great.

lewicki

sr. member

Activity: 294

Merit: 250

Quote from: Thalum on July 02, 2013, 01:00:15 PM

You seem to know what you're talking about VBS, so I think I'd be happy with a structure like that. So long as there's space for the valuation to increase over time, rather than topping out at an extreme valuation and having to space to move, most people would be happy I'd guess.

Just as a separate point, this is the profile for TAT.ASICMINER (https://bitfunder.com/asset/TAT.ASICMINER)

Under the 'Shares Total', it's 10 million, and under 'shares issued', it's 24,468. The dividends are split up over this 24,468, not the 10 million. So to me, that seems like 24,468 have been sold. Does AMC follow the same structure?

From what Lewiki said earlier:

Quote

6,530,741 shares have been sold on bitfunder and 500K on BTC-TC. The rest(20M + unsold public shares), go to reinvestment.

But dividends are split up over 40 million on bitfunder. What am I missing, given what I mentioned earlier about unsold shares and dividend payments.

P.S. Sorry, I know I keep banging on about this, but I'm actively trying to learn, not derail.

Yes 40 million of 100 million are issued. 40m recieve equal dividends.

Vbs

hero member

Activity: 504

Merit: 500

Quote from: auto2nr1 on July 02, 2013, 01:10:29 PM

This is another issue we need to work on. The dividends are being paid on all the 40m shares issued sold and unsold. This does not make sense for unsold shares to be paid dividends. Only sold shares should be paid dividends. I hope this can be changed so only sold shares can be paid dividends.

It's not supported by BitFunder. It only supports splitting dividends by all, even if they are not sold. That's why they must not be "created" at all, until they are about to be sold.

Vbs

hero member

Activity: 504

Merit: 500

Quote from: Thalum on July 02, 2013, 01:00:15 PM

You seem to know what you're talking about VBS, so I think I'd be happy with a structure like that. So long as there's space for the valuation to increase over time, rather than topping out at an extreme valuation and having to space to move, most people would be happy I'd guess.

Just as a separate point, this is the profile for TAT.ASICMINER (https://bitfunder.com/asset/TAT.ASICMINER)

Under the 'Shares Total', it's 10 million, and under 'shares issued', it's 24,468. The dividends are split up over this 24,468, not the 10 million. So to me, that seems like 24,468 have been sold. Does AMC follow the same structure?

From what Lewiki said earlier:

Quote

6,530,741 shares have been sold on bitfunder and 500K on BTC-TC. The rest(20M + unsold public shares), go to reinvestment.

But dividends are split up over 40 million on bitfunder. What am I missing, given what I mentioned earlier about unsold shares and dividend payments.

P.S. Sorry, I know I keep banging on about this, but I'm actively trying to learn, not derail.

For TAT.AM it means ThickAsThieves is backing those 24,468 with 244.68 "real" Asicminer shares (the real dividends are coming from those; actually, 232.446 "real" AM shares, since he takes a 5% cut). That is just a "pass-though" asset, which means he receives the BTC from AM to his own shares and then pays it to TAT.AM shareholders.

Yes, AMC dividends are split into 40M, that's why on VMC reinvestment should not be done this way (using shares for a cut).

auto2nr1

sr. member

Activity: 350

Merit: 250

Quote from: Thalum on July 02, 2013, 01:00:15 PM

You seem to know what you're talking about VBS, so I think I'd be happy with a structure like that. So long as there's space for the valuation to increase over time, rather than topping out at an extreme valuation and having to space to move, most people would be happy I'd guess.

Just as a separate point, this is the profile for TAT.ASICMINER (https://bitfunder.com/asset/TAT.ASICMINER)

Under the 'Shares Total', it's 10 million, and under 'shares issued', it's 24,468. The dividends are split up over this 24,468, not the 10 million. So to me, that seems like 24,468 have been sold. Does AMC follow the same structure?

From what Lewiki said earlier:

Quote

6,530,741 shares have been sold on bitfunder and 500K on BTC-TC. The rest(20M + unsold public shares), go to reinvestment.

But dividends are split up over 40 million on bitfunder. What am I missing, given what I mentioned earlier about unsold shares and dividend payments.

P.S. Sorry, I know I keep banging on about this, but I'm actively trying to learn, not derail.

This is another issue we need to work on. The dividends are being paid on all the 40m shares issued sold and unsold. This does not make sense for unsold shares to be paid dividends. Only sold shares should be paid dividends. I hope this can be changed so only sold shares can be paid dividends.

auto2nr1

sr. member

Activity: 350

Merit: 250

Quote from: Vbs on July 02, 2013, 12:10:15 PM

Quote from: auto2nr1 on July 02, 2013, 12:03:26 PM

Yes sir, that makes total sense. We are on the same page. As long as we do not see dilution of future shares to lower the % of ownership and dividends the shareholders will be happy. As Ken said he will try to eliminate that from happening. I do understand AMC now gets a whole new business added onto what it was first set out to do. We just have to find a good balance to keep everyone happy and things fair. Win/Win situation for both parties involved is what i want and this will help us succeed.

Just a quick example to get everyone on the same page on this.

Numbers are fictitious!

Case 1: Initial setup

Shares - Investors: 10M
Shares - Ken: 15M
VMC's Assets: ฿10,000
Assets per share: ฿10,000/25M = ฿0.00040

Case 2: Extra 5M shares created and sold to investors at ฿0.0004

Shares - Investors: 15M
Shares - Ken: 15M
VMC's Assets: ฿12,000
Assets per share: ฿12,000/30M = ฿0.00040

As long as the assets per share stay the same or increase, you are always OK! Grin

Bottom line: You can increase the amount of shares, but they must be priced accordingly.

As long as our % or piece of the pie is not taken away from us to devalue the shares that we own i think investors will continue to hold shares and purchase more shares since they will see value these shares. No one wants to hold shares when they know it will not hold value in the future. If investors do not see value in the shares in the long run that brings flippers that want to trade to make a quick turnaround. Let's do everything on our power to minimize dilution of shares so the shares retain and increase in value.

I think the reason

Quote from: 4ju5tice on July 02, 2013, 11:45:11 AM

Quote from: ajk on July 02, 2013, 11:16:57 AM

the number of shares in a company do not matter the %'s do,

having a large number of shares opens option for higher liquidity and more people to purchase shares since they are at a very affordable price,

what matters most is Ken and of his operations actual legitimacy, granted it makes it a bit easier to figure out the numbers there are benefits to having the shares the way they are,

this seems like its going on the right path so far, ill probably put a few coins in the future after more things are in place

In my opinion the biggest changes that would be best would be Board member seats and voting rights

its like we are seeing a whole different Ken the response is honestly what the thread needed so thank you for that!!

And yeah, I think having a bajillion shares is great. Just look at Asicminer, they're running at around 4.5btc a share now. They're hardly affordable to a lot of the btc community. When AMC/VMC or whatever it'll be develops more, the large number of shares should make it a more reasonably priced investment for people to make. Which will be beneficial to every shareholder.

I am not saying we should have a small cap. We would need to have a reasonable amount of shares that is needed to raise capital to get this venture moving forward in the present and in the future if more capital is needed. A fair number of shares is also needed for liquidity and also for it to be affordable to the average investor. But at the same time ASICMINER shares hold so much value due to the limited supply. They have stated no more shares will be issued so the 400,000 shares issued will never be diluted. I want to follow this business model in regards to shares being issued, keeping the % the same for shareholders, and the pie staying the same in size.

Thalum

newbie

Activity: 49

Merit: 0

You seem to know what you're talking about VBS, so I think I'd be happy with a structure like that. So long as there's space for the valuation to increase over time, rather than topping out at an extreme valuation and having to space to move, most people would be happy I'd guess.

Just as a separate point, this is the profile for TAT.ASICMINER (https://bitfunder.com/asset/TAT.ASICMINER)

Under the 'Shares Total', it's 10 million, and under 'shares issued', it's 24,468. The dividends are split up over this 24,468, not the 10 million. So to me, that seems like 24,468 have been sold. Does AMC follow the same structure?

From what Lewiki said earlier:

Quote

6,530,741 shares have been sold on bitfunder and 500K on BTC-TC. The rest(20M + unsold public shares), go to reinvestment.

But dividends are split up over 40 million on bitfunder. What am I missing, given what I mentioned earlier about unsold shares and dividend payments.

P.S. Sorry, I know I keep banging on about this, but I'm actively trying to learn, not derail.

Vbs

hero member

Activity: 504

Merit: 500

Quote from: auto2nr1 on July 02, 2013, 12:03:26 PM

Yes sir, that makes total sense. We are on the same page. As long as we do not see dilution of future shares to lower the % of ownership and dividends the shareholders will be happy. As Ken said he will try to eliminate that from happening. I do understand AMC now gets a whole new business added onto what it was first set out to do. We just have to find a good balance to keep everyone happy and things fair. Win/Win situation for both parties involved is what i want and this will help us succeed.

Just a quick example to get everyone on the same page on this.

Numbers are fictitious!

Case 1: Initial setup

Shares - Investors: 10M
Shares - Ken: 15M
VMC's Assets: ฿10,000
Assets per share: ฿10,000/25M = ฿0.00040

Case 2: Extra 5M shares created and sold to investors at ฿0.0004

Shares - Investors: 10M + 5M = 15M
Shares - Ken: 15M
VMC's Assets: ฿10,000 + ฿2,000 = ฿12,000
Assets per share: ฿12,000/30M = ฿0.00040

As long as the assets per share stay the same or increase, you are always OK! Grin

Bottom line: You can increase the amount of shares, but they must be priced accordingly.

auto2nr1

sr. member

Activity: 350

Merit: 250

Quote from: Vbs on July 02, 2013, 11:48:39 AM

Quote from: auto2nr1 on July 02, 2013, 11:24:53 AM

This is true and the percentage of ownership should stay the same without any dilution to that percentage. Therefore we should work towards capping out the amount of shares which would keep the pie at the same size. The percentages of ownership of the company and dividends will stay the same without having it being diluted. This is the main point. Hopefully we can work to make this agreement between you and the shareholders. If you can create new shares as you wish then this will lower the percentages of those who are holding shares. They will take away the pieces of the pie and shareholders will not be happy.

Like I said earlier, it's not that linear.

Quote

They will take away the pieces of the pie and shareholders will not be happy.

But the pie is also getting bigger, from the profits VMC receives when purchasers pay for those shares (and yourself as a shareholder, who now owns shares of something with more capital/assets).

So you now own a lesser % of the pie, but your piece can also be bigger than it was, because the pie grew.

Makes sense? Grin

Yes sir, that makes total sense. We are on the same page. As long as we do not see dilution of future shares to lower the % of ownership and dividends the shareholders will be happy. As Ken said he will try to eliminate that from happening. I do understand AMC now gets a whole new business added onto what it was first set out to do. We just have to find a good balance to keep everyone happy and things fair. Win/Win situation for both parties involved is what i want and this will help us succeed.

Quote from: kslaughter on July 02, 2013, 11:34:26 AM

We are going to try and keep that from happening, however shareholders will need to consider that they are getting a whole new business plus keeping AMC's business too when they swap their shares for VMC's shares.

Topic: [AMC]-The Official Active Mining Cooperative Discussion - page 42. (Read 223316 times)