[AMC]-The Official Active Mining Cooperative Discussion - page 44.

SoylentCreek

sr. member

Activity: 266

Merit: 250

Quote from: auto2nr1 on July 02, 2013, 10:25:12 AM

Quote from: Vbs on July 02, 2013, 10:14:55 AM

Quote from: auto2nr1 on July 02, 2013, 10:06:38 AM

Lets do a straight 50/50 relationship. 50% shares for investors and the public. 50% goes to fund goes to Ken and the management team as well as the reinvestment fund. 10m shares for the public, 5m for reinvest and 5m for managment and operations.

No reinvestment fund using shares please.

Any reinvestment "fund" is just taken out from the revenue. Deprived has already made this point clear many times.

We can't have a fixed amount of shares for paying expenses, as those will vary from month to month. VMC needs proper accounting.

Shares are just a means to distribute the profits, after all expenses are paid.

Got it. I understand where you are coming from. So 50% for AMC and 50% for VMC. VMC can use what they feel is necessary to pay bills and reinvest what is necessary to continue to grow. So there is no exact designation of shares on a monthly basis.

I certainly think this is the best approach. I just do not think Ken will be willing to relinquish more than 40% of the company.

auto2nr1

sr. member

Activity: 350

Merit: 250

Quote from: Vbs on July 02, 2013, 10:14:55 AM

Quote from: auto2nr1 on July 02, 2013, 10:06:38 AM

Lets do a straight 50/50 relationship. 50% shares for investors and the public. 50% goes to fund goes to Ken and the management team as well as the reinvestment fund. 10m shares for the public, 5m for reinvest and 5m for managment and operations.

No reinvestment fund using shares please.

Any reinvestment "fund" is just taken out from the revenue. Deprived has already made this point clear many times.

We can't have a fixed amount of shares for paying expenses, as those will vary from month to month. VMC needs proper accounting.

Shares are just a means to distribute the profits, after all expenses are paid.

Got it. I understand where you are coming from. So 50% for AMC and 50% for VMC. VMC can use what they feel is necessary to pay bills and reinvest what is necessary to continue to grow. So there is no exact designation of shares on a monthly basis.

lewicki

sr. member

Activity: 294

Merit: 250

Quote from: Vbs on July 02, 2013, 10:14:55 AM

We can't have a fixed amount of shares for paying expenses, as those will vary from month to month. VMC needs proper accounting.

Shares are just a means to distribute the profits, after all expenses are paid.

+1

Quote from: auto2nr1 on July 02, 2013, 10:20:39 AM

Maybe 30-35% which would leave 15-20% for managements expenses. What do you guys think? It sounds fair right?

This should be left up to the internal accounting of VMC

auto2nr1

sr. member

Activity: 350

Merit: 250

Once again lets look at ASICMINER's business model. BitFountain has a little over 50% shares and investors have about 50% of the shares. The management team controls those shares to operate and reinvest. AMC investors should have 50% of the shares and AMC's management team (VMC) should have the other half and they can do what they seem is fit for operations and growth. More reinvestment would be wanted as a shareholder. Maybe 30-35% which would leave 15-20% for managements expenses. What do you guys think? It sounds fair right?

steveioio

member

Activity: 70

Merit: 10

Quote from: SoylentCreek on July 02, 2013, 10:14:39 AM

Guys, just ignore the troll! Please do not let this thread derail back into the shit pile it has been over the last few days.

Anyone who has been reading the past two pages will see the only off-topic statements and personal insults have been entirely from you. Ironic isn't it. Maybe they would do better ignoring you?

Vbs

hero member

Activity: 504

Merit: 500

Quote from: auto2nr1 on July 02, 2013, 10:06:38 AM

Lets do a straight 50/50 relationship. 50% shares for investors and the public. 50% goes to fund goes to Ken and the management team as well as the reinvestment fund. 10m shares for the public, 5m for reinvest and 5m for managment and operations.

No reinvestment fund using shares please.

Any reinvestment "fund" is just taken out from the revenue. Deprived has already made this point clear many times.

We can't have a fixed amount of shares for paying expenses, as those will vary from month to month. VMC needs proper accounting.

Shares are just a means to distribute the profits, after all expenses are paid.

SoylentCreek

sr. member

Activity: 266

Merit: 250

Guys, just ignore the troll! Please do not let this thread derail back into the shit pile it has been over the last few days.

SoylentCreek

sr. member

Activity: 266

Merit: 250

Quote from: auto2nr1 on July 02, 2013, 10:06:38 AM

Lets do a straight 50/50 relationship. 50% shares for investors and the public. 50% goes to fund goes to Ken and the management team as well as the reinvestment fund. 10m shares for the public, 5m for reinvest and 5m for managment and operations.

Ken has already expressed that he's thinking of reducing his ownership down to 60%. I highly doubt that he is willing to go any lower (maybe 55% would be likely). If I went through the process of trying to startup a business such as this, I would want to retain majority ownership for as long as it is necessary.

steveioio

member

Activity: 70

Merit: 10

Quote from: SoylentCreek on July 02, 2013, 09:55:17 AM

You hear that? It's the sound of no one caring.

Don't fool yourself - you don't talk for everyone on this thread.

Quote from: SoylentCreek on July 02, 2013, 09:55:17 AM

I think a majority of us who have a stake in this company, put in no more than we were willing to lose.

You really think so? Incredible.

Quote from: SoylentCreek on July 02, 2013, 09:55:17 AM

Now, we are working to try to get this company in a position where we will hopefully see some decent ROI at some point.

You still don't get it do you? Us doubters have given you the chance at success. A slim one but now there is a glimmer - which could well be a false dawn.

Quote from: SoylentCreek on July 02, 2013, 09:55:17 AM

Now, if you have nothing else to add, please run along sweet child.

How patronizing. Is there any need to get personal here?

Exocyst

sr. member

Activity: 266

Merit: 250

Science!

Quote from: steveioio on July 02, 2013, 10:04:33 AM

Quote from: mobile on July 02, 2013, 09:51:41 AM

There was some obvious some gaps with share structure & business side of things, which leaves much room for improvement. If Ken's talent is "engineering" & structuring the company is not then all that is left is improvement from the business side of things, which in my mind is not a massive hurdle.

The point was clear - BFL have not one (self proclaimed) tech expert like Ken but a room full. And they have STRUGGLED for how long in this market? How many missed deadlines and non-shipping of goods promised are people going to take from AMC before the shares you all paid good money for nose dive? What happens then? Does VMC fold?

Lets face it - everyone is looking at the upside potential of these shares and that's natural as everyone wants to be wealthy. But just stop for a minute and think about how the hell one guy is going to do what BFL couldn't do. BFL are coming round now but if Ken takes that long VMC will fail. If he's twice as quick to the market he might do well. CAN HE BE TWICE AS QUICK TO THE MARKET AS BFL? WITH ALL THEIR EXPERTISE THEY COULDN'T DO WHAT KEN IS PROMISING.

That's the logistical concern and it's a massive one ontop of the legal side of this, let's face it, farce.

I don't think BFL is the poster child for successful ASIC entry. Look instead at Avalon or ASICMINER. Certainly there are lessons from BFL to be learned, but remember that BFL has been mimicking those manufacturers of late both in terms of increased pricing and bulk chips sales.

auto2nr1

sr. member

Activity: 350

Merit: 250

Lets do a straight 50/50 relationship. 50% shares for investors and the public. 50% goes to fund goes to Ken and the management team as well as the reinvestment fund. 10m shares for the public, 5m for reinvest and 5m for managment and operations.

Exocyst

sr. member

Activity: 266

Merit: 250

Science!

Quote from: SoylentCreek on July 02, 2013, 09:58:10 AM

Quote from: Exocyst on July 02, 2013, 09:54:36 AM

A couple points, so they don't get lost in the share shuffle. These would help VMC succeed:

VMC Contract on Bitfunder can be changed with shareholder approval (this would have made AMC capture of VMC much simpler)
VMC can post motions for shareholder approval (this would have made VMC capture of AMC much simpler)
Plan to passthrough new VMC offering to btct.co, so that BitFunder wary investors have another option for investing (this will obviously take time to get approved LTC-GLOBAL, so is not a top priority but I would like to see a plan in place)

Technically, if VMC plans to always hold 60% of the company, then there is no need to allow voting privileges, other than it being a good gesture. However, the option to modify the contract is a definite must that should have been implemented originally.

It is critical to have a voting provision, for Ken to have the ability to poll shareholder opinion in a formal way rather than on this forum thread which is not limited to shareholders.

steveioio

member

Activity: 70

Merit: 10

Quote from: mobile on July 02, 2013, 09:51:41 AM

There was some obvious some gaps with share structure & business side of things, which leaves much room for improvement. If Ken's talent is "engineering" & structuring the company is not then all that is left is improvement from the business side of things, which in my mind is not a massive hurdle.

The point was clear - BFL have not one (self proclaimed) tech expert like Ken but a room full. And they have STRUGGLED for how long in this market? How many missed deadlines and non-shipping of goods promised are people going to take from AMC before the shares you all paid good money for nose dive? What happens then? Does VMC fold?

Lets face it - everyone is looking at the upside potential of these shares and that's natural as everyone wants to be wealthy. But just stop for a minute and think about how the hell one guy is going to do what BFL couldn't do. BFL are coming round now but if Ken takes that long VMC will fail. If he's twice as quick to the market he might do well. CAN HE BE TWICE AS QUICK TO THE MARKET AS BFL? WITH ALL THEIR EXPERTISE THEY COULDN'T DO WHAT KEN IS PROMISING.

That's the logistical concern and it's a massive one ontop of the legal side of this, let's face it, farce.

SoylentCreek

sr. member

Activity: 266

Merit: 250

Quote from: Exocyst on July 02, 2013, 09:54:36 AM

A couple points, so they don't get lost in the share shuffle. These would help VMC succeed:

VMC Contract on Bitfunder can be changed with shareholder approval (this would have made AMC capture of VMC much simpler)
VMC can post motions for shareholder approval (this would have made VMC capture of AMC much simpler)
Plan to passthrough new VMC offering to btct.co, so that BitFunder wary investors have another option for investing (this will obviously take time to get approved LTC-GLOBAL, so is not a top priority but I would like to see a plan in place)

Technically, if VMC plans to always hold 60% of the company, then there is no need to allow voting privileges, other than it being a good gesture. However, the option to modify the contract is a definite must that should have been implemented originally.

SoylentCreek

sr. member

Activity: 266

Merit: 250

Quote from: steveioio on July 02, 2013, 09:51:03 AM

Quote from: runam0k on July 02, 2013, 09:40:06 AM

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

If you want to invest in success you need to invest in talent. I don't see any here.

Cool. Still planning to stick around or are you going to leave us to it?

If you think this situation has progressed over the past few days (it has certainly changed) then it is thanks to doubters like me not the sycophants. If me and Mega had not persisted with this you would still be in the VMC/AMC mess with no guarantees over rights and ownership. Now Ken from what I've read has said he's looking at solutions. The doubters have made him say that. Whether that is a genuine statement IS YET TO BE KNOWN.

What I'm saying basically is you need to question everything in this setup. When you get answers you then question them too. And finally if you want to invest - you do it ONCE YOU HAVE SEEN THE EVIDENCE. We are still at the question and answer stage and like I said there is still no evidence that this isn't going to end very badly. In any serious investors mind nothing has changed. It's only fools buying AMC right now and if they double or more their money here then on the next investment they will loose it - because they don't know how to ask the right questions.

You hear that? It's the sound of no one caring. I think a majority of us who have a stake in this company, put in no more than we were willing to lose. Now, we are working to try to get this company in a position where we will hopefully see some decent ROI at some point. Now, if you have nothing else to add, please run along sweet child.

Exocyst

sr. member

Activity: 266

Merit: 250

Science!

A couple points, so they don't get lost in the share shuffle. These would help VMC succeed:

VMC Contract on Bitfunder can be changed with shareholder approval (this would have made AMC capture of VMC much simpler)
VMC can post motions for shareholder approval (this would have made VMC capture of AMC much simpler)
Plan to passthrough new VMC offering to btct.co, so that BitFunder wary investors have another option for investing (this will obviously take time to get approved LTC-GLOBAL, so is not a top priority but I would like to see a plan in place)

steveioio

member

Activity: 70

Merit: 10

Quote from: SoylentCreek on July 02, 2013, 09:41:02 AM

Please do not turn this into another trollfest. We have actually been making some decent headway.

For your own benefit you really need to learn the difference between 'troll' posts and people raising areas of concern and asking genuine questions. Questions that any serious CEO and company have to answer.

SoylentCreek

sr. member

Activity: 266

Merit: 250

Quote from: lewicki on July 02, 2013, 09:43:03 AM

Quote from: Vbs on July 02, 2013, 09:19:42 AM

Quote from: kslaughter on July 02, 2013, 09:10:03 AM

My thinking right now is to reduce my ownership from 100% down to 60%

My proposal #2 for the VMC shares would be:

10M for investors at 0.0025 (40%)
15M for Ken (60%)

For a total of 25M. If more funds are needed in the future, more shares can be issued as needed, as means to increase the capital of VMC.

Ken did/is doing the hard work on everything, so he should get a nice amount of shares, and it's only thanks to him that there's an ASIC coming (one year of work already on optimizing Xilinx code).

Quote from: SoylentCreek on July 02, 2013, 09:13:54 AM

Then in that case, 15M go to overhead and 5M remain on reserve (or something to that nature) to be issued to the public on an "as needed" basis only. Once those 5M are issued, that's it, no more. Otherwise, Ken will eventually be called out again for trying to manipulate the market again.

No need to, because if more are sold, his % of VMC also diminish. If more 5M are sold, VMC banks all profits from that sale (so it's arguably increasing value) and shareholders will have 50% of VMC while Ken the other 50%.

I'm on board for something like this.

There's 6 million shares currently held by shareholders. Ken said that he needs 10,000 BTC. That WAS 4,000,000 shares @ $100/BTC. AMC sold ~1million @ around 100.0/BTC. He still needs around 8333BTC. Which is 3,333,333 shares @ .0025BTC/share @~$/90BTC

6m+~3.5m, so the 10 for investors makes sense

As far as VMC's cut:
somewhere in the 50 to 70%, so 10-15m for VMC

So:
10M for investors
10-15M for VMC, and do with it as they see fit.
2M unissued shares as reserve.

This way share price exchange is 1-1

I'm for the 25,000,000 shares split 60/40. Again, the details need to be locked in on VMC's side. I would suggest 40% for the public, 20% overhead and 40% reinvestment, or you could do 40/30/30.

mobile

sr. member

Activity: 400

Merit: 250

the sun is shining, but the ice is still slippery

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.

Reading the last couple pages of this thread is a breath of fresh air. Steveioio, not coming at you but help me understand your point on "HOW THE HELL ARE THEY GOING TO MAKE MILLIONS WITH INCREDIBLY COMPLEX ASIC MACHINES?". There was some obvious some gaps with share structure & business side of things, which leaves much room for improvement. If Ken's talent is "engineering" & structuring the company is not then all that is left is improvement from the business side of things, which in my mind is not a massive hurdle.

steveioio

member

Activity: 70

Merit: 10

Quote from: runam0k on July 02, 2013, 09:40:06 AM

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

If you want to invest in success you need to invest in talent. I don't see any here.

Cool. Still planning to stick around or are you going to leave us to it?

If you think this situation has progressed over the past few days (it has certainly changed) then it is thanks to doubters like me not the sycophants. If me and Mega had not persisted with this you would still be in the VMC/AMC mess with no guarantees over rights and ownership. Now Ken from what I've read has said he's looking at solutions. The doubters have made him say that. Whether that is a genuine statement IS YET TO BE KNOWN.

What I'm saying basically is you need to question everything in this setup. When you get answers you then question them too. And finally if you want to invest - you do it ONCE YOU HAVE SEEN THE EVIDENCE. We are still at the question and answer stage and like I said there is still no evidence that this isn't going to end very badly. In any serious investors mind nothing has changed. It's only fools buying AMC right now and if they double or more their money here then on the next investment they will loose it - because they don't know how to ask the right questions.

Topic: [AMC]-The Official Active Mining Cooperative Discussion - page 44. (Read 223316 times)