Topic: [AMC]-The Official Active Mining Cooperative Discussion - page 45. (Read 223316 times)

Quote from: SoylentCreek on July 02, 2013, 09:19:53 AM

Oops, I forgot how to math. Grin

3,500,000 are issued to the public all at once.
500,000 are on reserve to be issued at a later date.
2,500,000 are held by VMC to pay overhead, Ken's salary, etc.
3,000,000 are also held by VMC and all dividends that are paid to these will be reinvested into the company.

Quote

1) You need sufficient shares to do a 1-to-1 trade from AMC to VMC

I made this point earlier, which is why I said that 10,000,000 would be good only if possible. I do not know how many are currently in the public's hands.

Quote

2) There's no need to "reserve" shares

If I understand you correctly, Ken should have the ability to just make more shares out of thin air. I'm sorry, but I disagree with you on this.

Quote

3) Dividends should be only paid after expenses are factored in. It would not be good to have a fixed share value for that.

I'd like a few more people to chime in on this.

Quote

4) Having also a fixed % of reinvestment is also not good in the long term

If I'm not mistaken, this is how AM does it, and it is working fine for them. Again, there is no need to reinvent an already rolling wheel.

1) There are around 6M in public hands
2) The question is not about making shares out of thin air. It's about that any shares created must be sold for profit to VMC's coffers, so that VMC's capital increases. It's not making shares out of thin air and gifting them with VMC receiving nothing in return.
4) AM varies the % they keep for reinvestment based on many fluctuating things. That's why you never know what the next dividend is gonna be. Grin

lewicki

sr. member

Activity: 294

Merit: 250

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

SoylentCreek

sr. member

Activity: 266

Merit: 250

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

Quote from: SoylentCreek on July 02, 2013, 09:19:53 AM

Oops, I forgot how to math. Grin

3,500,000 are issued to the public all at once.
500,000 are on reserve to be issued at a later date.
2,500,000 are held by VMC to pay overhead, Ken's salary, etc.
3,000,000 are also held by VMC and all dividends that are paid to these will be reinvested into the company.

1) You need sufficient shares to do a 1-to-1 trade from AMC to VMC
2) There's no need to "reserve" shares
3) Dividends should be only paid after expenses are factored in. It would not be good to have a fixed share value for that.
4) Having also a fixed % of reinvestment is also not good in the long term

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.

Then don't invest. Problem solved. Please do not turn this into another trollfest. We have actually been making some decent headway.

runam0k

legendary

Activity: 1092

Merit: 1001

Touchdown

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?

SoylentCreek

sr. member

Activity: 266

Merit: 250

Quote from: SoylentCreek on July 02, 2013, 09:19:53 AM

Oops, I forgot how to math. Grin

3,500,000 are issued to the public all at once.
500,000 are on reserve to be issued at a later date.
2,500,000 are held by VMC to pay overhead, Ken's salary, etc.
3,000,000 are also held by VMC and all dividends that are paid to these will be reinvested into the company.

Quote

1) You need sufficient shares to do a 1-to-1 trade from AMC to VMC

I made this point earlier, which is why I said that 10,000,000 would be good only if possible. I do not know how many are currently in the public's hands.

Quote

2) There's no need to "reserve" shares

If I understand you correctly, Ken should have the ability to just make more shares out of thin air. I'm sorry, but I disagree with you on this.

Quote

3) Dividends should be only paid after expenses are factored in. It would not be good to have a fixed share value for that.

I'd like a few more people to chime in on this.

Quote

4) Having also a fixed % of reinvestment is also not good in the long term

If I'm not mistaken, this is how AM does it, and it is working fine for them. Again, there is no need to reinvent an already rolling wheel.

steveioio

member

Activity: 70

Merit: 10

Quote from: SoylentCreek on July 02, 2013, 09:19:53 AM

Oops, I forgot how to math. Grin

3,500,000 are issued to the public all at once.
500,000 are on reserve to be issued at a later date.
2,500,000 are held by VMC to pay overhead, Ken's salary, etc.
3,000,000 are also held by VMC and all dividends that are paid to these will be reinvested into the company.

1) You need sufficient shares to do a 1-to-1 trade from AMC to VMC
2) There's no need to "reserve" shares
3) Dividends should be only paid after expenses are factored in. It would not be good to have a fixed share value for that.
4) Having also a fixed % of reinvestment is also not good in the long term

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.

Vbs

hero member

Activity: 504

Merit: 500

Quote from: SoylentCreek on July 02, 2013, 09:19:53 AM

Oops, I forgot how to math. Grin

3,500,000 are issued to the public all at once.
500,000 are on reserve to be issued at a later date.
2,500,000 are held by VMC to pay overhead, Ken's salary, etc.
3,000,000 are also held by VMC and all dividends that are paid to these will be reinvested into the company.

1) You need sufficient shares to do a 1-to-1 trade from AMC to VMC
2) There's no need to "reserve" shares
3) Dividends should be only paid after expenses are factored in. It would not be good to have a fixed share value for that.
4) Having also a fixed % of reinvestment is also not good in the long term

SoylentCreek

sr. member

Activity: 266

Merit: 250

Quote from: SoylentCreek on July 02, 2013, 09:17:04 AM

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

Quote from: SoylentCreek on July 02, 2013, 08:56:31 AM

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

So, my proposal for the VMC shares would be:

9 to 10M for investors at 0.0025
10M for Ken

For a total of 19-20M. 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).

Thoughts?

These numbers look sensible to me!

Would this number be viable for a 1 to 1 share swap? How many shares have currently been issued and are owned by the public. If that number is or will exceed 9,000,000, then that will not work. Here's my suggestion for issuing shares.

10,000,000 Total (if possible)

4,500,000 are issued to the public all at once
2,000,000 are held by VMC to pay overhead, Ken's salary, etc.
3,500,000 are also held by VMC and all dividends that are paid to these will be reinvested into the company.

At no point or time should Ken or VMC be able to increase shares, or sell to the public any of the 5.5M that are held by VMC.

The total number of shares does not matter much, as the price per share will fall in accordingly. Offering more shares to the public if needed is a benefit to VMC, not a drawback. What if VMC needs more capital now, but don't has enough dividends to cover it?

- The public holds around 6M AMC shares, with around 3-4M more to be sold at .0025 for the NRE.
- Ken should be intitled to around 50-70% of the total shares, for all the work he has done so far and continues to do.
- VMC should hold no shares. Reinvestment cash should be taken as a cut from profits before issuing dividends. Having always a fixed % for reinvestment doesn't make sense in the long term.

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

Then in that case:

4,000,000 are issued to the public all at once.
500,000 are on reserve to be issued at a later date.
2,000,000 are held by VMC to pay overhead, Ken's salary, etc.
3,000,000 are also held by VMC and all dividends that are paid to these will be reinvested into the company.

Oops, I forgot how to math. Grin

3,500,000 are issued to the public all at once.
500,000 are on reserve to be issued at a later date.
2,500,000 are held by VMC to pay overhead, Ken's salary, etc.
3,000,000 are also held by VMC and all dividends that are paid to these will be reinvested into the company.

Vbs

hero member

Activity: 504

Merit: 500

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%.

steveioio

member

Activity: 70

Merit: 10

Everyone is getting really excited over nothing of substance. Please hold out until you see real evidence and get the contractual certainty you need before taking this seriously. It's not smart to rush back into this after a few assurances made on a forum. They won't stand up in court. You need a contract and evidence and until that materialises you are throwing good money after bad.

How do any of you know this isn't a ploy to get more money flooding into AMC before the big dissapearing act? The answer is you don't.
A few more days hyping this 'new development' up could net Mr Slaughter a dream-sized wad of cash.

And even forgetting the scam line - if this is a genuine company how do you know they are competant enough to follow through? What happens 3months down the line when they can't deliver and shares nose dive back to 0.0005 or lower? There is only one way to invest in any company and that is based on facts, evidence and finally projections of profit. You only have the last one of these three right now = sit on your hands.

SoylentCreek

sr. member

Activity: 266

Merit: 250

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

Quote from: SoylentCreek on July 02, 2013, 08:56:31 AM

So, my proposal for the VMC shares would be:

9 to 10M for investors at 0.0025
10M for Ken

For a total of 19-20M. 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).

Thoughts?

These numbers look sensible to me!

Would this number be viable for a 1 to 1 share swap? How many shares have currently been issued and are owned by the public. If that number is or will exceed 9,000,000, then that will not work. Here's my suggestion for issuing shares.

10,000,000 Total (if possible)

4,500,000 are issued to the public all at once
2,000,000 are held by VMC to pay overhead, Ken's salary, etc.
3,500,000 are also held by VMC and all dividends that are paid to these will be reinvested into the company.

At no point or time should Ken or VMC be able to increase shares, or sell to the public any of the 5.5M that are held by VMC.

The total number of shares does not matter much, as the price per share will fall in accordingly. Offering more shares to the public if needed is a benefit to VMC, not a drawback. What if VMC needs more capital now, but don't has enough dividends to cover it?

- The public holds around 6M AMC shares, with around 3-4M more to be sold at .0025 for the NRE.
- Ken should be intitled to around 50-70% of the total shares, for all the work he has done so far and continues to do.
- VMC should hold no shares. Reinvestment cash should be taken as a cut from profits before issuing dividends. Having always a fixed % for reinvestment doesn't make sense in the long term.

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

Then in that case:

4,000,000 are issued to the public all at once.
500,000 are on reserve to be issued at a later date.
2,000,000 are held by VMC to pay overhead, Ken's salary, etc.
3,000,000 are also held by VMC and all dividends that are paid to these will be reinvested into the company.

SoylentCreek

sr. member

Activity: 266

Merit: 250

Quote from: SoylentCreek on July 02, 2013, 08:56:31 AM

So, my proposal for the VMC shares would be:

9 to 10M for investors at 0.0025
10M for Ken

For a total of 19-20M. 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).

Thoughts?

These numbers look sensible to me!

Would this number be viable for a 1 to 1 share swap? How many shares have currently been issued and are owned by the public. If that number is or will exceed 9,000,000, then that will not work. Here's my suggestion for issuing shares.

10,000,000 Total (if possible)

4,500,000 are issued to the public all at once
2,000,000 are held by VMC to pay overhead, Ken's salary, etc.
3,500,000 are also held by VMC and all dividends that are paid to these will be reinvested into the company.

At no point or time should Ken or VMC be able to increase shares, or sell to the public any of the 5.5M that are held by VMC.

The total number of shares does not matter much, as the price per share will fall in accordingly. Offering more shares to the public if needed is a benefit to VMC, not a drawback. What if VMC needs more capital now, but don't has enough dividends to cover it?

- The public holds around 6M AMC shares, with around 3-4M more to be sold at .0025 for the NRE.
- Ken should be intitled to around 50-70% of the total shares, for all the work he has done so far and continues to do.
- VMC should hold no shares. Reinvestment cash should be taken as a cut from profits before issuing dividends. Having always a fixed % for reinvestment doesn't make sense in the long term.

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.

kslaughter

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 250

Quote from: SoylentCreek on July 02, 2013, 08:56:31 AM

Quote from: SoylentCreek on July 02, 2013, 08:56:31 AM

So, my proposal for the VMC shares would be:

9 to 10M for investors at 0.0025
10M for Ken

For a total of 19-20M. 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).

Thoughts?

These numbers look sensible to me!

Would this number be viable for a 1 to 1 share swap? How many shares have currently been issued and are owned by the public. If that number is or will exceed 9,000,000, then that will not work. Here's my suggestion for issuing shares.

10,000,000 Total (if possible)

4,500,000 are issued to the public all at once
2,000,000 are held by VMC to pay overhead, Ken's salary, etc.
3,500,000 are also held by VMC and all dividends that are paid to these will be reinvested into the company.

At no point or time should Ken or VMC be able to increase shares, or sell to the public any of the 5.5M that are held by VMC.

The total number of shares does not matter much, as the price per share will fall in accordingly. Offering more shares to the public if needed is a benefit to VMC, not a drawback. What if VMC needs more capital now, but don't has enough dividends to cover it?

- The public holds around 6M AMC shares, with around 3-4M more to be sold at .0025 for the NRE.
- Ken should be intitled to around 50-70% of the total shares, for all the work he has done so far and continues to do.
- VMC should hold no shares. Reinvestment cash should be taken as a cut from profits before issuing dividends. Having always a fixed % for reinvestment doesn't make sense in the long term.

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

Vbs

hero member

Activity: 504

Merit: 500

Quote from: SoylentCreek on July 02, 2013, 08:56:31 AM

So, my proposal for the VMC shares would be:

9 to 10M for investors at 0.0025
10M for Ken

For a total of 19-20M. 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).

Thoughts?

These numbers look sensible to me!

Would this number be viable for a 1 to 1 share swap? How many shares have currently been issued and are owned by the public. If that number is or will exceed 9,000,000, then that will not work. Here's my suggestion for issuing shares.

10,000,000 Total (if possible)

4,500,000 are issued to the public all at once
2,000,000 are held by VMC to pay overhead, Ken's salary, etc.
3,500,000 are also held by VMC and all dividends that are paid to these will be reinvested into the company.

At no point or time should Ken or VMC be able to increase shares, or sell to the public any of the 5.5M that are held by VMC.

The total number of shares does not matter much, as the price per share will fall in accordingly. Offering more shares to the public if needed is a benefit to VMC, not a drawback. What if VMC needs more capital now, but don't has enough dividends to cover it?

- The public holds around 6M AMC shares, with around 3-4M more to be sold at .0025 for the NRE.
- Ken should be intitled to around 50-70% of the total shares, for all the work he has done so far and continues to do.
- VMC should hold no shares. Reinvestment cash should be taken as a cut from profits before issuing dividends. Having always a fixed % for reinvestment doesn't make sense in the long term.

SoylentCreek

sr. member

Activity: 266

Merit: 250

Quote from: FloatesMcgoates on July 01, 2013, 09:52:50 PM

So, my proposal for the VMC shares would be:

9 to 10M for investors at 0.0025
10M for Ken

For a total of 19-20M. 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).

Thoughts?

These numbers look sensible to me!

Would this number be viable for a 1 to 1 share swap? How many shares have currently been issued and are owned by the public. If that number is or will exceed 9,000,000, then that will not work. Here's my suggestion for issuing shares.

10,000,000 Total (if possible)

4,500,000 are issued to the public all at once
2,000,000 are held by VMC to pay overhead, Ken's salary, etc.
3,500,000 are also held by VMC and all dividends that are paid to these will be reinvested into the company.

At no point or time should Ken or VMC be able to increase shares, or sell to the public any of the 5.5M that are held by VMC.

I should also mention that it should be made clear in the offering that dividends will be based on all revenue generated by the company (Chips, hardware sales, royalties, etc).

zxyzxy

full member

Activity: 133

Merit: 100

Quote from: ?? on ??

The general feeling I am getting is that most people including myself are getting past the "AMC might be a scam" point to more of a "The way Kenneth Slaughter has set these 2 companies up is not optimal for the shareholder" viewpoint.

Few (paid) shills and dozen of really dumb investors got the lead but that does not mean scam is scam no more. I'm losing interest in helping a lot
of stupid people not got skinned here. How easily most can be persuaded into beliving anything and switch sides is disturbing. You people still have
no clue even who is Ken but it takes not much more than him posting "I'm not scammer" for you to belive it.

Sweet dreams!

SoylentCreek

sr. member

Activity: 266

Merit: 250