whatever the case may be...I think this subject deserves some sort of comment from AM. They must have some ideas how they will proceed. Better we know now than when it is too late (havelock shuttered)
Can't believe even colored coins and counterparts are under attack too though!?! I thought they were immune to this BS.
Topic: ASICMINER: Entering the Future of ASIC Mining by Inventing It - page 143. (Read 3917058 times)
October 28, 2014, 04:17:53 PM
October 28, 2014, 04:13:47 PM
Correct, but highly unlikely China will assist the SEC in any action, making any action impossible. Far more likely, the SEC will concentrate its efforts elsewhere.
Agreed, but they dont have to assist the SEC if we assume they ID-ed friedcat. Is friedcat willing to be charged and prosecuted in the US, even if his government will never extradite him? Fun prospect for a young entrepreneur to never be able to travel to the US. And for that matter, I have no idea if what he is doing is at all legal under Chinese law. Somehow I would be surprised securities would be less regulated in China than in the west. Whether or not Chinese authorities care, who knows, but they do seem to care a lot about bitcoin exchanges..
October 28, 2014, 04:11:23 PM
AM is in China, SEC is an American thing. The SEC has no jurisdiction beyond the States.
You must be new here
I cant believe how often that BS has been posted and debunked, yet keeps being sprouted.
AM is selling unregistered securities to (unsophisticated) US investors, and therefore subject to SEC regulation, no matter where they are located. Same goes for EU regulations and investors, Japanese, and basically.. everywhere else.
And so Id say yes, its highly likely AM was among the targeted companies offering securities on directly on bitcointalk:
http://cointelegraph.com/news/112811/us-regulators-one-two-punch-sec-probes-crowdsales-fincen-takes-aim-at-exchanges
What about Havelock/Panama? I'm unfamiliar with the relationship between Panamanian government and US regulatory agencies.
October 28, 2014, 04:01:13 PM
AM is in China, SEC is an American thing. The SEC has no jurisdiction beyond the States.
You must be new here
I cant believe how often that BS has been posted and debunked, yet keeps being sprouted.
AM is selling unregistered securities to (unsophisticated) US investors, and therefore subject to SEC regulation, no matter where they are located. Same goes for EU regulations and investors, Japanese, and basically.. everywhere else.
And so Id say yes, its highly likely AM was among the targeted companies offering securities on directly on bitcointalk:
http://cointelegraph.com/news/112811/us-regulators-one-two-punch-sec-probes-crowdsales-fincen-takes-aim-at-exchanges
October 28, 2014, 03:55:44 PM
AM is in China, SEC is an American thing. The SEC has no jurisdiction beyond the States.
You must be new here
I cant believe how often that BS has been posted and debunked, yet keeps being sprouted.
AM is selling unregistered securities to (unsophisticated) US investors, and therefore subject to SEC regulation, no matter where they are located. Same goes for EU regulations and investors, Japanese, and basically.. everywhere else.
And so Id say yes, its highly likely AM was among the targeted companies offering securities on directly on bitcointalk:
http://cointelegraph.com/news/112811/us-regulators-one-two-punch-sec-probes-crowdsales-fincen-takes-aim-at-exchanges
The letters are being sent out to companies performing offerings on Counterparty, Cryptostocks, companies hosting offerings with colored coins, and companies who have performed unregistered securities offerings via Bitcoin Talk. In all cases, the SEC is employing a team of researchers to track down the people or companies behind each offering via forum messages, domain registration information, transfers of funds via exchanges and other means.
October 28, 2014, 03:29:35 PM
So...has AM got any grief from the SEC or any plans if it does?
AM is in China, SEC is an American thing. The SEC has no jurisdiction beyond the States.
October 28, 2014, 03:23:18 PM
So...has AM got any grief from the SEC or any plans if it does?
October 28, 2014, 11:39:16 AM
Well, there's AMHash2 thru AMHash 5, offered at a potentially higher initial price.
Higher? You mean higher than you are ?
You may want to check how few have sold so far.
...hence my criticism about expectation-setting? Man, this place is weird.
The place comes across as weird because of this limitation. Although some of the players...
October 28, 2014, 11:32:26 AM
Well, there's AMHash2 thru AMHash 5, offered at a potentially higher initial price.
Higher? You mean higher than you are ?
You may want to check how few have sold so far.
...hence my criticism about expectation-setting? Man, this place is weird.
October 28, 2014, 11:25:30 AM
Well, there's AMHash2 thru AMHash 5, offered at a potentially higher initial price.
Higher? You mean higher than you are ?
You may want to check how few have sold so far.
October 28, 2014, 11:23:04 AM
I think it would been a far more successful IPO launch to offer a tremoundous price per hash for the IPO, which would then attract investors and stimulate the buying and selling on havelock after the IPO. The way it is priced now, although a decent and fair price, you can only really imagine the price going down and that's even if the IPO gets filled at all.
So, a loss leader? I would worry about expectation-setting for AMHash2, if that contract will be structured like AMHash1.
Really this is like a gift from AM
So...a loss leader
It doesn't follow as they have no other product to offer.
AM needs to unload the chips before the end of their useful life. Chip sales aren't working - I believe this us more of a "plan D". Loss leader simply doesn't fit in this context but I may be missing something.
Well, there's AMHash2 thru AMHash 5, offered at a potentially higher initial price.
There's also simply the movement of overstock to reduce inventory and stimulate cash flow. Which in turn funds the development and sale of Gen 4.
I agree though, that this is semantics, and a bit of a Plan D. I still think that an AM special dividend would work wonders in stimulating demand for AMHash 1.
October 28, 2014, 11:19:49 AM
If anything, I think going through havelock is preferential to all the other cloud miners out there. Doing so Guarantees a secondary market, rather than being locked in for the duration of the contract like so many others. True, it could be explained better, but the difficulty is that friedcat is offering a lot more information than you generally get from cloud miners.
Whether amhash1 will be a profitable investment is another story.
Certainly this is a great idea if you have the time, money and expertise available. Havelock us convenient and the chips are getting moldy! Get 'er done!
October 28, 2014, 11:14:44 AM
I think it would been a far more successful IPO launch to offer a tremoundous price per hash for the IPO, which would then attract investors and stimulate the buying and selling on havelock after the IPO. The way it is priced now, although a decent and fair price, you can only really imagine the price going down and that's even if the IPO gets filled at all.
So, a loss leader? I would worry about expectation-setting for AMHash2, if that contract will be structured like AMHash1.
Really this is like a gift from AM
So...a loss leader
It doesn't follow as they have no other product to offer.
AM needs to unload the chips before the end of their useful life. Chip sales aren't working - I believe this us more of a "plan D". Loss leader simply doesn't fit in this context but I may be missing something.
October 28, 2014, 11:11:51 AM
If anything, I think going through havelock is preferential to all the other cloud miners out there. Doing so Guarantees a secondary market, rather than being locked in for the duration of the contract like so many others. True, it could be explained better, but the difficulty is that friedcat is offering a lot more information than you generally get from cloud miners.
Whether amhash1 will be a profitable investment is another story.
October 28, 2014, 11:02:25 AM
I think it would been a far more successful IPO launch to offer a tremoundous price per hash for the IPO, which would then attract investors and stimulate the buying and selling on havelock after the IPO. The way it is priced now, although a decent and fair price, you can only really imagine the price going down and that's even if the IPO gets filled at all.
So, a loss leader? I would worry about expectation-setting for AMHash2, if that contract will be structured like AMHash1.
Really this is like a gift from AM
So...a loss leader
October 28, 2014, 10:33:10 AM
Number 2 seems like a longshot if AMhash1 doesn't sell. You would need to make a much better offer then even though Amhash1 is already very good when it comes to cloud mining.
I also think that going through Havelock is a mistake. All others are using their own website and using Havelock just confuses customers. Is it a stock or is it cloud mining? Also, the convoluted way of describing associated costs/profits is just lol. As seen in this thread people don't get it and you need to do some math to understand it. It makes it a lot less appealing!
EDIT: What I mean is that with the right website and marketing this could be a great enterprise but the way it is done right now....
I also think that going through Havelock is a mistake. All others are using their own website and using Havelock just confuses customers. Is it a stock or is it cloud mining? Also, the convoluted way of describing associated costs/profits is just lol. As seen in this thread people don't get it and you need to do some math to understand it. It makes it a lot less appealing!
EDIT: What I mean is that with the right website and marketing this could be a great enterprise but the way it is done right now....
If anything, I think going through havelock is preferential to all the other cloud miners out there. Doing so Guarantees a secondary market, rather than being locked in for the duration of the contract like so many others. True, it could be explained better, but the difficulty is that friedcat is offering a lot more information than you generally get from cloud miners.
Whether amhash1 will be a profitable investment is another story.
October 28, 2014, 09:26:43 AM
Number 2 seems like a longshot if AMhash1 doesn't sell. You would need to make a much better offer then even though Amhash1 is already very good when it comes to cloud mining.
I also think that going through Havelock is a mistake. All others are using their own website and using Havelock just confuses customers. Is it a stock or is it cloud mining? Also, the convoluted way of describing associated costs/profits is just lol. As seen in this thread people don't get it and you need to do some math to understand it. It makes it a lot less appealing!
EDIT: What I mean is that with the right website and marketing this could be a great enterprise but the way it is done right now....
I also think that going through Havelock is a mistake. All others are using their own website and using Havelock just confuses customers. Is it a stock or is it cloud mining? Also, the convoluted way of describing associated costs/profits is just lol. As seen in this thread people don't get it and you need to do some math to understand it. It makes it a lot less appealing!
EDIT: What I mean is that with the right website and marketing this could be a great enterprise but the way it is done right now....
October 28, 2014, 08:28:32 AM
Can Rockminer or Friedcat comment on what happens to the remaining hashrate that doesn't sell during the IPO? Will it be used as self mining or reissued at a lower price?
If we can't sell out all of 5P,there are several ways to deal with the remaining hashrates :
1 Sell to big customers directly,some of customers who want to buy lots of hashrates are contacting with us.
2 Sell them with another IPO at HaveLock,such as AMHash2...
3 Sell them at our own website,like other cloud mining companies did.
4 Be always self mining.
I appreciate the reply Rockxie, that answers some questions, but I guess I was getting at what a few other people mentioned afterwards, namely, who currently owns the units? Were they sold to Rockminer by AM? Or are they just being franchised by RM, in which case, are normal franchising fees being paid on these units? Is there some other arrangement besides the aforementioned?
October 28, 2014, 06:39:55 AM
How much does AM profit from this deal anyway? For every GH sold on havelock, how much does AM get ?
I'm understandig this AMHash thing that way:
AM is selling tubes/prismas in bulk with a little lower price than 1.0BTC/TH to RM. With delayed payment agreement.
RM is building a farm (adding PSU, infrastructure etc.) and selling shares of that farm (1.25BTC/TH). When IPO will close RM will pay for hardware to AM. If not all shares will be sold RM will mine for AM, taking maintenance fee (or AM will be the owner of shares). Deducted from previous answers of rockxie.
October 28, 2014, 06:29:31 AM
How much does AM profit from this deal anyway? For every GH sold on havelock, how much does AM get ?
I don't have the answer you seek, but for clarity, are you asking what the split between RM and AM is?
Jump to: