Topic: [BitFunder] Asset Exchange Marketplace + Rewritable Options Trading - page 52. (Read 129419 times)

Apologies for starting this row by talking about AMC. It may have been a good idea to create a new thread for it. (Maybe a moderator can move these select comments to a new thread?)

Here is my point of view as an investor. This is just my opinion. And I think I've posted something similar on Burnside's thread too.

I believe in the broken window fallacy. Shit companies attract more shit companies on an exchange. Awesome companies attract more awesome companies on an exchange. While the exchange should try to remain neutral and not judge the valuation of the company, it should have some kind of a vetting process that gets rid of most obvious scams.

My suggestions on what would help:

1. Have a pre-IPO announce and wait period. Every IPO should be announced at least 1 week in advance. Let the potential investors read the description and the plans. And ask questions or seek clarifications. Only after the 1 week period has gone by - should the exchange decide to list the security or not - after going through the feedback.

2. Ask the promoters to reveal who they are and why they are capable. If they don't want to do so publicly, a trusted escrow should be used.

These 2 things should make sure worthless and possibly scam securities don't get listed.

Great over-reaction.  Nice escalation.  Good shift of focus.  Way to treat a "Tier 3" BitFunder customer.

The asset you side-step around had a thread up for discussion for some time before voters approved it.  It still does.  Post there.  I'm but one of many in charge of approvals and your contribution is welcome.

Instead of assuming the worst, how about we assume that I was an early investor in Asicminer, (I was, tho not nearly enough!) and saw similar potential here, (I did) then with 10 minutes of digging discovered that the guy is ordering gear (interstate commerce) thus conducting business under an unregistered trade name (mail fraud? IANAL) and claiming (falsely) the legal protection of incorporation.  How might that change your response?  (thank you? you're welcome.) Do I assume this was malicious?  (no)  After seeing all the claims of experience in the description do I assume this was inept?  (pretty much have to.  read the pdf's on the MO website I linked.)  Is it important for other investors to know?  (duh)  Does it leave me feeling good about the new AMC CEO?  (let's discuss...)


So with AMC... is it real?  Or is it not?  I can't tell.  Where does it say?


Did we read different descriptions?

First off, I think you really need to take a few hours to relax.

Secondly,
There are many other assets out there asking for people to put their money in with little to less information, esp regarding company relations.

Third,
You are correct. BitFunder makes no claims or suggestions that users BTC holdings or shares have no real world value should the need arise to be questioned for/by users.
Furthermore, BitFunder makes no assertions, or suggestions that any holdings therein are purely virtual within a contained "virtual economic ecosystem" with no tie-in to anything tangible.
Any agreement of real world tangibility is at the sole agreement between any issuer and it's members.
BitFunder makes no definitive claims to being a mediator, arbitrator, or enforcer of these direct agreements.

Fourth,
Not sure that I poked fun as much as questioned it. To my understanding your current ToS is outdated. "Bits" and all that. You have not wanted to fix it for 3 months now.
I think far more people make fun of BitFunders.

Additionally,
When investing into anything that is pseudo-anonymous and unregulated online, you should always do your research, and check things out as best as you can.
Especially if they are claiming to be purely virtual to begin with, leaving little to no legal standing for any sort of recourse of action should it be needed.
No matter how hard you try, or what you check into, it is a gamble. You can only try your best.

As an operator, I try to keep an objective mind open about all assets. I will question the ones that sound funny to me, and look for what facts that can be determined.
I have my personal opinion on many assets. I can say I think X is a scam because of Y, or Z is a scam because they just over charge, or that Y is begging for money for
something I think will never take off. However, because I am an operator, that puts me in a very delicate position publicly. For this reason I try to keep those final thoughts
to myself, or to a few people who I may talk to privately about.

When it comes to BitFunder, I try to give everyone a fair chance. If they have something that has a possible chance of being worth investing in, regardless of if other people agree with it, think its overpriced, or whatever their personal opinions may be of it, it's worth letting them post it.

A good example would be if someone made a quick demo website, and said they wanted to post it for investments before launching, with no intentions to use the funds towards the website in question, no registered business, and asking for half a million dollars or more.
I would probably be highly wary of a possible scam, especially if the site required a registered entity to do its business and did not even have that ready.
While I might not outright deny such a high risk asset request, I would put special limitations on it.
In this case, since the funds are not required for the site to open, the income would remain frozen until the site fully launched, and proved it could do the things it claims.
This way users funds are at least protected to some extent, and a few minutes of work and some claims of what might happen in the future does not cost people tens, to hundreds of thousands in losses if the business was to never get registered, had launch problems, the banks close accounts, or the guy simply gives up an disappears with the funds.
All this without a promise to pay back the funding, because it was meant to go right into pocket regardless of what happens.
I do not know of other exchanges that would enforce such a thing on the users behalf before allowing it to launch currently.
Then again, there are only 5 or so and I could be highly mistaken.

In the case of AMC, he has proven (to the best that can be at the moment) that he has purchased some equipment, and looking for investment into the possible earnings of the equipment.
He may have and offer other ideals and concepts in the future, but nothing is promised or guaranteed. Since the current equipment has already been purchased for the asset, who is anyone to question what prices he sets to be part of it? Sure, he could set a price higher than most might pay. This just means that most.. will not pay it. People have minds to decide their own personal risk factor. Do I agree with his pricing? Honestly, it is a matter of personal opinion. No different than peoples opinions of what price per share of Satoshi Dice or AsicMiner should traded at. As mentioned above, I think it's irreverent more so because it is my opinion.

A good many current day traded assets were funded based off of hopes and dreams of issuers. Some higher priced, some lower at their listing time.
Some who's dreams come true, some who's seen a horrible fate and may have even been able to at least get back some or all of their losses to look towards a new dream.

Final Thoughts:
Investors Beware. Always. Investing is a risk. Do not risk anything you can not afford to loose. Regardless of any documentations, or any other provided information.

No worries.

The quick tl;dr: Buyer beware on AMC until more documentation is provided.

Not trying to rile you up man, nor am I saying AMC is due trust at the moment. I made my points, and yours float right beside them.

This is NOT bickering and I did not take replying to someone else's post in the BitFunder thread lightly.  I knew damn well someone would bring it up, but outside of your comment answered in the next paragraph, this has nothing to do with BitFunder.  This is saving the fucking investors their money because noone has done any legwork or discussion on it anywhere.  (Incidentally, I didn't even start the discussion here?!)

I don't recall seeing any "it's virtual" claims anywhere on BitFunder.  (in fact, Ukyo has poked fun at btct.co for our legal efforts... https://btct.co/register ... https://bitfunder.com/terms/ )  And do I have to create a sock now just so I can discuss glaring issues with securities without being second-guessed?

This issuer is wanting to be the next BFL and is asking for hundreds of thousands of dollars.  The issuer is actively using unregistered trade names, which seems to have gone on twice in this IPO.  Most importantly, it demonstrates clearly the issuer's lack of awareness of the legal landscape.


That would be good.

AMC really should setup their own thread. It would be a better place to discuss it.
I have sent them a message asking to start a forum thread for you to discuss it with them.
They do have quite a few things needing discussion.

Sorry if my message is short, trying to push out an update. Fixing a firefox conflict.

I'm assuming AMC only used that delivery name and address as a formality, possibly before this new company was even conceived. The annual report is likely meaningless. Could just be that the guy runs a mining biz on the side and realized that being formally incorporated was overkill. I dunno...

I do agree that AMC as an asset covers a lot of areas (mining, dev, etc), making themselves a target for skepticism, and that they should find a way to segment things better. But hey, maybe that's why the asset has been frozen all weekend...

Anyway, wouldn't you say that AMC cannot represent a real security, as that would be illegal in the US. Isn't this all just "virtual" trading?

Why am I chiming in? Mostly because the passive-aggressive marketing/bickering between BTCT and BF on features, assets, volume, etc, is nonsense. You both thrive off of each other, and the more time either of you spend focusing on the other, the less time you spend actually getting shit done so I can make more money using your systems

Posting here because there doesn't seem to be anywhere else to discuss AMC and it's important people see this before they invest.

AMC is pretty amazing.

- Mining on ASICs, AND
- Developing their own ASICs, AND
- Operating an ASICMINER Fund ("as they become reasonably priced")


Bitfunder: https://bitfunder.com/asset/AMC
  -> Profile
    -> Images

There's an image there of their Avalon order, listing Ken Slaughter, Virtual Mining, Inc., 1951 S. Oak Grove Ave, Springfield, MO as the billing contact.

Doh.  http://www.sos.mo.gov/kbimaging/30317195.pdf Virtual Mining, Inc dissolved for failure to file their annual report.

The rest of the registration history: https://www.sos.mo.gov/BusinessEntity/soskb/Filings.asp?3322736#


Add: I could not find evidence of registration for AMC Cooperative.  Missouri requires registration for business operation as a cooperative.  Could evidence of registration prior to IPO be provided?

I will be posting details on the prior mentioned stuff as soon as I wrap up the days requests.
Being busy is never a bad thing.

Something about that does not look right. Check your PM.

It was fixed thank you so much!

The issue at WeExchange has been corrected.
Deposits should be accounted for now.

I made a withdraw from we exchange/bitfunder to my wallet the previous night. Still nothing showing up, and the bitcoin transaction id provided by them does not exist on blockchain.info =\ Anyone experience this before?

Have there been 6 confirmations?  Does it show up as processing?

My deposits have always been available promptly after 6 confirms - the only slow one was when it took a long time to get 6 confirmations.

Teaser:

Fun update pushing out in the morning/noon-ish.
If you are one of those types who like to see things happening, this will be for you.

Some of you know what it is. I have been talking about it for weeks now in irc.

I would do it now, but I am passing out. Thought I would leave everyone a tease.  

More worrying is that nowhere in that skill-set/experience list is "managed a business" or "can do basic math".

Personally I'm pretty sick of all the IPOs that claim to have experienced teams but never identify them.  If IPOs can be that vague then why not cut them right down to the minimum - and have them just give a share price and send back whatever they feel like.  At least that would be honest and cut down the reading time for us.

AMC's an obvious scam - no reason to waste time discussing it.  I had a quick glance and their supposed calculations were totally laughable - not even a token effort to make them credible.  And the plan has absolutely nothing abut what happens if they dont sell all shares - which is highly likely given they're selling some at 0.01 then the rest at 1.  Of course all they're after is the 250 BTC they can scam if enough suckers buy the 0.01 ones hoping to resell them under the 1.0 ones.

No. The whole calculation is erratic.

They expect to add 95TH of mining equipment themselves. And yet, they only expect the difficulty to change by 39% in the year.

They state:


and

and total shares are 100,000,000.

You can make out that someone got excited with back-of-the-napkin calculations and extrapolated that data by 300x - and issued a new security. Even though the bitfunder summary states that "AMC is made up of a team of dedicated Bitcoin mining professionals with over 30 years of combined experience in Computer Programming, Hardware Design, System Design, and System Administration" - I doubt that they have ever mined before.

Ukyo - please consider making a new rule: promoters have to divulge their information. If not publicly, to a recognized and respected escrow.

Maybe it is supposed to be in satoshis?