Topic: Diablo Mining Company - page 18. (Read 96370 times)

I said no because we need accountants that are well known and have good standings in the community, plus have to be agreed on by me, nefario, and the shareholders.

No one knows your wife, and you certainly don't have a good standing in the community that she can borrow.

You have not given any reason to vote No.
So far, there is no audit done in this train wreck. I offered my help (my wife is accountant) but I was told by D3 "No".
I guess he knows how embarrassing the results will be.

Today is the 23rd. Time flies.

Everyone who hasn't voted no on the motion, please go do that now.

https://glbse.com/vote/view/127

Seems usagi forgot to inform this thread.

nefario has pushed the date for motion 127 to the 23rd. The original date (18th?) already passed, and he pushed it back to the 23rd in the final hours of the vote. Only nefario knows what the final tally was.

In addition, nefario has been unable to get two other people audit DMC's records, and refuses to name the one person doing it. What I do know, that one person he did get is not smickles, the community's only accountant. Since nefario refuses to name the auditor ahead of time, shareholders do not get to vote on the confirmation

Also, I've spoken with smickles, hes very interested in taking DMC on as his first client with his new accounting firm, although because hes in the middle of moving, the September report on Oct 1st will either be done by him and be late or be done by me for the last time and be on time.

http://web.archive.org/web/19981202132656/http://www.knotwork.com/~markm/

-MarkM-

Your public relations skills (or lack thereof) are causing many people to avoid MPEX.

You are doing yourself a disservice.

You may doubt whatever. Fact of the matter is you're nobody and don't matter two spits.


The operator is one of the very few people involved in Bitcoin using his own name, rather than some bs alias. He's been on the internet, on the same site, for years. He's been running the same company, for years. In this context "for years" means more than five. I would like to see who exactly on this forum satisfies both these criteria. I doubt you can find five people.


Get off your high horse, idiot.

I've successfully managed to steer RSM from GPU > FPGA > ASIC and rather than just liquidize your assets you could invest them into RSM.  We are already working on >57(MH/s)per share at BTC0.30 and with DMC assets we could improve that (MH/s)per share rate greatly.  Any ideas can be put to the table by DMC shareholders but RSM shareholders will only agree if it doesn't hurt them and they can profit too.  So if any DMC share holders want this to go to a vote then show some support for a motion.  Thanks. Matt CEO of RSM. 

RSM motions would be held on DMC first.  With the result of the DMC motion being used to vote on its shares within the RSM motion.

Or after RSM receives the DMC assets we could sell (some) them to purchase BFL-ASIC's so RSM's >57(MH/s)per share isn't hit too bad by paying DMC in RSM shares.

If you are to vote on changing the CEO I may be able to help by absorbing your DMC assets into Red Star Mining - https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/796com-redstarminingcom-the-oldest-public-mining-security-150ths-63257 -.  RSM is currently working on a motion to raise us to 57.142857143(MH/s)per share at BTC0.30 each or 1(GH/s)@BTC5.25.  What I think best would happen is RSM absorbs DMC assets and pays DMC around the going rate for them in RSM shares.  So DMC receives weekly dividends from RSM and then I use them or pay them out as DMC share holders see fit in a motion.  I can't promise to be able to offer this service yet as I'd have to get it to pass a motion of RSM shareholders.  Also RSM shareholders would only take it on if it wasn't going to hurt them and can profit from it as well some how.

Good. Let's wait for the audit and then take it from there.

And Diablo paid you 5 BTC to say that on his behalf?  He's getting really great PR for his money.

I think Factory makes a lot of sense and Diabo should be paid from net income not from gross revenue.

fwiw I just reread DMC contract and it doesnt say anything about what price shares can or cannot be sold. The contract doesnt say much at all except the way earnings will be divided.

At this point, I would prefer DMC to liquidated as I see that as my only way out. Do we have the necessary numbers to tell how large of a loss that would be? A new and separate contract with whatever changes you want could easily be drafted.

If the 20% salary is changed to profit or Diablo is paid in shares (where he is still paid from profits), I would be happier, but would likely still prefer to be out of this altogether as my faith in the company has been heartily shaken.

Usagi, not everyone is super active on the forums.  Sometimes I need a day or so to respond.  Puppet is most definitely not the only one voicing his concerns in this public forum.

Also, please answer all of Factory's questions.  I also want to know the answers.

Thanks for helping out with this Nefario.  Without you here, there would be no actual recourse for shareholders.  I'm not saying Diablo would have necessarily run away with everyone's coin (what little is left at least), but I don't see how any of this discussion could have happened if you had not stepped in.

Latest update on the audit is that it's about 1/3 complete. If it's not ready before the vote, allowing adequate time for discussion and analysis then I will move the vote expiration date back.

If you acquired your shares in a fair way you may be right. Shareholders should be able to decide that after an audit, because until now we still have no information at all what has happened exactly.

An audit will show that either:

1) Diablo has mismanaged the company and/or misled his investors, in that case you should not be allowed to vote on any motions as you are now an accomplice

2) You and Diablo are in the clear and shareholders have to accept your "proposal" because you hold the majority of the shares. To me this is not democracy but more like dictatorship. Shareholders have been played because a single party has taken possession of the company without anyone noticing. No wonder Diablo has turned to you as his representative. You now own him.

Either way the market will decide if you and Diablo can be trusted again with other people's money.

Usagi, could you please respond to my concerns and criticism raised about amendment 2a that I posted earlier today? I highlighted some serious issues to be had with that amendment. I believe that is one of the most controversial clauses and deserves more attention. If you could be as thorough and concise as possible, it would be much appreciated. Thanks.

Why would I need to do that?  In buying the shares I accepted the associated contract.  Provided that contract is adhered to I have no problems.  Obviously if the contract is broken and I suffer material loss as a result of those breaches then I may want to pursue recompense for such loss.  To clarify that:

If I make a contract with someone that they will do X
And instead they do Y and Y is in breach of their contract
And doing Y rather X makes me suffer a loss

Then I have a very strong claim for the loss caused by them doing Y rather than X.

It's not my contention (at this stage) that the above scenario is what happened - the audit and whatever explanations Diablo/his mouthpiece provide will be needed to clarify that.

And there's no right in the DMC contract to change the contract (any such clause would also need to define what happened if I chose not to agree to the new contract) - so why would I need to bring anything up?

Your only line of argument seems to be:

"You're wrong"
"You don't understand"
"You don't get it"

etc etc

Just putting your fingers in your ears and repeating "No" every time someone says anything is NOT proof of anything other than your own ignorance.

I'm getting near the point of requesting you be barred from this thread for trolling - just repeatedly saying "You're wrong" is totally unproductive.

To address your listed points:

a) agreed
b) The agreement of the 60% share-holder is irrelevant.  Either Diablo had the authority to do that trade under his contract or he didn't.  If he had the right to do the trade then no agreement of anyone was necessary.  If the trade breached his contract then no percentage of shareholders less than 100% could agree to vary the contract and make the trade allowable.
c) Not hugely relevant.
d) You can't vary the contract without the unanimous assent of all shareholders - as there is no mechanism within the contract for such a change.  Where contracts DO contain a mechanism for being varied then there is always an associated means by which all parties are given notice and a way to withdraw from the contract without losing any of the value they were entitled to under the original contract.
e) You can vote down the current motion.  You can't change the contract.  Diablo still is CEO - he hasn't been fired, just suspended during investigtion.
f)  You can repeat things as often as you want.  It won't make you any more correct.

Saying "I have lots of contracts so I can change yours as well" is wrong.  Saying it 100 times doesn't make you any less wrong - it just makes you look progressively more stupid.