Does this mean Ken only owns 1% of the company?
I love this fantasy world this kid is showing us, it's funny.
Topic: [LABCOIN] IPO [BTCT.CO] - Details/FAQ and Discussion (ASIC dev/sales/mining) - page 778. (Read 1079974 times)
August 20, 2013, 10:34:24 PM
The funny thing is, all of activeminings 10,000,000 have been issued. Ken has ~100,000 left.
Does this mean Ken only owns 1% of the company?
I love this fantasy world this kid is showing us, it's funny.
Does this mean Ken only owns 1% of the company?
I love this fantasy world this kid is showing us, it's funny.
August 20, 2013, 10:31:50 PM
LOL I didn't even notice that before. Yes, he's clearly separating owner from public investor in that statement. Very interesting wording.
No he is calling them what they are public investors, who in real life are also owners. And Owners he is using of the current owners.
He is offering you the same type of stock that he owns, so how can it be different??? If he owns type A stock and he is offering Type A stock, what would make him an owner and you not?
I'm done good luck with you fucking idiots lmao
No, you just can't read. The difference is that he's already an owner, and having the stock doesn't change anything. He would still be an owner if he sold all his shares.
And seriously, who cares? This thread isn't about Activemining. Why are you filling up the Labcoin thread arguing about what's in the Activemining prospectus? Especially when you can't even understand what it says.
August 20, 2013, 10:30:10 PM
Please show me ONE Bitcoin security contract that states a share represents ownership.
The Bitcoin shares are linked directly to VirtEx This is NOT a separate fund; this is the fund that represents real equity ownership in VirtEx!
Next
Where do you see that? Please link. I didn't know VirtEx was on BTCT. Very convenient that you chose a company who deals with 50% fiat too.
Show me a bitcoin mining company.
Would show you one but you need to do more research VE
Cavirtex IPO details
https://www.havelockinvestments.com/reportdownload.php?id=7
Heh did make me learn a new function
August 20, 2013, 10:28:35 PM
LOL I didn't even notice that before. Yes, he's clearly separating owner from public investor in that statement. Very interesting wording.
No he is calling them what they are public investors, who in real life are also owners, once they invest and own the same shares that the owners of the corporation own. And Owners he is using to describe the current owners.
He is offering you the same type of stock that he owns, so how can it be different??? If he owns type A stock and he is offering Type A stock, what would make him an owner and you not?
I'm done good luck with you fucking idiots lmao
August 20, 2013, 10:26:14 PM
I disagree. He is obviously avoiding the use of the word "ownership" because that is not what it is.
It does not matter, read he's wording above he wrote owners. He implied that owning 60% of shares in profits is having 60% ownership. Anyway good luck, I'm done go read the 10 pages that you started.
For anyone who has a high amount invested in here, I would save this whole thread on your harddrive and save LabCoins BTCT page, for representations made by LabCoin.
OMFG you are so dumb. He said that with activemining, the owners will have 15m shares, and OTHER PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT OWNERS will have another 10m shares. That means the people who buy stock on the exchange are NOT OWNERS
The whole argument is pointless but you can't seem to even read. You're filling this thread up with moronic nonsense.
Labcoin does use the word Owners, so with Labcoin we are "owners". Whatever Which is all this thread is even about. Why the fuck are you wasting everyone's time posting nonsense about the legalize of the Activemining contract in here anyway? It's completely pointless.
OMG you, what are you fucking retarded bro? If they Active mining is holding the same types of shares as you are and are considered OWNERS, why would you not be considered an owner?
It's like saying I'm a BMW owner, but John who also drives the same BMW as me is not.
ARE YOU A MORON, don't answer we already know the answer. lol
August 20, 2013, 10:24:54 PM
LOL I didn't even notice that before. Yes, he's clearly separating owner from public investor in that statement. Very interesting wording.
August 20, 2013, 10:22:38 PM
I disagree. He is obviously avoiding the use of the word "ownership" because that is not what it is.
It does not matter, read he's wording above he wrote owners. He implied that owning 60% of shares in profits is having 60% ownership. Anyway good luck, I'm done go read the 10 pages that you started.
For anyone who has a high amount invested in here, I would save this whole thread on your harddrive and save LabCoins BTCT page, for representations made by LabCoin.
OMFG you are so dumb. He said that with activemining, the owners will have 15m shares, and OTHER PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT OWNERS will have another 10m shares. That means the people who buy stock on the exchange are NOT OWNERS
The whole argument is pointless but you can't seem to even read. You're filling this thread up with moronic nonsense.
Labcoin does use the word Owners, so with Labcoin we are "owners". Whatever. Labcoin is all this thread is even about. Why are you wasting everyone's time posting nonsense about the legalize of the Activemining contract in here anyway? It's completely pointless.
August 20, 2013, 10:21:16 PM
find one other. you can't.
Another company, Active Mining:
Currently, it is expected for interested ActiveMining's public investors to hold 10,000,000 ActiveMining shares (40% of the profits), while Active Mining Corporation owner(s) shall hold 15,000,000 ActiveMining shares (60% of the profits), for a total of 25,000,000 ActiveMining virtual shares that represent 100% of the global profits of ActiveMining.
Not that hard to find
a share of profits does not mean a share of ownership. I am very familiar with activemining as I am a large shareholder. Ken has actually came right out and said that shares in his company to not represent ownership. I could find the post for you but it's too much work.
Share in profits does not mean share in ownership.
He can say whatever he wants, the way he worded it makes it share of ownership.
If ActiveMining has a total of 25,000,000 total shares, and the Active Mining Corporation owners hold 15,000,000 and they are considered keyword here OWNERS if you hold the same type of shares they do, guess what you are an owner also.
The wording is being represented as ownership.
Johny,
I can honestly say that I've not yet agree'd with 1 single thing you've ever posted. Hell, a lot of your posts leave me scratching my head in wonder. However, I think you would be very comical to hang out and have a beer with.
Make sure that beer is not virtual because I'm not sure about my legal recourse, if you take advantage of me and rape me.
August 20, 2013, 10:19:56 PM
same shit - if anyone breaks a legal contract they can be sued and even jailed.
these people will be RICH if they do everything properly - if they fuck everyone over they'll all be in jail. what will they have to gain ?
it's just dumb for them to try to lose everything when the upside is so much more-
FYI some make choose not to use the word ownership for LEGAL registration reasons..... which is fine - who cares
these people will be RICH if they do everything properly - if they fuck everyone over they'll all be in jail. what will they have to gain ?
it's just dumb for them to try to lose everything when the upside is so much more-
FYI some make choose not to use the word ownership for LEGAL registration reasons..... which is fine - who cares
Clearly, but it's always good to know that you have some sort of legal recourse if they decide to be morons. I saw this episode once on TV, about these guys who invented what Youtube is today, 10-7 years earlier, and they were getting money left and right, and if they only did the right thing they would of been billionaires, what did they do instead, nahhh we just steal everything and go to jail later lol
August 20, 2013, 10:16:25 PM
find one other. you can't.
Another company, Active Mining:
Currently, it is expected for interested ActiveMining's public investors to hold 10,000,000 ActiveMining shares (40% of the profits), while Active Mining Corporation owner(s) shall hold 15,000,000 ActiveMining shares (60% of the profits), for a total of 25,000,000 ActiveMining virtual shares that represent 100% of the global profits of ActiveMining.
Not that hard to find
a share of profits does not mean a share of ownership. I am very familiar with activemining as I am a large shareholder. Ken has actually came right out and said that shares in his company to not represent ownership. I could find the post for you but it's too much work.
Share in profits does not mean share in ownership.
He can say whatever he wants, the way he worded it makes it share of ownership.
If ActiveMining has a total of 25,000,000 total shares, and the Active Mining Corporation owners hold 15,000,000 and they are considered keyword here OWNERS if you hold the same type of shares they do, guess what you are an owner also.
The wording is being represented as ownership.
Johny,
I can honestly say that I've not yet agree'd with 1 single thing you've ever posted. Hell, a lot of your posts leave me scratching my head in wonder. However, I think you would be very comical to hang out and have a beer with.
August 20, 2013, 10:16:21 PM
I disagree. He is obviously avoiding the use of the word "ownership" because that is not what it is.
It does not matter, read he's wording above he wrote owners. He implied that owning 60% of shares in profits is having 60% ownership. Anyway good luck, I'm done go read the 10 pages that you started.
For anyone who has a high amount invested in here, I would save this whole thread on your harddrive and save LabCoins BTCT page, for representations made by LabCoin.
August 20, 2013, 10:16:05 PM
same shit - if anyone breaks a legal contract they can be sued and even jailed.
these people will be RICH if they do everything properly - if they fuck everyone over they'll all be in jail. what will they have to gain ?
it's just dumb for them to try to lose everything when the upside is so much more-
FYI some make choose not to use the word ownership for LEGAL registration reasons..... which is fine - who cares
these people will be RICH if they do everything properly - if they fuck everyone over they'll all be in jail. what will they have to gain ?
it's just dumb for them to try to lose everything when the upside is so much more-
FYI some make choose not to use the word ownership for LEGAL registration reasons..... which is fine - who cares
August 20, 2013, 10:15:13 PM
This argument about "ownership" is totally pointless. It's a philosophical argument that doesn't matter at all unless you want to sue labcoin or something.
Lots of stocks on the real stock market don't have voting rights either.
Lots of stocks on the real stock market don't have voting rights either.
August 20, 2013, 10:14:51 PM
I disagree. He is obviously avoiding the use of the word "ownership" because that is not what it is.
August 20, 2013, 10:14:08 PM
find one other. you can't.
Another company, Active Mining:
Currently, it is expected for interested ActiveMining's public investors to hold 10,000,000 ActiveMining shares (40% of the profits), while Active Mining Corporation owner(s) shall hold 15,000,000 ActiveMining shares (60% of the profits), for a total of 25,000,000 ActiveMining virtual shares that represent 100% of the global profits of ActiveMining.
Not that hard to find
a share of profits does not mean a share of ownership. I am very familiar with activemining as I am a large shareholder. Ken has actually came right out and said that shares in his company to not represent ownership. I could find the post for you but it's too much work.
Share in profits does not mean share in ownership.
He can say whatever he wants, the way he worded it makes it share of ownership.
If ActiveMining has a total of 25,000,000 total shares, and the Active Mining Corporation owners hold 15,000,000 and they are considered keyword here OWNERS if you hold the same type of shares they do, guess what you are an owner also.
In the example above they own 60% and the others own 40% which totals 100% of the ownership of ActiveMining.
The wording is being represented as ownership.
August 20, 2013, 10:11:12 PM
find one other. you can't.
Another company, Active Mining:
Currently, it is expected for interested ActiveMining's public investors to hold 10,000,000 ActiveMining shares (40% of the profits), while Active Mining Corporation owner(s) shall hold 15,000,000 ActiveMining shares (60% of the profits), for a total of 25,000,000 ActiveMining virtual shares that represent 100% of the global profits of ActiveMining.
Not that hard to find
a share of profits does not mean a share of ownership. I am very familiar with activemining as I am a large shareholder. Ken has actually came right out and said that shares in his company to not represent ownership. I could find the post for you but it's too much work.
Share in profits does not mean share in ownership.
August 20, 2013, 10:09:45 PM
It's common sense. If a company is made up of stock virtual or real, and they are offering a piece of that stock you are a virtual or real owner of the company. It's not rocket science.
Now that we have wasted 10 pages to achieve this amazing enlightened breakthrough, I'm going to go ponder the deeps of life, after what has occurred on this thread.
Now that we have wasted 10 pages to achieve this amazing enlightened breakthrough, I'm going to go ponder the deeps of life, after what has occurred on this thread.
August 20, 2013, 10:08:14 PM
find one other. you can't.
Another company, Active Mining:
Currently, it is expected for interested ActiveMining's public investors to hold 10,000,000 ActiveMining shares (40% of the profits), while Active Mining Corporation owner(s) shall hold 15,000,000 ActiveMining shares (60% of the profits), for a total of 25,000,000 ActiveMining virtual shares that represent 100% of the global profits of ActiveMining.
Not that hard to find
August 20, 2013, 10:06:43 PM
find one other. you can't.
LMFAO the trolling on you is hard. Find another what about LabCoin or another company?
Another bitcoin stock. This is the first I have ever seen this.
August 20, 2013, 10:06:02 PM
I would bet that even if you added up the net worth of both of these people it would not even equal 100 BTC
What relevance does that have? Anyone who judges people based on their wealth is a complete and utter arsehole. Sadly, that applies to far too many people on these forums.
It matters because it is downright arrogant to assume people with far more at stake, greater intelligence and who did the due diligence, have SOMEHOW overlooked the concerns of some dimwit with a handful of peanuts.. this guy is asking the most irrelevant, useless and meaningless questions. It is seriously like a six year old getting caught up in the semantics of a childrens book, interrupting class over and over about how eggs cant be green.
Jump to: