Topic: The coming flash crash in AMC - page 4. (Read 29407 times)

Of course.  I'm enjoying the climb up as we speak.  Once it passes .0025 I will be back to smear it in his face even more.  This is just the beginning.

you do realize right after entropy posted, the share price started falling from .0025 to as low as .0009, and it still has yet to recover to the .0025 people bought it at?

Hmmm, so much for that flash crash.  You guys look pretty silly right now as the price climbs higher and higher.

Yes, i understand now. As long as the value of each share holds upon the release of more shares and it is not diluted that is my main concern. Thanks.

You're horribly misguided with point 2.

It's actually in the interest of shareholders for Ken to sell more shares.  You need to look carefully at who owns waht shares and what each share is entitled to - then maybe you'll agree.  Work out what share of profit you get now and what share of the company you own.  Then work it out again if more shares are sold (bear in mind those sales generate capital).  The results are NOT what you seem to think.

It's good to see we are making progress after a few days of chaos on that thread. All the people wanted was a response and a step forward towards a resolution by Ken. As soon as Ken started typing away and responding all the posts have been positive.

#1 MERGE AMC/VMC OR FIND A WAY FOR THE HARDWARE/MINING BUSINESS TO COEXIST
#2 CREATE A CAP ON SHARES ISSUED TO PREVENT DILUTING OF SHARES

Finally some actual forward momentum on the situation!
The official thread has devolved into name calling and wild speculation, good to see some actual constructive movement.

Well guys, after sitting through various people in this thread launch attacks at each other in the official AMC thread not accomplishing anything, Me in combination with some other forum members seem to have had a constructive conversation with Kenneth and he now appears very likely to be merging AMC with VMC. This will likely cause the share price to rise quite a bit, as the merger is pure value added.


Now we just need someone to actually visit them onsite to ensure the operation exists, and then I believe that we would have ourselves an actual worthy company for us to invest in.

I don't think it's a scam.  I think Ken intends to do what he says.  But if he succeeds, he will profit handsomely, and shareholders will see no capital gains, and greatly diluted dividends.  And even a few mis-steps will leave buyers at todays level (0.001 ) with losses.

Here's a few things Ken has done that Friedcat did not:

1.  Pass the IP paid for by stockholders to his own company in exchange for a pittance of a royalty
2.  Mark up the assets of his company 35x before offering shares
3.  Hire a PR person with a history of scamming people
4.  Claim that his company will mine more bitcoins than are available
5.  Post lies about his business relationships (e-ASIC is not a major semiconductor company by any metric)

I understand that there is always a good possibility that new assets are scams, but there has to be a line in the sand for considering that it may indeed not be a scam.

I only expect that once more confirmed info comes out about AMC, the first-impression of Ken being a scammer can be retracted.

Thinking everything is a scam/lie is just as bad as thinking everything is trustworthy.

Was this on BitFunder or on BTC-TC?  I thought most of the volume on BTC-TC was around the 0.0025 "IPO"?

That's a good point though, both BitFunder and BTC-TC have low enough volume that the price is easy to manipulate up or down.  That's not really new info.  I think that people are learning a hard lesson here.  When making a decision to buy or sell and at what price you need to do some of your own math.  With the underlying info that is available, what's it worth to you?  Guys like Warren Buffet make their money by learning everything they can about a business before making a very educated decision to buy in.

It's a different game for day traders.  I'd hate to be those guys on something volatile like this, but for those guys they're essentially in a battlefield, trying to outsmart each other. 

I guess we can only wait and hope for the best. With investments there is no thing at a 100% guarantee. But we can try our best to minimize risks as much as possible given the situation.

=(

So what happens when he changes the terms and just misrepresents the profit going back to AMC and just keeps what his original share would have been regardless?

Actually looking at the new FAQ it appears he's not taking quite so much now.  AMC it getting 10% of gross not net.

That he can change the terms at all (even in the favour of investors) shows just how bent the whole scheme is.  Things like the split of profits should have been subject to a signed contract before they were ever announced in the first place. He seems to have changed the split of cash and also changed it from AML lending the money to VMC to produce the chips to AML doing it itself (but, wierdly, VMC doing the negotiating with manufacturers - which makes little sense).  That change isn't necessarily a good thing - as it essentially protects VMC from taking any of the loss if things go wrong (I'd assume the change was made so AMC had no claim on VML if $1 million profit never arrived to repay the capital).

Unfortunately a LOT of the things wrong with this are pretty common ones in BTC land - such as giving a fixed block of shares to the issuer (beyond any for which actual assets existed) regardless of what does/doesn't sell at IPO.  That led to scenario where after 5 million shares had sold, Ken had 40 million with only 5 million beloning to those who put up most of the capital (all bar his few Avalons).  Even when 20 million have sold he'll still have 2/3 of the active shares.  He's not along in this sort of stupidity - nor in the pathetic use of shares to represent reinvestment : is it REALLY that hard if you want to reinvest 20% of profits to only dividend out 80% of profits?

Why is it in AMC's interest to give exclusive rights to VML?

"AMC also guarantees chip exclusivity to VMC, so that AMC won't negotiate a chip supply contract to any other bitcoin systems manufacturer. AMC gets 70% back from the profits on the sale of bulk chips, while VMC gets 30%."

If VML is going to sell them in bulk then clearly it has no objection in principle to others buying them.  So why do they need a 30% cut from sales?  If AMC is going to pay for the chipos up front then they should take a leaf from VML's book - and take cash for pre-orders from VML.  Somehow I don't think Ken would be quite so keen on preorders going in that direction ..  At a minimum there's no reason for AMC to pay VML upfront for preorders if AMC is fronting all the cost for the chips - the expensive part of NRE.

Wow a true addict right here.

Glad to see that you ignored the whole chip sales profits with 70% to AMC, and that you expect VMC to build machines with parts that materialize out of thin air and free leprecon workers. You should also learn the diference between 10% of the net income vs 10% of the gross revenue.

Treasury shares? Nice, get to read the first part too. Shares represent a split of profits, not ownership.

Are we in May 2014? Must be, since it's only at that time AMC has 100M shares.

I can offer a better deal:
Selling Birdy Awesome investment shares now!
Only 1000 a 1 Btc aviable.
Send me your BTC, I will try to make more with them!
I will then give you 10% of all profit made with those Btc.

An updated evaluation of profit sharing based on the FAQ:

VMC makes 1 BTC.

0.9 BTC is Kens

0.1 BTC goes to AMC and is further split up:

0.04 BTC to Ken
0.04 BTC to the reinvestment fund (for more free loans to VMC)
0.012 to the treasury fund
0.008 to shareholders

Summing it all up:

0.94 to Ken
0.052 to lend or buy more stuff from VMC
0.008 for the people who paid for, and risked everything.

Of course, as Deprived pointed out all of that depends on VMC making a profit, which is up to Ken's to use Hollywood accounting to skim the profits before they see the balance sheet.