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.
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.