Topic: The coming flash crash in AMC - page 5. (Read 29407 times)

I find this both hilarious and depressing at the same time.

I officially nominate Bitcoin Megastore as the hardest working person in show business.  Move over James Brown.  Look at the posting times.  That guy only needs 5 hours of sleep a day, the rest of the time he is hard at work.

That is some awesome investing insight you have.  Throw money into a project for emotional reasons.  What possibly could go wrong?  I don't know if AMC is a bad deal, good deal, or scam but your rational for investing is seriously the stupidest I have ever seen.

There are some really great comments on this thread, especially when compared to the spammed hell that is the official AMC thread. A hell, you helped create, Entropy before you deleted your posts to hide the evidence. Still, we all make mistakes we later regret, I guess.

My take on this thread is it shows a subset of posters talking their book, ie they are short AMC and long AM as suggested above. It doesn't take rocket science to conclude this is likely, just look at the order books and the behaviour of the trolls on the official thread.

I'm impressed with Burnside, he seems to be the most sensible person in this whole discussion. He is trying to be reasonable whereas many of the critics are simply over the top in their assessment of AMC's prospects, or are working to an agenda.

I'm in AMC for the long term. I suppose we can meet up in a few months to compare outcomes eg AMC vs AM price. I don't think I'll be disappointed with my investment, but I am hedged accordingly.

Burnside;
I know it was not on your exchange but I do not see the other guy posting here so I will ask you if you could have seen this.
I pointed out early on that the market in AMC was getting "pumped" and how little money it was possibly costing the pumper to do this.   There were huge offers put up at 0.0008 and then bids at 0.00079999 basically pumping a completely illiquid and unheard of stock to new levels.   If any of the early IPO purchasers managed to get in the flip this would not cost that much (just like in a ponzi scheme) AND from the discourse on the AMC thread it would seem that this was the "reward" to certain people to spread crazy projections.
So, my question is, cannot the exchange see blatant manipulation like this (taking at 0.0005 IPO up 60% in minutes by someone trading with themselves)?

If you are an exchange: have a check and balance with separation when new assets apply. Example:

5 trusted mods review a potential asset in private. The asset pays BTC5 (non-refundable) to the exchange and in turn the exchange pays BTC1 to each mod reviewer. The exchange should not receive a fee in the beginning for this mod review process. This will ensure that the exchange won't waste time on assets that it feels aren't even worth a review.

Asset owner does not know who mods are. Any questions the mods may have are routed through exchange owner to asset owner, then then answer routed back to mods. This ensures separation.

If majority of mods approve the asset (minimum 3/5), then the asset proceeds to final veto stage. The exchange has veto-only power. It can decide to not list the asset even if the mods voted in favor. However, it cannot decide to list the asset if the mods did not vote in favor as it would defeat the purpose of having a mod review in the first place.

If the exchange waives its veto power, thus it agrees to list, then public investors will know that 5 trusted mods reviewed the asset, it was voted in favor by the mods and the exchange was given a chance to veto the listing as well. The exchange will earn fee's once the asset is being traded.

Obviously this isn't a foolproof solution, but maybe a starting point. It will at least include separation of parties and place responsibility on the exchange for ensuring a thorough "vetting" process was followed. Kickbacks, bribes, etc. should not occur since the mods will agree to not contact the asset owner directly, and the asset owner will not know the mods during the review/voting process.

It will be a good thing for the public to know that a structured process is used when assets apply for listing on an exchange. It will also be a good thing for the exchange to have it's investors confidence and a good reputation.

Great, at least one of the moderators of BTCT is aware of how deceiving the contract is.
Hope its will be suspended or delisted entirely for the good of all investors.

I don't think you'll get rid of the problem, you're just getting a different problem. Now voters will vote to get compensated (or rather to not be punished for not voting), which contradicts the purpose of having peers review anything.


This sounds much better. In fact, you can even split the listings in two groups; a high-volume asset like ASICMiner or AMC, which will impact the community far more in case of scams or defaults, would require more careful review, more votes, or something like that. 10BTC for listing, 5 goes to reviewers, 5 go to exchange.

Smaller assets like mine (market cap <1KBTC for example) would require less of issuers. Listing fees could also be lower, but still require approval for example by the exchange itself (you or someone from your future team). 5BTC for listing, 2BTC goes to you, 3BTC goes to exchange.

Just examples, but a separation like this may make it easier to get listed for smaller issuers and earn more money for larger assets.

.b

I kind of missed the boat on this part of the conversation but I should clarify the current voting setup.  It hasn't changed since it was first rolled out.  To get approved you must:

- have over 5 YES votes
- have a higher YES score than NO score
    (Where no votes count 2x)

I think our next step is to limit the voting timeframe to two weeks.  If we do not have at least 8 votes after two weeks we will refund 50% of the signup fee.  That will motivate voters I am pretty sure.

Step after that I think is to put together a team of 3-5 trusted community mods and somehow compensate them for reviewing contracts and voting according to some exchange determined guidelines.

Cheers

Edit/add: And even with this setup, issues will still fail and people will still lose bitcoins... But at least we will have done proper diligence on the initial business plans.

BFL are shipping operational ASIC Miners though. Eventhough they ship 1 miner per year with an order que of 100000000000

BFL 

I don't understand why bitFunder and BTCT arn't doing anything about this. Why don't i see an entourage of people discussing the biggest scam in bitcoin investment history???

yes, and at some point, after all those facts have been provided ad infinitum and the asset issuer has proved over and over and over again that there's no reason to trust him, and the contract was horribly written and terrible for investors from the very beginning, and it's all explained in simple words and the math has been shown very clearly all you can do is laugh at defenses of the scam that ignore all the analysis and numbers.

I was very very surprised that this asset made it to BTCTCO, but in any securities market there's always going to be some amount of survival of the fittest going on, and I'm not sure how you stop someone determined to throw away their money from throwing away their money.

I used 5BTC as an example because it's what's being charged now. We're accustomed to western level salaries, however, and I can tell you that I could hire a skilled person to work for five hours reading contracts and looking for issues for 1BTC where I currently live. That's far less time than I spent reading (and I think understanding) the DMS.* contracts. The degree to which one needs to be a lawyer is still in question; I certainly don't expect to account for every legal loophold that exists with my reading of the contracts.

On the other hand, I would trust your vote if you voted because I've come to know that you seem to have rational arguments and a good understanding. I would build a similar trust with other voters if I came to understand their thought process too. Right now, however, I barely know who votes and it's open for purchase effectively.

If there was a panel, say consisting of five trusted people, where upon listing a new asset, three of those would be picked at random to review the listing, I think it would serve both the investors, the asset issuers, and the exchange much better. Prices may have to go up but so would the quality.

I don't think the exchanges have yet reached a stage of commoditization. I think there's still a huge market to be taken and trying to save pennies to win a war is a bit like trying to win at Le Mans by not starting your engine too much prior to the race to save gas.

I've said it before; I think the exchange that wins this race is the one that implements the most reasonable way that secures investors, themselves, and asset issuers the best. I really don't think pricing is part of it to the extent you think.

.b

Let's try to keep things constructive and informative here.

The idea is to help people avoid losing their shirt to a fast talking huckster by providing facts.  And to provide constructive input on how to avoid this kind of situation in the future.

Baiting folks that view the investment in a different light isn't helpful.  Ultimately a lot of people are going to lose money in this situation.  Some of the pro AMC folks might even have perspectives that we can learn from.

And the ignore button helps me with those that don't contribute in a constructive way on both sides.

L.      O.        L.

This is my major objection to the whole offering.  If you take Ken's own projections of hashrate, plug in a realistic model for the network power (he seems to assume that every Avalon chip but his get dropped in a shredder), and value the company as what it is, a mining company with all it's IP stripped by the operator you will get something close to $5M as the value 6 month from now if he executes on everything he says he will do, and no nasty surprises appear in the market.

$5M is 0.0005 per share.  So his original offering price already was extracting essentially all the value of the company before it has ever executed on anything.  There was no margin for an investor to gain anything if he succeeded! And from that level he raised the price.

When it was at 0.0008 he was touting that the true value of the company was 10-15x higher.  15x higher would be $120M - more than the annual value of all bitcoins available to miners.  Yes ASICMINER is getting that valuation, but they have the hardware business and a dominant position in the mining space.  There is zero chance anyone will capture as strong a position as ASICMINER has today.  Most likely Ken will be one of a dozen consortia that scramble to capture 2 or 3% market share of the network.

That would be ok, and a decent company.  But not when the IPO lists at a price that would only be supported by more than 10% share.

Case Closed!