Bitcoin Forum

Notes On The IPO:

As long as AMC does not sell it's shares below 0.0005 then they may do as they please with their shares. It is their company, their ownership, and their shares.

During the IPO, not all shares may be posted as an ASK.

So Ken's big announcement is out, and his pump and dump is failing.

He needs to sell another 3 Million shares at 0.0025 to raise the money he is going to gift to VMC, his privately held company, for chip NRE.  But Bitcoiners aren't buying a $25 Million dollar valuation for a $300k company.  So the party is over for Ken right?

Wrong.  Shortly he is going to hit all the bids on BTCT.co and Bitfunder so that he can give himself that million dollar gift.

How do I know?  Well if you read his contracts, you would know too.

From the summary page on Bitfunder:


So expect Ken to start hitting bids, and keep hitting them all the way down to 0.0005 if that's what he needs to do.  Because who wouldn't when every dollar they raise goes to benefit their company rather than the company they are selling the shares in?

They should just merge VMC and AMC, using the money of AMC's shareholders to fund another separate company does not make much sense to me, loan made to startup is too huge of a risk to ignore and they didn't mention this until the recent announcement. People buying the walls @0.0025 are essentially lending their money to VMC, a separate entity to AMC, which means they aren't investing in the company they apparently are putting their money into. I can't predict whether the price will rise or fall, but I feel completely betrayed, speaking of a former shareholder, so I decided to exit with a fairly satisfactory profit instead of putting my money at stake.

Good work, I clearly misjudged your capacity for analysis.

So, while this clearly hurts existing shareholders, anyone who has read the contract like you could have shorted or waited it out until the crash and then invested. My question to you now is, do you think AMC is a worthwhile investment at 0.0005? At what price is it a reasonable investment, 1x book? 1x forward earnings?

SSo, while this clearly hurts existing shareholders, anyone who has read the contract like you could have shorted or waited it out until the crash and then invested. My question to you now is, do you think AMC is a worthwhile investment at 0.0005? At what price is it a reasonable investment, 1x book? 1x forward earnings?

So Ken's big announcement is out, and his pump and dump is failing.

He needs to sell another 3 Million shares at 0.0025 to raise the money he is going to gift to VMC, his privately held company, for chip NRE.  But Bitcoiners aren't buying a $25 Million dollar valuation for a $300k company.  So the party is over for Ken right?

Wrong.  Shortly he is going to hit all the bids on BTCT.co and Bitfunder so that he can give himself that million dollar gift.

How do I know?  Well if you read his contracts, you would know too.

From the summary page on Bitfunder:


So expect Ken to start hitting bids, and keep hitting them all the way down to 0.0005 if that's what he needs to do.  Because who wouldn't when every dollar they raise goes to benefit their company rather than the company they are selling the shares in?

Smart move.  The shell company structure is designed to benefit Ken and no one else.  I don't even understand why the listing was allowed.

There a lots of epic statements in the company contracts.  Like the copy/paste error that makes a completely unrelated (?) company arbitrator for any disputes.  Or this little gem: "AMC is a wholly owned subsidiary of VMC".  Wholly owned?  Then what are you buying with these shares?

Many prophets of doom yet no one is selling me call options... I am willing to negotiate on all details if someone wants to send me a counter offer...

It's going to be a long painful death for holders of this mess.

I expected burnside to examine the self dealing built into the stock, which guarantees loses for everyone but the owner of VMC and reject the listing.

Since that didn't happen, people are going to learn the expensive way.

We do not need to sale any more shares to fund the chip, see spreadsheet below:

Sometimes I wish I was the only gatekeeper.  It's better though that I am not, I was wrong on so many different things back in the GLBSE days that I when I setup btct.co I knew I needed to get other people involved somehow.  I really hope they're right on this one.

Are there any plans or thoughts so that in the future any companies or other entities which wish to be put on your exchange will be required to be vetted first? Or will it continue to be a wild west sort of situation still?

Any rational businessman would stop selling equity once his capital needs are filled.

Except if his business was selling shares in a worthless company, that is...

Plus you have Garr taking an existing company, rewriting the contract and relisting without review.

This.  It seems many never really consider what equity is.  Equity is selling off future profits of an enterprise.  If one believes their enterprise is profitable AND they have sufficient funds to ensure that profit what rational reason would there be to sell off more future profit?

Hint: there isn't one.   Companies sell enough equity to meet their capital needs and not a penny more.

Well I appreciate that you care.  And the idea of peer review is a good one.

But some things, like the extreme conflict of interest in this case, just shouldn't be allowed at all.  It really pains me how badly naive newbs are fleeced by this community.  It is going to cost us all in terms of slowing the adoption of bitcoin.

Cognitive dissidence is a powerful thing and causes people to only listen to the posts/news that supports their desires.

Cognitive dissidence is a powerful thing and causes people to only listen to the posts/news that supports their desires.   Everyone wants to catch the next AM at the bottom.

Once you realize logic isn't always the primary driving factor, you can predict the moves and make a lot of btc.  I don't think this ride is over.

I agree 100%. I hold the exchanges, specifically their owners, responsible. This get rich quick method of opening a "company" and then listing it on an exchange is going to hurt bitcoin investing in the long run.

The first time I read the description of AMC I was extremely disappointed that exchanges would even allow such a concoction to be listed. Shame on the exchanges. The ridiculous business model and rules, especially that AMC and VMC are owned by the same entity, should have been an instant no-go for the exchange. Burnside/Ukyo/whoeverelse, please tell me how you can possibly read the description of AMC and allow such a thing to exist on your exchange.

Exchanges: enjoy your fee's now, because this method of doing business will hurt you in the long run. However, if you gain the reputation as a diligent exchange that does not allow these type of "securities" you will gain the respect and confidence of investors. Please do not use the "investor ignorance is not our fault" copout. Its your responsibility to disallow these types of schemes from being listed in the first place. You are a pseudo accessory by allowing it to be listed.

I wish people who are really good in those analytics like Deprived would be included in the valuation of new securities, it really hurts btct.co's and Bitcoins reputation when you include crappy moneygrabs in there.

I was also tempted to put money in this as I saw it got zero "no"-votes and people buying lots of this. (But then I saw this big wall and thought, well better wait a while and take your time to read what this is about)

We do not need to sale any more shares to fund the chip, see spreadsheet below:

http://i41.tinypic.com/aa9k5j.png

Many prophets of doom yet no one is selling me call options... I am willing to negotiate on all details if someone wants to send me a counter offer...

Oh, according to Asicminer's estimate, network hashrate will reach 0.8-1P by the end of 2013.

It is a bit disappointing, isn't it?  Zero negative votes against the AMC-PT on BTCT -- I would have thought this was an opportunity for BTCT to distinguish itself from the crowd.  Sort of demonstrates how a financial sector, left to its own devices, can't self-regulate effectively when all the individual players, including the exchanges, act their in their narrow self-interest.

Somewhere down the line, months or years from now, it will be situations like this that cause government agencies to wave their arms and insist that more regulation is needed over this space.  (Whether enforcement is feasible is a separate question.)

Another imminent crash coming, if the support at 0.0008 does not hold, it would be a freefall back to IPO price!

What if Ken re-wrote the contract to give him less power in AMC in regards to controlling the share prices and issuing shares. Do you guys think that would help AMC and it's investors?

I think I might understand the dividend situation now.  It's all very confusing since Ken likes to confuse himself and AMC, never mind VMC which scoops the cream of this farm in the first place.

So dividends look like so:

Note that Ken is 60% owner of AMC, as well as 100% owner of VMC.  Each dividend pays 80% back to AMC at present.

Far from not getting any compensation as Ken claims, 48% of income goes to his pocket.

If he ever pays back the $1M gift, the dividends will be:


That's one hell of an investment you've got going.  If you are Ken Slaughter.

Treasury:      0.12 BTC ?

What is that?

Kenneth E. Slaughter, CEO/CTO. Gerald L. Slaughter, COO/CFO. Micha Slaughter, VP Manufacturing OperationsDarin Carolus, VP Marketing

AMC isn't even a company, it is only a unit under VMC. How could it be approved for public trading?

Two points:

1)  In no way does bitcoin security performance effect bitcoin overall.  Unfortunately, the only thing holding bitcoin back at the moment is public acceptance.  The problem is, every time the public gets involved, the price bubbles, pops and scares the public off.  We need to diversify the exchanges enough so that arbitrage can calm the market to a minimum level of stability.

2) All fun aside, Ken really thinks AMC is a real company and a solid investment.  Will it be Asicminer 2.0? No, most definitely not.  Is it profitable @ .0008 / share? Yes.  Is it a scam? No.  Might the U.S. Gov. crack down on AMC/VMC for the multiple questionable business practices? Yes.

I'm no longer an AMC share holder.  I will admit that I made quite a bit of BTC off of this roller coaster ride.  However, in my heart, I believe Ken is being truthful and has only the best intentions in mind.  His business plan however admittedly is faulty.

I will say however that I have a sneaking suspicion that VBS and Lewiki are both part of AMC and not 'normal' share holders.

I will say however that I have a sneaking suspicion that VBS and Lewiki are both part of AMC and not 'normal' share holders.

Another imminent crash coming, if the support at 0.0008 does not hold, it would be a freefall back to IPO price!

The spread is quite brutal for anyone looking to profit from a dead cat bounce.  You have to make a 25% gain just to cover the bid-ask spread right now.

Volume on btct.co has dropped to essentially nothing.  Folks on there are eating huge losses since all the shares trading there were issued at 0.0025.  It will take time for them to digest the mess, and cut their losses by selling.

I know burnside is monitoring things.  I hope it causes serious changes to be made.

It broke.  Now 0.00073 at Bitfunder.

2 weeks to break the 0.0005 price might have been optimistic.  Everything happens faster with Bitcoin!

Sometimes I wish I was the only gatekeeper.  It's better though that I am not, I was wrong on so many different things back in the GLBSE days that I when I setup btct.co I knew I needed to get other people involved somehow.  I really hope they're right on this one.

There is still value there.  AMC owns 6 avalons.  That's probably worth 900 BTC.

Maybe Ken will invest in ASICMINER with his cash hoard.  That could increase value.   :D

Very true. Having a poorly run investment exchange is just welcoming government problems. Look at what happened to mtgox. Obviously that is a different scenario, but it shows that you have to run a tight ship. Having a bitcoin securities exchange that is irresponsible as far as assets it allows is asking for problems. The concept of wild west investing when using bitcoin should be abandoned when it is obvious that the asset is a delusion investment.

Bitfunder/BTCTC/others: please be responsible in what you allow to be listed. Fancy spreadsheets, "estimates" and big promises should be considered worthless. At least have a warning on specific assets that (a) do not have hardware in hand (b) are heavily based on research/development before profit occurs (c) cashflow will not occur for over 3 months.

I keep seeing these assets being listed that are basically "Ordered asic chips from xyc. They are expected to be here in 3-6 months. Pay off my initial cost, believe my estimates and share in the mined bitcoin". Its awful.

Most sites just charge a fee and you are listed.  Your contract could say that you will use the money to 'Kill Whitey' and you could still be trading.

I had thought BTCT.co would be different as they do have a review process, but they failed miserably in this instance.  It looks like buyers there lost 750 BTC in the last 2 days so maybe changes will be made.

More likely not though.

My understanding is that AMC and VMC are two separate companies, with contractual agreements between each other.

Active Mining Corporation (AMC) is a Belize International Business Company DBA Active Mining Cooperative and
is a wholly owned subsidiary of Virtual Mining Corporation (VMC) a Delaware Corporation.

There doesn't appear to have been any oversight on this pricing, which really seems silly.  How can your moderators vote on an asset when they don't even know the valuation the security will come to market at?

Eh, I do not see how it can be accurate to call them separate companies.  I'll post the same info here that I posted in the main AMC thread.

AMC is described as a wholly-owned subsidiary of VMC in the listing that they themselves prepared for both both Bitfunder and BTCT. 

From the "Details" tab on BTCT for the passthrough shares:


And from the "Private Placement Memorandum" on Bitfunder (https://bitfunder.com/asset/AMC#pane_profile, which is only presented as a jpg, so I have to retype the content):

PPM, page 2: "AMC is a business unit of VMC"
PPM, page 6: "Shares of AMC on Bitfunder do not represent real world shares of the company.  The shares are solely a distribution mechanism for rights to profits."

Mods do not evaluate the profitability of an asset, or at least shouldn't.

Ask yourself, however, why should they _not_ vote in favor of something that will give them lots of money? The listing fee, the trade fee, whether loss or profit; all of that goes straight into the pocket of those voters. Of course they want that money! That's why they bought the LTC-G shares!

.b

Mods do not evaluate the profitability of an asset, or at least shouldn't.

Ask yourself, however, why should they _not_ vote in favor of something that will give them lots of money? The listing fee, the trade fee, whether loss or profit; all of that goes straight into the pocket of those voters. Of course they want that money! That's why they bought the LTC-G shares!

.b

Thanks for sharing your views burnside.

I am heading off to bed, so I will think about what you have said and respond tomorrow sometime.

Before I go, I want to make one point.

A share issue that trades below it's offering price in the first few days of trading is considered a broken IPO.  It is always a disaster for the stock and investors, and a black mark for the exchange and the syndicate that brought the offering.  In this case, not only did the price break but the issuing shares were only 25% subscribed.  That is a huge failure.

On the ~512k shares that did sell, folks on your site are now eating a 870 BTC loss.  All of that loss is a result of Ken pumping up the price arbitrarily in the offering to 0.0025 from the 0.0008 it was trading around before listing on your site.

There doesn't appear to have been any oversight on this pricing, which really seems silly.  How can your moderators vote on an asset when they don't even know the valuation the security will come to market at?

An exchange exists to provide startup capital to businesses.  If the investors in those businesses are not rewarded with dividends and capital gains appropriate for the risks taken, there will be no new capital available, and the exchange will die.

The history of bitcoin securities is one of lost investor capital, and ASICMINER as the exception that proves the rule.  Until there are numerous examples to contradict that statement, any investor or operator of an exchange is likely to lose all of their capital as well.

In the real world there is a syndicate of investment banks that take on filling the IPO.  They spend a few months getting interest from large customers and determining a reasonable valuation.  On the IPO date the first trades are all filling earlier commitments to buy at the price finally set by the banks.  All of the banks have money on the line themselves and are expecting to support the share price.

Maybe if mods voting yes were required to hold some amount of stock for 30 days or so you would both get better reviews, and have a clear signal of investors appetite for a particular issue.

I would like to know more about Darin Carolus, VP Marketing for AMC (mentioned in the details on BTCT.co)

And the accusations of him scamming clients when he was building illusions for Magicians in Reno, and apparently investigated by the Secret Service....?

http://www.magicnewzealand.com/ezine-archive/2007-Jan-to-Dec-2007/488-Apr01-2007.txt
http://www.magicnewzealand.com/ezine-archive/2007-Jan-to-Dec-2007/489-Apr08-2007.txt
http://www.magicnewzealand.com/ezine-archive/2007-Jan-to-Dec-2007/490-Apr15-2007.txt
http://www.magicnewzealand.com/ezine-archive/2007-Jan-to-Dec-2007/491-Apr22-2007.txt
http://www.magicnewzealand.com/ezine-archive/2007-Jan-to-Dec-2007/499-May13-2007.txt

Same Darin Carolus?

Read below:

Registrant:
MagicColosseum
6891 Sonterra Ln
Reno, Nevada 89523
United States


ref: http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewtopic.php?topic=200093&forum=7


This site shows all the domains registered under the IP: 184.73.156.39:

http://whoisrequest.org/reverse-ip/184.73.156.39

Which include:

tahoeultimaterentals.com   (Mentioned in AMC Profile)
shopping-cart-now.com           (Mentioned in AMC Profile)
z4solutions.com                  (Mentioned in article relating to Darin Carolus)

and

darin.info

Which whois shows:

Registrant ID:CR48982096
Registrant Name:Darin Carolus
Registrant Organization:MagicColosseum
Registrant Street1:6891 Sonterra Ln
Registrant Street2:
Registrant Street3:
Registrant City:Reno
Registrant State/Province:Nevada

ref: http://whoisrequest.org/whois/darin.info

That's a great idea.  Maybe when investors vote they could plug in the number of shares they'd be willing to commit.  Their vote wouldn't be tied to it, but it could be used as a weighing mechanism, and whatever they plug in they would be bound to.  (site would reserve it and auto-execute somehow at ipo.)

Maybe even better would be to allow ALL users to pre-commit on pending assets.  The amounts designated would go in reserve before the IPO, and the shares purchased would be locked after IPO for some specific time frame.  Then IPO's would be limited to some percentage of the pre-commitments.  IE, an IPO would not be allowed to release more than 150% or 200% of the pre-committed share count.

It'd also be a great way to prevent the situations where an issuer needs XXX amount to get started, then only raises 50% of that in the IPO.

Lots to think about.

Hey Burnside, since you are reading this thread, would you please look into this issue for us?
Darin Carolus, one of the managing members of AMC/VMC was involved in scamming before, we have yet received any answer or confirmation from AMC or Ken. I think it is within your power to force an explanation or answer from them and protect all investors from potential scam.

For IPOs where the issuer needs XXX amount you could apply two simple rules:

1.  The funds raised from sales are escrowed by the site until XXX is raised - or reversed to all shares (and the IPO closed) if XXX isn't raised in Y days/weeks.
2.  Issuer account is locked against transferring shares or selling at below a declared IPO price until 1. is met.

Number 2 is a problem (as happened in the past with Ken) where the issuer gets impatient and starts selling cheap.
Number 1 would only apply where there was a minimum needed to achieve their goals.  If they fail to reach that in a reasonable time period (weeks not months) then the IPO has failed - so just return the cash, delist it and move on.  You have to lock a lot of account functionality to do that - otherwise issuer an just transfer funds to an alt account and reuse it to buy more shares inflating the count of what was actually sold.

I think you're still not clearly understanding the main problem with AMC btw.  The problem is that its structure so that even if it DOES make profit from hardware sales under 5% of it ends up with investors.  How much less than 5% depends on a definition of 'profit' imposed by VMC (which shareholders have no say in or oversight of) - which makes the 'no salary' clause of AMC worthless (as Ken can give whatever he wants as salary to himself/friends/family before profit comes anywhere near AMC) and on how much profit is made.  To get 2.5% return on capital requires $2 million profit on sales to be made - that's sales of ASICs that won't even be out until end of this year/early next by KEN's estimate.

To me it is definitely important to maintain the integrity of the exchange.  If you look through the AMC thread, (if it hasn't been self-moderated out?) you'll see that myself and many of those involved with BTC-TC have been asking questions and pointing out problems.  We tend to get drowned out in the excitement, and as you can see by how quickly the asset was approved, it's obvious to me that at least some of the (there are 20+ now) mods were also excited.

I'm not sure yet how this will ultimately pan out.  Ken seems to be putting in the man hours, trying to get things together.  I really don't feel like this is an outright Pirateat40 kind of deal.  Does that mean I think it will succeed?  I'm not sure.  I believe they already hash, I believe they will make a chip, I believe they'll probably even get their unit out the door.  What I'm not sure of is if they can do it before everyone else does, or if they can do it in sufficient volume.

This is undeniably extremely high risk to be investing in.  When I bought my first 100 ASICMINER shares on GLBSE I was almost certain I was going to lose it.  When I bought my first 100 shares of NYAN.B I was almost certain I would not lose it.  So go figure.  Those 100 ASICMINER shares have made up for all my GLBSE losses.


My understanding is that AMC and VMC are two separate companies, with contractual agreements between each other.  This structure is not unlike the ASICMINER arrangement, though I have not picked apart all the details.  (read Deprived's posts on this, they are fairly informative.)

I'm not sure yet this is a complete failure.  What the investors paid 0.0025 per share for has not fundamentally changed, so what they wanted when they paid that they got.  There is no loss unless you sell, at which point you no longer have whatever it is you wanted at 0.0025.  Ken definitely seems to have misjudged the market around the IPO, but SDICE did the same thing, and many other issues have had the same problem.  I think the mods that approved it believe that Ken will do his best to fulfill his contract and the obligations he has laid out.  Unfortunately after that there is no "IPO management" behind the process, so Ken was free to post the shares at whatever he wanted.

What I really don't get is:

  Why did people think 2 days ago that 0.0025 was a great deal?
  And now, two days later, with minimal changes to the underlying issue, think it's not a great deal?
  On an asset that per stated plans, will take months to deliver?

The market really doesn't make any sense to me sometimes and trying to make sense of it really hurts my brain.

If there are changes to be made it's going to require more manpower to help filter better and to help the issuers plan their IPO's better.  I've been discussing getting more people involved lately, I will continue to pursue those avenues.

Cheers.

He pays dividends to unsold shares, so they go back to the company on top of the 'reinvestment shares'.

I know, both concepts are ridiculous, and would never pass muster with an accountant.  It's just another mechanism to bleed the shareholders.

Seriously? Only that is enough to never list stuff like that.
You are correct it ridiculous and you do not have to be accountant to understand this. Is it possible, he has no idea wtf treasury stock is and just used a fancy word? :)

Every share bought back by the Co becomes treasury stock - no divs, no voting. Period! Those share can be later canceled.
When shares are bought back - number of outstanding shares must be reduced (btc-tc supports that) and there is also reduction of company assets (_cash_ used to buy the shares). This is usually done when Co shares are undervalued for what ever reason and it actually makes sense to buy them back.

If Co has 1000 outstanding shares and 1000 coins
Co buys back 100 shares for 100 coins, they are left with 900 shares outstanding and 900 coins as cash.

Now, if that same Co makes 50 in profit and has 900 shares outstanding and 100 in treasury, 50 gets divided by 900 shares and NOT by 1000 (900+100)

"reinvestment share"? I hope they mean the % of profits reinvested. Nothing wrong with that because the coin stays in the Co as an asset.

I do not have enough LTC shares to be part of the official voting process. Regardless, we need to do everything to keep scams like this off the exchange(s).

Now, this scam has happened. Guy has the coin and it's probably all transferred to his wallet. Only way to fix this mess is if he fixes the contract so shareholders do not get ripped off.

Ken, are you willing to do that?

Yes, I understand some of the raised issues could have been better formulated in the original contract. My intention is not to rip off anyone, but to build value for AMC's shareholders. I am open to any thoughtful changes on how to proceed for making any necessary adjustments.

Okey, here is my suggestion:
Give shareholders at least 40-50% of the possible overall profit for all the risk they take, not like ~8%.

At the momeent shareholder are getting 50% of the profit.

Yes, I understand some of the raised issues could have been better formulated in the original contract. My intention is not to rip off anyone, but to build value for AMC's shareholders. I am open to any thoughtful changes on how to proceed for making any necessary adjustments.

That's a great idea.  Maybe when investors vote they could plug in the number of shares they'd be willing to commit.  Their vote wouldn't be tied to it, but it could be used as a weighing mechanism, and whatever they plug in they would be bound to.  (site would reserve it and auto-execute somehow at ipo.)

Maybe even better would be to allow ALL users to pre-commit on pending assets.  The amounts designated would go in reserve before the IPO, and the shares purchased would be locked after IPO for some specific time frame.  Then IPO's would be limited to some percentage of the pre-commitments.  IE, an IPO would not be allowed to release more than 150% or 200% of the pre-committed share count.

It'd also be a great way to prevent the situations where an issuer needs XXX amount to get started, then only raises 50% of that in the IPO.

Lots to think about.

as someone who was a share holder the dividends went

20million to reinvestment
15million Kens possession
5million were fighting for the small bit of dividends,

Im sorry to say it but I got rid of the rest of what I had yesterday after s_stylez P.I. - like post, dhenson's post of the virtual office box and Ken's absolutely horrible way of handling the current situation mostly by staying quiet or when answering giving only mediocre answers and more promise I had enough,

I like to give people the benefit of the doubt but in this case I was blinded mostly in the huge raise in share price, I am just thankful that I got out in the green but the people who bought in out of the large wall are the ones who are really suffering right now,

Ken until everything is changed from the bottom up everyone in this thread who was calling pump and dump was on point, some handled it way more professionally and like adults than others but the point was brought to surface, I wish you the best but things are definitely in need of changing,

What I really don't get is:

  Why did people think 2 days ago that 0.0025 was a great deal?
  And now, two days later, with minimal changes to the underlying issue, think it's not a great deal?
  On an asset that per stated plans, will take months to deliver?

The market really doesn't make any sense to me sometimes and trying to make sense of it really hurts my brain.

If there are changes to be made it's going to require more manpower to help filter better and to help the issuers plan their IPO's better.  I've been discussing getting more people involved lately, I will continue to pursue those avenues.

Only Yes votes matter and you need 5 of them. You could have 3000 No votes; as long as you get 5 Yes votes, you win the election. It's not even half of the voters; according to your 20+ voter comment, 25% of the voters need to somehow be encouraged to vote favorably. If the rest scream their lungs out about real problems in the contract, who cares? You get listed if you can bribe, threaten, over-promise, or otherwise get 5 people to supprt you.

It's actually even worse because you can even buy one vote yourself and that seems somehow to be quite OK.

This does seem like a design flaw.

I'm not going to get into whether your asset should be approved or not (I've previously indicated that I'd have voted YES if I had a vote).  But let's just say that I've yet to see someone who had problems getting votes come here and say "This time the voters were right and I'm cancelling my security as it wasn't up to scratch."  ALL issuers who don't get votes as fast as they'd like are going to blame the voters - so when it happens (as is the case here) it doesn't actually shed any light on the situation - as you'd be saying it whether your asset should have been approved or not.

At root the problem is money.  To have securities properly checked is potentially expensive - you need multiple people doing it (to avoid bias) and those capable of doing it properly aren't going to be cheap.  If some panel of suitable people were to be paid to screen securities then the registration fee would need to rise significantly.  And that's where the problem comes - because most issuers believe their contract is already fine.  So why would they pay a large fee to BTC-TC to have some panel agree with them when they could list on Bitfunder much cheaper?

BTC-TC and Bitfunder compete with one another in part on price - neither can afford to raise their listing fees if the other doesn't.

The starting point for improved standards (both in approving worthy listings and rejecting bad ones) would, in my view, be for burnside and Ukyo to agree that they'll BOTH raise their listing fees significantly.  Then they'd have the budget to do more DD on listings.  Until then BTC-TC is limited to doing whatever can be done for free - which means unpaid volunteers who may well not be competent.

This is a valid point, but on the other hand, I would much rather pay 5 peole 1BTC (of three people 1.6BTC) to have a guaranteed outcome than to throw 5BTC to someone who doens't have to bother and still get my money. In fact, I would double my payment if I knew there was an outcome (even if it wasn't positive).

a guy who is proven scammer and failed magician.

Well, dumb people never figure out anything themselves. That is why they usualy got scammed by people like Ken.

"Mr. Carolus is a recent subscriber to Magic New Zealand"

Guy comes to this forum today, makes an account, scams me for some coins and log off. An example. You wanna tell me you will trust him?

For you it is "without any shred of proof" but for me it is all proof I've ever need. Get out of the (mental) cave and deal with all sort of people
for few decades. Do not miss dealing with worst of mankind. You'll get a lot of experience out of it and your intuition might start working finaly.

but for me it is all proof I've ever need.

Definitely does not sound good for investors.  Though my understanding was that most of their returns would come from the mining that AMC would be doing.  Either way, a return seems a long, long way off.

2010 is an impressively early signup date.  Good to know Ken is a very early adapter, way ahead of the curve kind of guy.  He may have paid for our Avalons with his cheap old coins.

In contrast, btc megamouth has been here all of 4 months.   ::)

Ken has contributed to the community by giving AM some badly needed competition, while providing us Joe Sixcoin types with an excellent investment opportunity.  I've already doubled my money a couple of times and am now playing entirely with the money given to me by scared little speculators waving their weak hands around. 

In contrast, btc megamouth's main contribution is to ride our coattails with yet another crummy cafepress t-shirt.

I support family businesses.  The proprietors have extra incentives to succeed and benefit from dealing with less HR issues. 

6 Avalons, 20k chips, and a lot of capital represent a substantial amount of "substance."  Certainly more than AM began with and more than btc megamouth's t-shirts will ever amount to.

No risk, no reward; if you can't take the heat GTFO the kitchen.   8)

There's two problems with that :

1.  If the 5 BTC fee gos to the people reviewing the contract then there's nothing left for the Exchange.
2.  1 BTC doesn't buy much time.

Expanding on point 2 - what would you expect for your 1 BTC?  Say I was a reviewing your contract and I found a few things unclear or objectionable (but fixable) do I reject it?  Or do you amend it pay another 1 BTC and try again?

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.

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???

BFL  ;)

This does seem like a design flaw.

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.

YES 4 / 1 NO    (1 ABSTAINING -- Users with 10 or more shares of LTC-GLOBAL are allowed to vote.)

Anonymous voted NO with comment: Errors in calculating difficulty when making estimates of projected returns does not instill confidence.

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.

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

I wanted to thank you Megamouth,

You are the sole reason why I'm going to be sticking with AMC, nothing will make me more happy than to rub it in your face at the end of this.

I've actually purchased more shares simply because of you. If you do the complete opposite of what you post you can actually make some decent money.

[AMC] Hardware discussion and F.A.Q.

So, what do shares represent? Ownership?
Shares do not represent ownership, they are "solely a distribution mechanism for rights to profits", and used as a means to liquidation.

Wait a minute... I'm not "owning" a part of AMC, just a piece of the "profits" ???
Welcome to the bitcoin stock exchange game. Learn the risks, and stay, or get out. Please read https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=245713.msg2616979#msg2616979

So, shares represent a part of profits then. How are they distributed?
Until at least May 2014, on the initial 40M, a minimum of 20M are retained for growth and expansion and a maximum of 20M can be sold to investors.
In May 2014, or when 0.0005 is payed by share, whichever happens later, an extra 60M are created, for the final total of 100M. On these remaining 60M, a minimum of 20M are retained for growth and expansion and a maximum of 40M can be sold to investors, with a 40M being retained by AMC/Ken.
So, I heard I am earning a lot from AMC right now, by bagging the dividends from all the unsold shares out of the 40M?
Wrong. The contract specifies that all dividends from issued shares still on AMC's hands are retained by the growth and expansion fund (the contract was originally written using correct terminology, but BF considers all shares "issued").
The first time I get a piece of the pie will be after a year of work (May 2014), when the rest of the 60M are issued. At that time, more 20M can be sold to investors, and I retain the remaining 40M.

I've read a lot of announcements, but have yet to see real documents. Can you please provide some?
Engineering Firm quote for Avalon machines: http://axs.net/AMC/SB-Prototype-Quote.jpg
eASIC NDA: http://axs.net/AMC/eAsic-NDA0001.jpg and http://axs.net/AMC/eAsic-NDA0002.jpg


So, how will the division between AMC and VMC be implemented, in respect to chip/machine sales?
Roughy, AMC takes care of the chips, VMC takes care of the machines:
- AMC develops the chip, pays the chip's NRE and sells the chip in bulk to customers (using VMC as intermediary).
- VMC uses AMC's chip (or any other chips) and builds bitcoin miners, paying a royalty cost to AMC whenever its IP is used.

Chip sales: AMC holds IP rights on the Fast-Hash-ONE chips, so AMC contracts with VMC the following services: (a) the representation services to negotiate chip production with eASIC and (b) the re-selling of AMC's chips in bulk. 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%. All of VMC's expenses, including representation, chip stock management and re-shipping expenses to final customers are taken from their 30% profit.

System sales: AMC also allows VMC to buy chips directly from eASIC at the lowest cost, for the manufacturing of bitcoin mining systems. On every sale of these systems or parts of it that contain AMC chips or IP, AMC receives a 10% royalty fee from the total gross sales revenue. Example: if a customer purchases a system for ฿100, AMC receives ฿10, whatever the profit margins for VMC are.

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.

http://i41.tinypic.com/64nlgg.jpg

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.

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

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.

I wonder how AMC can  pledge exclusivity to VMC for chip orders?

That is clearly not in AMC's best interests, as they should be free to seek the best prices.  That sort of conflict of interest is why the separate company charade is not allowed in the real world.
Also AMC has already broken the deal.  Chips were bought from Avalon.  Unless VMC owns the chips, and AMC merely paid for them.  There is no paperwork showing that loan to VMC that I have seen.  That would reduce AMC's valuation even further.

Until I see contracts that change the terms to gross from net, I am sticking by my analysis. 

+1 - I support the change of terms. This is why we need to flip the table and have things benefit AMC investors as we are risking and funding VMC. Ken can keep his VMC and do what he wants with it. AMC should put up the funds for NRE and use the chips to build AMC machines to hash with. VMC can get funding elsewhere and be it's seperate entity with no affiliation with AMC. AMC bought chips from avalon and AMC should continue buying chips from from other vendors if pricing is cheap or just develop AMC's chip and make hardware.

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?

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)?

Q: Why could I trust you?
A: In principle, like scientific theories, trustworthiness can only be
disproved. However some facts might contribute to more confidence: My ID, phone and email have all
been verified in GLBSE. I started running the fund called MU on GLBSE before it updated to version
2. I am also responsible for the GLBSE-listed bond MOORE.

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.

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.

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

+1 - I support the change of terms. This is why we need to flip the table and have things benefit AMC investors as we are risking and funding VMC. Ken can keep his VMC and do what he wants with it. AMC should put up the funds for NRE and use the chips to build AMC machines to hash with. VMC can get funding elsewhere and be it's seperate entity with no affiliation with AMC. AMC bought chips from avalon and AMC should continue buying chips from from other vendors if pricing is cheap or just develop AMC's chip and make hardware.

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.

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

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?

Actually it crashed before he posted.

But I guess we all get to choose the gods we pray to.

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.

Actually it crashed before he posted.

But I guess we all get to choose the gods we pray to.

Except for that tiny 1.5m share wall at 0.0025....my guess is it will be tough to find that many suckers.

Except for that tiny 1.5m share wall at 0.0025....my guess is it will be tough to find that many suckers.

I'm still concerned about the valuation. What so far gives us a reason to believe that the combined value of VMC + AMC is worth 100M shares x .0025 or $25M? That seems like a lofty valuation given what we know so far. Am I missing something? Is Ken going to restrict the total number of shares issued?

Of course, 6 Avalons + 20000 chips worth $25M :D

I'm still concerned about the valuation. What so far gives us a reason to believe that the combined value of VMC + AMC is worth 100M shares x .0025 or $25M? That seems like a lofty valuation given what we know so far. Am I missing something? Is Ken going to restrict the total number of shares issued?

Yep, probably going into something around ~25M total shares.

+1, It seems really hard for these guys to understand that we're betting on the future, not the now.

They have a NDA with eASIC and their own chips will eventually be made. If you think they will fail this then don't buy, if you think they will succeed and be able to scale their mining operations similar to ASICMiner then purchase shares because this is the cheapest they are going to be if that happens.

IMO if you want a better ROI then buy your own ASIC gear... that way you will be helping to secure your future along with the future of the bitcoin network itself.

just my 2c

I would if I could  :)

Already ahead of you, should have around 8 TH myself come October.

My point is that as long as you have a Chip that can be ordered at cost from a Foundry, you will be ahead of anyone that orders a machine from another company.

The current price reflects the risk involved in getting this chip, if they succeed the price will most definitely go up. If they fail, it will most definitely go way down. Not sure how else you can look at it.

Already ahead of you, should have around 8 TH myself come October.

My point is that as long as you have a Chip that can be ordered at cost from a Foundry, you will be ahead of anyone that orders a machine from another company.

The current price reflects the risk involved in getting this chip, if they succeed the price will most definitely go up. If they fail, it will most definitely go way down. Not sure how else you can look at it.

Already ahead of you, should have around 8 TH myself come October.

My point is that as long as you have a Chip that can be ordered at cost from a Foundry, you will be ahead of anyone that orders a machine from another company.

The current price reflects the risk involved in getting this chip, if they succeed the price will most definitely go up. If they fail, it will most definitely go way down. Not sure how else you can look at it.

[VMC/AMC] Merger

This is a Pre-Merger VMC Offering.

(This Is For Community Review Only)

The Final Offering May Be DIFFERENT

(This Document Is For Community Review Only And May Contain Errors)

========================================================================================================

Virtual Mining Corporation (VMC) will be incorporated as a Belize International Business Company
and will be exchanged for 15 million shares to purchase Virtual Mining Corporation (VMC) a Delaware Corporation.

VMC is made up of a team of dedicated Bitcoin mining professionals with over 30 years of combined
experience in the ISP Business including Internet Access and Web Hosting, Graphics Design,
Cloud Development, Computer Programming in Multiple Languages, FPGA Hardware And Software Design,
Complete Systems Design, Web Design, and System Administration.
  
The team has been involved with Bitcoins since 2009.  VMC will be manfacturing Bitcoin Mining Machines.
VMC has agreed with  Active Mining Corporation (AMC) is a Belize International Business Company
DBA Active Mining Cooperative to sell the first 100 machines manufactured in the machines listed below
to AMC.  AMC will have the first right of refusal on the below units developed by VMC and any future
developed units.  Investors in VMC will have the second right of refusal on units manufactured by VMC.

VMC will manufacture Application Specific Integrated Circuit (ASIC) Bitcoin mining machines
and is working with AMC to develope an ASIC chip and PCB that it will license from AMC for use in their
Fast-Hash series of Bitcoin Mining Machines.  VMC is using AMC's technology to develope an ASIC chips on
28nm process which is estimited to run at 16 GH/s with it's partner eASIC (www.easic.com).  VMC's ASIC
has very fast speeds of 16 to 20 GH/s with low power usage.  The 28nm chip is expected to run faster after
it is put through the eASIC's easicopy process and will be used in VMC's Fast-Hash-One series of machines.
VMC may purchase ASIC chips from different vendors if available to use in it's manufactured machines.

VMC will be using the most innovative technology available to manufacture their Fast-Hash(tm) series of
Bitcoin Mining Machines.  Investors in VMC will receive the benefits of having dividends paid out as
soon as VMC starts shipping machines to the public and making a profit.  Investors in VMC will see
big benefits when VMC using AMC's technology develops it's own ASIC chip and AMC licenses its technology
to VMC to use in its Fast-Hash series of Bitcoin mining machines.  VMC will pay license fees in the form
of Bitcoin mining machines at cost and royalties to AMC for it's technology.

VMC is in the process of getting an agreement with eASIC to produce an ASIC bitcoin mining chips on the
28nm process.  This chip will be available in limited Low Volume/Sample quanities in the 4th quarter of
2013 and full production quanities in the 1st quarter of 2014.

VMC will provide the Bitcoin Mining Equipment below ("Mining Equipment") to AMC at VMC's manufacturing
cost for the use of AMC's developed technology for the equipment below as a licensed fee for
VMC to use all of AMC's developed technology.  VMC will also pay AMC a 10% royalty on all other sales
using AMC's developed technology.

Web Site:    www.virtualminingcorp.com
Facebook:   https://www.facebook.com/pages/Fast-Hash/319110168218206
Twitter:    @VirtualMiningCo
Phone:      1+(855) ONE-BITCOIN (663-2482)
  
*** Business Experience:

Slaughter Vending and Amusement, Pegasus Business Systems, Advanced Learning Systems, Advanced Software
Solutions, Active Internet Communications - ISP Business axs(tm).net which produced over 2.5 Million
in revenue and over 10,000 customers in 49 states, Canada, and Puerto Rico with over 10 employees.
Turn-key Web Hosting Business running on Amazon.com, Started Bitcoin mining in 2009.
 
*** Software packages developed:

Internet Cruiser(tm) web browser, Virtual 3D Environments, Individual Profile System(tm) (IPS), Neural
Network, Anonymous Bitcoin Exchange software, Automobile Collision Repair System(tm) (ACRS)

*** Cloud Development:

Web Hosting Business: shopping-cart-now.com running on Amazon.com
 
*** Web Sites Developed With Graphics:

TahoeUltimateRentals.com, shopping-cart-now.com, votecliffyoung.com, and votecliffyoung.com plus many
more over the years.

*** ASIC Development:

AMC has Synthesized it's Bitcoin Mining source code to create RTL for the xc6xlt150 FPGA.  VMC has had
the code ported to eASIC Nextreme-2 family of ASIC chips.  eASIC will then close timing on the design
for the ASIC chip.  After timing closure, Prototype and Low Volume production of the ASIC chips will begin.
High volume production of the chip will begin in 3-6 months after the project starts.

After production begins, the ASIC chips can be delivered to VMC in a 3 to 6 month time frame.  VMC will-at
the same time-start the high production process for 28nm chip using eASIC's easicopy process which takes
as little as 12 months.  VMC has also received licenses on Printed Circuit Board (PCB) designs for
xc6xlt150 FPGA Boards.  VMC has hired an Electronic Engineering and Manufacturing Services to design
the PCB boards for its Fast_Hash series of bitcoin mining machines.  VMC may purchase Bitcoin Mining Chips
or PCB from other vendors if available for its machines.  

=============================================================================================================

VMC Manufactures ASIC Bitcoin mining equipment which it provides to AMC and the public.

Bitcoin ASIC Mining Equipment To Be Purchased:      

Units to be provided to AMC by VMC at manufacturers cost:

The following will be ordered from VMC if funds are available from AMC and the units are developed.
AMC will have the first right of refusal on the below units developed by VMC and any future
developed units.  Additional units will be provided at lowest retail value minus the 10%
royalty fee.    Investors in VMC on bitfunder.com will have the second right of refusal on units
manufactured by VMC.

100 Fast-Hash-80's**   @  80 GH/s each for a total of: 8 TH/s
                        Specifications: 110nm 282 MH/s chip 75 chips per board 4 boards per unit
                        Estimated retail value @ ~$6,000 each for a total of $600,000
                        (Estimated to be delivered August 2013)

100 Fast-Hash-80's**   @  80 GH/s each for a total of: 8 TH/s
                        Specifications: 110nm 282 MH/s chip 75 chips per board 4 boards per unit
                        Estimated retail value @ ~$6,000 each for a total of $600,000
                        (Estimated to be delivered October 2013)

100 Fast-Hash-80's**   @  80 GH/s each for a total of: 8 TH/s
                        Specifications: 110nm 282 MH/s chip 75 chips per board 4 boards per unit
                        Estimated retail value @ ~$6,000 each for a total of $600,000
                        (Estimated to be delivered December 2013)

100 Fast-Hash-80's**   @  80 GH/s each for a total of: 8 TH/s
                        Specifications: 110nm 282 MH/s chip 75 chips per board 4 boards per unit
                        Estimated retail value @ ~$6,000 each for a total of $600,000
                        (Estimated to be delivered February 2013)

100 Fast-Hash-400's**   @  400 GH/s each for a total of: 40 TH/s
                        Specifications: 45nm 6 GH/s chip 75 chips per board 1 board per unit
                        Estimated retail value @ ~$30,000 each for a total of $3,000,000
                        (Estimated to be delivered March 2014)

100 Fast-Hash-800's**   @ 800 GH/s each for a total of: 80 TH/s
                        Specifications: 45nm 6 GH/s chip 75 chips per board 2 boards per unit
                        Estimated retail value @ ~$60,000 each for a total of $6,000,000
                        (Estimated to be delivered May 2013)

100 Fast-Hash-1.2T's**   @  1.2 TH/s each for a total of: 120 TH/s
                        Specifications: 28nm 9 GH/s chip 75 chips per board 1 board per unit  
                        Estimated retail value @ ~$100,000 each for a total of $10,000,000
                        (Estimated to be delivered July 2014)

100 Fast-Hash-2.4T's**   @  2.4 TH/s each for a total of: 240 TH/s
                        Specifications: 28nm 9 GH/s chip 75 chips per board 2 board per unit  
                        Estimated retail value @ ~$200,000 each for a total of $20,000,000
                        (Estimated to be delivered September 2014)

100 Fast-Hash-4.8T's**   @  4.8 TH/s each for a total of: 480 TH/s
                        Specifications: 28nm 9 GH/s chip 75 chips per board 4 board per unit  
                        Estimated retail value @ ~$400,000 each for a total of $40,000,000
                        (Estimated to be delivered December 2014)



VMC has a contract with AMC to repay to AMC 100% of the Non Recuring Engeering (NRE) fee that
AMC provides to VMC to develope an ASIC for bitcoin mining.  VMC will pay to AMC 100% of the profits
from bulk chips sales after AMC's royalty payment, cost of goods sold, and all direct expenses required
to sale the chips.  

We will also be buying shares of AMC on any stock exchange as they become reasonably priced to
provide dividend income to VMC share holders.  These shares will be sold if VMC needs capital to
for any purpose.

VMC currently own 0 shares of AMC as of the Initial Public Offering date.  Check the reports
in the bitcointalk VMC thread for the current number of AMC shares owned.

* Different quantities or other Bitcoin Mining Machines may be provided if the above are not
available, developed, specification changes, or the market changes.  All specifications and delivery
dates are subject to change.

** Fast-Hash-XXX, Fast-Hash-One are trademarks of VMC developed Bitcoin Mining Machines.  AMC will receive the
above machines at manufacturers cost.  AMC will also receive a 10% royalty from VMC on all other
VMC sales using AMC's technologies.

=============================================================================================================
=============================================================================================================

VMC Offering:

VMC's offering is comprised of 25,000,000 shares in total. VMC may issue these shares on any exchange it
deems fit for trading of VMC's shares as long as the total shares issued does not exceed 25,000,000
shares.  This offering may me modified with a majorty vote of the shares holders.

VMC will provide a method for shareholders to vote.  The method will provide that only shareholders can vote
and shareholders will only have 1 vote for each share that is held.  Any motion to bring a vote before the
shareholders will require 10% of the shareholders votes on a petition with 1 vote for each share held.
VMC will provide a method for motions should the need arise, if the exchange does not provide a method.
VMC will be run by a 7 member board of directors, the board of directors will be elected within three months
of the initial IPO of VMC.  The board of directors shall adopt a set of by-laws within the first 6 months.
Until the first board of directors are elected, the current management of VMC, Delaware will manage VMC Belize.  

1 share of VMC on the exchange represents 1/25,000,000th of 100% of the monthly profits after all expenses.

VMC shares offer no voting rights. Shares of VMC on the exchange do not represent real world shares of the
company.  The shares are solely a distribution mechanism for rights to profits.

As of the time of this writing, up to 10,000,000 shares will be released to the public through a swap of
1 share of Active Mining Corporation dba Active Mining Cooperative (AMC) for 1 share of VMC.  AMC is traded on
bitfunder.com.  Any remaining shares not included in the IPO are owned/maintained/controlled by VMC.
These shares will be used at the issuers discretion for any uses deemed fit. These uses are not limited to,
but may include employment.

The funds from the IPO will be used to manufacture VMC's products, research and development,
deposits, chip production and development, PCB production and development, licensing fees, eASIC NRE to
create a 28nm bitcoin mining chip, and other necessary needs for manufacturing VMC's products.  
The IPO funds may also be used to purchase AMC shares.  VMC will also exchange its shares for AMC
shares, the rate of exchange will be determined by the board of directors of VMC.

Should VMC be sold or closed, the full amount of the purchase price, liquidated income,
liquidated assets will be evenly distributed to the 25,000,000 shares.

AMC Swap Shares:

VMC will issue up to 10,000,000 "AMC Swap" shares which may be used in an exchange for AMC shares.
Any shares not exchange for AMC shares may be sold by VMC.  VMC will set the deadline date that
AMC shares have to be tendered to VMC for a swap to be effective.  Shares of AMC tendered after
the deadline will not be swapped for VMC shares and will be returned.


Additional shares may be sold at no less than .005 BTC each.

Statements and Accounting:

Detailed statement and accounting will be provided on VMC's Bitcointalk thread if avilable or any other
forum which VMC's chooses.  Forum will be posted on VMC's website at www.virtualminingcorp.com

Dividends:

Dividends will be paid on all issued shares.  Dividends will be declared by the board of directors.
Dividends will be paid each week as declared by the board of directors.  
Reports will be posted on VMC's Thread on a forum of VMC's choosing.

Forced Buy Back:

No forced buyback may be enforced for shares of VMC.  VMC may purchase it's own shares on any
exchange where VMC shares are traded.

Equipment:

All equipment listed in this offer will be sold to AMC at the average manufacturing cost for
the unit or a like unit.

After VMC's initial delivery of the above mining equipment, AMC will have first right
of refusal on any equipment manufactured by VMC and said equipment will be paid for by AMC.  
VMC will not charge AMC a price which is higher than the lowest price VMC has sold the
equipment or like equipment to any other customer or if the equipment has not been sold
before, then the posted price on VMC's web site.

Estimated VMC 12 Months Projections:

==========================================================================================================
**********************************************************************************************************

Total Estimated Gross Sales                                                                                                                                  479,000 BTC

Total Estimated Cost Of Goods Sold BTC                                                                                                                201,000 BTC

Total Estimated Expenses BTC                                                                                                                               113,000 BTC

Total Estimated Profit BTC                                                                                                                                     165,000 BTC

Estmated AMC Revenue (Next 12 Months)                                                                                                              112,000 BTC

Total Combined Profit And Revenue                                                                                                                       277,000 BTC                  

**********************************************************************************************************

25,000,000 Issued Shares
Estimated Gross Combined Profit and Revenue / Share                                                                                           0.01108 BTC

**********************************************************************************************************

Return on Investment(ROI) Fully Diluted: 25,000,000 Issued Shares

  Net Estimated ROI/12 Months AMC Swap shares @ .0025 BTC/Share                                                                             443 %

**********************************************************************************************************
==========================================================================================================
VMC130307-1

Update:

Investors must have 100,000 shares before getting a second right of refusal.

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?

So with the merger terms, are investors still only getting ~8% as pointed out before by another poster? Ken came in and said we get 50% and then they posted a FAQ/merger news and since then no rebuttal from the community. Wondering if we're still in "getting stiffed" territory.

25M shares in total. Investors are getting 10M shares, of which 8,525,349 have been issued. The remaining 15M are owned by Ken (and family members, etc). That does mean that at .0037 * 23,525,349 issued shares, the company is valued at BTC87,043 or $7,833,941 @ $90/BTC.

Profits can now say no, the price is expensive

As I said, you look really silly right now.

.00396 on bitfunder today.

strange, I don't feel silly.  I doubt entropy does either- he posted it would crash, it DID crash by 2/3, then only recovered once the entire business was re-organized and many of the most obviously glaring problems were sort of fixed?  You bulls should really be more thankful to the skeptics, or do you miss your little VMC-AMC multi-level clusterfuck?

I bought a whole bunch at .0025 when the wall was falling and sold them at a range of ~.003-.0034, then did it again with the 2nd wall, buying @.0025 and selling @.0035-.004.  I expect the chance to do it again when Ken feels like dumping more shares.  Guess what- even skeptics are allowed to make money off of absurdly valued securities and asset price bubbles.  Maybe this company is worth a fraction of its current market cap, or maybe one guy who can barely read and write english and continually makes the same mistakes plus a few family members is actually a secret genius who has super mega awesome mining code and will be pumping out millions of dollars of the BESTEST MACHINES EVAR and is going to make a bunch of millionaires out of all of us.

I'm completely over analyzing this company in any depth in public...it's been a FANTASTIC trading vehicle for me from the moment it debuted on BTCT and I will continue following it closely and trading in it, and good luck to those who want to hold for the long term.

strange, I don't feel silly.  I doubt entropy does either- he posted it would crash, it DID crash by 2/3, then only recovered once the entire business was re-organized and many of the most obviously glaring problems were sort of fixed?  You bulls should really be more thankful to the skeptics, or do you miss your little VMC-AMC multi-level clusterfuck?

I bought a whole bunch at .0025 when the wall was falling and sold them at a range of ~.003-.0034, then did it again with the 2nd wall, buying @.0025 and selling @.0035-.004.  I expect the chance to do it again when Ken feels like dumping more shares.  Guess what- even skeptics are allowed to make money off of absurdly valued securities and asset price bubbles.  Maybe this company is worth a fraction of its current market cap, or maybe one guy who can barely read and write english and continually makes the same mistakes plus a few family members is actually a secret genius who has super mega awesome mining code and will be pumping out millions of dollars of the BESTEST MACHINES EVAR and is going to make a bunch of millionaires out of all of us.

I'm completely over analyzing this company in any depth in public...it's been a FANTASTIC trading vehicle for me from the moment it debuted on BTCT and I will continue following it closely and trading in it, and good luck to those who want to hold for the long term.

How come it didn't happen for any other security?

Lots of self-denial here.

There was a sell off on Bitfunder during the BTC-TC trading freeze, by someone who was looking to cash in a decent amount of shares. Investors getting spooked is the most likely answer.

I was thinking, a stolen laptop with access to running passwords/sites and a knowledge of Bitcoin, or a jealous girlfriend trying to gain some attention, while he is in the shower!

He's paying the NRE.  It's time to give it a rest.  If this were a con, that 1,000,000 would not be spent on chip NRE.

Awesome. I must have missed that one, is there any proof?

He's paying the NRE.  It's time to give it a rest.  If this were a con, that 1,000,000 would not be spent on chip NRE.

Awesome. I must have missed that one, is there any proof?

I caution everyone that it will take us a couple of weeks to complete the painstaking process of getting all the funds converted and on to eASIC.

ZOMG the flash crash has started.

AMC has flash crashed straight up, to .005 on BF and .006 on BTCT! 

I thought it was supposed to flash crash down, but whatever.

Quick everybody, panic buy.  Or panic sell if that's easier.

As long you are panicking you are doing it right and being a wise investor.

Just like the OP.   :D

+1

panic panic fud fud buy sell do it now :D

I would buy 2 BTC worth of puts just to hedge a bit on the downtrend if this is rising too high.
Near where it started today and where its at is the strike + premium seems fair enough.
0.006 - 0.009 range
Strike 0.0075 Premium 0.0015 duration 18 day term
Valid for 12 hours since its a bit wild the market is free if someone wants to offer a better deal :)

(EDIT: Yes selling puts in a flash-crash thread why because I can XD)

Hi, I could write 1500 or 2000 puts on BTCT at Strike 0.0075 Premium 0.0015, but duration 11 days term. Let me know if interested in

Hi, I could write 1500 or 2000 puts on BTCT at Strike 0.0075 Premium 0.0015, but duration 11 days term. Let me know if interested in

Was about to say I would take them ^^
Sending a PM
Please reply back when you receive it :)

They are on BTCT already. Please take action ;D

Action taken worst case scenario secured for 1500 strike at 0.06 seems low but I got 11 days to see if it goes up to 2 or back to 0.05 ^^
Thanks

How'd this work out for you Ice?

:-D

They don't believe it actually. What they believe is that cheerleading, and censorship, will get their shares to be worth more. (Also, hiding bad information makes them scammers, but I doubt they care about what's right.)
What they don't realize is that anyone with a brain can read their circlejerk, see that it's a madhouse, and GTFO.

Checking back in after a few months sanity rest, I am shocked that there are no chips.  With the millions that were raised a competent crew would have delivered (as a few others have in the same time frame).  I criticized this whole venture for the outrageous valuation and lack of qualification of the operator.  I didn't expect it to degenerate into an outright swindle.

Given the pitifully low liquidity that will be available on the new exchange, I expect folks will be able to delude themselves into being bitcoin millionaires for a few more months.  Good f*cking luck actually swapping any volume of worthless shares for valuable bitcoins though.

As an aside, profiting off a garbage stock doesn't make you a genius, just a fortunate fool.

It never was. You profited from the hype, congratulations, but don't lie to yourself.
Your other investment still has to prove itself.

I bought ACTM shares before their first Avalons arrived, because I knew the shares would spike when they started paying dividends.  Genius, right?   8)

ACTM had a narrow window of opportunity to be viable, which slammed closed when HashFast de-cloaked.

They had a second chance to focus on building a mine with HashFast instead wasting our BTC finishing their own obsolete, leapfrogged chip.

I advised them to take this course of action, but was Ignored.   :P

I know my other investment has yet to prove itself.

Did I ever say "my other investment has proven itself?"

No, I didn't.  So don't put words in my mouth.   ;)