|
What's witholding the automatic payout of PicoStocks dividends? Transaction volume due to the compromised accounts in June.
|
|
|
|
Am i the only one who is bothered (understatement) by him removing and adding shares just because he was a little frustrated?
Imagine this happening in the real world out there with real stocks...it's totally absurd what just happened.
In the real world after a stunt like this he would be bankrupt the next day.
Here people simply keep on buying?
Seriously?
In the real world, one becomes a bankrupt, heavily persecuted bastard like Jon Corzine. Oh wait... |
|
|
|
Obviously the idiot can't quote. Why exactly you can't read however is a question for another day. When MPEX is serious business, its businesses are serious. Didn't want to look up the obvious answer to this rethorical question. |
|
|
|
The poorly thought out MPEX contract is already revealing its problems.
100 % of profits are paid to shareholders. Absolutely zero room for reinvestment... Does it state gross profits (gambling result) or net profits (result after all costs)? Since the first is surrealistic, I assume the net profits. But this is only an assumptions. Reinvestment en interest on investment loans come in between gross and net profits, unless these expenses are prohibited by the contract. |
|
|
|
|
Buying shares (no bond, there's no interest nor debt) in a potential mining asset = buying lottery tickets without a prize fund. The only garantuee we have, is that the invested money will be spent out of our control. And I don't see the joy in your lottery, furuknap: I expect too much of your particular rules to obey.
In general, only selling of shares on which capital goes to the underlying venture has use for a venture, to raise productive capital.
The aftermarket and the (subsequent) gamblers on these shares, who think they are king, don't provide any use to the venture. It's just distraction.
|
|
|
|
I'm sorry, I find it just disturbing: some entrepreneurs work and risk their time to build a 100th mine, they offer the public to profit of their work by investing only 0.04 BTC per 200 Mhash/s in their enterprise, the share price has subsequently almost tenfolded on nothing and what do you get as thank you: whining forum members when you sell a tiny bit of the shares you paid for yourselves.  |
|
|
|
|
All shares on the market were paid for in BTC at the IPO, as far as I know, so if the managing team want to reap some profits from their own investment by selling the shares they've invested BTC themselves in, go ahead. They even post them at the bullish side and publish the posting.
It is already a bit overpriced, since you get only a fixed 200 Mhash/s for 0.4 BTC, while there's nothing but risks at the moment. But the herd will stampede it up and up and up, till the last suckers can only go down from the top. All welcome, I'll appreciate the coming trading volume on and attention brought to PicoStocks, as ordinary shareholder.
Anyway, good luck on the journey to the 1.0 BTC mark and the MT in exploiting the 100th mine. Sounds somewhat less exotic these days than at the start of the year.
|
|
|
|
Guys, the problem is pretty simple actually. AMC needs to sell more shares, as it only sold 5M out of the initial 15M. --> AMC tries to sell more shares, at market price. --> AMC keeps being undercut. --> AMC thus, doesn't sell anything, or very little. --> AMC doesn't get the additional funds it needs, at the time it needs. --> AMC dies of starvation. Please provide ways to solve this problem.  My solution is a primary/secondary market like everyone else is doing outside bitcoin. If Ken wants to sell @ .0008, but people undercut him, it means there is not enough demand for the share at that price. Then he needs to lower the price, it's quite simple actually. Any way of distorting the market by selling behind closed doors, will eventually affect the share price and shareholders in a negative way. I don't want to be a part of "what will be ken's next move" - speculation game once again. And that is what it will become if we have closed market selling. If someone wanted to buy 1 millions shares at 0.0008 BTC then there would obviously be demand. As Vbs points out, Ken selling share privately is a good thing for AMC and it's investors and is a bad thing ONLY for flippers. It doesn't surprise me that some people would be against that, as it would cut into their profits. Flippers do not care whether or not AMC succeeds and likewise, I don't care in the slightest if selling shares privately cuts flippers profits. Some people on these forums treat the market like some religious people treat their god. The market is not infallible, in fact, it's quite easily manipulated. +1 for Ken selling shares privately if needed. He does not need to sell them privately, it ends up the same as putting them on open market at the correct price. So what if the flippers bail out and undercut him for a day, it'll iron itself out if he prices them realistically. Well, if he needed the money to buy hardware, it would mean he would have to sell more shares than intended in order to purchase that hardware. That would mean less hardware could be bought, which means a lower percentage of the network hash rate, which leads to lower mining profits, which leads to lower dividends. How is that good for long term investors? Investors... most of the people in here are speculators that just wanna see the high price of AMC maintained. The fact is that his original plan only called for the funding necessary raised by selling shares at .0005. If AMC is ready to raise more money quickly, all he needs to do is stick with his plan. No need for illusory BF features. Buy and hold or flipping as soon as possible: buying assets for a profit is always speculation, but on the short term side, share price is relevant right here and now, while for the long term, current share price is irrelevant, except for peace of mind or changing your mind. And other thoughts I want to spew: Buying a mining asset, is mainly speculation on future dividends since the underlying asset is not does not retain its value well: it's buying hardware which becomes obsolete in a short time frame and which you mine till it die or direct costs become too high. So your money is burned and then you depend on machines, management and environment. An interesting feature though of AMC (and some other miners), is structural withholding part of the profits to reinvest in new hardware. This should give enough purchasing power to gain and retain a share of the daily minted BTC. Dreaming on, this could render a gross 1188 satoshi @ 33% @ 25 BTC per block per share. Net revenue will decline by marginal costs of mining. I see a share in the cooperative mainly as a right to this potential revenue stream. And next to reinvestment, there should be some indirect profit on hardware sales by VMC through royalties. However, BTC-revenues from hardware are declining fast, so it could be an interesting venture from a fiat perspective, but isn't for a BTC-denominated share. If someone is more optimistic on the (time frame of the) ROI, I'll sell. And if someone is more pessimistic, I'll buy. Or I do anything I feel like, for tons of other, irrational reasons. |
|
|
|
Guys, the problem is pretty simple actually. AMC needs to sell more shares, as it only sold 5M out of the initial 15M. --> AMC tries to sell more shares, at market price. --> AMC keeps being undercut. --> AMC thus, doesn't sell anything, or very little. --> AMC doesn't get the additional funds it needs, at the time it needs. --> AMC dies of starvation.Please provide ways to solve the problem entitled "death by starvation". My solution is an OPEN primary/secondary market like everyone else is doing outside bitcoin. In BitFunder, I'd be happy with something like this (mock-up): I like this idea: more choice for market participants and it is quite transparant. One can only spend his BTC once on a asset and investment it does matter in whose pockets your money ends up. |
|
|
|
Wellicht je 'signature' aanpassen dus  EDIT: Wellicht jullie 'signatures' aanpassen... |
|
|
|
|
Everyone should pick one's niche.
ASICMINER mines and ships mining hardware.
Most other companies in ASIC-mining (hardware) make fancy websites.
Which focus point do you prefer?
|
|
|
|
Currently from BitFunder.com Early-Adopters:
AMC may issue up to 20,000,000 "Early-Adopters" shares which may be posted for no less than 0.0005 BTC
each and will also issue 20,000,000 growth and expansion fund shares to AMC. The "Early-Adopter" shares
may be posted in batches with the first batch being 5,000,000 shares. Only the first 40,000,000 issued
shares will receive 100% of the monthly profits after all expenses until the total dividends paid is
equal to .0005 BTC per share. AMC will only issue 40,000,000 shares (20,000,00 "Early-Adopter and
20,000,000 AMC growth and expansion fund shares) until the total dividends paid is equal to 0.0005 BTC
per share and 12 months have elaped from the date of the initial offering. Should it be determined that
it is not feasible to develop an ASIC chip, then the remaining funds in the research and development/purchase
fund will be added the growth and expansion fund.
Additional shares may be sold at no less than .001 BTC each. But no GPG-signed contracts up till now, so everything is free-floating, and also the absence of a GPG-signed contract is valuable information. Nonetheless, I hold shares in AMC and go for the long run. |
|
|
|
|
Your quoting from before the IPO of AMC "II"
EDIT: AMC's first attempt to sell virtual shares was retracted to rework the offering and shares went for sale a second time in May.
|
|
|
|
bandwagon or rollercoaster |
|
|
|
|
This concerns only the first batch of IPO share (5 million, 5% of AMC)
So still 15 million share in between 0.0005 & 0.001 ~ nothing is for sure...
|
|
|
|
knowing the capital raised.
Capital raised for who? The company? Right... You don't know what goes back in. He can be rebuying back what he sells. Technically you will never get out of the IPO and the 20mil * 0.0005 he supposedly owns to the shareholders will never sell out. This is flat out manipulation I don't know what else you would call it. Knowing may indeed be not the right word for my proposition. With proper representation of the shares, AMC is able to show the shares they hold themselves. It requires trust in the asset manager to give a proper representation of reality, but thinking someone is giving a proper representation of reality, is a definition of trust. |
|
|
|
|
.b,
I'm trying to understand your objections and I agree there should be better practices than how its going right now.
e.g.
To create transparancy, kslaughter could make the bitfunder adressen clear for:
1. investment fund - exactly 20M shares
2. shares to be sold for fundraising of AMC (productive investment) - about 19M shares atm?
In this way it is clear no one should pay more than 0.0005 BTC (risking an investment in someone elses wallet instead of AMC), but anyone is still free to pay more. Also an assessment off the value of the asset is than a possibility, knowing the capital raised.
|
|
|
|
I'll tell you what it is. The whole IPO thing is fucked. They had shares selling for 0.0005 a week ago. They realized it created a wall and people were selling cheaper than that. They removed them and now they are selling them above that because people perceive it as sold out IPO. I have some data let's see what the official statement is going to be.
If this is true, it is bad for AMC and assets in general. Issuers should stick with their plans and let the market decide what to do. An issuer that tries to manipulate the market or back down from previously announced plans is bad for the asset, for investors, and for the market in general. .b AMC does not deviate from the stated plan: AMC may issue up to 20,000,000 "Early-Adopters" shares which may be posted for no less than 0.0005 BTC
each |
|
|
|
|
Founders have shares and are free market participants. So they are allowed to sell their shares at any time en it is up to the other market participants to distill information out of these sales.
Luckily these markets in the bitcoin economy are not regulated by some dictating government by its collective stupidity. If one gets screwed, one trusted the wrong (pseudonymous) persons to earn money for himself. Overprotection screws people and economies up in the long run.
Tytus, really like your USD/Ghash comparison with BFL. Says something about aiming for transparency, which is not in your short-term interest with the rising share prices of 100th.
|
|
|
|
|
Tnx for answering both questions and may your experience as creditor help you (and take over the help of your ASICMINER shares ;-) to do in itself profitable credit business in the Bitcoin economy.
I'm holding my share in BTCINVEST and keep track of your development. My only suggestion is to also state the disappointing changes and decisions in assets explicitly, together with your actions to prevent similar events from happening in the future (as you stated in your answer).
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
