Excuse the rude words, but are you all utterly retarded? It is clear that the issuer does not care about giving shares value (because they have none). He just wants as much of your Bitcoins as possible.

I have a feeling not much people check the forums, I'm going to make a PSA soon as a news article on BitFunder

Do you trust an asset that has being force delisted previously by BitFunder?

Other option would be to issue a special dividend, weighted by the bought share price, so that everyone that bought at a higher price gets more %.

So the way I am reading the contract is that only this batch of 5 millions is to sell for 0.0005.
The price could go up for the future batches. Can someone clarify? Is it best to buy now or wait and buy somewhere when the last of 20 million is selling.

kslaughter?

This is good to hear.  I hope you follow through, I think you'd make A LOT of investors happy if you did so.

Also, I know you're busy, but I do appreciate the responses on this message board.  Especially with a new fund, a lot of people are going to have a lot of questions...and especially with selldowns and what not...

This is great news.  So 3 days ago I paid almost double for these shares!  Super fucking awesome.

Yo KSlaughter, I'll trade you 1333 shares at .0009 for 2400 at .0005?  I guess I was supporting your company "too early" and should have waited.

Seriously, what you need to do is find out who paid more than .0005.  I'm not saying give them their BTC back, but you should increase their share ownership relative to how much they paid.  So for example, if someone bought 1000 shares  two days ago at .001 BTC, you should just increase their shares to 2000.  You won't lose $ that way, just shares.  And you'll also not be cheating/punishing people who wanted to support your company in its early stages.

Seriously, how do you think everyone who bought over .0005 feels right now?

I think the issue is that the vast number of shares you are trying to sell, in comparison to the market, is huge.
It seems to me, that people would like you to set an official amount of shares at prices. This is why the tier method has worked in the past.

Perhaps you should say up to X shares will be Y price, and then Z shares will be A price, etc.. and use reasonable numbers.
I am sure the shareholder would much rather have that.

My two cents.

Can someone translate?

Well, that's not what was advertised.

<Ukto> there
<Ukto> i told him to post them
<Ukto> at 0.005
<Ukto> if he does any mroe sell downs
<Ukto> i will get very pissed
<ThickAsThieves> nice
<Ukto> AMC___: got that?
<AMC___> Yes

<Ukto> le2: amc is selling at 0.0005 from here on

The order numbers are not sequential, there have been several waves of orders and for each they
started with different numbering

The orders placed around the 18th of Feb are around the 2800 - 3000 mark

I'm not sure how you even managed to place an order on the 28th of Feb?

The tracking number it seems are being given out randomly 

So mr slaughter did you receive tracking details yet on your order??

We should be seeing a status report within the next few weeks, so will be interesting to see how your numbers align.

Nice one.  

I hope my purchase of shares @ 0.00089999 doesn't disappoint when now shares are available @ ฿0.000750. I understand Mr. Slaughter needs to raise capital to buy more hardware , hope it is all worth.

Ever thought of hiring someone to manage the IPO so you could focus your time on the company?  Think of how much credibility / interest a long time respected member could bring to AMC.

You yourself have mentioned hiring additional employees.

Well that's what happens when you fuck around with a non-transparent selling policy and price manipulation to try to sell more shares in the short-term.  You attract short-term sales at the price of long-term credibility/sales.  I've seen it plenty of times and it's never ended up working well for the issuer.

The problem many issuers face is that they try to sell more shares than there's actually demand for.  The policy of early-bird shares followed by a sharp price rise hits problems as soon as the sharp price-rsie occurs - as the initial investors then get to profit-take, undermining further sales.  And why wouldn't they do that - as there'll surely be more IPOs along shortly where they can make a 50%+ profit in a few weeks by flipping early-bird shares rather than holding on long-term with much greater risk for a massively lower APR.

Where AML varies from other ones burned by messing with this stupid sales policy (e.g. BitPride, ZigGap, BTCQuick on Bitfunder) is that it didn't even manage to sell all the early-bird shares.  The three listed sold all those - but then ran into undercutters cashing out profit when trying to sell the rest at much higher prices.  Guess every IPO has to learn the same lessons the hard way - specifically :

1.  Fucking with your own share price to raise it will only attract short-term speculative investment - a higher price will NOT attract new long-term investment that wouldn't invest at the lower price.
2.  If you sell some shares cheap then other identical shares at a higher price EXPECT a lot of of the ones who bought cheap to undercut you.

The exception to this is when a rise in price follows ACTUAL decent profits (see S.DICE - where higher priced tiers did sell out after months of steady real, not projected, profit).  That's profits that have been made - not fantasy projected ones based on being able to add hashpower (that has't even been built) to the network without changing the network's hashpower and without anyone else buying/building/deploying any ASICs at all.

From having seen plenty of other attempts at the same thing I'd expect the price to move around for a bit then slowly fall back towards the initial price as people who bought thinking they could cash out at the next price tier realise it isn't actually going to get there any time soon.  The drop can be delayed - but made sharper when it happens - by continued attempts to manipulate market prices.  The price CAN be kept high if sufficient capital is used to maintain bid-walls - but quite possibly at the cost of actual sold shares dropping and the retained capital/share falling as it gets thrown away buying back shares at a price higher than they were sold at.

Disclosure : I regularly buy/sell during IPOs - there's generally more profit (and much less risk) flipping during IPOs than holding the shares for any length of time.  I currently hold 0 AMC but HAVE bought and sold a small amount (profitably) for my fund.

Out of interest, since now the public is the majority shareholder as Kslaughter only owns 40% of the company, can't the majority shareholders other than Ksluaghter get together and force more public disclosure? Going off on the deep end, since Kslaughter is no longer the majority shareholder, theoretically, if all the remaining shareholders get together and work together, can they vote out Kslaughter and take control of his company?

I think I, and most other people would just feel a lot better if Ken would set his Asks and then walk away.  The .00005 increment plan was working quite well.  People could see that buying now was advantageous as the price was going to be higher tomorrow.

By trading like a schizophrenic off his meds, he's only hurting interest and in turn his own ability to raise funds.

Ken, do us all a favor.  Set your Asks at the increment of your choosing and walk away.

Bakewell only wishes he had these talents

Just answer the following please

How many shares do you hold in this company??

How much capital did the owners invest??

Suppose by the time your avalon ships you have sold 5,000,000 shares.. would you divide the divident between these 5000000 or the 40000000??