There is no chance for a company to grow, if it pays fat dividends.
>Do we vote every month to vary this percentage?
Nah. Every 2 or 3 years is enough.
You can't be serious! Limiting dividends for 2-3 years at 10%? I don't know where to begin listing all the reasons this won't work. |
|
|
|
As an investor, I ask to hold a shareholder's vote to dramatically reduce a dividend, and limit paying up to 10% of profits at most. This is required for growth and for NRE.
Else the company will not be able to grow.
We must establish a growth fund.
Why not 5%? What is the rational for 10%? Do we vote every month to vary this percentage? The prospectus is quite clear that dividends are paid after all expenses are deducted and this includes payment for new hashing power to go towards in-house mining. Remember the original AMC proposal got too complex and the new ActM is intentionally much simpler, and we are all the better for it, in my opinion. A 10% cap will needlessly limit the share price, which isn't what you want with a high risk, high growth stock. |
|
|
|
OK, let's ask Ken to improve accounting. Find someone who understands accounting and Bitcoin.
It will improve over time, no need to force the issue. I'd rather the next 2-3 weeks were spent by Ken and his team bedding down and minimal attention spent on financial reports that Eskimo will vomit all over in any case. |
|
|
|
I dont get why everyone is so upset with EB. He has a point. It's not unreasonable to expect more out of the CEO. What's wrong with more disclosure? It's an honest criticism and I saw no malice in how he said it (to ken at least, lol).
If Eskimo was genuinely concerned with getting his PoV across, I'd be all ears. Unfortunately he is playing a game and trying to waste everyone's time. I mean ask yourself this: why are so many people posting on this thread desperate to save us from ourselves? As iCEBREAKER has show, their focus is very suspect ie it is exclusively on ActM and there is no criticism of other companies. |
|
|
|
I'm sorry... What?!
Don't be taken in by Eskimo's schtick. I gave him the benefit of the doubt early on, but he's only interested in disrupting the thread and spreading FUD. The risk of this venture is already priced in, currently ~0.0025. Better reports and accounting will come and along with it a corresponding price rise. |
|
|
|
^^^ This would be a great place for Ken to freeze the thread. Eskimo's stupidity frozen in aspic for future generations to point and laugh.  Feel free to point out the stupidity. Eh, all of it? |
|
|
|
Lol, I'm loving the comments directed at Ken in that thread. Seems ActM has seriously ruffled some feathers. People, welcome to the new kid on the block: ActiveMining. It's about time ASICMINER had a serious contender.  The fanboi-ism is appalling. Im sure, by the way the majority of community members in this forum conduct themselves, I am sure the average Joe is itching to get involved in Bitcoin. Some of these people running the businesses and endeavors within act so childish and unprofessional. Hence why I would and will never invest with TAT again, perfect example. Yeah, it has been a real eye-opener for me. I don't understand why people who are openly associated with new Bitcoin companies would act in such a juvenile manner. It seems they can't think ahead very far either, because their future competitors will be reading their posts and construct their game plan accordingly ie mostly consider them light weights, ripe for the taking. |
|
|
|
^^^ This would be a great place for Ken to freeze the thread. Eskimo's stupidity frozen in aspic for future generations to point and laugh. |
|
|
|
But how does AsicMiner intend to compete in the future considering the new ASIC technology coming?
51 attack - why would someone shoot themselves in the foot and take over (unless it's a government party)
I think ASICMINER will struggle unless they have a serious ASIC under development. Even with new hardware, the 51% threat means Friedcat can't go over a serious chunk of the network without killing Bitcoin. He has said so and this is why he wants serious competition. Realistically, I think 20% mining capacity is probably as high as any Major player would want to go. Additional BTCs can be obviously be made selling mining equipment to smaller independents, network integrity is maintained even if they sum to 40%. |
|
|
|
Lol, I'm loving the comments directed at Ken in that thread. Seems ActM has seriously ruffled some feathers. People, welcome to the new kid on the block: ActiveMining. It's about time ASICMINER had a serious contender. |
|
|
|
Does AsicMiner have any aces up their sleeves that you are aware of?
As far as I know, ASICMINER are desperate for serious competition so they can expand mining and sales further. The 51% attack threat actually limits their ability to pull earth-shaking aces, assuming they have some. By my rough estimate there is room for 3-4 major players in mining (each with 20% of the network), leaving the remaining 20%-40% for smaller, independent mining operations that will run hardware sold by the 'Majors' |
|
|
|
I know how Google works, the point of my post was to highlight the typo for Ken's attention.
Sorry, I thought you were talking about the ranking. No, I just threw that in there for a bit of colour. The typo is the problem. |
|
|
|
When I google 'bitcoin mining machines', VMC is about rank 7. The summary beneath the URL says 'plant' instead if 'planet'. I can't see this typo on the VMC home page or meta data, so it could be an out of date Google cache.
You need to understand how google works. They store your searches and preferences (and god knows what else) to personalize your "experience". Here's a little experiment: User 1 searches "monsanto" resulting in pages describing pesticides and GMOs and protests. User 2 searches "monsanto" resulting in pages describing financial reports and court decisions. As is the case you've heard so often, "results may vary". I know how Google works, the point of my post was to highlight the typo for Ken's attention. |
|
|
|
Spreadsheet is great. I like the way you have assumed worse case scenarios. Even with that, the future for ActM looks very bight.  |
|
|
|
Why is nobody [1] calling out this financial statement-like thing as total bullshit? I get what he's going after but couldn't you at least make an attempt to have debits equal to credits? AMC investors, your CEO is completely bush league. [1] except eskimo bob, I just saw that now. I for one did not invest in an accountant, I invested in someone that is going to design their own ASIC chip. If someone isn't taking investment funds seriously and providing 100% accurate statements, it makes you wonder what else they're fudging. Did they teach you that in high school economics, along with Eskimo? Eskimo and Cat, you'd be happier leaving your investments to the 'experts' like Goldman Sachs. Bitcoin isn't for you. Now that you're resorting to personal attacks I am done with this conversation. Good luck with your expert investments. Bye! |
|
|
|
Why is nobody [1] calling out this financial statement-like thing as total bullshit? I get what he's going after but couldn't you at least make an attempt to have debits equal to credits? AMC investors, your CEO is completely bush league. [1] except eskimo bob, I just saw that now. I for one did not invest in an accountant, I invested in someone that is going to design their own ASIC chip. If someone isn't taking investment funds seriously and providing 100% accurate statements, it makes you wonder what else they're fudging. Did they teach you that in high school economics, along with Eskimo? Eskimo and Cat, you'd be happier leaving your investments to the 'experts' like Goldman Sachs. Bitcoin isn't for you. |
|
|
|
Vbs: do you work for VMC? You seem like Ken's PR.
No, but I did my homework and keep doing it everyday. You don't think a company raising 6-7 figure amounts from the community based on the promise of a future product with no guarantees whatsoever that it's not a giant scam should disclose as much information about it to its investors? The typos and such are a secondary issue but they are relevant as that site, along with Ken's posts here, are the image of the company.
Deserving of my outrage? Certainly. And it should be for all of us as when we only ask mediocrity and invest in it, mediocrity is all we can expect back.
Mediocrity? Ken has spent a whole year developing the xilinx RTL code for the chip so that any of this is possible. He also got one of the best companies on the boat, eAsic, to finalize the chip's development in record time and mass produce it.Of course the web site can be improved but I would be CRAZY to invest on this based only on web-site cleanness and "company image". The meat is in the inside, not on the outside. All of you what have said might be true. Or it might not be. What my issue is with the site, the language, content mistakes and vagueness is that Ken wants people to trust him with not only the NRE funds raised from the shares but also with $4k preorders when the ONLY info found on the site's product page is a generic chassic picture and a few marketing lines about how fast the product is. There is no evidence whatsoever on this site that the business and the Fast-Hash-One is legit. None. It should be reasonable to expect criticism and doubt when the available information is so unclear and when there is so much money at stake. To me that is unacceptable from both a business and investor standpoint. If you had read the threads you would know this has all been addressed and you are rehashing old ground. Don't expect us to do your due diligence for you. Like I say, read the threads - then you're 95% there. Otherwise, you'd be foolish to invest in this venture. |
|
|
|
Vbs: do you work for VMC? You seem like Ken's PR.
Cat: You don't seem to be up to speed. Take some time to read the threads. |
|
|
|
The fact they would put even put up a site of this quality, with only buzzwords and no substance to sell its products - that don't even exist yet - while asking people to invest tons of money speaks volumes. Frankly I find it is insulting to your investor base.
Why should the community raise you a million dollars to build a mining operation and spend thousands on mystery chips when you give out so little actual info about your key product and you don't even bother to proof read your company's profile on a poorly built site with prices that seem to be different depending on where you land?
At the very least these are strong symptoms of a company with very poor quality assurance and professionalism.
Ever hear of an MVP? You should save your outrage for something deserving. That being said, I think the ActM MVP has just about been proven, so a new, clean, modern looking design for the website might be a smart move at this point. It shouldn't (needn't) be expensive and should not take up any of Ken's time. |
|
|
|
My suggestion: Put a batch of production-ready mines on an auction at VMC. Not pre-orders. Actual and working mines.
And place a very small minimum ask of each mine, near production costs.
If you have real working mines traded at VMC at auction, we would *solve* the stupid Supply/demand issue in a short order.
Great suggestions, especially the auction idea. Having pre-orders before they are available for auction might help pay for the NRE though so maybe an auction system could be implemented down the road, and the pre-orders get the benefit of lower pricing since their money was tied up for months. I agree, pre-orders are an accepted convention in Bitcoinland now. The problem is manufacturers have delayed or failed to deliver. ActM will deliver shortly after accepting pre-orders, so I think this is a legitimate and sensible way to raise capital. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
