It is worth mentioning that this question was asked to Ken in the official thread, with no response. I assume no bitcoins on MtGox either Ken?
+1， i just want to ask the same question |
|
|
|
|
It might be a bit early, but have you ever considered distributing shares using a decentralized method, such as Colored Coins?
|
|
|
|
....
You raise a good question: Ken, when can we expect a full financial report?
Bumping this question, as I am curious myself. |
|
|
|
I find the following disconcerting: I don't see how we can have a legitimate discussion regarding the two chips. Both chips are nothing but specifications at this point, but one set of specs is coming from an established company with a proven track record of delivering actual products, while the other is simply specs. I hope we end up shipping product on the date that has been announced, but history is not on our side.
You can't assess your position in a race if you're not even running yet. I am more interested in acquiring some concrete evidence of anything Ken has announced to us before I worry about our position in the field.
If you are still unsure of the 55nm tape out then you aren't in the position to discuss this. For those of us that know that the UMC 55nm chip has achieved tape-out, what do you think about the chips? I've heard some EEs sincerely doubting the AM offering's power draw, but I don't know enough to weigh in. Is what FC claims possible? Also, word on the street is that the UMC 55nm is being produced at sub $1/GH. What is a reasonable profit margin for these chips? With all that has happened, it is only rational to demand documentation. Yet there still hasn't been any poof of a 55nm tape-out, with Ken stating that he has zero documentation. No NDA this time, so what's the deal? It's not 'trolling' to ask these questions. I don't have any documentation on the tapeout. This was for the shuttle run and prototypes which we have canceled and have now changed to the production run. See my weekly update for the wafer delivery dates.
|
|
|
|
does it mean the actm is totally a scam and we will get nothing back??
No. There is no evidence this is a scam. Nothing. There is little evidence that Ken has orders with UMC and has paid eASIC so I suggest we try to get that now. Neither eASIC or UMC have denied Ken's claims which at the moment is all the corroborative evidence we have. There's no real evidence of progress. Nothing. Where did the $1 million dollars for the NRE go? A lot of promises; many broken. 'Scam' is just how you define it. I remember somebody refer to it as a "Take people's money and sit on your ass" scam. Failure vs intentional scam is almost a moot point. The bottom line is, I don't think there's going to be an ROI for anyone involved. If we're lucky, there might be trading again. But even then, who is going to buy the stock at this point? |
|
|
|
|
At this point, those images sum everything up pretty well.
But seriously, this is ridiculous. Share transfer is something that should have been delegated a long time ago. Meanwhile, shares keep getting sold on CT, while everyone else is locked out.
And then there's the core business...
Stop the ride, Ken. I want to get off!
|
|
|
|
|
Nice updates!
With regards to funds provided to legal marijuana farms and dispensaries, are you providing lines of credit or do you hold equity stake in these ventures?
Are you able to disclose the current amount of capital invested in these ventures?
|
|
|
|
I consider the one which had no revenue last quarter besides registration fees to be dieing. (Wasn't asicminer) The one which is a few months away from releasing an actual product may or may not do well but at least they have a source of revenue other than gamblers and registration fees. Take a look at these nice graphs http://www.btcalpha.com/mpex/stocks/s-mpoe/Those graphs show that registration fees aren't the primary source of cash flow, its the options market making activities. Gambling is also very profitable industry, and BitBet seems to be holding its own; pulling in some high volume wagers over its history. The question remains whether that security and the options market making is enough to keep MPEx profitable in the long-run. MPEx may be overvalued, but I don't see it as a scam by any means. Everything is very transparent, as well. |
|
|
|
we will possibly (most likely) go down to .0005.
I respect your opinion but look at it this way. If ACtM can mine 1% of the bitcoins mined in 2014 - in other words if we can take and hold 1.25% of the global hash by beginning April - then ... This seems like a risky premise. I'm no expert, but isn't it safe to say that mining with 28nm even as early as February wouldn't make ROI? Nevermind the fact that ActM is just now taping out the 55nm. |
|
|
|
He deleted that post and not mine? How odd. I expected my posts to go bye bye. Maybe sometime in the future they will disappear.
How telling is it that he attacked me (and effectively all of the people who had helped a lot, including vbs) rather than answer the question? Disappointed.
It is very simple, under the rules of the forum if you ask a poster not to post in your thread, he should start his own thread. I have ask Entropy-uc not to post in my thread. He has his own thread and this one to post in. Ken, All this drama is doing you no good; surely you can see that. You claimed to have shipped... fess up and admit what you shipped or backup and tell the truth. Please stop discounting this. What was shipped isn't even important, it's a baseline for your trustworthiness. Shao Ken is surely aware of the deceptive nature of his words. Whether he is covering his ass legally, covering up delays, or just pulling a con, he appears to know what he is doing in terms of 'keeping it grey.' |
|
|
|
I have no idea, but the IP is located in Bejing, China. I found this thread that's discussing the same address. Insane amounts just in the last 24 hours... |
|
|
|
Ken shouldn't waste extended time on this since we are already behind.
Sure but remember ken doesn't actually build the chips or boards himself. We have Gerald at VMC HQ dealing with calls and customer enquiries. And Ken has just spent a few days meeting with our main partner/supplier, so everything should be covered right now. Think about how a typical CEO structures their day. They usually only work a few hours each morning - and have a few key meetings each week. CEO's are not supposed to be grafters, they are supposed to manage from a distance, delegate, and make key decisions. Ken could commit just 10 hours a week on this (like many CEO's do) and still be doing his full duty. The fact he even wants to spend days and days coding when he does have funds to hire and sit back means his heart is in this company and he is more dedicated to it's success than any career CEO would be. seriously 10 hrs a week? you think a typical CEO works only 10 hrs a week? and only works a few hours each morning? i dont know what world you live in. if this is what he is/was doing then that is why this project isnt further along than it currently is. To me, it seemed like he was referring to working 10 hrs a week on the CC implementation. Which I agree, he should be delegating this responsibility. |
|
|
|
|
Is there a time-limit for this offer?
Should we PM you with entries?
|
|
|
|
Colored Coins... that way if all goes to shit I can at least claim to have some of the first shares ever distributed in a decentralized manner using colored coins.
I like the idea of colored coins. However, it seems we would be beta testing colored coins with our shares. Is this a good idea? What if there is a bug? How will this get fixed. Is this a good idea to be beta testing with shares? Decentralized solution that is in beta vs. a repeat of GLBSE/BTCT/Bitfunder/etc. I feel more secure with the former, personally. The divide is not about decentralization vs centralization. The divide is about shitty non-stocks that operate on shitty non-exchanges as opposed to actual businesses that trade on a real exchange. So long as what you've got is a bucket of failure, it will fail no matter what sort of wrapping you try to put on it. Losing coins sucks. Continuing to hold onto your buckets of bullshit after the ineptitude of the operator has been amply demonstrated is nothing short of retarded. And in clutching your bullshit in an attempt to believe for another day that you didn't make a wretched, screaming, ugly mistake, you're adding to the mountains of shilly, uninformed but over-enthusiastic bullshit new people have to wade through in order to reach a single sentence of sense. You're not just screwing yourselves, you're slowing the progress of newcomers. Learn some responsibility ffs. Yes, I agree that there are some overly-enthusiastic people here. However, do you suggest bag-holders just give up? Why would the ability to trade shares be a negative thing, regardless of what you hold? Also, if you really wanted to give good advice to 'newcomers,' here it is: BTC appreciates just fine on its own. No need to invest it in anything. This includes paying the 30 BTC fee to use MPEx (although, to be fair, you can get around this fee by using a broker) Note: I'm quoting you because I like to read opposing viewpoints (and yes everyone has special interests/biases). I believe this is to be the greatest strength to this community (unlike the hive-mind that is Reddit, ugh). |
|
|
|
Colored Coins... that way if all goes to shit I can at least claim to have some of the first shares ever distributed in a decentralized manner using colored coins.
I like the idea of colored coins. However, it seems we would be beta testing colored coins with our shares. Is this a good idea? What if there is a bug? How will this get fixed. Is this a good idea to be beta testing with shares? Decentralized solution that is in beta vs. a repeat of GLBSE/BTCT/Bitfunder/etc. I feel more secure with the former, personally. |
|
|
|
Hello Ken,
I appreciate you taking the time to post your weekly updates, especially during the holidays.
I just was wondering if you could give me an estimate on the completion of the Crypto-Trade transfer.
...
Thank you
You should see an announcement soon. At least he is taking the time to respond to PMs, as well as living up to his responses. For what it is worth, I vote for a colored coins implementation as well. Godspeed, Ken. Even if this all goes to zero, it was worth it to me for the sheer education of it all. I say the same thing to myself about Bitcoin in general. |
|
|
|
I'm still not convinced that ActM was/is an outright scam (just a failure with an attempt to hide the truth), but this line just reeks of Ponzi: Even if he only part way accomplishes his goals, there is little risk and there is the possibility of a big score. My gosh! This one is just funny: I think the members of this discussion could benefit greatly from a little story my Grandmother used to tell me many years ago. Maybe some of you have heard it. "The Story of The Little Red Hen". It's probably too long to tell here but the jist is, The Little Red hen says "Who's going to help me make the bread"? and the answer was "Not I!" said the lamb, Not I!" said the cat. "Not I!" said the pig. At the end of the story "Who's going to help me eat the bread?"."I will!" said the lamb. "I will!" said the cat. "I will!" said the pig. "No, you will not," said the Little Red Hen. "You didn't help me plant it, or water it, or harvest it, or mill it, or bake it. I shall eat it myself!" And so she did. Search for it on google, it's a great lesson!
The Story of The Little Red Hen Ken... |
|
|
|
That's why Pyramid scheme is the better description of BTC, all of the ways you list that it is not a Ponzi (decentralized, transparent) are factors that generally define a Pryamid scheme.
Can you expand on this thought? How do you view BTC as a Pyramid scheme? I can see some similarities, but I still wouldn't call it a Pyramid scheme. Here's how I see it: Elements of a Pyramid Scheme SourceTypical "hook"Earn high profits by making one payment and finding others to become distributors of a product. The scheme typically does not involve a genuine product. The purported product may not exist or it may be "sold" only to other people who also become distributors.I guess you could argue that the top of the BTC pyramid would be the early adopters, and by selling to others would be 'recruiting' the lower levels in. However, I would argue that BTC has intrinsic value (it is a good medium of exchange and is a store of value), and therefore is a 'genuine product/commodity/currency' PaymentsMust pay a one-time or recurring participation fee and recruit new distributors to receive payments.See first point. Interaction with original promoterSometimes none. New participants may enter the pyramid scheme at different levels.I can see the connection here; we have no idea who the original creator of BTC really is. How the scheme worksFunds from new participants are used to pay recruiting commissions to earlier participants.See first point. CollapseFast. An exponential increase in the number of participants is required at each level.This is where it seems like a stretch. Bitcoin has been hanging on for some time now. Would BTC adoption rate have to be exponential in order to sustain itself? Ultimately, BTC has value in terms of its utility. This is what makes it clear that it is not a Pyramid scheme, to me. |
|
|
|
You must actually be a baby bonobo to be that stupid.
No Miners = FACT
No shipped product = FACT
Lost shares = SUBJECTIVE but we cannot trade shares, and technically do not have ownership of them at this point, so leaning towards FACT
Total BS about Shares = SUBJECTIVE but we do not have a set date for when trading will be available, and Ken said on Dec 18th they would be up in a week, with was complete BS, so leaning toward FACT
lies about shipping = FACT
...
Alright dumbass, look, I'm here to evaluate the truth and not talk about speculation at the moment. Let me break this down for you one more time, a little more specifically and harshly... "No miners"-- While it is most likely true that we don't have a miner with 28nm eASIC chips, we still have BTC coming into the ACTM address. Not much else to add to this, but speculation, as this is the whole subject of the matter. "No shipped product/Lies about shipping"-- Show me proof that he lied, show me proof that there is no shipped product. Don't try to prove the existence of a God to an Agnostic. I don't need proof of shipping because I have no idea if anything was actually shipped. Either show proof or say you don't know. This is unknown. ..... Ken stated in an update that first products have been shipped. In his latest update, he has stated that they are still working out the design, so we know there's no product. This is fact, unfortunately. Things are not lining up and the burden of proof is on Ken, not us.When is the first batch of chips/boards supposed to arrive at VMC Assembly?
Our engineers are still designing our board. We had to change our engineering firm, and learn a few lessons about hiring an engineer firm. We don't have a date at this time. |
|
|
|
Yes, there's still one slot open.  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
