Quite awesome. But some of the securities are good, some are bad choice. Buy a bunch of them is a bad choice. Matthew3 I think you should buy their assets separately with careful choice.

RSM motions would be held on DMC first.  With the result of the DMC motion being used to vote on its shares within the RSM motion.

have you evaluated these assets to assess what they might return RSM and whether the current market price is fair?

you want to trade RSM for DMC assets at no more than market value.  isnt this what made DMC such a failue, making deals outside it primary objectives and purchasin other bad assets. i am sure this would help DMC share holders but i dont see anything that would benefit RSM. if you can show how this adds value to RSM then great, but i dont see it right now.

Or after RSM receives the DMC assets we could sell (some) them to purchase BFL-ASIC's so RSM's >57(MH/s)per share isn't hit too bad by paying DMC in RSM shares.

We would only issue DMC with RSM shares for there assets that are of value and would make RSM money.  Yes DMC shareholders have already lost a lot of money but rather than just liquidizing there assets and shutting up shop it may be beneficial for them to trade them in for RSM shares.  As RSM has a future and a growth plan.  We have managed to ride the wave of GPU > FPGA > ASIC changes OK (just about   ).  So it may help DMC and RSM shareholders.  We would only pay in RSM shares what the valuable DMC assets are worth for no more than market value.

isnt that just bailing out a failed company, a badly managed failed company with a lot of upset share holders. what do you think are the benefits to RSM and its investors?

If you are to vote on changing the CEO I may be able to help by absorbing your DMC assets into Red Star Mining - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=63257.0 -.  RSM is currently working on a motion to raise us to 57.142857143(MH/s)per share at BTC0.30 each or 1(GH/s)@BTC5.25.  What I think best would happen is RSM absorbs DMC assets and pays DMC around the going rate for them in RSM shares.  So DMC receives weekly dividends from RSM and then I use them or pay them out as DMC share holders see fit in a motion.  I can't promise to be able to offer this service yet as I'd have to get it to pass a motion of RSM shareholders.  Also RSM shareholders would only take it on if it wasn't going to hurt them and can profit from it as well some how.

I don't know if you's have been keeping up with the news at DMC - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=77469.780 - but they may be looking for a new CEO and I have put in this offer -

If you are to vote on changing the CEO I may be able to help by absorbing your DMC assets into Red Star Mining - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=63257.0 -.  RSM is currently working on a motion to raise us to 57.142857143(MH/s)per share at BTC0.30 each or 1(GH/s)@BTC5.25.  What I think best would happen is RSM absorbs DMC assets and pays DMC around the going rate for them in RSM shares.  So DMC receives weekly dividends from RSM and then I use them or pay them out as DMC share holders see fit in a motion.  I can't promise to be able to offer this service yet as I'd have to get it to pass a motion of RSM shareholders.  Also RSM shareholders would only take it on if it wasn't going to hurt them and can profit from it as well some how.

Any early opinions from RSM shareholders?

I think it makes sense that Inaba helps us to host them - I havent had any dealings with him, but from what I have read I think he seems like a cool guy.

Some very quick maths and it seems to me like RSM would basically be saving the elec costs over the course of the products 12-18m lifespan.

As for the share question, as much as I agree we cant let the company stagnate whilst we wait for the ASIC's, there are other areas we could work on - other avenues we can look at (investments, other revenue streams etc), dumping all we have into hardware we (no body) have not seen yet sounds like a big risk, and why stop at ASIC's 4, 5,6... I'm not sure diluting the shares this early on when revenue streams havent been proven yet is the way to go.

(hope I'm not treading on the toes with the above btw - this is all still a bit new to me I must admit, so I am still feeling myself around a little).

New motion - https://glbse.com/vote/view/138 - Please vote

Vote (Yes) for Inaba to host our ASIC's for $20 a month per board all in.

Or

Vote (Nay) for CEO to host the ASIC's at $300VAT fees per board and to deduct electrical costs.

OK well we will hold a motion on it.  I'll put the motion up tonight by 02:00GMT to run until this Friday 00:00AM. 

We are only a very small company and if we can attract more investment into RSM to increase profits then it should be attracted.  There is no point just letting RSM sit there stagnating until we finally receive our ASIC's.  If we can sell more share to increase profits then it should be done.  Issuing share for ASIC #4 will increase profits by around ~7% and I think it'd be silly not to.  Also may I remind you's that any unsold shares that RSM holds from its issues receive no dividends and do not affect the (MH/s)per share ratio.

Also we have been offered by Inaba (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=8198) for him to host and run our ASIC's for us at $20 a month per ASIC.  This would save us $300 VAT fees per ASIC and enable after I have converted our £180VAT cash back into coin to purchase ASIC #3.  Taking us up to 52.747252747(MH/s)per share and means no share issue is needed for ASIC #4 and only <500 shares need to be sold for ASIC #4.  Taking us to 160(GH/s)@2800 shares or up to the lofty heights of 57.142857143(MH/s)per share or 1(GH/s)@BTC5.25.  I think we can trust Inaba and many other people use his service.  So what are people use on using Inaba at to host the ASIC's.  Should I put a motion on that too?

I would agree with the other investor. you dont want to have a large sell wall as it will encourage low ball bidding and undercutting of current share price.

I'm not denying it, i'm just saying that people were always in a social hierarchy and especially in the hunter-gatherer situation that hierarchy of power dictated anything of value.
There was no anarchy and struggles for power were common.
There is no freedom if you're the bitch of the group.
You see the past as way to rosy. Reality in that time was harsh and lawless.
It was completely driven by physical dominance.
Humans dominating nature.
Stronger humans dominating weaker ones.
No fucking socialism.
Social anarchism is an artefact of modern society. No part of it goes further than a few hundred years.
Hunter gatherers lived hundreds of thousands of year ago.
They had no concept of socio-economics.
Strongest takes all and a group is stronger than an individual.
That was the system.

You are right insofar that humans only became aware of this situation when they settled and started to accumulate possesion.

Bullshit.
Mankind stems from monkeys and all monkeys (including humans) have a strong social hierarchy.
Strongest monkey gets the best food and fucks the most females.
There is nothing 'anarco' or 'socialistic' about the human situation.

If you want anarchy then look at how lions survive as family groups.
Humans don't work that way.