In case you guys missed it, this is where Ken has reserved 2 full rack space for some or our miners: http://www.springfieldunderground.com/Springfield Underground is cost-effective, secure, adaptable and environmentally friendly commercial real estate located 100 feet below ground in Springfield, Missouri. Its unusual location shields tenants from virtually all man-made and natural disasters. And, even though it is rail-served and accessible by truck, it is a limited access facility and affords exceptional security. A constant temperature of 62 degrees ensures low, uniform climate control costs for our clients. The pics speak for themselves I believe: http://www.springfieldunderground.com/underground-tour/     |
|
|
|
Looks like that is the only way. Ken can put up small walls at a fixed price and as those shares start to disappear he can make more available until he feels enough capital has been raised. Thanks for the explanation VBS.
Np. I'm welcoming the feeling of typing anything here and it not disappearing behind 3 pages, just 5 minutes later! |
|
|
|
I understand. I did not know that is not supported by BitFunder. Maybe we can ask exchange owner Ukyo to take a look into this and make some changes? I know it's a long shot but if we can get this implemented where only sold shares would get dividends it would be great.
Yes. That would be the best choice. The current workaround is to only create those shares in small batches as they are being bought, so a minimum amount of "unissued" shares exist. |
|
|
|
This is another issue we need to work on. The dividends are being paid on all the 40m shares issued sold and unsold. This does not make sense for unsold shares to be paid dividends. Only sold shares should be paid dividends. I hope this can be changed so only sold shares can be paid dividends.
It's not supported by BitFunder. It only supports splitting dividends by all, even if they are not sold. That's why they must not be "created" at all, until they are about to be sold. |
|
|
|
You seem to know what you're talking about VBS, so I think I'd be happy with a structure like that. So long as there's space for the valuation to increase over time, rather than topping out at an extreme valuation and having to space to move, most people would be happy I'd guess. Just as a separate point, this is the profile for TAT.ASICMINER ( https://bitfunder.com/asset/TAT.ASICMINER) Under the 'Shares Total', it's 10 million, and under 'shares issued', it's 24,468. The dividends are split up over this 24,468, not the 10 million. So to me, that seems like 24,468 have been sold. Does AMC follow the same structure? From what Lewiki said earlier: 6,530,741 shares have been sold on bitfunder and 500K on BTC-TC. The rest(20M + unsold public shares), go to reinvestment. But dividends are split up over 40 million on bitfunder. What am I missing, given what I mentioned earlier about unsold shares and dividend payments. P.S. Sorry, I know I keep banging on about this, but I'm actively trying to learn, not derail. For TAT.AM it means ThickAsThieves is backing those 24,468 with 244.68 "real" Asicminer shares (the real dividends are coming from those; actually, 232.446 "real" AM shares, since he takes a 5% cut). That is just a "pass-though" asset, which means he receives the BTC from AM to his own shares and then pays it to TAT.AM shareholders. Yes, AMC dividends are split into 40M, that's why on VMC reinvestment should not be done this way (using shares for a cut). |
|
|
|
Yes sir, that makes total sense. We are on the same page. As long as we do not see dilution of future shares to lower the % of ownership and dividends the shareholders will be happy. As Ken said he will try to eliminate that from happening. I do understand AMC now gets a whole new business added onto what it was first set out to do. We just have to find a good balance to keep everyone happy and things fair. Win/Win situation for both parties involved is what i want and this will help us succeed.
Just a quick example to get everyone on the same page on this.  Numbers are fictitious!Case 1: Initial setup- Shares - Investors: 10M
- Shares - Ken: 15M
- VMC's Assets: ฿10,000
- Assets per share: ฿10,000/25M = ฿0.00040
Case 2: Extra 5M shares created and sold to investors at ฿0.0004- Shares - Investors: 10M + 5M = 15M
- Shares - Ken: 15M
- VMC's Assets: ฿10,000 + ฿2,000 = ฿12,000
- Assets per share: ฿12,000/30M = ฿0.00040
As long as the assets per share stay the same or increase, you are always OK! Bottom line: You can increase the amount of shares, but they must be priced accordingly. |
|
|
|
This is true and the percentage of ownership should stay the same without any dilution to that percentage. Therefore we should work towards capping out the amount of shares which would keep the pie at the same size. The percentages of ownership of the company and dividends will stay the same without having it being diluted. This is the main point. Hopefully we can work to make this agreement between you and the shareholders. If you can create new shares as you wish then this will lower the percentages of those who are holding shares. They will take away the pieces of the pie and shareholders will not be happy.
Like I said earlier, it's not that linear. They will take away the pieces of the pie and shareholders will not be happy. But the pie is also getting bigger, from the profits VMC receives when purchasers pay for those shares (and yourself as a shareholder, who now owns shares of something with more capital/assets). So you now own a lesser % of the pie, but your piece can also be bigger than it was, because the pie grew. Makes sense? |
|
|
|
Once again lets look at ASICMINER's business model. BitFountain has a little over 50% shares and investors have about 50% of the shares. The management team controls those shares to operate and reinvest. AMC investors should have 50% of the shares and AMC's management team (VMC) should have the other half and they can do what they seem is fit for operations and growth. More reinvestment would be wanted as a shareholder. Maybe 30-35% which would leave 15-20% for managements expenses. What do you guys think? It sounds fair right?
BitFountain has 236,038 (59%), shareholders have 163,962 (41%). When they need to hold dividends for reinvesting, everyone gets a cut. Fair game. |
|
|
|
Lets do a straight 50/50 relationship. 50% shares for investors and the public. 50% goes to fund goes to Ken and the management team as well as the reinvestment fund. 10m shares for the public, 5m for reinvest and 5m for managment and operations.
No reinvestment fund using shares please. Any reinvestment "fund" is just taken out from the revenue. Deprived has already made this point clear many times. We can't have a fixed amount of shares for paying expenses, as those will vary from month to month. VMC needs proper accounting. Shares are just a means to distribute the profits, after all expenses are paid. |
|
|
|
Oops, I forgot how to math. 3,500,000 are issued to the public all at once. 500,000 are on reserve to be issued at a later date. 2,500,000 are held by VMC to pay overhead, Ken's salary, etc. 3,000,000 are also held by VMC and all dividends that are paid to these will be reinvested into the company. 1) You need sufficient shares to do a 1-to-1 trade from AMC to VMC
I made this point earlier, which is why I said that 10,000,000 would be good only if possible. I do not know how many are currently in the public's hands. 2) There's no need to "reserve" shares
If I understand you correctly, Ken should have the ability to just make more shares out of thin air. I'm sorry, but I disagree with you on this. 3) Dividends should be only paid after expenses are factored in. It would not be good to have a fixed share value for that.
I'd like a few more people to chime in on this. 4) Having also a fixed % of reinvestment is also not good in the long term If I'm not mistaken, this is how AM does it, and it is working fine for them. Again, there is no need to reinvent an already rolling wheel. 1) There are around 6M in public hands 2) The question is not about making shares out of thin air. It's about that any shares created must be sold for profit to VMC's coffers, so that VMC's capital increases. It's not making shares out of thin air and gifting them with VMC receiving nothing in return. 4) AM varies the % they keep for reinvestment based on many fluctuating things. That's why you never know what the next dividend is gonna be. |
|
|
|
Oops, I forgot how to math. 3,500,000 are issued to the public all at once. 500,000 are on reserve to be issued at a later date. 2,500,000 are held by VMC to pay overhead, Ken's salary, etc. 3,000,000 are also held by VMC and all dividends that are paid to these will be reinvested into the company. 1) You need sufficient shares to do a 1-to-1 trade from AMC to VMC 2) There's no need to "reserve" shares 3) Dividends should be only paid after expenses are factored in. It would not be good to have a fixed share value for that. 4) Having also a fixed % of reinvestment is also not good in the long term |
|
|
|
My thinking right now is to reduce my ownership from 100% down to 60%
My proposal #2 for the VMC shares would be: - 10M for investors at 0.0025 (40%)
- 15M for Ken (60%)
For a total of 25M. If more funds are needed in the future, more shares can be issued as needed, as means to increase the capital of VMC. Ken did/is doing the hard work on everything, so he should get a nice amount of shares, and it's only thanks to him that there's an ASIC coming (one year of work already on optimizing Xilinx code). Then in that case, 15M go to overhead and 5M remain on reserve (or something to that nature) to be issued to the public on an "as needed" basis only. Once those 5M are issued, that's it, no more. Otherwise, Ken will eventually be called out again for trying to manipulate the market again.
No need to, because if more are sold, his % of VMC also diminish. If more 5M are sold, VMC banks all profits from that sale (so it's arguably increasing value) and shareholders will have 50% of VMC while Ken the other 50%. |
|
|
|
So, my proposal for the VMC shares would be: - 9 to 10M for investors at 0.0025
- 10M for Ken
For a total of 19-20M. If more funds are needed in the future, more shares can be issued as needed, as means to increase the capital of VMC. Ken did/is doing the hard work on everything, so he should get a nice amount of shares, and it's only thanks to him that there's an ASIC coming (one year of work already on optimizing Xilinx code). Thoughts? These numbers look sensible to me! Would this number be viable for a 1 to 1 share swap? How many shares have currently been issued and are owned by the public. If that number is or will exceed 9,000,000, then that will not work. Here's my suggestion for issuing shares. 10,000,000 Total (if possible) 4,500,000 are issued to the public all at once2,000,000 are held by VMC to pay overhead, Ken's salary, etc. 3,500,000 are also held by VMC and all dividends that are paid to these will be reinvested into the company. At no point or time should Ken or VMC be able to increase shares, or sell to the public any of the 5.5M that are held by VMC.The total number of shares does not matter much, as the price per share will fall in accordingly. Offering more shares to the public if needed is a benefit to VMC, not a drawback. What if VMC needs more capital now, but don't has enough dividends to cover it? - The public holds around 6M AMC shares, with around 3-4M more to be sold at .0025 for the NRE. - Ken should be intitled to around 50-70% of the total shares, for all the work he has done so far and continues to do. - VMC should hold no shares. Reinvestment cash should be taken as a cut from profits before issuing dividends. Having always a fixed % for reinvestment doesn't make sense in the long term. |
|
|
|
Back on track please. We were doing so well.
+1  |
|
|
|
Your point? Yet another thing you have no clue about and can't figure out yourself, I guess.  Indeed, I'm just a small kid compared to your highness! |
|
|
|
The general feeling I am getting is that most people including myself are getting past the "AMC might be a scam" point to more of a "The way Kenneth Slaughter has set these 2 companies up is not optimal for the shareholder" viewpoint.
Few (paid) shills and dozen of really dumb investors got the lead but that does not mean scam is scam no more. I'm losing interest in helping a lot of stupid people not got skinned here. How easily most can be persuaded into beliving anything and switch sides is disturbing. You people still have no clue even who is Ken but it takes not much more than him posting "I'm not scammer" for you to belive it. Sweet dreams! Damn, I was beginning to worry! Where have you been??? I officially nominate Bitcoin Megastore as the hardest working person in show business. Move over James Brown. Look at the posting times. That guy only needs 5 hours of sleep a day, the rest of the time he is hard at work.  |
|
|
|
So, my proposal for the VMC shares would be: - 9 to 10M for investors at 0.0025
- 10M for Ken
For a total of 19-20M. If more funds are needed in the future, more shares can be issued as needed, as means to increase the capital of VMC. Ken did/is doing the hard work on everything, so he should get a nice amount of shares, and it's only thanks to him that there's an ASIC coming (one year of work already on optimizing Xilinx code). Thoughts? |
|
|
|
I hope that AMC/VMC merging will happen so that gets the biggest issue out of the way. My next suggestion would be for us to work on a capped shares in the new security. We should have the shares capped at a reasonable number to avoid diluting the shares anytime in the future. This way the shares can continue to be valuable. If Ken can flood the market with massive amounts of shares at anytime this will dilute the investors shares and dividends will decrease. I don't know what the numbers of shares would be the best but would like to hear back from the community to discuss this matter.
It's not that linear. You are only explicitly diluting existing shareholder value if there are new shares issued with no respective profits from their issuing, i.e., the cake is the same, but now you just hold a smaller slice of it. If new shares are issued to investors purchasing them, then there are more slices to the cake, but the cake is now bigger too, as those shares were paid for. |
|
|
|
So, great news today! Offering a 1-for-1 share swap looks good, provided there is enough time to do it (2-3 months?), as I'm sure there are a lot of people who bought AMC options already. |
|
|
|
I understand that there is always a good possibility that new assets are scams, but there has to be a line in the sand for considering that it may indeed not be a scam. I only expect that once more confirmed info comes out about AMC, the first-impression of Ken being a scammer can be retracted. Thinking everything is a scam/lie is just as bad as thinking everything is trustworthy. Q: Why could I trust you?
A: In principle, like scientific theories, trustworthiness can only be
disproved. However some facts might contribute to more confidence: My ID, phone and email have all
been verified in GLBSE. I started running the fund called MU on GLBSE before it updated to version
2. I am also responsible for the GLBSE-listed bond MOORE.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
