Sorry Vbs I don't know what you are getting at.
Does this answer it? - We have known Ken owned axs for some time - he declared his 'previous business experience' on his run down but it's the home address I uncovered last night that I don't think has been on here before.
Ah ok! Got it!  |
|
|
|
This is the satellite image of the address that Ken used for VMC's "Principal place of business" as stated in the NDA picture he posted today:
Indeed that is the address I posted yesterday after finding it buried in the terms and conditions of Kens old web hosting site (circa 2011) axs.net. The first time he revealed it here (in the pdfs today) was after I posted it last night. It is either his home address, or perhaps a friends or a complete strangers address ie someone he doesn't know. When you don't need mail to come through to you (or use a mail box for business mail) then you can pretty much pretend you live anywhere. When you post an alleged address on a website or quote it when you meet another businessman to sign a contract who is going to check it's your real address? That's one reason why dodgy business companies use mail boxes. Ken may have never been to this house so him saying it's his home address ads no aspect of trust or security. Posted on the 10th June 2013: Sure, I would be happy to meet with you at our NEW manufacturing site, which is 450 H S Union, Springfield Missouri, 65802. Just let me know when you are going to be here. Thanks for pointing out the typo on our site, I will get that fixed. However, you get a trademark by using it. It only needs to be registered if you are going to sue someone. I see you did not mention axs.net which I own and has been registered since 1997 along with name-servers.net. Our prototype boards are being spun up as we speak, should be here within a week, Avalon sample chips have been shipped to us for these boards. Anything else?
|
|
|
|
An updated evaluation of profit sharing based on the FAQ:
VMC makes 1 BTC.
0.9 BTC is Kens
0.1 BTC goes to AMC and is further split up:
0.04 BTC to Ken
0.04 BTC to the reinvestment fund (for more free loans to VMC)
0.012 to the treasury fund
0.008 to shareholders
Summing it all up:
0.94 to Ken
0.052 to lend or buy more stuff from VMC
0.008 for the people who paid for, and risked everything.
Of course, as Deprived pointed out all of that depends on VMC making a profit, which is up to Ken's to use Hollywood accounting to skim the profits before they see the balance sheet.
Glad to see that you ignored the whole chip sales profits with 70% to AMC, and that you expect VMC to build machines with parts that materialize out of thin air and free leprecon workers. You should also learn the diference between 10% of the net income vs 10% of the gross revenue. Treasury shares? Nice, get to read the first part too. Shares represent a split of profits, not ownership. Are we in May 2014? Must be, since it's only at that time AMC has 100M shares. |
|
|
|
This is the satellite image of the address that Ken used for VMC's "Principal place of business" as stated in the NDA picture he posted today:
Ok? I found it kind of weird that its just his house, seeing as how he says theres an office somewhere. Sure, I would be happy to meet with you at our NEW manufacturing site, which is 450 H S Union, Springfield Missouri, 65802. Just let me know when you are going to be here. Thanks for pointing out the typo on our site, I will get that fixed. However, you get a trademark by using it. It only needs to be registered if you are going to sue someone. I see you did not mention axs.net which I own and has been registered since 1997 along with name-servers.net. Our prototype boards are being spun up as we speak, should be here within a week, Avalon sample chips have been shipped to us for these boards. Anything else?
Near the Springfield Fight Club, am I seeing it right?  You better behave now!!! |
|
|
|
Until at least May 2014, on the initial 40M, a minimum of 20M are retained for growth and expansion and a maximum of 20M can be sold to investors.
In May 2014, or when 0.0005 is payed by share, whichever happens later, an extra 60M are created, for the final total of 100M. On these remaining 60M, a minimum of 20M are retained for growth and expansion and a maximum of 40M can be sold to investors, with a 40M being retained by AMC/Ken.
Right, but *why* 100 million shares? This is a ridiculous number of shares compared to other securities (I mean, ASICminer has 40000 shares, a whole order of magnitude lower). This will just dilute existing shares, make it more difficult to sell shares (because there's always the possibility of flooding the market), and make a high valuation for the company so much harder to justify. Why not 100M shares? The price per share compensates on the amount of them. This actually makes trading shares easier, look at TAT.AM for example, that divides each AM share by 100, so the 400.000 become, in fact, 40M, and the price adjusts itself accordingly. As of the time of this writing, up to 40,000,000 will be released over time to the public on a varying time scale as capital is required to complete the project. Any remaining shares not included in the IPO are owned/maintained/controlled by AMC. These shares will be used at the issuers discretion for any uses deemed fit. These uses are not limited to, but may include employment.
Why not IPO all the shares at the same time, right at the beginning, but less of them? Additionally, right now, how many shares have been issued, how many have been sold, and how many are held in reserve? Those shares which have not been issued aren't receiving dividends, are they? This goes on to my next point. Because Ken is skipping on getting "free" profits from AMC now. All money is funneled into reinvestment. Around 6M are sold, and 34M in reserve. The 40M are "issued" by BitFunder unto AMC/Ken, when they were created.
Dividends paid on unissued shares after the early-adopter phase will be retained by AMC and added to AMC's growth and expansion fund above until the shares are issued.
So basically, you're diluting the dividends across both issued and unissued shares? First, from my limited reading, unissued/unsold shares don't receive a dividend, so it seems that proper accounting/shareholder practices are not being followed (Right now, 40 million shares have been issued, but have 40 million been sold, and thus eligible for dividends? And then when you issue another 60 million, you'll be diluting the dividend even more so. To even get close to the kinds of dividends other companies are seeing (0.01 btc/share), you'd have to mine something like 40,000 bitcoins per week, even more when it's 100 million shares. All shares count as "issued" by BitFunder. The dividends are being paid into the 40M. All shares that are still on AMC/Ken receive dividends that are funneled into reinvestment (which makes sense). You can't also compare dividends/share with other companies because the price/share is very different. You can however compare dividends/share price. The first time I get a piece of the pie will be after a year of work (May 2014), when the rest of the 60M are issued. At that time, more 20M can be sold to investors, and I retain the remaining 40M. Again, what's the rationale for this? Why are you not making money on the shares now? Additionally, when you issue those 60 million shares, other investors are going to be screwed because the dividend will be split across 100 million, not 40 million. Because Ken understands that it's much better to reinvest as much as possible right now into growth, than later. When the 60M are issued by BF, yes the dividends will be lower, but the "cooperative" value as a whole will be much better than now, and still increasing. This also rewards earlier investors that helped fund the initial stages of AMC. As nice as these are, they don't really tell us much. Why all the secrecy? Why the NDA in the first place? Why not give this thing some bloody legitimacy instead of hiding behind a 'oh I'm sorry, but we *really* can't tell you all the details'. People are losing confidence because you're being so secretive! You can buy AMC now with that risk, or buy AMC later with lesser risk. Share prices will correlate to risk at each time too, I'm sure. Just have to figure it out if you think Ken is lying or not.
Roughy, AMC takes care of the chips, VMC takes care of the machines:
- AMC develops the chip, pays the chip's NRE and sells the chip in bulk to customers (using VMC as intermediary).
- VMC uses AMC's chip (or any other chips) and builds bitcoin miners, paying a royalty cost to AMC whenever its IP is used.
Chip sales: AMC holds IP rights on the Fast-Hash-ONE chips, so AMC contracts with VMC the following services: (a) the representation services to negotiate chip production with eASIC and (b) the re-selling of AMC's chips in bulk. AMC also guarantees chip exclusivity to VMC, so that AMC won't negotiate a chip supply contract to any other bitcoin systems manufacturer. AMC gets 70% back from the profits on the sale of bulk chips, while VMC gets 30%. All of VMC's expenses, including representation, chip stock management and re-shipping expenses to final customers are taken from their 30% profit.
System sales: AMC also allows VMC to buy chips directly from eASIC at the lowest cost, for the manufacturing of bitcoin mining systems. On every sale of these systems or parts of it that contain AMC chips or IP, AMC receives a 10% royalty fee from the total gross sales revenue. Example: if a customer purchases a system for ฿100, AMC receives ฿10, whatever the profit margins for VMC are.
Jesus this is complicated... First off, why not just merge the companies, rather than messing around with something like this convoluted set up? Second off, how is VMC funded? Where does it get its cashflow from? Third, why does AMC need VMC to re-sell its chips in bulk? Why can't AMC handle that itself? So, you bulk-sell chips to VMC, VMC sells them on, AMC gets 70% of the profits, VMC 30%? Why do it like that? Why not just have AMC/VMC together, AMC sells the chips and it receives 100% of the profits from these sales? Fourth, AMC sells chips to VMC, VMC then makes full mining systems (I'm guessing like the jalapenos etc), VMC then sells them on? I get the 10% royalty fee, but where does the other 90% go to? To VMC? And that's owned by who? So AMC does all the heavy lifting, sells its chips for a fee (presumably all of that profit goes 100% to AMC), and then basically only gets 10% royalty fee for something they could sell themselves for 100BTC and get 100% of the profit? You can see why that kind of sucks. Ugh, my head hurts trying to filter through all the BS, FUD, techno-babble and nonsense in this thread, just to get at some proper bloody answers. I should be entirely open and say that I have invested in this company, but I'm doing my 'due diligence' after the fact, so shame on me perhaps, but nevertheless, there are some serious gaps here that need addressed asap, preferably in a easy to digest summary. I often get the feeling that in anything bitcoin related, people hide behind the razzle-dazzle of vocabulary and jargon. K.I.S.S. Using this setup AMC/VMC works like any large GPU manufacturer tbh. For example, nVidia designs and produces their chips and reference boards, and sells them to Asus for example. Exactly same model. VMC is privately held by Ken atm, but I think I've read him talk about opening it to public, just like AMC. AMC is getting a clean 70% of profits with no incurring expenses. You can't get "100% of profits" because there are always expenses to pay. Anyway like I said, same model as nVidia, AMD, atc. About the mining systems, AMC gets 10% of the top, but it's VMC that has to buy all the equipment, parts, labor, etc. Don't forget about those. AMC has no expenses here, just 10% clean profit of the top (gross income). |
|
|
|
At least the FAQ is on the front page.. it will still likely get drowned out though.  I still think an FAQ part two might be in order, or at least greater transparency on a few of the 'hard evidence' issues, but I welcome this first step anyway. Yes, unfortunately for some people even with the most "hard evidence" Ken delivers, it's not enough. It will never be enough, since they have already chosen what they want to believe. |
|
|
|
AMC's F.A.Q.: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=158806.msg1687176#msg1687176[AMC] Hardware discussion and F.A.Q.So, what do shares represent? Ownership?Shares do not represent ownership, they are "solely a distribution mechanism for rights to profits", and used as a means to liquidation. 1 share of AMC on BitFunder represents 1/100,000,000th of 100% of the monthly profits after all expenses. AMC shares offer no voting rights. Shares of AMC on BitFunder do not represent real world shares of the company. The shares are solely a distribution mechanism for rights to profits.
Should the Cooperative be sold or closed, the full amount of the purchase price, liquidated income, and any mining revenue not distributed will be evenly distributed to the 100,000,000 shares.
Wait a minute... I'm not "owning" a part of AMC, just a piece of the "profits"  Welcome to the bitcoin stock exchange game. Learn the risks, and stay, or get out. Please read https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=245713.msg2616979#msg2616979So, shares represent a part of profits then. How are they distributed?Until at least May 2014, on the initial 40M, a minimum of 20M are retained for growth and expansion and a maximum of 20M can be sold to investors. In May 2014, or when 0.0005 is payed by share, whichever happens later, an extra 60M are created, for the final total of 100M. On these remaining 60M, a minimum of 20M are retained for growth and expansion and a maximum of 40M can be sold to investors, with a 40M being retained by AMC/Ken. 20,000,000 shares will be retained by AMC to maintain a growth and expansion fund.
As of the time of this writing, up to 40,000,000 will be released over time to the public on a varying time scale as capital is required to complete the project. Any remaining shares not included in the IPO are owned/maintained/controlled by AMC. These shares will be used at the issuers discretion for any uses deemed fit. These uses are not limited to, but may include employment.
So, I heard I am earning a lot from AMC right now, by bagging the dividends from all the unsold shares out of the 40M?Wrong. The contract specifies that all dividends from issued shares still on AMC's hands are retained by the growth and expansion fund (the contract was originally written using correct terminology, but BF considers all shares "issued"). Dividends paid on unissued shares after the early-adopter phase will be retained by AMC and added to AMC's growth and expansion fund above until the shares are issued.
The first time I get a piece of the pie will be after a year of work (May 2014), when the rest of the 60M are issued. At that time, more 20M can be sold to investors, and I retain the remaining 40M. I've read a lot of announcements, but have yet to see real documents. Can you please provide some?Engineering Firm quote for Avalon machines: http://axs.net/AMC/SB-Prototype-Quote.jpgeASIC NDA: http://axs.net/AMC/eAsic-NDA0001.jpg and http://axs.net/AMC/eAsic-NDA0002.jpgSo, how will the division between AMC and VMC be implemented, in respect to chip/machine sales?Roughy, AMC takes care of the chips, VMC takes care of the machines: - AMC develops the chip, pays the chip's NRE and sells the chip in bulk to customers (using VMC as intermediary). - VMC uses AMC's chip (or any other chips) and builds bitcoin miners, paying a royalty cost to AMC whenever its IP is used. Chip sales: AMC holds IP rights on the Fast-Hash-ONE chips, so AMC contracts with VMC the following services: (a) the representation services to negotiate chip production with eASIC and (b) the re-selling of AMC's chips in bulk. AMC also guarantees chip exclusivity to VMC, so that AMC won't negotiate a chip supply contract to any other bitcoin systems manufacturer. AMC gets 70% back from the profits on the sale of bulk chips, while VMC gets 30%. All of VMC's expenses, including representation, chip stock management and re-shipping expenses to final customers are taken from their 30% profit. System sales: AMC also allows VMC to buy chips directly from eASIC at the lowest cost, for the manufacturing of bitcoin mining systems. On every sale of these systems or parts of it that contain AMC chips or IP, AMC receives a 10% royalty fee from the total gross sales revenue. Example: if a customer purchases a system for ฿100, AMC receives ฿10, whatever the profit margins for VMC are. |
|
|
|
(...)
2) Is this quote a JOKE? You have been in operations for months and taking milions of Dollars of peoples money and this quote is FIVE DAYS OLD. Simply STAGGERING.
Most of the funds from the 5M shares sold initially went all into buying hardware already, more than a month now. |
|
|
|
Are the trolls actually reading any posts other than their own?
Ken continues to post on this forum and is not hiding away as some suggest.
Simply look at his most recent posts and you will see he contributed four times on June 29th, five times on June 30th and once already today.
And NONE of those posts answered the real questions we are asking. Namely: 1. provide evidence of the announcements Ken has made. 2. will he do as shareholders say, and fix the rediculous situation with AMC & VMC A FAQ is being written. There's no point in answering any of that now to be later buried and buried again. Hold on! |
|
|
|
|
AMC's 10% royalty fee is off the top (gross sales), not 10% of the profits (net income).
Very big difference there.
|
|
|
|
|
I understand all the doubts about the share splits, those will be all clarified monday in the FAQ, as the answers are more than burried over all the FUD posts.
Ken is NOT receiving ANYTHING from AMC now. He is entitled to NO shares/dividends at the moment.
At this time, only shareholders and the growth fund receive dividends, so effectively it's like the growth fund receives dividends on 40M minus the sold shares to investors.
|
|
|
|
|
Let them bash AMC as much as they want.
The truth always comes out.
The first rule of investing is learning to recognise hidden agendas and it's pretty easy to go back a few pages and see that it's always the same guys spreading the same FUD over and over again.
If you want to invest in anything in your life, learn to shield yourself from being manipulated.
|
|
|
|
$25 Million dollars for 6 Avalons is one hell of a premium. At best they are worth $120k. I agree. Even with the good news for the future the valuation of AMC is way overpriced. Stop issuing more shares and let the market play itself out. If Ken did not put up that 2m share wall before announcement i don't think we would have got deeper into this mess. He is just manipulating the price, as 20M are always reserved for re-investment. |
|
|
|
This thread has become a mess  That's a great contribution.  This thread has become a mess +1 |
|
|
|
You must be sniffing glue or something. KNC has delivery date of sept/oct and AMC is aiming for what, early spring of 2014.. Who cares how awesome the chips are when diff increases 20% ever 10 days you will still be stuck with a fantastic toaster by mid 2014 no matter what density or package.
I'm still trying to understand the financial logic that allows AMC to sell avalon clones for $6000 in December, can you explain?
Yes, I'll explain it to you. It doesn't matter if AMC gets its chips in 2014, 2015 or 2016. What matters is bitcoin mining is transitioning to a corporate structure, so whoever can make their own chips and buy them as cheap as possible, will have the ultimate advantage. As more and more hardware is bought, the cost for owning significant network % goes up and up. Do you think individual miners paying extra for their hardware will stand? I don't. AMC is in a good position right now, as a partnership with eAsic allows the chip to be converted to ever decreasing transistor sizes, when they are available, almost effortlessly. Fast access to hardware and a very low cost is all that matters, independently of the time you do it. Asicminer proved that to any significant GPU farm holder. |
|
|
|
What I don't understand is that power estimate for a 28nm chip. One of the big benefits of smaller transistors is power efficiency. So why aren't they getting 1GH/W or better? I would expect them to have a rough estimate of lesser or equal to 100W per chip, not 250W! Clearly, more details need to be released.
Yeah, the jury is still out on that one. It's possible that their estimates are crazy high so that they don't end up on wrong side of sentiment with their customers. Only time will tell. As we've seen with BFL, you really won't know actual power consumption until you get your first chips. True. It also depends a lot on how they are designing them. Full custom designs are much harder to estimate power consumption than semi-custom ones (because on semi-custom ones, like the one from AMC/eAsic, all the logic transistors are already there, so they already know how much power each "eCell" uses, they just need to simulate the chip working and see how many "eCells" are being used concurrently). |
|
|
|
Thanks for that! So, each Jupiter will use 4x100GH/s chips at <=1000W, each chip using a 55x55 package. Each chip is thus 250W, so I will expect them to use a cooler the size of a graphics card, per chip. On 250W, we can fit about 16.667 of AMC's chips (let's say 15W each), for a rated performance of 16.667x16=266.667 GH/s. You know, like someone said, "the devil is in the details" Each chip will not be 250W, they have stated it will be below that, 250W/chip is the maximum. They are very paranoid about missing projections so they always give cautious estimates. Also, they have retracted the initial claim of planning to use water cooling as hosting locations do not like to deal with water cooled equipment (according to KnC). Not trying to be argumentative, just accurate. You are more than welcome, discussing actual content here is indeed a relief! What I don't understand is that power estimate for a 28nm chip. One of the big benefits of smaller transistors is power efficiency. So why aren't they getting 1GH/W or better? I would expect them to have a rough estimate of lesser or equal to 100W per chip, not 250W! Clearly, more details need to be released. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
