Looks like the payout script may need a kick ...  +1 |
|
|
|
Holy shit. This IS getting a little interesting.
Hope Mr. Slaughter is prepared to release some more shares prior to his announcement. At the current market volume and if the news is really that good, I'm expecting the price won't stay at 0.0025 that long (for next batches)!  |
|
|
|
So when is thing on BTC-TC? Before the news? After the news? Are the 2m shares for BTC-TC or Bitfunder or both?
BTC-TC we need 5 votes to get listed. I think it only needed 4 votes to get listed. " Your new asset will only be activated with at least 5 YES votes by LTC-GLOBAL shareholders. To be eligible to vote, an LTC-GLOBAL shareholder must have at least 10 shares of LTC-GLOBAL."  |
|
|
|
So if these 2 million new shares are listed on Bitfunder then what will be listed on btc-ct?
And why would the price be different as it's the same thing?
The problem is that no one knows when the btct.co moderators will decide to pass or fail the listing of AMC-PT there (we need 5 "yes" votes to pass). It could be today, tomorrow, in one month, etc. |
|
|
|
umm sorry what does "TBD" mean?
To Be Decided / Determined Post # 1111 :-D thanks, and who decide it? the issuer only? I'm guessing the price will depend at the time (if) it gets approved on btct.co. Like I said earlier, the price is correlated to risk, so it's natural for it to be cheaper when investors take a huge risk and more expensive as the investor's risk gets smaller and smaller.  |
|
|
|
Like I said earlier, buy at 0.0025, or don't buy any at all if you think it's unworty. Or, sell some! In either case, 3 different choices, for 3 different kinds of investors. Just decide which kind you are. |
|
|
|
I still have trouble grasping as to why shares rose from 0.0008 to 0.0025. 300%+ increase, just from speculation of an announcement, and ken issuing more shares all seems like an coincidence.
Could he and many that were involved in pumping the price up just so the newly issued IPO could be sold for a much higher price (0.0025) as opposed to 0.008+ or 0.001 which was what ken has noted in the past.
Investing into something bears a certain amount of risk. Anyone that bought a while ago at a small price had to bear a significant risk. Tomorrow we'll know if the price of 0.0025 is justified or not by the remaining risk. Is the risk now 3 to 5 times smaller? We'll know tomorrow, I guess. |
|
|
|
Necessary, i would have thought. Too high too fast gets the uninitiated exposed, me thinks. We saw it when people wanted refunds from .0009 to .0005
P.S. Can someone stand at the Ask wall, and politely move along those sellers getting in the way, please. Thankyoumuch.
Selling right now is a bet against tommorow's news, simple as that. There are always two sides on each bet. I've chosen mine long ago! |
|
|
|
2M@0.0025...  Oh I'm expecting some JAW DROPPING news tomorrow!
|
|
|
|
VMC and AMC will be making a joint announcement this coming Thursday about their Research And Development.
Timer removed. End time: 2013-06-27+18:00:00
Damn the clock is slow! |
|
|
|
wow, I've been away for a couple of weeks and so much has happened! Cool stuff.
Can someone explain to me what is the difference between buying the PT shares in BTCt.co or the normal ones in Bitfunder?
I'm thinking the reason is doing a PT is much less of a hassle than de-listing shares from BF. It also allows for much easier accounting and better balancing of shares between the market volume of both BF and Btct.co. |
|
|
|
AMC-PT is a few days now waiting for approval on btct.co and no one has read thoroughly the description? https://btct.co/security/AMC-PTHint: Details tab > Ctrl+F "NRE" VMC and AMC will be making a joint announcement this coming Thursday about
their Research And Development.
Timer removed. End time: 2013-06-27+18:00:00
Lol! Yes, let's hope everyone survives the wait... |
|
|
|
VMC and AMC will be making a join announcement this coming Thursday about
their Research And Development.
Anticipation building up... |
|
|
|
No votes require comments. The voting mechanism has a facility to make the comment either public or private though. So the public might not see them, but the issuer will get them via email.
Cheers.
Good, but I'm sure you guys can do better. Remember that from Anonimity to Impunity it's just a small step. Making the process open and transparent will help to achieve reasonable and fundamented decisions, and will help to make sure the voting is as imparcial as possible. Voting is to the benefit of btct.co as a whole and should not be able to be exploited by anyone who holds their best personal interests first. |
|
|
|
Everything considered, he did apologize and offered reparation. I just hope he realized that it's never worth it. Anyway, you do raise an important issue, similar to what I said above. Why would any moderator that is also the issuer of a competing asset would want another competitor in there? Especially since votes can be anonymous, so true motives can be hidden. |
|
|
|
|
While it would be nice to have AMC listed on btct.co, I won't be surprised if it takes a long time to get approved or even doesn't.
Allowing anonymous moderator votes is as transparent as someone judging you while you wait outside the court. You never know what's coming and what are their true motives.
Every moderator should also be required to comment on their vote.
|
|
|
|
Pretty much pointless to continue this discussion. Everyone has already made their mind based on their way of looking into things and what they value most. Entropy, I hope you took my comments to you lighthearted, I meant to spike, not to offend. |
|
|
|
You can't include future projected profits into a book value (much as some idiots here would like to). Book value isn't the only way to value things (and I'd say it isn't a good way at all for PMBs) but if you're going to use it at all then you can only look at the current value of things. Which is either what you paid for them (less depreciation) or what they could be sold for.
This is why book value is a blinded valuation for any of this. Zero forecast. The credits for its use are definitely for the Economics Nobel on this tread, not me. I'm just AMC's useful idiot, remember? |
|
|
|
Book value is today. Future profits that are retained for reinvestment are in the future.
A mining asset that reinvests is a good concept. AT THE RIGHT PRICE.
Great. You should start updating them daily then, from now on. |
|
|
|
The money's always in selling spades not in digging. That's why ASICMINER is so much better than most - as they do both.
PMBs rent you a spade - usually at a price that's a LOT more than actually buying a spade yourself.
Mining shares use YOUR (investors) money to buy spades, dig with them and keep some of whatever's produced by digging themselves. Even when the spade never digs enough to cover its cost.
AMC uses YOUR money so another company owned by Ken can make profit from building and selling spades. You get some spades yourself in return, but have to pay for your them in advance to him even though by the time the spades arrive you could probably buy them elsewhere cheaper. There's no guarantee the spades will ever be delivered - and no penalty in the contract if they're late.
I think Entropy's P/B valuation is unfair on AMC - as it should also include whatever cash AMC has. But Ken pretending his personal shares don't count as they aren't shown as issued on Bitfunder is hilarious.
I agree with your spades metaphor. However, he is valuing AMC against assets that are selling a fixed amount of spades, at a fixed price, so they have a static book value. As AMC is buying more spades with any shares sold+dividends (income), its book value is constantly increasing, as the maximum share number is already fixed. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
