|
Friedcat transferred that share to you all of 6 hours ago, and you're selling it?
There's not much sense in buying direct shares if you're just going to flip them.
|
|
|
|
Friedcat has confirmed transfers now, thanks for a quick and efficient sale OP!
Yes, I have the confirmation from friedcat as well. Thanks, and best of luck to everyone on their investment! Those of you who paid without escrow, I would welcome the trust feedback, but it isn't required. |
|
|
|
It looks like BMF got it's 5 votes on BTC-TC.
Yeah - it did. The bad news is investors there get to lose money, the good news is we get continued entertainment. The bad news for burnside is he's now married to a mentally unstable share issuer. |
|
|
|
|
Seriously? Why would anyone think I would sell at 0.5 BTC under the market?
The auction has been closed for days. If you didn't buy, please don't post in this thread.
|
|
|
|
I'll take 5 @ 2.95
You haven't responded to PMs for over a day. I have 16 buyers that are waiting on share transfers. If you cannot make arrangements for payment in the next 8 hours, I will cancel your order and proceed with transfer of the remaining shares. Sorry about this - had no internet connection over the weekend. I completely understand that I missed the window for payment. Thanks anyway Sorry man, I couldn't leave almost 20 people who paid hanging for days. I appreciate the understanding. Maybe we can work something out the next time I offer shares. |
|
|
|
|
The last transfer I made took 3 days, so I would expect confirmation shortly.
If dividends are paid to me, I will forward them to each of the buyers.
|
|
|
|
(...)
AMC - Price: 100 000 000 * 0.0008 = 80000 BTC. Book value (6 Avalons at 70 GH/s + 5 TH/s of future hashing) 2260 BTC. Price to book 35
It should be obvious why these securities are beneficial only to their issuers, and why listings for BFMINES and AMC on BTCT.co should be rejected.
There is a difference between outstanding shares and authorized shares. I would suggest you looking into it before writing these shiny pearls of information...  You are nothing but a useful idiot for Ken. Ken has issued 100 Million shares. He controls 60 million of these shares. 20 million of those are a vehicle for retained earnings. They are still outstanding shares. And the price to book for AMC is still 35. Well over 10 times ASICMINER right now. There are only 40 Million Issued shares. See the proof below: From your asset profile on Bitfunder: 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.
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.
1 share is one 100 millionth of AMC. And AMC's assets are worth less than 1/35th of the share price. Plus as you specifically state, "As long as AMC does not sell it's shares below 0.0005 then they may do as they please with their shares. It is their company, their ownership, and their shares." So you can fuck your shareholders any way you want, if you ever decide that a 3500% mark up wasn't enough. SDICE shareholders are learning all about that experience right now. It seems that Ken acknowledges that he lied about there only being 40M shares, and recognizes that the true value of one share of AMC is 1/100 Millionth of AMC, giving the company a price to book of 35. It must be great to be able to sell assets to suckers at a 3500% markup. |
|
|
|
You should have closed the thread (with a simple "Thread now closed" post). Not difficult and good forum etiquette.
Thanks for the advice. I called Miss Manners and she said that necro'ing a thread when the same user has already created another thread on the same topic is a much worse breach of forum etiquette. She also said you should STFU! |
|
|
|
To the OP. Don't let the PMB operators get you down. I read this thread and you opened my eyes. Plenty of other's eyes as well I'm sure. Keep up the good work. The fewer newbies to bitcoin who buy these junk bonds, the better
Thanks. I do appreciate the positive feedback. But you shouldn't worry about me. These guys are pikers. You should have seen the abuse I was taking last year at the hands of PatrickHarnett, Inaba, and GigaVPS. Of course that fact that all 3 of those twats are completely discredited in this community today helps to strengthen my resolve.  |
|
|
|
Fascinating. I wonder what percentage of mining security issuers have taken a runner? There's amazingrando, Ian Bakewell, SIN,... Who else completely defaulted on these securities?
This is part of the fundamental reason I don't think it's possible to have a fairly priced mining bond. By the time you discount the security for the risk of default, the price would be under the intrinsic value of the mining hardware.
No, the price should be LOWER for the security risk, not higher. Take a look back through the securities section of the forum and you will find plenty of other examples. It was not just mining bonds either. Remember UBX raised something like 1250 btc. And bitcointorrents was paying regular monthly dividends but I think they disappeared when the GLBSE went down. And then there is FZB, I am not sure whether to call that a scam? That is what discount means. A lower price to account for the default risk. Net, I don't think you can come up with a pricing model that justifies fair value of a mining bond greater than the cost of hashing hardware available at present. And since it wouldn't be rational to sell a bond at that price, it isn't possible to offer mining bonds at fair value. |
|
|
|
I cannot close auction threads.
This thread was dead and off the front page, and I had another sale thread open above it with very clear terms.
I never said how many shares I would sell in this thread so there is absolutely nothing binding. If you want a bargain go to WalMart
No, you said you had 600 shares. You did state how many you would sell. 600. Wrong. I stated I had 600 share at address xxx as proof of ownership of direct shares. Shouldn't you be pretending to be a girl on IRC somewhere? |
|
|
|
...Who ever invented those nasty perpetual mining turds, was either a clueless fuck, who did not understand how bad it is for the investors or, he knew exactly! what it is and abused the nonexisting investing experience of BTC enthusiasts.
I think that honor would go to CentiMine, of the CentiMine400 stock on the GLBSE. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=8642.0From the second post there, it appears there were others ahead of him with the scam concept. Ok, it seems this thread got moved from "Marketplace" here. Sorry to have caused any confusion or trouble.
The original reasoning to put it there was that dishwara + SIN also have their threads regarding their mining contract sales in that other area.
Yeah, I had forgotten exactly who was doing what. Dishwara was more of a mining company, I think, SIN was a "perpetual" mining bond, and CM400 was a mining bond with a limited lifetime. CM400 payed much less back than was originally invested. SIN the operator took off with everybodies money, Dishwara ran into trouble of some sort with the mining, but he bought back the outstanding shares eventually. Fascinating. I wonder what percentage of mining security issuers have taken a runner? There's amazingrando, Ian Bakewell, SIN,... Who else completely defaulted on these securities? This is part of the fundamental reason I don't think it's possible to have a fairly priced mining bond. By the time you discount the security for the risk of default, the price would be under the intrinsic value of the mining hardware. |
|
|
|
|
I cannot close auction threads.
This thread was dead and off the front page, and I had another sale thread open above it with very clear terms.
I never said how many shares I would sell in this thread so there is absolutely nothing binding. If you want a bargain go to WalMart
|
|
|
|
Thank you for an honest, professional, and timely auction.
This is my first time buying shares on the Bitcoin Forum and it was a positive experience.
Off to a good start...
Thank you! I hope your investment turns out well. And I'm not just saying that because I still have 100s of ASICMINER shares!  |
|
|
|
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. 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. And only if it reinvests so that the profit from that reinvestment gos to the company investing - rather than to a different one not owned by investors. This is a very good point. One look at the corporate structure of V/AMC would be enough for any rational investor to refuse to touch it with a 10 foot pole. I especially like how AMC has been 'incorporated' in a different country every time I look. |
|
|
|
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.
You are correct. Any cash assets that are owned by AMC should be included in the book value. But I don't see any clear accounting that shows such cash on hand. SDICE shareholders found themselves out 6100 BTC when Erik decided that dice funds were actually his. I don't see any documentation that would prevent the same gambit from Ken. In any event it would be immaterial. Changing the P/B from 35 to 32 isn't going to make AMC a good investment. |
|
|
|
Absolutely. If I didn't have a method to value the future hardware that is on order your darling AMC would have a price to book of 100:1. You would howl like a baby then wouldn't you.
AuuuUUUuuuUUU (can I be a baby wolf?) My darling AMC has currently sold 5M shares to investors at a minimum of BTC0.0005/share, so BTC2500 minimum. Using your math it has only BTC2260 in "assets" (seems like the wallet balance doesn't count for you). Pretty good I'd say. But you already knew that. Your book value also assumes all shares are sold to investors, which is false ofc. Once more shares are sold, the price to book can only go down. But you already knew that too. Only 40M shares receive dividends so far. Again, you already knew that. Failing to use all available information for transparency is what really makes this thread a joke. (Not that I'm complaining, as I love a daily dose of humor! ) Here is the exact statement from AMC's bitfunder profile. "1 share of AMC on BitFunder represents 1/100,000,000th of 100% of the monthly profits after all expenses."Regardless of any short term arrangement, that is what you own when you buy AMC. Laugh all you want. In less than 6 months you will be crying about the money you lost. I've seen at least 3 cycles of this already. |
|
|
|
How much did you pay for the hardware you have ordered?
That is the value of the assets you are selling.
Cool, thanks for the clarification. You're using acquisition cost and AM now has a P/B of around 100. How much are you pricing the assets at?
Divide the 2. That is a price to book value.
OK, so my acquisition cost is aroud $10000/THs. I sell it at $500000/THs. My P/B is thus 50 right? .b If you are selling something for 50 times the value of the underlying assets, you have a price to book of 50. Did the hashpower you have on order cost you 2% of your proposed bond price? You seem to be confused about valuing assets that are on hand and operating, versus hardware that will arrive sometime in the future. Hardware on hand is substantially more valuable than a promise of hardware sometime in the future. KNC sold hashpower to be delivered this fall at $20 / GH/s, so that is a decent valuation for hardware delivered at that time. Folks on here seem to think that $300 / GH/s is a reasonable number for hardware on hand today. So I used that value for all my comparisons. I actually think it is a bit high, since the clearing price for Avalons seems to be closer to 2 BTC / GH/s but I used 3 to save on debating the precise valuation. Your asset could be worth more if you waited until the hardware arrives and is operational. Or it could be delayed greatly. You are trying to offload that risk, and take a handsome profit in advance. |
|
|
|
62 TH/s at 3 B / GH/s, plus the 200 TH/s of hardware on the way, plus inventory of USB miners for sale, plus the business value of the sales of hardware. P/B of 3 is probably low because I have know idea of the value of the capital equipment they have in terms of power supplies and cooling etc for the data centers.
I see. So, selling at 3BTC/Ghs, or $300/Ghs, is not ripping people off, when selling at $400/Ghs is? Where is the line between ripoff and not ripoff? Halfway between? Would you then agree that at $350/GHs, my investment would be a good investment? Or do you expect that the valuation of AM must be based on finding $120 million in sucker's pockets? Besides, as I understand it, AM doesn't hold funds back much at all, certainly not enough for paying off 200TH at $10K/THs. They had to hold back dividends to pay for USB miners for one. Investors have always needed to pay for additional blades from their dividends. That's fine, but it's a bit of a stretch to account for TH they haven't paid as part of book value. The inventory of USB miners were around 6,000 last I checked, so that's another ~$600,000 with the latest price of 0,99/333mhs. Keep going, you're down to not accounting for $31 million. But let's give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you were able to sell off your blades at $300/GHs. With 62TH owned (assuming they didn't sell a single blade, just to be nice) we're talking about $18 million, which would get AM to a much more respectable P/B of 6. Of course, it's still nowhere near 3, so you'd need to conjure up another $15 million and still find that sucker with $40 million in cash. .b How much did you pay for the hardware you have ordered? That is the value of the assets you are selling. How much are you pricing the assets at? Divide the 2. That is a price to book value. What's a good price to book? That depends upon the investment, and the investor's view of the future of the asset. I am just showing a straightforward benchmark. If you don't like what it tells you, then maybe you need to restructure your deal. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
