To put it shortly, I've got high hopes for the company and want to improve its online graphic presence, how do I get in contact with Ken?
Cheers!
PM him. He does reply  I think a few people have offered to help on this front so hopefully someone will get to do it. I've just messaged him now, hopefully I'll hear back soon. I actually did some logo work for Litecoin that you can find on the Litecoin wiki so hopefully that will put me in good stead. I'm not looking to suck thousands of dollars out of the guy, ramen money and something to add to my portfolio for later life will be enough of a reward. Was it your concept for the semi-transparent card with the Litecoin logo? The transparent card was just a mockup I used to show one example of how the graphic could be used in a real world situation, but yeah, that was me. I'm also in negotiations with the Litecoin dev team now about possibly redesigning their official logo which suffers from the same slightly out-dated look as the VMC logo. PM me with your email. I have some design work I need done in ~4-5 weeks or so. |
|
|
|
Wait a minute. Didn't this SNAFU happen with the original IPO for AMC with the original shares going for 0.0005, rising to 0.0008, and then a bunch of shares being dumped at 0.0005 again?
Yeah basically people don't read contracts and get all pissy when an asset issuer exercises their rights that are rather explicitly explained within said contract. All water under the bridge now though...or at least that's what you'd think. ha. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do it. Hopefully Ken will reconsider listing these new shares, or at least list them at a higher price (0.0028) to make up for all the people who bought at 26 or 27 thinking that the 25 wall was done for good. Again, Ken wanted to release at market price, but the contract stated that the second lot of shares would be released at 0.0005. He was contractually obligated to release at 0.0005. Investors got upset because they didnt read the contract. He wasn't contractually obligated to release at .0005; he was contractually obligated to release at no less than 0.0005 when the AMC structure was in place. That Bitfunder took such a heavy hand with Ken only made things worse. It's frustrating to see the peanut gallery actually hold any sway in such matters and worse still to see that their caterwauling achieved anything. Ya, that was my take, too. |
|
|
|
To put it shortly, I've got high hopes for the company and want to improve its online graphic presence, how do I get in contact with Ken?
Cheers!
PM him. He does reply I think a few people have offered to help on this front so hopefully someone will get to do it. I've just messaged him now, hopefully I'll hear back soon. I actually did some logo work for Litecoin that you can find on the official litecoin.org site so hopefully that will put me in good stead. I'm not looking to suck thousands of dollars out of the guy, ramen money and something to add to my portfolio for later life will be enough of a reward. Was it your concept for the semi-transparent card with the Litecoin logo? |
|
|
|
ffssixtynine is right, we need that board of directors ASAP. It'll relieve some stress from you ken, and get the community more involved. As you said, if you are succesful, your investors are successful, it should also be vice versa. Some people check on this thread every 45 minutes (like me) or even in shorter intervals and are deeply vested in the outcome of ActM. Have them deal with the constant barrage of repeated questions, and filter out the legitimate questions and convey those to you.
Vbs and street have played a decent role in this ipo IMHO. They would be a start, if interested. +1 |
|
|
|
lolstate is correct, and this is exactly what I was eluding to:
either ActiveMining is a scam OR ActiveMining is a real company with real people
if ActiveMining is a scam, then that would - all hypothetically speaking - make ken a con man, and anything he says would be to instill confidence to perpetuate this, so there is really nothing he could say to rationalize the unknown expenses
if ActiveMining is a real company trying to do real things, then it is being run with poor judgement, which is equally a red flag
and this is all compounded by the fact that the poor judgement isn't new: over the last however many pages of this thread, we have worked out the problems with the original structure of this venture ( 3 entities in agreements and various levels of ownership with each other)
and now it is apparent we need to work out some issues with ActiveMining's charter to allow shareholders to vote on more things before they happen
This isn't FUD (fear uncertainty and doubt), this is a reflection on "wtf were you thinking when you originally structured this venture" and just when that is fixed its now "wtf are you doing with these ask walls"
I would be happy to put a board together as soon as we get over the next few months. I would suggest a 7 member board. That is a great offer, Ken. As of the last few days things are progressing really well, don't let the negative ninnies here make you think otherwise. I'm not thinking otherwise. Fantastic Ken, there are so many downers here of late, it would make anyone think twice. Seems to me you have a plan and you are executing. |
|
|
|
Seriously guys, can I suggest a Time Out! Would it suit everyone to agree to take the next two days off to cool down, give Ken some space and time to think? We could reconvene on Monday. |
|
|
|
I would be happy to put a board together as soon as we get over the next few months. I would suggest a 7 member board.
The point is a board is needed now ken, not in a few months. That's far too late. Man, does hyperbole have to die today as well? |
|
|
|
HAHAhahahahaha
I bet all you "longers" are really regretting not selling above .0025 now that Ken has confirmed that 400,000 shares will be dumped at that price over the weekend.
hahahaha? trollbox much? Yeah ill be leaving for that trollbox now, i've made my profit here. You religiously devout Ken believers can have a couple pages of this thread without worrying about me spreading "FUD", as there is no longer any profit opportunity here for at least another couple weeks. Good luck with the new wall!  Be careful Floates, some people might want to burn you on the next trade. Keep sharp. |
|
|
|
lolstate is correct, and this is exactly what I was eluding to:
either ActiveMining is a scam OR ActiveMining is a real company with real people
if ActiveMining is a scam, then that would - all hypothetically speaking - make ken a con man, and anything he says would be to instill confidence to perpetuate this, so there is really nothing he could say to rationalize the unknown expenses
if ActiveMining is a real company trying to do real things, then it is being run with poor judgement, which is equally a red flag
and this is all compounded by the fact that the poor judgement isn't new: over the last however many pages of this thread, we have worked out the problems with the original structure of this venture ( 3 entities in agreements and various levels of ownership with each other)
and now it is apparent we need to work out some issues with ActiveMining's charter to allow shareholders to vote on more things before they happen
This isn't FUD (fear uncertainty and doubt), this is a reflection on "wtf were you thinking when you originally structured this venture" and just when that is fixed its now "wtf are you doing with these ask walls"
I would be happy to put a board together as soon as we get over the next few months. I would suggest a 7 member board. That is a great offer, Ken. As of the last few days things are progressing really well, don't let the negative ninnies here make you think otherwise. |
|
|
|
There is a real chance this could be a con, although I sincerely hope not!
Man, this is the day satire died.  |
|
|
|
The obvious conclusion is it would have been easier to pull off a scam and do a runner before now, than continue to the IPO stage and beyond. So we either have an incompetent group of scammers (would have been banged up by now), or a competent team who have successfully delivered the first tranche of a start up, yet are probably cursing the day they agreed to start out, lol.
I play online poker and there have been much more drawn out and much more elaborate scams when big amounts of money are at play. While your rationale is logical there's not much weight to it in this case as there is $1M+ at play. In the end only time will tell how AMC will pan out so we're all just speculating as to whether this is legit or not or if it will succeed. Why even entertain such nonsense? The more you focus on negative outcomes, as so many people have seemed to flip to in here today, the more momentum you give the negative outcome. BINGO! That is the FUDsters new approach. The scam was discredited, now it is: "Keep on chipping away with insinuation, negativity, make it ONE BIG DOWNER" I'm listening to Yazz 'The Only Way is Up' on the iPod, so I might be immune to this. |
|
|
|
I have no reason to lie. I'm a shareholder and have verified that in the past. I would have no reason to cut Ken's funding short by 50k shares.
You just implied he could steal 50k shares from us. That would be quite a serious accusation, if made, which is why I asked. How would we ever know? Can you tell which shares are his? He will account for the 50k now that I posted it, guaranteed. Why are you changing the subject, care to answer me why you would consider such a serious accusation? |
|
|
|
The obvious conclusion is it would have been easier to pull off a scam and do a runner before now, than continue to the IPO stage and beyond. So we either have an incompetent group of scammers (would have been banged up by now), or a competent team who have successfully delivered the first tranche of a start up, yet are probably cursing the day they agreed to start out, lol.
I play online poker and there have been much more drawn out and much more elaborate scams when big amounts of money are at play. While your rationale is logical there's not much weight to it in this case as there is $1M+ at play. In the end only time will tell how AMC will pan out so we're all just speculating as to whether this is legit or not or if it will succeed. There is plenty of weight to my rational. I didn't go into all the details with Effayy as to why I know ActM is the real deal, but then why should I? The IPO has been successful. The FUDsters lost their window of opportunity to sabotage it. The important thing to do now, is for existent share holders to engage with new investors to address their concerns and steer them away from predators/wanna be traders who would take them for a ride. |
|
|
|
I have no reason to lie. I'm a shareholder and have verified that in the past. I would have no reason to cut Ken's funding short by 50k shares.
You just implied he could steal 50k shares from us. That would be quite a serious accusation, if made, which is why I asked. |
|
|
|
Just a side note, AMC-PT has 1000BTC more 24h volume than ASICMINER-PT on BTC-TC!
That is freaking amazing. Ok, if we were not on Friedcat's radar before today, we are now! Friedcat mentioned AMC in the last Quarterly report. What did he say? Was it a name check or did he go into specific detail/speculation? Just a name check he doesn't go into much except Bitfury a little, I would assume someone on the AsicMiner team is at least reading this thread, this is good for them though and they realize the need for diversity in the BTC Mining world. Yeah, is defo good for them and they have said many times they *need* competition to grow, so fingers crossed ActM provide it for their benefit (and ours!) |
|
|
|
on the phone ken told me he had put up 50,000 shares and they went pretty fast. If he puts up a 500k wall instead of a 450k then I can see 50k that has nothing to do with funding, at least as we know it.  How do we know you are not lying? |
|
|
|
hi all,
I've lurked in this thread for quite a long time and let me state this right up front: yes I do hope that everything is above board and it's a win/win for Ken and shareholders alike. I'm not a manipulative FUDster troll. I am, however, someone who holds a few shares and would like a little clarification for the record.
As was mentioned a few posts ago, I also remember when the wall was all that was required for the NRE funds to pan out. Then I see that there are pre-orders in for ASICs that could help with the start-up funds as well. Excellent! So if BTC stays low, there would be something to draw from at least to aid in the NRE. Suddenly there is mention of a new wall of shares for extra expenses.
Now I really want to give the benefit of the doubt here, but my spider senses are tingling. Confidence is shaken somewhat when a load of new shares is added shortly after a massive wall has finally been eaten up. It gives it more of a cash grab feel than planned capital. As was started before by someone, it would be much better if instead of just stating "adding more shares now" and leaving it at that, if you would both provide some lead-time as well as state some numbers behind the request. Transparency is key here, especially when this (and everything BTC, let's face it) is extremely high-risk. Knowing how much is left to fully fund eASIC for example, and what these other expenses are and their relative cost would be crucial to investor confidence.
Again, don't take this as FUD please. I feel this is a valid point and something that should be expanded upon.
Hi Effayy I'd say, if your spider sense is tingling, consider two extreme possibilites: 1. ActM is a scam (as recent posters would have you believe, with getaway Ferraris on order for example) 2. It is the real deal with an amazing upside Now, consider how much time and effort has been spent by Ken and his team getting us to a successful IPO. All the accusations thrown about on this and sibling threads, which would have made the skittish run. The independent checks myself and others have done/commissioned behind the scenes. Then, decide which makes most sense: 1. ActM is a scam 2. It is the real deal The obvious conclusion is it would have been easier to pull off a scam and do a runner before now, than continue to the IPO stage and beyond. So we either have an incompetent group of scammers (would have been banged up by now), or a competent team who have successfully delivered the first tranche of a start up, yet are probably cursing the day they agreed to start out, lol. QED your spider sense, while a useful input into your decision making process, should not override rational consideration. |
|
|
|
Just a side note, AMC-PT has 1000BTC more 24h volume than ASICMINER-PT on BTC-TC!
That is freaking amazing. Ok, if we were not on Friedcat's radar before today, we are now! Friedcat mentioned AMC in the last Quarterly report. What did he say? Was it a name check or did he go into specific detail/speculation? |
|
|
|
Just a side note, AMC-PT has 1000BTC more 24h volume than ASICMINER-PT on BTC-TC!
That is freaking amazing. Ok, if we were not on Friedcat's radar before today, we are now! |
|
|
|
I LOVE this, but is there any chance we can make a slight modification to have the estimated divs in numerical form rather than in scientific notation?
Vbs, would it be possible to get the spreadsheet on a Google Docs share as read only? I'm ok with the SI - although maybe there is an easy way to deploy 2 almost identical copies, one with the dividends shown as decimal? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
