I wonder if the website still shows the old products because of the active pre-orders for them. I wonder if they were removed if that would some how cross some legal line. Of course I'm assuming that there are still outstanding orders for those products that for some reason have not been converted or refunded.

Is the price really the problem? Sure you might pick up a few quick sales at smaller margins but until the large issues are addressed (customer refunds, websites, etc) it just feels like the wrong changes.

Thanks Ken for clarifying.

If Ken had the cash flow to purchase some of these shares it would be in the companies and thus investors best interest that he does so. But of course you'd have to measure the use of funds comparing the other opportunity costs vs the decrease in outstanding liabilities. Right now I'm assuming Ken needs the funds to continue to evolve the business and that decreasing future liabilities are a ways down on the list.

Sort of... the shares would still have to be paid dividends... just would go right back into the company coffers... it would enable him to pay down the "owed" amount sooner. Unless of course he's buying shares with his own money... which at this point would just be dishonest.

How much TH is currently offline and owned not by VMC for resale but funded by ActM's funds?

Ken,

You do recognize that VMC's is measured on the same scale as BFL. The way you handle and present yourself to customers who placed pre-orders and your timeliness in delivering products are all measured at large by the community.

We "Share Holders" don't have the day to day information or understand from your perspective. We only see your interactions with people here in a public forum and from time to time do see areas of concern; both including your interactions and your presence (Web page, etc).

Shao

Thank you; this is a big step in the right direction. No mention of financials... when can we expect those. Let's be honest... a lot of people are going to dump as soon as they can... can you give us a picture of the current state of things.

Thanks Zum,

All very reasonable. The problem still remains that shareholders have been given little to no voice by Ken who has gotten away with almost no accountability. I believe there is a solution out there; but Ken is going to have to come to the table and work with shareholders and quickly else things will escalate into a legal mess; which isn't good for anyone.

You need to disclose who is running this account before I'd consider using this method. And what criteria you use to decide which questions get passed on.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=206488.msg6562371#msg6562371

Ken,

Is this really how you want to respond to a customer who trusted you with their money for a product you no longer have any intent on manufacturing or delivering.

If I recall correct... the main concern was that the site didn't support the online shopping module that Ken used... you know the one that integrated with Gox....

There is no CC-type solution that the MSD and SEC will be satisfied with. The only thing they'd accept would be a fully authorized and registered security. The CC has and remains a stalling tactic; it's not ready... there is no timeline for it being ready... this makes it a perfect target to say will be our solution. The problem is Ken is already on their radar and under investigation... right now he's just stalling and trying to not to break any additional laws.

I really hate to say it but in my opinion the only option for shareholders of ActM at this point is to take to the courts. I'm not sure that the Class Action organization would represent anyone's interests but their own... but the repeated pattern from Ken to mislead those who have trusted him with their money is a major concern.

At this point; I myself would have to consider him in breach of contract... whether we have legal ground to stand on; he has violated the agreement by which we gave him money by first withholding our shares and now by withholding dividends that are owed to us.

The MSD/SEC issues are Ken's not ours as investors... in my opinion they do not excuse Ken from his legal obligation to us. They are certainly troubling and an indication of the value or impact on value of our investment but they do not preclude him from his responsibilities to us.

Ken,

Some larger breakers are adjustable for sensitivity. Electricians will sometimes install them on the lowest setting if they aren't told otherwise. Depending on your panel the adjustable part may not even show.

This has caught me before with a 400amp circuit.

Good Luck,
Shao

Ken,

Did the DC go offline?

http://eligius.st/~wizkid057/newstats/userstats.php/1DJpsvnM7xTnQbWEhLYyCyfxQyxwupEzCa

Shao

Ken,

I think you owe an update on the process of an ActM custom asic development. You can dodge all you want on this... but this is after all one of the primary reasons people trusted you with our money.

I can figure out how you came to HashFast; after all the purchase and development of a 55nm asic wasn't as profitable as others 27nm. But the reality here is everyone sent you money to develop/use/sell a 27nm asic. Obviously we are way behind where we should be at this point even considering any reasonable delays.

The shares and SEC issues being what they are; you should still feel some obligation to keep us reasonably informed when your plans change or do not work out.

Are we still even developing an asic? Please confirm the status... was it canceled is that why we aren't hearing anything? Did we run out of funds? Is the order of HashFast gear the only hope for some sort of sustainability? Is the business plan to try to outsell HashFast themselves using their own gear? What is the strategy here?

If true; this is pretty frustrating. I don't see the sales demand being so high on this product right now (Maybe I'm wrong) but from the numbers we've all heard tossed around fulfilling a few 30 or 40 orders should be easy to do.

We've all seen pictures of the facilities laid out to process orders... we know Ken hired staff and built servers (Which aren't even being used). I just don't understand why we can't ship out an "In Stock" product in a reasonable timeline or respond to people who want to purchase. I don't know the details ... but I'm running out of "benefit of the doubt" on cases like this.

Wasn't People's Asic out that way?

I'd guess you could attribute that to heat. Ken has said on a few occasions that the DC air conditioning hasn't been setup yet. I'm guessing he shut off a rack to try to keep the heat manageable.

The issuer needs to purchase a small amount of XCP to issue the asset. Once issued those trading in or owning the asset do not have to transact with XCP.

Now that they've added dividends in BTC the platform looks pretty interesting.