|
Ken when you say the eASIC chip is going full custom do you mean we will be using the easicopy process?
|
|
|
|
|
Not aiming this at anyone in particular but there are so many negative people on here - are you all clinically depressed?
The one thing that's surprised me about my time on this forum is how down beat so many people can be. I thought Americans in particular were upbeat/can-do kind of people who saw opportunity where the rest don't and think big. But it's the Brits on here who are doing all the rabble-rousing and trying to keep everyone positive. Me, zum, Vince, Stu...
Come on guys, think big or go home. That's the type of attitude that's made your country the powerhouse and economic success it has been.
I don't think the negativity on here is either justified or helpful. An old skool businessman doing his damndest to create a success and all you kids can do is moan. America wouldn't be the country it is without guys like Ken. He's been running businesses his whole life and he's still working like a dog. Yet the XBox generation want everything now and if they don't get it they fold and give up hope. I don't get it. It's no surprise that your position is being supplanted by Asia where they still think anything is possible.
|
|
|
|
|
Indeed, but these new forecasts on CT have been made after the delays in chip production were taken into account. So it's a valid company forecast assuming chips are now on the way.
|
|
|
|
Do you all have nothing better to do?
It depends. If ACtM makes a lot of money I see this as time well spent. You might think nothing on here matters, at the end of the day the chips come in or they don't. But outlandish or serious accusations on here about the SEC can cause customers to ask for a refund effecting our bottom line. If you scare away our customers you damage ACtM. |
|
|
|
|
'It shall be unlawful for any person..... to omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made....... not misleading'
Or you can take Ken to court because you thought the statement that we had 'shipped product' misled you into buying shares - 'in connection with the purchase or sale of any security'.
I was not misled by his statement. You were? Well you can take him to court. Good luck.
Again I'll point out every company that is listed hypes up it's own progress reports. It's business, it's marketing. People buy their shares which are promptly dumped by big investors who know how to read between the lines. No court cases ensue. The wording of this document makes every bullish Quarterly report on Wall Street an offence. The key issue that will lead to this legislation being quoted in a court case is intentional fraud.
There is no fraud here. Move on.
|
|
|
|
'It shall be unlawful for any person.....To make any untrue statement of a material fact...'Well done. Now you can show us where Ken made an untrue statement.
|
|
|
|
That is a nice link. But they are warning investors about online fraud. Again, there is no fraud going on here. They are not using any 'legal definition' of fruad whatever FF69 might assume that is, they are using the commonly understood meaning of fraud - stealing someone's property via deception. Ken did not intend and had no opportunity to steal anyone's money when he stated that we had shipped product. He was doing what CEO's are supposed to do which is put a positive spin on new developments and hype up their own company. That is real world business. It happens everyday. Whatever Ken does he always seems to get it wrong according to someone on here. I'm really glad I'm not in his shoes. |
|
|
|
Forget about what a lawyer has told you. Quote me some regulation. Preferably SEC regulation. The judge will examine this not your lawyers view. The lawyer presents the case it's the judge who decides if the regulations have been breached. Quote some details or test cases or go home.
Sigh. I give up. I'll just forget entirely what the professionals tell me shall I. Yes you should. Or you should consider their advice for what it is. That's how lawyers make a very fine living. For every court case there is a side that loses. Yet each side has a lawyer on it telling you you will win. Show us the SEC regulation. Here is where you start: http://www.sec.gov/about/laws/secrulesregs.htm |
|
|
|
Please don't get into this, you are highly incorrect on both accounts.
I'm happy to hear your view or see your evidence. But please don't tell people what they can discuss on here. You are the one who actually brought this Troll up. |
|
|
|
Again you keep mentioning fraud. There is no fraud or attempt at fraud here. Please move on.
Dude, all I can say is you're wrong about pretty much everything you've said. Clearly you haven't worked in this area and don't work with a lawyer. So we can agree to disagree, but legally speaking I'm right. Forget about what a lawyer has told you. Quote me some regulation. Preferably SEC regulation. The judge will examine this not your lawyers view. The lawyer presents the case it's the judge who decides if the regulations have been breached. Quote some details or test cases or go home. |
|
|
|
remember IceBreaker correct? He was very similar to a lot of the trolls on here, screaming about this and that and pumping Hashfast. He lost a 5 BTC bet and HashFast is turning out to be one of the slimiest companies out there and IceBreaker is nowhere to be found. Embarrassing to say the least.
He is the same guy as crumbs/thumper. He is Eduardo from Hashfast. |
|
|
|
If this were deemed a security and if people traded on the information, then things like this or non disclosure of key details can be deemed securities fraud.
Utterly preposterous. Ken did not lie or exaggerate. He stated a fact. The fact that we are shipping product (of any type) means the business is now in the position of trading and that is a news-worthy development. It is a significant fact when a new company ships it's first sale, that does not need to be a finalised full-scale full-production model. It could be any component relevant to that business. VMC are not the first start-up to say 'We have shipped our first product' and not meant a finalised item. It is called marketing. And as to with-holding key details, I think you are crazy if you think Ken is under a legal obligation to tell shareholders about every technical set back. That is commercially sensitive information as well as there being an NDA in place. Again you keep mentioning fraud. There is no fraud or attempt at fraud here. Please move on. |
|
|
|
|
Like you say Bar, it's marketing. It's not illegal and it's nothing to do with the SEC. The term 'Product' in no way excludes any item VMC wishes to sell or re-sell.
When Audi say they had sales of 200 Million USD are they breaking the law if 10% of those sales were not cars but warranties? No. Product is anything sold. We sold product and that is all Ken said. Period.
|
|
|
|
I'm Finnish, so I know this is what will happen: We wait until Swedes make some decision about it, and then officially decide the same. This is how its always been and will be.
 you like cats on fire? |
|
|
|
|
You registered 11 days ago. Where are you from?
|
|
|
|
Sure, from the horse's own mouth: ...
I see that you did not say what your timing was when you sold your shares. Mostly likely you sold because of being on the board and having inside information.
We went over this yesterday. That is simply a counter-accusation from Ken to put FF69 on the spot. By their own admission and Kens, the Board had no sensitive 'inside info'. Ken is just making the point that all people within the company do not need to be hauled before a judge to face charges of insider trading. He is turning the tables on FF69's accusation. |
|
|
|
|
So WTF are you on about then. There has been no fraud, no misrepresentation of information. There has only been PR in this instance.
I did not for one minute believe that shipped product meant mining machines or rigs. If you or anyone else did that is your right. It doesn't make Ken a criminal, it just means you misunderstood the implications of VMC having shipped 'product'.
If I think 'New Improved Recipe' means the product's recipe has been improved to be more healthy for me then that's my assumption, but it would be wrong, as it's usually been 'improved' for more flavour. Just because a statement is vague doesn't mean you can apply your own strict interpretation to it and have that upheld in a court of law. That is just not how the world works.
|
|
|
|
Never do business with someone who deceives you using semantic games. And never trust anyone who would defend such behavior.
Buy One get One Free. New improved recipe. Can help lower cholesterol (as part of a calorie controlled diet). Because You’re Worth It The future’s bright. The future’s Orange |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
