But how do I do this ? If the price is too low current shareholder will complain. If the price is too high I will be accused of pump and dump scheme :-) ... ok, no orders from us for now ... in few hours we will have chip results. Right now we are here: https://bittiraha.fi/content/matka-alkaa ... Sell them at the price you believe is right. Unless picostocks is not an open market exchange but dictated by contrived hidden rules? Anyone that believes in your project doesn't really care about what you sell for, since they'll know that the price will go up by the merit of the project, not by immediate speculative interest. Let me see if I get this straight? You are basically busting your balls to get everything working as fast as possible for all shareholder's benefit, but aren't allowed to sell your own shares? Now that's irony. |
|
|
|
Ooops ... I was informed that You don't like the volatility limit we placed ... I will take it down immediately ... we work on the chip ... I will try to read the thread in the meantime and catch up
The only people that are worried about you selling shares don't really care about 100th. They are only worried about their speculative profit. For them, the less shares are sold the better, so they can have less competition when flipping theirs at a premium. The sky is their limit! I very welcome your idea to sell your shares at a reasonable price so everyone that wants in, can get in. |
|
|
|
|
It is really sad to see Tytus being guilt manipulated like this. This is no different than any other major shareholder selling at the price they want to.
|
|
|
|
I also agree to what Epoch suggested. This seems like a good solution, indexing share #'s to power consumption (system input), as miners are really just W to H/s converters. It also allows you the possibility to later trade the singles for more power-efficient hardware, while staying within the same total power envelope (more hardware in this case).  |
|
|
|
You are paying 40Million shares for dividend, are all these 40 Million shares sold already by investors?
No 20mil = reinvestment fund 5mil = sold shares 15mil = unsold shares (unsold share profits go to AMC) The last 15M are also counted as part of the reinvestment fund until issued (sold). At this moment, we have 40M authorized, 25M issued (5M issued to shareholders and 20M "issued" to the Growth/Expansion Fund) and 15M unissued. Dividends paid on unissued shares after the early-adopter phase will be retained by AMC and added to AMC's growth and expansion fund above until the shares are issued. |
|
|
|
Please do not invoke that clause after sooooooo many months of waiting!  The only solution I'm seeing at the moment is you withholding more % to account for the increased power costs? I'm ok with that, as you can't operate at a loss. |
|
|
|
Is a 10% holdback stipulated in the contract? I apologize for the request for edification but I'm driving and not in a position to properly review it.
Mining Expenses:
Expenses will only be charged for the following direct mining equipment expenses: Utilities, Equipment Maintenance and Repair, Mining Equipment Space Rental, Internet Access, Mining Equipment, System Administration and Maintenance, Mining Pool Fees, and any other necessary direct miscellaneous mining equipment operational expenses. Total Mining Expense will not exceed 10% of the Yearly Gross Revenue. I think Ken is holding back 10% "just in case", the correct amount for expenses should be accounted for later and earnings corrected I believe. |
|
|
|
(34.38175308 - 0.0005) * 0.9 / 40,000,000 = 0.00000077/share (including btc tx fee) |
|
|
|
or if you like ... he can use "Options Trading" set the price and sell directly to buyer..
Yes, this might function as a workaround for the time being!  For selling, for example at 0.0008, Ken could issue a " Call Option" of 5,000,000 shares with an expiration of one day at a strike price of 0.0007 and option price of 0.0001 (or 0.00011111) and breakable ofc. Since BitFunder takes a 10% cut of the option price (not of the strike price), having it at 0.0001 keeps fees low, while at the same time gets costly for anyone trying to undermine the sell by buying the option without executing it. Issuing options daily with an expiration time of one day also serves this purpose. Anyone buying the option without executing it is also paying BTC to AMC. (On the example above, AMC gets this way: 0.0007+0.0001*0.9 = 0.00079/share or 0.0007+0.00011111*0.9 = 0.00079999/share).I still say this is a good solution considering everything and allows for buying of shares directly from Ken (when he needs to sell them). |
|
|
|
This is why the initial IPO should've stayed at .0005, then he'd already have all the funding you are all trying to find roundabout ways to get to him.
 vvvvvvv I'd say keep the 0.0005 price untill all 20M are sold and the funds are secured to invest in new hardware as soon as possible. After that, the market is free to do as it wishes, but the new hardware is secured.
There is no reason to do this, shares were selling pretty well at 0.0008. Just let the market consume the shares left from this batch, give it a couple of weeks to see what the market is willing to pay, make an announcement "We will sell another 10M shares at price XX" and that's it. Simple and easy, as long as Ken is transparent and announces things upfront.
From my estimates, getting the hardware faster from BTC10,000 from the 20M@0.0005 outweighs the mess that will be selling shares at higher price points with all flippers just waiting to cash in. Maybe shares can sell pretty well at 0.0008, but there's no guarantee that those funds are going to AMC. Right now, at 0.0005, there is. For each share someone buys at 0.0008 from a flipper, AMC received 0.0005 when the flipper bought it in the first place, and the flipper now receives 0.0003. Since AMC receives all the same, might as well sell at 0.0005 instead of competing in a speculative market, where it only gets a much smaller % of all sales and takes a huuuuuuge time to collect the much needed funds for buying hardware. The clock is ticking! |
|
|
|
I still don't agree with the back door selling of shares.
If Ken can't sell x shares for price y within time z, and that becomes a risk for AMC's operations, adjust the price accordingly.
I really don't see the problem with that.
If he really has a buyer for, say 2'000'000 shares, it's not very likely that flippers all of a sudden will undercut him with 2'000'000 shares (40% of all publicly owned shares).
Right now, there is ~75'000 shares for sale from .0009 and down.
So, maybe Ken will sell 1.9 million of his shares to the investor, and the remaining 100k will come from flippers that undercut him.
Again, I really don't see the problem here, but I might be missing something.
No back door selling, it's a public sell using the options feature, and anyone can purchase them by purchasing the respective option. No one is left out of the deal.No investor would want to give away money to flippers instead of directly to AMC. That would be a waste of resources. Any big (or even small) investor would want his money to be reflected 100% on increasing AMC's avalilable funds. Speculators, on the other hand, don't care where the money lands or comes from, as long as there is profit to be made in the trade. Very different audiences. Right now, the market favors speculators, without clear paths for investors to invest their money in AMC. Bottom line: Buying AMC shares from anyone is not equal to investing in AMC. Buying shares from AMC is equal to investing in AMC. |
|
|
|
(...) No, BigDude, the only one who would benefit from such an outside deal would be you. AMC would not benefit, existing large investors in AMC would not benefit and Ken would not benefit from such a deal.
Again, its not about me. It's about AMC and shareholder value. You say AMC would not benefit. That's your OPINION. My OPINION is that it would. I pretty much agree with everything you said bigdude. Anyone that prefers shares to be sold slowly has clearly no idea what Time Value of Money means, especially when talking about a mining cooperative that is constantly on an uphill battle against bitcoin network difficulty. |
|
|
|
I haven't agreed with your wish to 'over' control (my interpretation ) the price, but for the purpose of issuing shares, the above kinda works. Trying to work out worst case scenarios?? I have no wish to control the price, just the destination of my BTC. |
|
|
|
or if you like ... he can use "Options Trading" set the price and sell directly to buyer..
Yes, this might function as a workaround for the time being! For selling, for example at 0.0008, Ken could issue a " Call Option" of 5,000,000 shares with an expiration of one day at a strike price of 0.0007 and option price of 0.0001 (or 0.00011111) and breakable ofc. Since BitFunder takes a 10% cut of the option price (not of the strike price), having it at 0.0001 keeps fees low, while at the same time gets costly for anyone trying to undermine the sell by buying the option without executing it. Issuing options daily with an expiration time of one day also serves this purpose. Anyone buying the option without executing it is also paying BTC to AMC. (On the example above, AMC gets this way: 0.0007+0.0001*0.9 = 0.00079/share or 0.0007+0.00011111*0.9 = 0.00079999/share). |
|
|
|
|
bigdude raises some good points.
Scenario A: bigdude buys 2,000,000 shares from Ken at 0.0008. AMC thus receives BTC1600.
Scenario B: bigdude buys 2,000,000 shares at market price. AMC receives god knows how many BTC. Speculators rub their hands.
As a long-term investor in AMC there is not a doubt what is my choice of scenario. I am also personally withholding buying more shares on BitFunder until Ken sells another batch there.
|
|
|
|
Guys, the problem is pretty simple actually. AMC needs to sell more shares, as it only sold 5M out of the initial 15M. --> AMC tries to sell more shares, at market price. --> AMC keeps being undercut. --> AMC thus, doesn't sell anything, or very little. --> AMC doesn't get the additional funds it needs, at the time it needs. --> AMC dies of starvation.Please provide ways to solve the problem entitled "death by starvation". My solution is an OPEN primary/secondary market like everyone else is doing outside bitcoin. I like this idea: more choice for market participants and it is quite transparant. One can only spend his BTC once on a asset and investment it does matter in whose pockets your money ends up. Great Idea Joris. Now get Ukto to do it. Well, he is off to who know where do some other deal, not taking care of bitfunder. I've talked to him about this idea, he seemed receptive to analyse it furter. The primary/secondary market idea is currently implemented in Havelock, for example look at: https://www.havelockinvestments.com/fund.php?symbol=HIMThe primary market is under the "Public Offerings" tab, while the secondary market is under the "Buy / Sell on Market" page. |
|
|
|
If Ken wants to sell @ .0008, but people undercut him, it means there is not enough demand for the share at that price.
Then he needs to lower the price, it's quite simple actually.
Any way of distorting the market by selling behind closed doors, will eventually affect the share price and shareholders in a negative way.
I don't want to be a part of "what will be ken's next move" - speculation game once again. And that is what it will become if we have closed market selling.
I never said I wanted a closed market. Please read my posts again. They were never about that. |
|
|
|
Guys, the problem is pretty simple actually. AMC needs to sell more shares, as it only sold 5M out of the initial 15M. --> AMC tries to sell more shares, at market price. --> AMC keeps being undercut. --> AMC thus, doesn't sell anything, or very little. --> AMC doesn't get the additional funds it needs, at the time it needs. --> AMC dies of starvation.Please provide ways to solve the problem entitled "death by starvation". My solution is an OPEN primary/secondary market like everyone else is doing outside bitcoin. In BitFunder, I'd be happy with something like this (mock-up): |
|
|
|
(...) Also, to clear up one misconception. I've previously stated that it is crazy that the remaining 15mil unsold shares are being paid dividends. I accept it however as it was in the original write up. However, you are wrong in thinking that the dividends paid to these shares will directly go back into buying more equipment. This is a falicy that you seem to have convinced yourself of. The actual verbiage is: 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. As you can see, Ken can use those funds for whatever he wants. Nope, that paragraph is about the remaining 60M shares when AMC goes into being a 100M share asset. Read the contract better. Dividends paid on unissued shares after the early-adopter phase will be retained by AMC and added to AMC's growth and expansion fund above until the shares are issued.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
