They should just merge VMC and AMC, using the money of AMC's shareholders to fund another separate company does not make much sense to me, loan made to startup is too huge of a risk to ignore and they didn't mention this until the recent announcement. People buying the walls @0.0025 are essentially lending their money to VMC, a separate entity to AMC, which means they aren't investing in the company they apparently are putting their money into. I can't predict whether the price will rise or fall, but I feel completely betrayed, speaking of a former shareholder, so I decided to exit with a fairly satisfactory profit instead of putting my money at stake.

Notes On The IPO:

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.

During the IPO, not all shares may be posted as an ASK.

BFL devices are priced in USD not BTC. The Jalapeno cost 149 USD not 33 BTC. You're agrument is completely irrelevant.

Multiply the BFL number by 75 and you'll find that in a month from now, the BFLs would have earned at least 75 BTC more than the AM shares. Did you have a point or are just trying to reinforce mine?

A first day Jalapeno will have made more profit than an AM IPO share by the end of the month and you'd still have the Jalapeno, whereas you'd have to sell the AM share.

@88-100GH, faster than any hardware available on the market

I don't follow you. 

By your own figures:
100% of option proceeds = BTC10
20% of underlying security value less out-of-the-money amount = 20k * BTC0.0025 * 20% = BTC10

Giving total "escrow" requirement of BTC20.

However, the option proceeds are included in the above.

Surprise is asking for BTC25, but you get to keep the BTC10 option proceeds, so really he's only asking BTC15. 

So please, I'm obviously missing something, please explain.

1. To the bondholder, you are right that it does not matter what the funds are being used for, so long as the interest is paid. I am publicly announcing exactly what the funds will be used for for the sake of transparency and nothing more.
2. See TF's post.

I'm in the middle of a legal research project that involves assessing risk of enforcement against the businesses selling unregistered, restricted securities on this board and  stock exchanges like Bitfunder, BTC-TC, etc.

Any idea where can I find a breakdown of each securities' market cap, or at least a reliable list of the total shares outstanding?

Thanks in advance.

Insightful responses. I agree that the trust factor is a big issue right now and something I probably don't consider with enough weight.  It seems that bitcoin investors lack a certain badge of trust that traditional regulators are supposed to supply.  The SEC in the USA for instance is supposed to ensure that security issuers are playing by a certain standard set of rules so investors need no sweat the small stuff.

Perhaps what bitcoin investors need is an independent auditor with a specific set of technical criteria for evaluating publicly traded bitcoin companies.  A group dedicated to providing audits of financials, share structure, true capitalization ratings, debt and credit ratings etc etc.

If trust is the big issue here, (and upon some consideration I would agree that it is) then it would seem that we need a sort of better business bureau of the bitcoin securities world. Like a seal of approval not to provide endorsement of a company per se but rather to provide assurance that a certain set of standards have been observed and met by the company being rated that would be of relevance to crypto-stock investors.  Has anyone tried to do this sort of the a thing before?

I'm clearly more concerned about BUYERS of BTC, as in the lack-of. Again, my ratio is 10:1, granted bigger companies may have a smaller ratio, but I would be HIGHLY surprised if there was a company out there (like Coinbase) that could claim a larger buy-side than sell-side demand. There is clearly a larger demand (both in customers and amount) to SELL BTC than buyers of BTC (both in customers and amount - my largest request to buy BTC was 3.5)

I've only done about $700,000 USD transactions of BTC this year, so yeah, I don't understand a thing . . .  

you are putting way too much trust in a virtual company. Not all transactions are what they seem, buyers can "appear" out of thin air, you know?

This statement is just another way to say "AM is a bubble and the shares aren't worth what they go for". That this realization is slowly percolating even through the investors that'd be much better served thus should be perhaps a little worrying

I know AM hash power is growing, and mine isn't. However, the future hashpower from AM has not been paid for. The 200TH priced at the same rate their previous power was priced will cost investors $2 million, or BTC20'000. Assuming AM percentage of the network at around 15% (which would mean network is 400TH and AM is 62TH) that is roughly 6 weeks of dividends from mining.

No, that has not happened yet, but it must for AM to get another 200TH of hashingpower. Even if they get their new chips for half the price of what friedcat has stated previously, we're looking at just under three weeks of no dividends at all to pay for it.

I know AM is selling hardware too, but since mining power is equal from one asset to another (assuming luck is equal) AM investors are paying 340% more for that future hardware sales than they are for mining.

In simpler terms, AM must sell hardware for 3,4 times more than they mine every month for their prices to be comparable to mine.

.b

EDIT: Corrected some decimal and thousand separator mistakes

That sux. I liked Patrick...

I would like to withdraw shares from butfunder.
I have more than 250 shares to withdraw.
Step one is completed yesterday.
Still no any answer from DeaDTerra.
What I am doing wrong?

And ASICMiner price to book using the same rules is roughly 240. Also good to know, I guess.



Obviously I have more shame than friedcat who sells hardware he bought at a 5000% markup (thats 5 thousand percent, or 50 times what he paid) when he sold AM Blades at 50BTC that he bough for around 1BTC each, for 10GHs. I obviously have more shame than friedcat who now proposes to sell hardware with a 3300% markup, when he's selling USB miners he bought for ~$3 for ~$100.

Look, we can do this dance all night, but no matter which rules you apply, my asset is priced far below AM in P/B. I've said it before, it is a moot point because my contracts isn't a company, but you can't really win this comparison.

.b

Any shares available?

I tried using that approach too, but then it became about what you paid for it. When I tried using what I paid for it, it became a matter of the value of hashing power (completely independent of both what was paid and for what it could sell). Regardless, my asset has a much better P/B than AM.

Of course, this entire point is moot because my asset isn't a company, it is a contract, so a measure of P/B is about as useful as a comparison of gasoline prices to cab fare.

.b