I happen to have spreadsheets out the wazoo for my assets, but so far these are only privately necessary due to the nature of my assets.

No, but this is a BTC business and it is in all of our best interests that they only sell for BTC.

The free market is so free that it sometimes goes commando.

I already dabble

By that interpretation, maybe we need to be setting up a separate arm of AM to market it. An AM Shareholders Fund or such. Of course this would be totally impractical because even if it got off of the ground, we'd have no knowledge of AM's production capacity or other plans that might relate to its marketing.

EDIT: That said, if AM is looking for marketing and advertising help, I'd be willing to spearhead the effort. Marketing & Branding are what I've spent most of my life doing...

Is any guidance given to voters as to what requirements need to be met for a yes vote to be justifiable? Or is it merely up to each individual's personal values?

I'm not sure where or how to respond to the dissenting votes for my TAT.VIRTUALMINE application, so I will do so here:

1. One person says this is not a bond, but it is. It is simply not the kind of bond people are used to. It is what's called a "callable structured bond" or simply a "structured bond".

2. Another person expresses that they simply will not approve a bond that is not guaranteed to pay out full ROI. First, I can easily argue that ALL bond assets present this risk. Furthermore, what I am providing is a dynamic and speculative instrument. This is not just a case of putting in X dollars, and knowing you will get X+Y% back on a specified date. Almost none of the bonds in bitcoin work that way anyway.

3. One person also says "A bond is a loan to be repaid. "Additional shares may be issued at fair market price at any time" means it can be diluted at any time." If it is a bond, then how can it be diluted? These structured bonds are ALWAYS worth 1MH/s, that is their denomination.

I know this is not your average offering, and I know it is a high-risk speculative tool, but the fact of the matter is that similar offerings already exist on BTCTC, and most of them are actually worse for the buyer in both risk and yield.

It is a bit frustrating to have to be held back for these reasons so far, as they are opinions, not fundamental flaws in my offering, nor based on any real concern for its viability, transparency, or reputation of the issuer.

I have pm'd the auctioneer with a possible solution.

What is it with bitcoiners not seeing the value in professional communications & marketing? Other than better math skills, this is probably the most deficient aspect of bitcoin business.

Sorry, I keep mistaking this thread for the official BTCTC official one. However, I already did send the pm

That info no longer appears either. Also, it would seem to be pretty impractical in costs to buy enough shares to vote your own asset up...

I don't see any rules about voting anywhere anyway...

Burnside, I have a pm out to you regarding LTCGlobal shares and voting rights already, but I do want to ask one particular question publically.

I recall that those shares provided voting rights for new assets, but when I read the current description, no such info is mentioned.

What happened?

I believe the other payout address(es) are private intentionally, to protect very large shareholders.

I have confirmation that there is more than one payout address.

Random interjection is random.

Mine are in there, as I mentioned earlier. I expect that all of Burnside's and DeadTerra's are in there as well.

There are only two likely answers:

1. There is a pool of shareholders that are paid from a 2nd address.
2. Bitfountain/AM have bought back shares.

If #2 is true, this changes the whole outlook for the current market price, meaning that most of the public shares are already in circulation on the passthroughs, and that there are very few "direct" shares left to buy. If this is true, it would be great for price stability, and possibly lead to an increase in value for all shares.

This is something I would love to hear Friedcat chime in on.

On that note, I think someone should compile a list of FAQ from shareholders that have gone unanswered. This list should be have no more than 3 questions at a time, and be posted in some kind of clear, concise way here, and in a pm to Friedcat. We should not waste his time with bullshit requests, but real relevant questions would be nice.

Discuss!

Payment sent!

Escrow request has been initiated with John K.

Nothing against Chaang-Noi, but I have a partner on this deal and he wanted to go with the most trusted provider known.

Just as an FYI, my intent is for this asset to last as long as possible. The buyback terms are there as a way to exit the asset if necessary (something I hope to avoid as long as possible) not as a design to "pull a fast one" the moment it appears profitable to do so. I can't predict the future, and I definitely needed a way to stop the train if that's what's called for.

Keep in mind that if/when this asset depreciates, new bonds could still be issued at market prices, which could keep this asset afloat longer than most. The inspiration for this offering was indeed to find the bottom price for mining hashes, and provide that price, thus correcting the entire PMB (and some regular hardware mining) asset market.

I'm not saying this asset will last forever, or be perpetually profitable, or will never depreciate, or will never close down. I'm simply saying it was built to be used an instrument to anyone that understands how to use it, as well as any that don't.