[AMC]-The Official Active Mining Cooperative Discussion

[Thalum]

Additionally, with loads and loads of shares, it makes it difficult for investors to re-sell shares in the long-term, because unsold shares are unavailable. I'd also like to see some clarification of what the deal is with unsold shares. Right now, 40 million are issued on bitfunder, some are on btc-co. I know this has been gone over before, but how many of those shares are in public hands? Of those 40 million, if say, 20 million are sold, then it should be those 20 million which receive dividends, even if that dividend is a proportion of the overall profits (minus expenses, overheads etc). So, say 300BTC are mined/raised, 100BTC comes out for operating expenses, 100BTC goes to dividends (divided across *sold* shares, not all issued shares), 100BTC to reinvestment/development. Am I missing something? I'm conscious of not wanting to derail a productive discussion.

[1715480639]

1715480639

[1715480639]

1715480639

[1715480639]

1715480639

[1715480639]

1715480639

[lewicki]

Additionally, with loads and loads of shares, it makes it difficult for investors to re-sell shares in the long-term, because unsold shares are unavailable. I'd also like to see some clarification of what the deal is with unsold shares. Right now, 40 million are issued on bitfunder, some are on btc-co. I know this has been gone over before, but how many of those shares are in public hands? Of those 40 million, if say, 20 million are sold, then it should be those 20 million which receive dividends, even if that dividend is a proportion of the overall profits (minus expenses, overheads etc). So, say 300BTC are mined/raised, 100BTC comes out for operating expenses, 100BTC goes to dividends (divided across *sold* shares, not all issued shares), 100BTC to reinvestment/development. Am I missing something? I'm conscious of not wanting to derail a productive discussion.

~6,530,741 shares have been sold on bitfunder and 500K on BTC-TC. The rest(20M + unsold public shares), go to reinvestment.

[kslaughter]

Once again lets look at ASICMINER's business model. BitFountain has a little over 50% shares and investors have about 50% of the shares. The management team controls those shares to operate and reinvest. AMC investors should have 50% of the shares and AMC's management team (VMC) should have the other half and they can do what they seem is fit for operations and growth. More reinvestment would be wanted as a shareholder. Maybe 30-35% which would leave 15-20% for managements expenses. What do you guys think? It sounds fair right?

BitFountain has 236,038 (59%), shareholders have 163,962 (41%). When they need to hold dividends for reinvesting, everyone gets a cut. Fair game.

Yes yes yes, this. I get that with the TAT.AM shares, each share is then 'diluted' into 100 shares and that the huge amount of shares for AMC is basically the same as that (thanks for pointing that out VBS), but I still think that up into the millions of shares makes it difficult to derive any value out of the company. I'm new at this though, and VBS seems to be putting forward some decent suggestions, but ASICminer has already shown a tried-and-tested model, why not emulate it?

+1

I agree. Let's try to keep the amount of shares issued at a lower number. Let's follow in the footsteps of the the market leader. If anything this will put us at #2 in the mining company race hopefully in the next few months.

Hear hear!  Ken, any thoughts?

It is not the number of shares, having a large number of shares does not diluted anything.  The only thing it does is make the pie have a lot more smaller pieces.  So, when our shares started trading at .0005 with 40,000,000 shares issued and you bought 1 BTC worth, then that would be 2,000 shares.  If we had started trading with 4,000,000 shares issued at .005 and you bought 1 BTC you would have got 200 shares, same difference.  The only difference is you have 2,000 pieces or you have 200 pieces, and the same percentage of ownership.

[ajk]

the number of shares in a company do not matter the %'s do,

having a large number of shares opens option for higher liquidity and more people to purchase shares since they are at a very affordable price,

what matters most is Ken and of his operations actual legitimacy, granted it makes it a bit easier to figure out the numbers there are benefits to having the shares the way they are,

this seems like its going on the right path so far, ill probably put a few coins in the future after more things are in place

In my opinion the biggest changes that would be best would be Board member seats and voting rights

its like we are seeing a whole different Ken the response is honestly what the thread needed so thank you for that!!

[auto2nr1]

Once again lets look at ASICMINER's business model. BitFountain has a little over 50% shares and investors have about 50% of the shares. The management team controls those shares to operate and reinvest. AMC investors should have 50% of the shares and AMC's management team (VMC) should have the other half and they can do what they seem is fit for operations and growth. More reinvestment would be wanted as a shareholder. Maybe 30-35% which would leave 15-20% for managements expenses. What do you guys think? It sounds fair right?

BitFountain has 236,038 (59%), shareholders have 163,962 (41%). When they need to hold dividends for reinvesting, everyone gets a cut. Fair game.

Yes yes yes, this. I get that with the TAT.AM shares, each share is then 'diluted' into 100 shares and that the huge amount of shares for AMC is basically the same as that (thanks for pointing that out VBS), but I still think that up into the millions of shares makes it difficult to derive any value out of the company. I'm new at this though, and VBS seems to be putting forward some decent suggestions, but ASICminer has already shown a tried-and-tested model, why not emulate it?

+1

I agree. Let's try to keep the amount of shares issued at a lower number. Let's follow in the footsteps of the the market leader. If anything this will put us at #2 in the mining company race hopefully in the next few months.

Hear hear!  Ken, any thoughts?

It is not the number of shares, having a large number of shares does not diluted anything.  The only thing it does is make the pie have a lot more smaller pieces.  So, when our shares started trading at .0005 with 40,000,000 shares issued and you bought 1 BTC worth, then that would be 2,000 shares.  If we had started trading with 4,000,000 shares issued at .005 and you bought 1 BTC you would have got 200 shares, same difference.  The only difference is you have 2,000 pieces or you have 200 pieces, and the same percentage of ownership.

This is true and the percentage of ownership should stay the same without any dilution to that percentage. Therefore we should work towards capping out the amount of shares which would keep the pie at the same size. The percentages of ownership of the company and dividends will stay the same without having it being diluted. This is the main point. Hopefully we can work to make this agreement between you and the shareholders. If you can create new shares as you wish then this will lower the percentages of those who are holding shares. They will take away the pieces of the pie and shareholders will not be happy.

[kslaughter]

Once again lets look at ASICMINER's business model. BitFountain has a little over 50% shares and investors have about 50% of the shares. The management team controls those shares to operate and reinvest. AMC investors should have 50% of the shares and AMC's management team (VMC) should have the other half and they can do what they seem is fit for operations and growth. More reinvestment would be wanted as a shareholder. Maybe 30-35% which would leave 15-20% for managements expenses. What do you guys think? It sounds fair right?

BitFountain has 236,038 (59%), shareholders have 163,962 (41%). When they need to hold dividends for reinvesting, everyone gets a cut. Fair game.

Yes yes yes, this. I get that with the TAT.AM shares, each share is then 'diluted' into 100 shares and that the huge amount of shares for AMC is basically the same as that (thanks for pointing that out VBS), but I still think that up into the millions of shares makes it difficult to derive any value out of the company. I'm new at this though, and VBS seems to be putting forward some decent suggestions, but ASICminer has already shown a tried-and-tested model, why not emulate it?

+1

I agree. Let's try to keep the amount of shares issued at a lower number. Let's follow in the footsteps of the the market leader. If anything this will put us at #2 in the mining company race hopefully in the next few months.

Hear hear!  Ken, any thoughts?

It is not the number of shares, having a large number of shares does not diluted anything.  The only thing it does is make the pie have a lot more smaller pieces.  So, when our shares started trading at .0005 with 40,000,000 shares issued and you bought 1 BTC worth, then that would be 2,000 shares.  If we had started trading with 4,000,000 shares issued at .005 and you bought 1 BTC you would have got 200 shares, same difference.  The only difference is you have 2,000 pieces or you have 200 pieces, and the same percentage of ownership.

This is true and the percentage of ownership should stay the same without any dilution to that percentage. Therefore we should work towards capping out the amount of shares which would keep the pie at the same size. The percentages of ownership of the company and dividends will stay the same without having it being diluted. This is the main point. Hopefully we can work to make this agreement between you and the shareholders. If you can create new shares as you wish then this will lower the percentages of those who are holding shares. They will get the pieces of pie taken away from them if this happens.

We are going to try and keep that from happening, however shareholders will need to consider that they are getting a whole new business plus keeping AMC's business too when they swap their shares for VMC's shares.

[SoylentCreek]

Once again lets look at ASICMINER's business model. BitFountain has a little over 50% shares and investors have about 50% of the shares. The management team controls those shares to operate and reinvest. AMC investors should have 50% of the shares and AMC's management team (VMC) should have the other half and they can do what they seem is fit for operations and growth. More reinvestment would be wanted as a shareholder. Maybe 30-35% which would leave 15-20% for managements expenses. What do you guys think? It sounds fair right?

BitFountain has 236,038 (59%), shareholders have 163,962 (41%). When they need to hold dividends for reinvesting, everyone gets a cut. Fair game.

Yes yes yes, this. I get that with the TAT.AM shares, each share is then 'diluted' into 100 shares and that the huge amount of shares for AMC is basically the same as that (thanks for pointing that out VBS), but I still think that up into the millions of shares makes it difficult to derive any value out of the company. I'm new at this though, and VBS seems to be putting forward some decent suggestions, but ASICminer has already shown a tried-and-tested model, why not emulate it?

+1

I agree. Let's try to keep the amount of shares issued at a lower number. Let's follow in the footsteps of the the market leader. If anything this will put us at #2 in the mining company race hopefully in the next few months.

Hear hear!  Ken, any thoughts?

It is not the number of shares, having a large number of shares does not diluted anything.  The only thing it does is make the pie have a lot more smaller pieces.  So, when our shares started trading at .0005 with 40,000,000 shares issued and you bought 1 BTC worth, then that would be 2,000 shares.  If we had started trading with 4,000,000 shares issued at .005 and you bought 1 BTC you would have got 200 shares, same difference.  The only difference is you have 2,000 pieces or you have 200 pieces, and the same percentage of ownership.

This is true and the percentage of ownership should stay the same without any dilution to that percentage. Therefore we should work towards capping out the amount of shares which would keep the pie at the same size. The percentages of ownership of the company and dividends will stay the same without having it being diluted. This is the main point. Hopefully we can work to make this agreement between you and the shareholders. If you can create new shares as you wish then this will lower the percentages of those who are holding shares. They will get the pieces of pie taken away from them if this happens.

We are going to try and keep that from happening, however shareholders will need to consider that they are getting a whole new business plus keeping AMC's business too when they swap their shares for VMC's shares.

Sure, I think we have all come to terms with this.  We just want to be sure that when VMC is ready for Prime Time, a solid business plan has been laid out for current holders and potential holders (who are the ones that will make this thing huge).

[4ju5tice]

the number of shares in a company do not matter the %'s do,

having a large number of shares opens option for higher liquidity and more people to purchase shares since they are at a very affordable price,

what matters most is Ken and of his operations actual legitimacy, granted it makes it a bit easier to figure out the numbers there are benefits to having the shares the way they are,

this seems like its going on the right path so far, ill probably put a few coins in the future after more things are in place

In my opinion the biggest changes that would be best would be Board member seats and voting rights

its like we are seeing a whole different Ken the response is honestly what the thread needed so thank you for that!!

I agree, thanks Ken. And hopefully we can keep this thread from being a trollbox. I am confident in Ken and AMC/VMC after talking to him on the phone. He understands the importance of maintaining shareholder support and he plans on soon presenting more information about him and his crew. You've got to understand how difficult this has been for him. He's been busy doing so many things for the company, and even I haven't been able to follow all of the thread the past few days. It has been ridiculous, that's why I vote for more moderation in this thread. Maybe once Ken provides a little more information and people gain more trust they will be more willing to allow moderation.

But yeah, all this scam talk, that's really is the beauty of bitcoin. It's a system that allows financial freedom, a truly democratic economic system. Of course there will always be manipulators and scams, but that's the price of freedom. Would you rather be robbed slowly by banks, governments and the federal reserve? Or would you rather be given a chance to decide which investments are legitimate on your own, which exposes yourself to reasonable risks, but doesn't allow others to mooch off, abuse, and devalue the economic system you give power to for the illusion of security?

And yeah, I think having a bajillion shares is great. Just look at Asicminer, they're running at around 4.5btc a share now. They're hardly affordable to a lot of the btc community. When AMC/VMC or whatever it'll be develops more, the large number of shares should make it a more reasonably priced investment for people to make. Which will be beneficial to every shareholder.

[Vbs]

This is true and the percentage of ownership should stay the same without any dilution to that percentage. Therefore we should work towards capping out the amount of shares which would keep the pie at the same size. The percentages of ownership of the company and dividends will stay the same without having it being diluted. This is the main point. Hopefully we can work to make this agreement between you and the shareholders. If you can create new shares as you wish then this will lower the percentages of those who are holding shares. They will take away the pieces of the pie and shareholders will not be happy.

Like I said earlier, it's not that linear.

They will take away the pieces of the pie and shareholders will not be happy.

But the pie is also getting bigger, from the profits VMC receives when purchasers pay for those shares (and yourself as a shareholder, who now owns shares of something with more capital/assets).

So you now own a lesser % of the pie, but your piece can also be bigger than it was, because the pie grew.

Makes sense?

[auto2nr1]

Yes, we are definitely on the right track and making huge progress. Now all Ken has to do is write this up and present it to us to see if revisions need to be made. Then we get a final draft and if majority of the shareholders approve then we move forward. The next big announcement will be the 20k Avalon chips that gets delivered. Then Ken can get to work on building machines to bring more hashing power online. If anyone else feels there are other issues to address i believe this is the time to speak up.

It also looks like the prices of shares is starting to rise due to the progress we are making. Let's bring the value back up and finalize this deal as soon as possible. I am looking forward to purchasing more shares as soon as the deal closes.

[oaxaca]

The point was clear - BFL have not one (self proclaimed) tech expert like Ken but a room full. And they have STRUGGLED for how long in this market?

The reasons for BFL struggling are very different than AMC.  For example:

https://forums.butterflylabs.com/blogs/red_wolf_2/185-timelines-delays-why-shipping-only-now-happening-june.html

Those that come after can learn from those mistakes.

[auto2nr1]

This is true and the percentage of ownership should stay the same without any dilution to that percentage. Therefore we should work towards capping out the amount of shares which would keep the pie at the same size. The percentages of ownership of the company and dividends will stay the same without having it being diluted. This is the main point. Hopefully we can work to make this agreement between you and the shareholders. If you can create new shares as you wish then this will lower the percentages of those who are holding shares. They will take away the pieces of the pie and shareholders will not be happy.

Like I said earlier, it's not that linear.

They will take away the pieces of the pie and shareholders will not be happy.

But the pie is also getting bigger, from the profits VMC receives when purchasers pay for those shares (and yourself as a shareholder, who now owns shares of something with more capital/assets).

So you now own a lesser % of the pie, but your piece can also be bigger than it was, because the pie grew.

Makes sense?

Yes sir, that makes total sense. We are on the same page. As long as we do not see dilution of future shares to lower the % of ownership and dividends the shareholders will be happy. As Ken said he will try to eliminate that from happening. I do understand AMC now gets a whole new business added onto what it was first set out to do. We just have to find a good balance to keep everyone happy and things fair. Win/Win situation for both parties involved is what i want and this will help us succeed.

We are going to try and keep that from happening, however shareholders will need to consider that they are getting a whole new business plus keeping AMC's business too when they swap their shares for VMC's shares.

[Vbs]

Yes sir, that makes total sense. We are on the same page. As long as we do not see dilution of future shares to lower the % of ownership and dividends the shareholders will be happy. As Ken said he will try to eliminate that from happening. I do understand AMC now gets a whole new business added onto what it was first set out to do. We just have to find a good balance to keep everyone happy and things fair. Win/Win situation for both parties involved is what i want and this will help us succeed.

Just a quick example to get everyone on the same page on this.

Numbers are fictitious!

Case 1: Initial setup

• Shares - Investors: 10M
• Shares - Ken: 15M
• VMC's Assets: ฿10,000
• Assets per share: ฿10,000/25M = ฿0.00040

Case 2: Extra 5M shares created and sold to investors at ฿0.0004

• Shares - Investors: 10M + 5M = 15M
• Shares - Ken: 15M
• VMC's Assets: ฿10,000 + ฿2,000 = ฿12,000
• Assets per share: ฿12,000/30M = ฿0.00040

As long as the assets per share stay the same or increase, you are always OK!

Bottom line: You can increase the amount of shares, but they must be priced accordingly.

[Thalum]

You seem to know what you're talking about VBS, so I think I'd be happy with a structure like that. So long as there's space for the valuation to increase over time, rather than topping out at an extreme valuation and having to space to move, most people would be happy I'd guess.

Just as a separate point, this is the profile for TAT.ASICMINER (https://bitfunder.com/asset/TAT.ASICMINER)

Under the 'Shares Total', it's 10 million, and under 'shares issued', it's 24,468. The dividends are split up over this 24,468, not the 10 million. So to me, that seems like 24,468 have been sold. Does AMC follow the same structure?

From what Lewiki said earlier:

6,530,741 shares have been sold on bitfunder and 500K on BTC-TC. The rest(20M + unsold public shares), go to reinvestment.

But dividends are split up over 40 million on bitfunder. What am I missing, given what I mentioned earlier about unsold shares and dividend payments.

P.S. Sorry, I know I keep banging on about this, but I'm actively trying to learn, not derail.

[auto2nr1]

Yes sir, that makes total sense. We are on the same page. As long as we do not see dilution of future shares to lower the % of ownership and dividends the shareholders will be happy. As Ken said he will try to eliminate that from happening. I do understand AMC now gets a whole new business added onto what it was first set out to do. We just have to find a good balance to keep everyone happy and things fair. Win/Win situation for both parties involved is what i want and this will help us succeed.

Just a quick example to get everyone on the same page on this.

Numbers are fictitious!

Case 1: Initial setup

• Shares - Investors: 10M
• Shares - Ken: 15M
• VMC's Assets: ฿10,000
• Assets per share: ฿10,000/25M = ฿0.00040

Case 2: Extra 5M shares created and sold to investors at ฿0.0004

• Shares - Investors: 15M
• Shares - Ken: 15M
• VMC's Assets: ฿12,000
• Assets per share: ฿12,000/30M = ฿0.00040

As long as the assets per share stay the same or increase, you are always OK!

Bottom line: You can increase the amount of shares, but they must be priced accordingly.

As long as our % or piece of the pie is not taken away from us to devalue the shares that we own i think investors will continue to hold shares and purchase more shares since they will see value these shares. No one wants to hold shares when they know it will not hold value in the future. If investors do not see value in the shares in the long run that brings flippers that want to trade to make a quick turnaround. Let's do everything on our power to minimize dilution of shares so the shares retain and increase in value.


I think the reason

the number of shares in a company do not matter the %'s do,

having a large number of shares opens option for higher liquidity and more people to purchase shares since they are at a very affordable price,

what matters most is Ken and of his operations actual legitimacy, granted it makes it a bit easier to figure out the numbers there are benefits to having the shares the way they are,

this seems like its going on the right path so far, ill probably put a few coins in the future after more things are in place

In my opinion the biggest changes that would be best would be Board member seats and voting rights

its like we are seeing a whole different Ken the response is honestly what the thread needed so thank you for that!!

And yeah, I think having a bajillion shares is great. Just look at Asicminer, they're running at around 4.5btc a share now. They're hardly affordable to a lot of the btc community. When AMC/VMC or whatever it'll be develops more, the large number of shares should make it a more reasonably priced investment for people to make. Which will be beneficial to every shareholder.

I am not saying we should have a small cap. We would need to have a reasonable amount of shares that is needed to raise capital to get this venture moving forward in the present and in the future if more capital is needed. A fair number of shares is also needed for liquidity and also for it to be affordable to the average investor. But at the same time ASICMINER shares hold so much value due to the limited supply. They have stated no more shares will be issued so the 400,000 shares issued will never be diluted. I want to follow this business model in regards to shares being issued, keeping the % the same for shareholders, and the pie staying the same in size.

[auto2nr1]

You seem to know what you're talking about VBS, so I think I'd be happy with a structure like that. So long as there's space for the valuation to increase over time, rather than topping out at an extreme valuation and having to space to move, most people would be happy I'd guess.

Just as a separate point, this is the profile for TAT.ASICMINER (https://bitfunder.com/asset/TAT.ASICMINER)

Under the 'Shares Total', it's 10 million, and under 'shares issued', it's 24,468. The dividends are split up over this 24,468, not the 10 million. So to me, that seems like 24,468 have been sold. Does AMC follow the same structure?

From what Lewiki said earlier:

6,530,741 shares have been sold on bitfunder and 500K on BTC-TC. The rest(20M + unsold public shares), go to reinvestment.

But dividends are split up over 40 million on bitfunder. What am I missing, given what I mentioned earlier about unsold shares and dividend payments.

P.S. Sorry, I know I keep banging on about this, but I'm actively trying to learn, not derail.

This is another issue we need to work on. The dividends are being paid on all the 40m shares issued sold and unsold. This does not make sense for unsold shares to be paid dividends. Only sold shares should be paid dividends. I hope this can be changed so only sold shares can be paid dividends.

[Vbs]

You seem to know what you're talking about VBS, so I think I'd be happy with a structure like that. So long as there's space for the valuation to increase over time, rather than topping out at an extreme valuation and having to space to move, most people would be happy I'd guess.

Just as a separate point, this is the profile for TAT.ASICMINER (https://bitfunder.com/asset/TAT.ASICMINER)

Under the 'Shares Total', it's 10 million, and under 'shares issued', it's 24,468. The dividends are split up over this 24,468, not the 10 million. So to me, that seems like 24,468 have been sold. Does AMC follow the same structure?

From what Lewiki said earlier:

6,530,741 shares have been sold on bitfunder and 500K on BTC-TC. The rest(20M + unsold public shares), go to reinvestment.

But dividends are split up over 40 million on bitfunder. What am I missing, given what I mentioned earlier about unsold shares and dividend payments.

P.S. Sorry, I know I keep banging on about this, but I'm actively trying to learn, not derail.

For TAT.AM it means ThickAsThieves is backing those 24,468 with 244.68 "real" Asicminer shares (the real dividends are coming from those; actually, 232.446 "real" AM shares, since he takes a 5% cut). That is just a "pass-though" asset, which means he receives the BTC from AM to his own shares and then pays it to TAT.AM shareholders.

Yes, AMC dividends are split into 40M, that's why on VMC reinvestment should not be done this way (using shares for a cut).

[Vbs]

This is another issue we need to work on. The dividends are being paid on all the 40m shares issued sold and unsold. This does not make sense for unsold shares to be paid dividends. Only sold shares should be paid dividends. I hope this can be changed so only sold shares can be paid dividends.

It's not supported by BitFunder. It only supports splitting dividends by all, even if they are not sold. That's why they must not be "created" at all, until they are about to be sold.

[lewicki]

You seem to know what you're talking about VBS, so I think I'd be happy with a structure like that. So long as there's space for the valuation to increase over time, rather than topping out at an extreme valuation and having to space to move, most people would be happy I'd guess.

Just as a separate point, this is the profile for TAT.ASICMINER (https://bitfunder.com/asset/TAT.ASICMINER)

Under the 'Shares Total', it's 10 million, and under 'shares issued', it's 24,468. The dividends are split up over this 24,468, not the 10 million. So to me, that seems like 24,468 have been sold. Does AMC follow the same structure?

From what Lewiki said earlier:

6,530,741 shares have been sold on bitfunder and 500K on BTC-TC. The rest(20M + unsold public shares), go to reinvestment.

But dividends are split up over 40 million on bitfunder. What am I missing, given what I mentioned earlier about unsold shares and dividend payments.

P.S. Sorry, I know I keep banging on about this, but I'm actively trying to learn, not derail.

Yes 40 million of 100 million are issued. 40m recieve equal dividends.

[auto2nr1]

This is another issue we need to work on. The dividends are being paid on all the 40m shares issued sold and unsold. This does not make sense for unsold shares to be paid dividends. Only sold shares should be paid dividends. I hope this can be changed so only sold shares can be paid dividends.

It's not supported by BitFunder. It only supports splitting dividends by all, even if they are not sold. That's why they must not be "created" at all, until they are about to be sold.

I understand. I did not know that is not supported by BitFunder. Maybe we can ask exchange owner Ukyo to take a look into this and make some changes? I know it's a long shot but if we can get this implemented where only sold shares would get dividends it would be great.