[AMC]-The Official Active Mining Cooperative Discussion

[fently]

The issuer is free to sell as many shares as he wants, when deemed necessary, as long as he is following the rules stated in the initial contract offering.

I find it funny people always want to buy everything as cheap as possible, especially since the raised funds are fundamental for AMC's success.

As far as I can tell, they haven't violated their initial contract. But their actions have absolutely been misleading:

1) Place over 4 million shares on offer, and up selling a bit under 300k shares
2) State they have alternative funding, pull the ask
3) Sell approximately 600k more shares into the market

Granted, as far as I can tell, they didn't sell for less than 0.0005, which was the terms of the IPO. But given the facts, they were obviously deceptive.

[Vbs]

As far as I can tell, they haven't violated their initial contract. But their actions have absolutely been misleading:

1) Place over 4 million shares on offer, and up selling a bit under 300k shares
2) State they have alternative funding, pull the ask
3) Sell approximately 600k more shares into the market

Granted, as far as I can tell, they didn't sell for less than 0.0005, which was the terms of the IPO. But given the facts, they were obviously deceptive.

SPRINGFIELD, MO, – May 14, 2013 – AMC has announced today that it has entered into an agreement with its parent company VMC. VMC will be providing credit to AMC so that AMC will be able to purchase its first batch of 100 Pre-Ordered machines. AMC will only have to provide VMC with a 10% deposit before the machines are shipped, AMC will pay VMC a 10% APR rate on its outstanding balance. VMC will use its Best Effort to provide the machines to AMC. AMC still has its first rights on machines it has the ability to fund. AMC will also provide machines to its Investors which have qualified under its Premier Investors Program. AMC estimates this will increase it hash rate to over 8,384,000 MH/s and its daily revenue to over $43,927.23 or $3,752,264.73 per year at the current difficulty. AMC is a hybrid mining and development cooperative and a business unit of VMC.

Selling any shares right now will be more beneficial for AMC than paying 10% APR interest on the loan's outstanding balance to VMC.

[fently]

As far as I can tell, they haven't violated their initial contract. But their actions have absolutely been misleading:

1) Place over 4 million shares on offer, and up selling a bit under 300k shares
2) State they have alternative funding, pull the ask
3) Sell approximately 600k more shares into the market

Granted, as far as I can tell, they didn't sell for less than 0.0005, which was the terms of the IPO. But given the facts, they were obviously deceptive.

SPRINGFIELD, MO, – May 14, 2013 – AMC has announced today that it has entered into an agreement with its parent company VMC. VMC will be providing credit to AMC so that AMC will be able to purchase its first batch of 100 Pre-Ordered machines. AMC will only have to provide VMC with a 10% deposit before the machines are shipped, AMC will pay VMC a 10% APR rate on its outstanding balance. VMC will use its Best Effort to provide the machines to AMC. AMC still has its first rights on machines it has the ability to fund. AMC will also provide machines to its Investors which have qualified under its Premier Investors Program. AMC estimates this will increase it hash rate to over 8,384,000 MH/s and its daily revenue to over $43,927.23 or $3,752,264.73 per year at the current difficulty. AMC is a hybrid mining and development cooperative and a business unit of VMC.

Selling any shares right now will be more beneficial for AMC than paying 10% APR interest on the loan's outstanding balance to VMC.

Absolutely. But misleading potential investors can be dramatically more costly.

[Vbs]

Absolutely. But misleading potential investors can be dramatically more costly.

I still don't understand all this fuss. Noone read the initial statement before knowing what they were getting into?

As of the time of this writing, up to 40,000,000 will be released over time to the public on a varying
time scale as capital is required to complete the project.  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.

[fently]

Absolutely. But misleading potential investors can be dramatically more costly.

I still don't understand all this fuss. Noone read the initial statement before knowing what they were getting into?

As of the time of this writing, up to 40,000,000 will be released over time to the public on a varying
time scale as capital is required to complete the project.  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.

If this is how they act at the outset, then you won't make a fuss when I refer you to the IPO contract where it says they are free to use the funds for wages, and then tell you they had to spend it all on wages. And you wouldn't make a fuss about VMC not using the technology that AMC developed, with the result that VMC doesn't have to pay 10% to AMC.  It's not about the contract. It's about trust.

[nebulus]

The problem is this...

Once they are released they should stay released.

Not some back and forth Mumbo-Jumbo shit.

[ThickAsThieves]

Absolutely. But misleading potential investors can be dramatically more costly.

I still don't understand all this fuss. Noone read the initial statement before knowing what they were getting into?

As of the time of this writing, up to 40,000,000 will be released over time to the public on a varying
time scale as capital is required to complete the project.  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.

If this is how they act at the outset, then you won't make a fuss when I refer you to the IPO contract where it says they are free to use the funds for wages, and then tell you they had to spend it all on wages. And you wouldn't make a fuss about VMC not using the technology that AMC developed, with the result that VMC doesn't have to pay 10% to AMC.  It's not about the contract. It's about trust.

Those are real risks, your trust should be in the contract and a clear interpretation of it, not something you do by crossing your fingers and toes.

[Vbs]

If this is how they act at the outset, then you won't make a fuss when I refer you to the IPO contract where it says they are free to use the funds for wages, and then tell you they had to spend it all on wages. And you wouldn't make a fuss about VMC not using the technology that AMC developed, with the result that VMC doesn't have to pay 10% to AMC.  It's not about the contract. It's about trust.

Yes, and the world can also end tomorrow. Trust is lost when lines are crossed. I still haven't seen them break anything they stated in the initial contract. Please correct me if you noticed something that I didn't.

[nebulus]

If this is how they act at the outset, then you won't make a fuss when I refer you to the IPO contract where it says they are free to use the funds for wages, and then tell you they had to spend it all on wages. And you wouldn't make a fuss about VMC not using the technology that AMC developed, with the result that VMC doesn't have to pay 10% to AMC.  It's not about the contract. It's about trust.

Yes, and the world can also end tomorrow. Trust is lost when lines are crossed. I still haven't seen them break anything they stated in the initial contract. Please correct me if you noticed something that I didn't.

4mil was released and then retrieved.

Let's say I was hypothetically putting a sum of money to buy that. The market was supposed to prevent me from making the deal not the issuer.

What they are doing is not IPO.

[fently]

If this is how they act at the outset, then you won't make a fuss when I refer you to the IPO contract where it says they are free to use the funds for wages, and then tell you they had to spend it all on wages. And you wouldn't make a fuss about VMC not using the technology that AMC developed, with the result that VMC doesn't have to pay 10% to AMC.  It's not about the contract. It's about trust.

Yes, and the world can also end tomorrow. Trust is lost when lines are crossed. I still haven't seen them break anything they stated in the initial contract. Please correct me if you noticed something that I didn't.

They can completely screw you over without violating the contract. Above I described just such an example: AMC spends all their money on wages to develop new technology. VMC decides not to use the technology, so they don't have to give 10% royalties to AMC. In the end, AMC just turns into a buyer of products from VMC, at cost of manufacturing. But what if ALL units wind up getting sold at cost of manufacturing, with cost of manufacturing including a well compensated executive staff?  All of this can be accomplished without breaking the contract. So the only reason to invest is because you trust the issuer. When that trust is broken, the asset is worthless.

[Vbs]

They can completely screw you over without violating the contract. Above I described just such an example: AMC spends all their money on wages to develop new technology. VMC decides not to use the technology, so they don't have to give 10% royalties to AMC. In the end, AMC just turns into a buyer of products from VMC, at cost of manufacturing. But what if ALL units wind up getting sold at cost of manufacturing, with cost of manufacturing including a well compensated executive staff?  All of this can be accomplished without breaking the contract. So the only reason to invest is because you trust the issuer. When that trust is broken, the asset is worthless.

While I respect your opinion, remember that "trust" is also very subjective. Maybe the asset turned worthless for you, but that does not mean the same for everybody. In the end, everyone must read the contract carefully, decide what they find "fair" and proceed accordingly.

[kslaughter]

Absolutely. But misleading potential investors can be dramatically more costly.

I still don't understand all this fuss. Noone read the initial statement before knowing what they were getting into?

As of the time of this writing, up to 40,000,000 will be released over time to the public on a varying
time scale as capital is required to complete the project.  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.

If this is how they act at the outset, then you won't make a fuss when I refer you to the IPO contract where it says they are free to use the funds for wages, and then tell you they had to spend it all on wages. And you wouldn't make a fuss about VMC not using the technology that AMC developed, with the result that VMC doesn't have to pay 10% to AMC.  It's not about the contract. It's about trust.

Sorry, to get everyone upset.  Here is my intention.

I am going to do everything to the best of my ability to make investors investment in AMC pay off for them.

As our contract with VMC states I will do what is in the best interest of AMC and its investors.

I just want to thanks all of the investors who have invested in AMC.  I am working hard to make this work for
you.

[Vbs]

Thanks for the heads up. Unfortunately not everyone read the contract with due care, which lead to this fuss.

[fently]

Thanks for the heads up. Unfortunately not everyone read the contract with due care, which lead to this fuss.

I read every word. I am objecting to the issuer playing the market.

If you wouldn't make a fuss unless they violate the contract, then you wouldn't object to the scenario where they spend 100% of funds on wages to produce a technology that is never used.

I'm further perturbed by how the issuer seems only sorry that people are upset, not about his actions.

[Vbs]

I read every word. I am objecting to the issuer playing the market.

If you wouldn't make a fuss unless they violate the contract, then you wouldn't object to the scenario where they spend 100% of funds on wages to produce a technology that is never used.

I'm further perturbed by how the issuer seems only sorry that people are upset, not about his actions.

Playing the market?

Please link the part stating the issuer has the obligation to sell at a specific price past IPO. In fact, I would be more worried if the issuer only sells at a minimum price, as that would mean less coin for AMC to buy what it needs and more coin for the market traders that just want a quick profit.

[kslaughter]

I read every word. I am objecting to the issuer playing the market.

If you wouldn't make a fuss unless they violate the contract, then you wouldn't object to the scenario where they spend 100% of funds on wages to produce a technology that is never used.

I'm further perturbed by how the issuer seems only sorry that people are upset, not about his actions.

Playing the market?

Please link the part stating the issuer has the obligation to sell at a specific price past IPO. In fact, I would be more worried if the issuer only sells at a minimum price, as that would mean less coin for AMC to buy what it needs and more coin for the market traders that just want a quick profit.

I could not say it better myself.

[nebulus]

I read every word. I am objecting to the issuer playing the market.

If you wouldn't make a fuss unless they violate the contract, then you wouldn't object to the scenario where they spend 100% of funds on wages to produce a technology that is never used.

I'm further perturbed by how the issuer seems only sorry that people are upset, not about his actions.

Playing the market?

IPO volume issued to the market was retrieved. Any more questions?

[Vbs]

IPO volume issued to the market was retrieved. Any more questions?

AMC is a hybrid Bitcoin mining and development cooperative describing itself as "the next big mining cooperative" is releasing today an offering to early-adopters of Five million (5,000,000) BitFunder virtual shares and issuing another twenty million (20,000,000) BitFunder virtual shares which will be used for the growth and expansion fund, which will receive a total of 100% of the company's virtual-currency profits after all expenses until the total dividends paid is equal to the offering price of .0005 BTC per share and 12 months have elapsed since the initial offering. The Cooperative is hoping to raise up to 2,500 Bitcoins. The offering price will be 0.0005 Bitcoins for the first 20,000,000 early-adopter shares thereafter the price will be .001 BTC per share. If demand is strong enough then share prices may increase throughout the IPO.

I'm still seeing him selling them, so I'm sorry but I fail to see the retrieval. Also, upon closer inspection, the contract also states that share prices may increase throughout the IPO.

[nebulus]

Ok, let me elaborate...

5 million of early-adopter shares were on the market for sale on May 15, 2013. These are no longer there because issuer realised he screwed up. This is what I call retrieval and he should own up to that. Maybe explain why the placement is no more. Something like "early-adopter volume no longer trading, sorry".

Now, the whole "shares may increase in price" bit usually applies to the following releases not what was put on the market. If he wants to get them off he should buy them that way it does not appear like fuckery. Since what happened the contract started appearing quite misleading. It uses fancy terms but is out of touch with reality. When I read it I saw 5 mil shares on the market and an ongoing IPO, now I don't know what is going on.

Any more questions?

[fently]

Wonder how people would have responded if the issuer had informed people that he was going to both increase and decrease the price throughout the IPO.  I was planning to quadruple my investment in AMC. I decided against it due to this behavior.