[AMC]-The Official Active Mining Cooperative Discussion

[bitfair]

(...) The offering price will be 0.0005 Bitcoins (...)

100 million shares at 0.0005 BTC/share - does that mean that a month-old company whose only apparent tangible assets is a non-delivered order for 6 avalon machines has a value of USD 6.6 million?

[kslaughter]

(...) The offering price will be 0.0005 Bitcoins (...)

100 million shares at 0.0005 BTC/share - does that mean that a month-old company whose only apparent tangible assets is a non-delivered order for 6 avalon machines has a value of USD 6.6 million?

No, the capitalization is the number of issues shares times the share price.  This would be 40,000,000 * .0005 = $2,640,000

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_capitalization

[rikur]

2013-05-24 17:38:18   Posted By: Support Staff

Hi Riku,

Thank you for bringing this to our attention.
We will begin investigating this immediately as it could have very serious consequences.

Thank You,
BitFunder Support

Let's see what BitFunder thinks about using IPO shares to pump and dump the market.

[asdfghj]

Wow this is embarrassing.

Images on this website http://www.virtualminingcorp.com/services.html are stock images.
http://goo.gl/B93WG

[iCEBREAKER]

Wow this is embarrassing.

Images on this website http://www.virtualminingcorp.com/services.html are stock images.
http://goo.gl/B93WG

You had to google to realize that?  Now that is embarrassing!   

what's next, we find out they used a template for the site instead of pure original notepad html?

oh the shock, oh the horror!   

[fently]

2013-05-24 17:38:18   Posted By: Support Staff

Hi Riku,

Thank you for bringing this to our attention.
We will begin investigating this immediately as it could have very serious consequences.

Thank You,
BitFunder Support

Let's see what BitFunder thinks about using IPO shares to pump and dump the market.

Just a note, I'm not so sure that he placed buy orders. I think it was pumping by way of news releases only, but yes, dumping periodically from 0.0008+ all the way down to 0.0005

Possibly not against the rules. Sleazy as hell, absolutely. Proof that he's not trustworthy at all? Absolutely!

[fently]

Wow this is embarrassing.

Images on this website http://www.virtualminingcorp.com/services.html are stock images.
http://goo.gl/B93WG

You had to google to realize that?  Now that is embarrassing!   

what's next, we find out they used a template for the site instead of pure original notepad html?

oh the shock, oh the horror!   

The issue of having photos of non-existent machines was addressed a few pages back.

[sayaz]

Well I feel like a complete retard buying 10k at .001 after seeing the book... Not to mention short changed

[rikur]

Well I feel like a complete retard buying 10k at .001 after seeing the book... Not to mention short changed

Ouch.. Mine 10k purchase was at 0.0007. The biggest problem I have is that the IPO is supposedly still running, but there are nowhere near 4M+ asks to be seen as there should be according to the IPO/FAQ. It tricked me into thinking that the IPO was already over and paying a higher price for the shares.

[rikur]

2013-05-24 17:38:18   Posted By: Support Staff

Hi Riku,

Thank you for bringing this to our attention.
We will begin investigating this immediately as it could have very serious consequences.

Thank You,
BitFunder Support

Let's see what BitFunder thinks about using IPO shares to pump and dump the market.

Just a note, I'm not so sure that he placed buy orders. I think it was pumping by way of news releases only, but yes, dumping periodically from 0.0008+ all the way down to 0.0005

Possibly not against the rules. Sleazy as hell, absolutely. Proof that he's not trustworthy at all? Absolutely!

Sorry, yes, my pumping here meant witholding IPO shares from the orderbook to increase the price. I thought that the IPO was already over, since the market had no big asks.

[ronaldlee0917]

2013-05-24 17:38:18   Posted By: Support Staff

Hi Riku,

Thank you for bringing this to our attention.
We will begin investigating this immediately as it could have very serious consequences.

Thank You,
BitFunder Support

Let's see what BitFunder thinks about using IPO shares to pump and dump the market.

Hope that the stock would not be delisted, we will all lose big if it happens.

[stereotype]

2013-05-24 17:38:18   Posted By: Support Staff

Hi Riku,

Thank you for bringing this to our attention.
We will begin investigating this immediately as it could have very serious consequences.

Thank You,
BitFunder Support

Let's see what BitFunder thinks about using IPO shares to pump and dump the market.

Hope that the stock would not be delisted, we will all lose big if it happens.

Did try to make him view things differently. You are coming across as educated idiot rikur, and i hope you have thought about the repercussions of your actions.

[rikur]

Hope that the stock would not be delisted, we will all lose big if it happens.

Did try to make him view things differently. You are coming across as educated idiot rikur, and i hope you have thought about the repercussions of your actions.

I highly doubt that it will be delisted. But BitFunder is looking into it and hopefully more clear IPO rules/mechanism will spring up as a result. I'm still holding my shares, just hoping that they get this cleared up.

I will post an update here once I get one from BitFunder. Might take a couple of days though.

[Vbs]

It is sad to see history so quickly forgotten.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_public_offering#Pricing_of_IPO
Historically, some IPOs both globally and in the United States have been underpriced. The effect of "initial underpricing" an IPO is to generate additional interest in the stock when it first becomes publicly traded. Flipping, or quickly selling shares for a profit, can lead to significant gains for investors who have been allocated shares of the IPO at the offering price. However, underpricing an IPO results in lost potential capital for the issuer. One extreme example is theglobe.com IPO which helped fuel the IPO "mania" of the late 90's internet era. Underwritten by Bear Stearns on November 13, 1998, the IPO was priced at $9 per share. The share price quickly increased 1000% after the opening of trading, to a high of $97. Selling pressure from institutional flipping eventually drove the stock back down, and it closed the day at $63. Although the company did raise about $30 million from the offering it is estimated that with the level of demand for the offering and the volume of trading that took place the company might have left upwards of $200 million on the table.

[rikur]

It is sad to see history so quickly forgotten.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_public_offering#Pricing_of_IPO
Historically, some IPOs both globally and in the United States have been underpriced. The effect of "initial underpricing" an IPO is to generate additional interest in the stock when it first becomes publicly traded. Flipping, or quickly selling shares for a profit, can lead to significant gains for investors who have been allocated shares of the IPO at the offering price. However, underpricing an IPO results in lost potential capital for the issuer. One extreme example is theglobe.com IPO which helped fuel the IPO "mania" of the late 90's internet era. Underwritten by Bear Stearns on November 13, 1998, the IPO was priced at $9 per share. The share price quickly increased 1000% after the opening of trading, to a high of $97. Selling pressure from institutional flipping eventually drove the stock back down, and it closed the day at $63. Although the company did raise about $30 million from the offering it is estimated that with the level of demand for the offering and the volume of trading that took place the company might have left upwards of $200 million on the table.

Your point being? I'm not in this to flip anything.

[Vbs]

Your point being? I'm not in this to flip anything.

I'm really starting to think you're in this to make sure AMC is only offered at a minimum price, like that would be really beneficial for the cooperative and its shareholders in the long run.

Also, you have clearly no idea of the various price strategies that shares can be sold in an IPO. Pay-what-you-bid was used in the IPO of Japan Telecom, for example. Thinking that IPO shares can only be sold all at the same price reveals quite the lack of market knowledge.

EDIT: It is also pretty straightforward to see that if you bought shares at price X, everytime the issuer sells shares at a price:
- Lower than X: your shares lost value
- Same as X: your shares kept value
- Higher than X: your shares increased in value

It is of the best interest of anyone that bought shares at prices higher than 0.0005 that the issuer stops selling everything at 0.0005 now.

[stereotype]

It is sad to see history so quickly forgotten.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_public_offering#Pricing_of_IPO
Historically, some IPOs both globally and in the United States have been underpriced. The effect of "initial underpricing" an IPO is to generate additional interest in the stock when it first becomes publicly traded. Flipping, or quickly selling shares for a profit, can lead to significant gains for investors who have been allocated shares of the IPO at the offering price. However, underpricing an IPO results in lost potential capital for the issuer. One extreme example is theglobe.com IPO which helped fuel the IPO "mania" of the late 90's internet era. Underwritten by Bear Stearns on November 13, 1998, the IPO was priced at $9 per share. The share price quickly increased 1000% after the opening of trading, to a high of $97. Selling pressure from institutional flipping eventually drove the stock back down, and it closed the day at $63. Although the company did raise about $30 million from the offering it is estimated that with the level of demand for the offering and the volume of trading that took place the company might have left upwards of $200 million on the table.

Your point being? I'm not in this to flip anything.

Was wondering what your flipping point is. You've highlighted that an order book may have been manipulated, and your pissed off because you feel deceived. Thats an understandable, reasonable human reaction, but also quite pathetic, given the context and whats trying to be achieved here. Have a think about what you are trying to achieve, and if your expectations will ever be met.

Widows and orphans, rikur. Widows and orphans.
 

[nebulus]

Your point being? I'm not in this to flip anything.

Also, you have clearly no idea of the various price strategies that shares can be sold in an IPO. Pay-what-you-bid was used in the IPO of Japan Telecom, for example. Thinking that IPO shares can only be sold all at the same price reveals quite the lack of market knowledge.

That's a bullshit argument. The contract reads like shares would be issued in batches or starting with a placement of 5 mil which would not come and go willy-nilly. Evidence? At least two people above thought IPO closed out and bought overvalued stock.

[Vbs]

That's a bullshit argument. The contract reads like shares would be issued in batches or starting with a placement of 5 mil which would not come and go willy-nilly. Evidence? At least two people above thought IPO closed out and bought overvalued stock.

Nowhere I did see the statement that shares would be all selled using solely an "ask wall" method. It was stated that the price could rise due to demand.

Overvalued stock? So, they would be happy to pay higher for their stock, just not to the issuer? They would be really happy now, knowing they had bought from a flipper and not helping AMC a bit. Nice logic there.

[nebulus]

Nowhere I did see the statement that shares would be all selled using solely an "ask wall" method. It was stated that the price could rise due to demand.

Sure, neither does it state that they are sold on Pay-what-you-bid basis.

The assumption you make about the demand is false. It took two months for the volume to decrease from 5 to 4.6mil. He created an illusion of demand by removing the stock of the market. That's the problem.

Overvalued stock? So, they would be happy to pay higher for their stock, just not to the issuer? They would be really happy now, knowing they had bought from a flipper and not helping AMC a bit. Nice logic there.

Sorry, this make no sense. Of course, they would pay the flipper.
Just in case you did not think that far that's what happens with stocks when IPO is bought out.
Currently when people buy most stock on BitFunder  they are buying it from someone who is flipping.

The "Early-Adopter" shares may be posted in batches with the first batch being 5,000,000 shares.

What is the point of saying this in the contract if this is not what you are doing?

Final thought...
I am not completely against retrieval when mistakes happen (in this case overestimation of demand).
I do think it is fair though to have the issuer make a statement when he does retrieve.
It is natural for people to think that stock is in demand when orders disappear.

Also for some reason, when it comes to putting large volume on the market there is no problem with communicating but when it comes to backpedaling there is.

Anyway, good luck!