[AMC]-The Official Active Mining Cooperative Discussion

[dhenson]

The description does not say that, and it controls.

Can someone translate?

[kslaughter]

The description does not say that, and it controls.

Can someone translate?

Sorry for the legal ease.  The description says that AMC may post the shares at no less that .0005

[Ukyo]

The description does not say that, and it controls.

Can someone translate?

Sorry for the legal ease.  The description says that AMC may post the shares at no less that .0005

I think the issue is that the vast number of shares you are trying to sell, in comparison to the market, is huge.
It seems to me, that people would like you to set an official amount of shares at prices. This is why the tier method has worked in the past.

Perhaps you should say up to X shares will be Y price, and then Z shares will be A price, etc.. and use reasonable numbers.
I am sure the shareholder would much rather have that.

My two cents.

[TadpolesIsAWinner]

Quote from #bitfunder IRC channel:

<Ukto> there
<Ukto> i told him to post them
<Ukto> at 0.005
<Ukto> if he does any mroe sell downs
<Ukto> i will get very pissed
<ThickAsThieves> nice
<Ukto> AMC___: got that?
<AMC___> Yes

As per Ukto Bitfunder.com God, I have post all AMC IPO shares at .0005

Update from #bitfunder IRC channel:

<Ukto> le2: amc is selling at 0.0005 from here on

This is great news.  So 3 days ago I paid almost double for these shares!  Super fucking awesome.

Yo KSlaughter, I'll trade you 1333 shares at .0009 for 2400 at .0005?  I guess I was supporting your company "too early" and should have waited.

[TadpolesIsAWinner]

Seriously, what you need to do is find out who paid more than .0005.  I'm not saying give them their BTC back, but you should increase their share ownership relative to how much they paid.  So for example, if someone bought 1000 shares  two days ago at .001 BTC, you should just increase their shares to 2000.  You won't lose $ that way, just shares.  And you'll also not be cheating/punishing people who wanted to support your company in its early stages.

Seriously, how do you think everyone who bought over .0005 feels right now?

[kslaughter]

The description does not say that, and it controls.

Can someone translate?

Sorry for the legal ease.  The description says that AMC may post the shares at no less that .0005

I think the issue is that the vast number of shares you are trying to sell, in comparison to the market, is huge.
It seems to me, that people would like you to set an official amount of shares at prices. This is why the tier method has worked in the past.

Perhaps you should say up to X shares will be Y price, and then Z shares will be A price, etc.. and use reasonable numbers.
I am sure the shareholder would much rather have that.

My two cents.

I think there was plenty of demand at the .0008 range and the volume was good.  Now by your God action you have caused my
investor to be mad at me.  I had no choice except to reduce the price to .0005 when I all the right per the description to sell
shares at no less that .0005.  You have hurt my reputation my you blantant action based on what in your "God" mind was the
right price.  The market was setting the price.  I tried to sell shares at .0009, but the market did not agree, so I reduced my
price to .0008 and the market started buy again.  I have went my the letter of the description which is posted on bitfunder.com

[kslaughter]

Seriously, what you need to do is find out who paid more than .0005.  I'm not saying give them their BTC back, but you should increase their share ownership relative to how much they paid.  So for example, if someone bought 1000 shares  two days ago at .001 BTC, you should just increase their shares to 2000.  You won't lose $ that way, just shares.  And you'll also not be cheating/punishing people who wanted to support your company in its early stages.

Seriously, how do you think everyone who bought over .0005 feels right now?

I have already been thinking about that, also maybe an increased special dividend after the Avalon's get here.  I will take money out of my own pocket to make it right.  I also will work extra hard to raise the share price back up.

[kslaughter]

Quote from #bitfunder IRC channel:

<Ukto> there
<Ukto> i told him to post them
<Ukto> at 0.005
<Ukto> if he does any mroe sell downs
<Ukto> i will get very pissed
<ThickAsThieves> nice
<Ukto> AMC___: got that?
<AMC___> Yes

As per Ukto Bitfunder.com God, I have post all AMC IPO shares at .0005

Update from #bitfunder IRC channel:

<Ukto> le2: amc is selling at 0.0005 from here on

This is great news.  So 3 days ago I paid almost double for these shares!  Super fucking awesome.

Yo KSlaughter, I'll trade you 1333 shares at .0009 for 2400 at .0005?  I guess I was supporting your company "too early" and should have waited.

That might be it the works, I am thinking about how I can make it right for my investors.  Ukto, did not give me a choice, he used his "God" powers to drive the
price down to .0005 when there was demand at .0008.

[TadpolesIsAWinner]

Seriously, what you need to do is find out who paid more than .0005.  I'm not saying give them their BTC back, but you should increase their share ownership relative to how much they paid.  So for example, if someone bought 1000 shares  two days ago at .001 BTC, you should just increase their shares to 2000.  You won't lose $ that way, just shares.  And you'll also not be cheating/punishing people who wanted to support your company in its early stages.

Seriously, how do you think everyone who bought over .0005 feels right now?

I have already been thinking about that, also maybe an increased special dividend after the Avalon's get here.  I will take money out of my own pocket to make it right.  I also will work extra hard to raise the share price back up.

This is good to hear.  I hope you follow through, I think you'd make A LOT of investors happy if you did so.

Also, I know you're busy, but I do appreciate the responses on this message board.  Especially with a new fund, a lot of people are going to have a lot of questions...and especially with selldowns and what not...

[kslaughter]

Seriously, what you need to do is find out who paid more than .0005.  I'm not saying give them their BTC back, but you should increase their share ownership relative to how much they paid.  So for example, if someone bought 1000 shares  two days ago at .001 BTC, you should just increase their shares to 2000.  You won't lose $ that way, just shares.  And you'll also not be cheating/punishing people who wanted to support your company in its early stages.

Seriously, how do you think everyone who bought over .0005 feels right now?

I have already been thinking about that, also maybe an increased special dividend after the Avalon's get here.  I will take money out of my own pocket to make it right.  I also will work extra hard to raise the share price back up.

This is good to hear.  I hope you follow through, I think you'd make A LOT of investors happy if you did so.

Also, I know you're busy, but I do appreciate the responses on this message board.  Especially with a new fund, a lot of people are going to have a lot of questions...and especially with selldowns and what not...

Thanks, just trying to do what is right.  I did not have a choice as Ukto was going to freeze the asset if I did not comply, also if I raise the price, or if I don't have all the shares posted.  Not of which is required in the description.

[iCEBREAKER]

Seriously, how do you think everyone who bought over .0005 feels right now?

Who cares how speculators that overpaid (hoping to pass the hot potato) now feel?  It felt great to take their money and use it buy more AM-PT shares.  

We investors who bought in anticipation of the Avalons' arrival don't care.

Having said that, Ken should be thanking (not resenting) Ukyo for stepping in to clean up the confusing mess AMC's fiasco of an IPO has become.

All Hail Ukyo, benevolent God Emperor of BitFunder!  

[carnitastaco]

The description does not say that, and it controls.

Can someone translate?

Sorry for the legal ease.  The description says that AMC may post the shares at no less that .0005

Lol, you know you're dealing with a serious attorney when he apologizes for his "legal ease"

KSlaughter, you are quickly becoming my favorite poster, and this thread is awesome.  I hope that your posted screenshot is real and that AMC and VMC succeed immensely and that you and your investors make lots and lots of money.  I'll be betting against it, and enjoying the ride either way.

[aura.flux]

So the way I am reading the contract is that only this batch of 5 millions is to sell for 0.0005.
The price could go up for the future batches. Can someone clarify? Is it best to buy now or wait and buy somewhere when the last of 20 million is selling.

kslaughter?

[kslaughter]

So the way I am reading the contract is that only this batch of 5 millions is to sell for 0.0005.
The price could go up for the future batches. Can someone clarify? Is it best to buy now or wait and buy somewhere when the last of 20 million is selling.

kslaughter?

The shares may be posted at no less than .0005 per share.

[Vbs]

Seriously, what you need to do is find out who paid more than .0005.  I'm not saying give them their BTC back, but you should increase their share ownership relative to how much they paid.  So for example, if someone bought 1000 shares  two days ago at .001 BTC, you should just increase their shares to 2000.  You won't lose $ that way, just shares.  And you'll also not be cheating/punishing people who wanted to support your company in its early stages.

Seriously, how do you think everyone who bought over .0005 feels right now?

This feels like a reasonable suggestion, I'm sure Ukyo can code a script to parse the DB and for each AMC owner: (a) get the paid BTC for every owned share bought at >0.0005 and sum them all, (b) divide that by 0.0005 and (c) transfer the number of shares represented by the difference between (b) and the number of AMC shares in the account.

Example: Let's say someone bought 25 shares: 5@0.0006 and 20@0.0008. (a) 5*0.0006+20*0.0008 = 0.019; (b) 0.019/0.0005 = 38; (c) 38-25 = 13 shares to transfer between KS and shareholder.

[fently]

Seriously, what you need to do is find out who paid more than .0005.  I'm not saying give them their BTC back, but you should increase their share ownership relative to how much they paid.  So for example, if someone bought 1000 shares  two days ago at .001 BTC, you should just increase their shares to 2000.  You won't lose $ that way, just shares.  And you'll also not be cheating/punishing people who wanted to support your company in its early stages.

Seriously, how do you think everyone who bought over .0005 feels right now?

This feels like a reasonable suggestion, I'm sure Ukyo can code a script to parse the DB and for each AMC owner: (a) get the paid BTC for every owned share bought at >0.0005 and sum them all, (b) divide that by 0.0005 and (c) transfer the number of shares represented by the difference between (b) and the number of AMC shares in the account.

Example: Let's say someone bought 20 shares at 0.0008. (a) 20*0.0008 = 0.016; (b) 0.016/0.0005 = 32; (c) 32-20 = 12 shares to transfer between KS and shareholder.

There is one pretty big problem with that. What about the people who bought at 0.0008 or some other price > 0.0005 but bought them from existing shareholders rather than from Ken?  The profit there didn't go to Ken, it went to whoever flipped the stock. It gets real murky really quickly.

Again, for those just joining us, I have a very negative opinion of the issuer. Just because I make a factual statement that seems to go in favor of the issuer does not change that. So please don't attack me for defending him.

[sayaz]

So I might get a consolation for buying 10k at .001 after all?

[Vbs]

There is one pretty big problem with that. What about the people who bought at 0.0008 or some other price > 0.0005 but bought them from existing shareholders rather than from Ken?  The profit there didn't go to Ken, it went to whoever flipped the stock. It gets real murky really quickly.

Again, for those just joining us, I have a very negative opinion of the issuer. Just because I make a factual statement that seems to go in favor of the issuer does not change that. So please don't attack me for defending him.

Other option would be to issue a special dividend, weighted by the bought share price, so that everyone that bought at a higher price gets more %.

[kslaughter]

There is one pretty big problem with that. What about the people who bought at 0.0008 or some other price > 0.0005 but bought them from existing shareholders rather than from Ken?  The profit there didn't go to Ken, it went to whoever flipped the stock. It gets real murky really quickly.

Again, for those just joining us, I have a very negative opinion of the issuer. Just because I make a factual statement that seems to go in favor of the issuer does not change that. So please don't attack me for defending him.

Other option would be to issue a special dividend, weighted by the bought share price, so that everyone that bought at a higher price gets more %.

Yes, I think this might work.  We have checked our transactions to see how we can identify the purchasers and have some ideas on how to do that.

[fently]

There is one pretty big problem with that. What about the people who bought at 0.0008 or some other price > 0.0005 but bought them from existing shareholders rather than from Ken?  The profit there didn't go to Ken, it went to whoever flipped the stock. It gets real murky really quickly.

Again, for those just joining us, I have a very negative opinion of the issuer. Just because I make a factual statement that seems to go in favor of the issuer does not change that. So please don't attack me for defending him.

Other option would be to issue a special dividend, weighted by the bought share price, so that everyone that bought at a higher price gets more %.

Yes, I think this might work.  We have checked our transactions to see how we can identify the purchasers and have some ideas on how to do that.

Still doesn't fix the people who sold at a loss because they realized they were being sold an illusion.

edit: had to leave that typo because it is rather amusing -- I meant to say "doesn't fix things for the people who sold at a loss"