[AMC]-The Official Active Mining Cooperative Discussion

[SoylentCreek]

Here is why AMC can not sell the chips.  There are no provisions for employees, unless you hire 4 at the same time.  There are no provisions for any kind of sales expenses one you hire the 4 employees.  There are no provisions for any kinda of hosting services.  There are no provisions for hiring someone to develop a website to sell the chips.  Even if you hired the 4 employees, the expenses are limited to a 10% maximum.  So please tell me how this would be done.

Ken, it is not our job to tell you how to run your company/companies.  It is however your job to answer general questions for shareholders.  You have still not clarified why AMC and VMC need to be two separate companies.  This is what a majority of us are wanting to know, and I think that once this matter is settled, you will have much more faith from existing and potential shareholders.  I'm glad that you are trying to address the issue, but your answers appear to be more of a dodge than an answer.  I will be honest with you, when/if I come to visit your facilities in a couple of weeks, I will most likely be asking much tougher questions than the one Swede was posing, and I hope you have solid answers for them (assuming they haven't already been answered beforehand).  Please make my job easier, and do not make me spend my entire time in Springfield badgering you over things that could easily be squared away in this forum or on the FAQ.  I would much rather spend the day learning how the the operation is going to work, so I can report back that you guys have your shit together and our money is in good hands.  So without further ado, please explain it like I'm five, why does AMC and VMC need to be two separate companies?

[FloatesMcgoates]

Third, why does AMC need VMC to re-sell its chips in bulk? Why can't AMC handle that itself? So, you bulk-sell chips to VMC, VMC sells them on, AMC gets 70% of the profits, VMC 30%? Why do it like that? Why  not just have AMC/VMC together, AMC sells the chips and it receives 100% of the profits from these sales?

Let me just ask you  a simple question.  How would AMC sells chips itself?  Explain to me how that would be done?

eASIC----------->AMC-------------->Potential Chip Buyer

Did I miss something? 

I'm not trying to be cute, but Swede actually posed a fairly valid question.  We've almost got him over onto our side Ken!  Just answer the man's question! LOL

Here is why AMC can not sell the chips.  There are no provisions for employees, unless you hire 4 at the same time.  There are no provisions for any kind of sales expenses one you hire the 4 employees.  There are no provisions for any kinda of hosting services.  There are no provisions for hiring someone to develop a website to sell the chips.  Even if you hired the 4 employees, the expenses are limited to a 10% maximum.  So please tell me how this would be done.

Obviously you will have to do everything you just outlined at some point in order to get VMC to sell the chips, right? Why not just call VMC AMC's hardware division and merge the 2 companies into AMC?

The general feeling I am getting is that most people including myself are getting past the "AMC might be a scam" point to more of a "The way Kenneth Slaughter has set these 2 companies up is not optimal for the shareholder" viewpoint.

[Thalum]

Third, why does AMC need VMC to re-sell its chips in bulk? Why can't AMC handle that itself? So, you bulk-sell chips to VMC, VMC sells them on, AMC gets 70% of the profits, VMC 30%? Why do it like that? Why  not just have AMC/VMC together, AMC sells the chips and it receives 100% of the profits from these sales?

Let me just ask you  a simple question.  How would AMC sells chips itself?  Explain to me how that would be done?

First, it was me who asked that question. Second, why *can't* AMC do this? I mean, if you're running VMC (and according to http://www.virtualminingcorp.com/about.html, you are), then surely you have all the infrastructure (staff, contacts, distribution systems etc etc etc) all up and running anyway? So if that's the case, and it must be since VMC is your planned chip seller, and you're the CEO of VMC, then why couldn't you do this?

[SoylentCreek]

Third, why does AMC need VMC to re-sell its chips in bulk? Why can't AMC handle that itself? So, you bulk-sell chips to VMC, VMC sells them on, AMC gets 70% of the profits, VMC 30%? Why do it like that? Why  not just have AMC/VMC together, AMC sells the chips and it receives 100% of the profits from these sales?

Let me just ask you  a simple question.  How would AMC sells chips itself?  Explain to me how that would be done?

eASIC----------->AMC-------------->Potential Chip Buyer

Did I miss something? 

I'm not trying to be cute, but Swede actually posed a fairly valid question.  We've almost got him over onto our side Ken!  Just answer the man's question! LOL

Here is why AMC can not sell the chips.  There are no provisions for employees, unless you hire 4 at the same time.  There are no provisions for any kind of sales expenses one you hire the 4 employees.  There are no provisions for any kinda of hosting services.  There are no provisions for hiring someone to develop a website to sell the chips.  Even if you hired the 4 employees, the expenses are limited to a 10% maximum.  So please tell me how this would be done.

Obviously you will have to do everything you just outlined at some point in order to get VMC to sell the chips, right? Why not just call VMC AMC's hardware division and merge the 2 companies into AMC?

The general feeling I am getting is that most people including myself are getting past the "AMC might be a scam" point to more of a "The way Kenneth Slaughter has set these 2 companies up is not optimal for the shareholder" viewpoint.

Bingo!  I have very little doubts that Ken is running a legitimate operation.  What I do have doubts on is whether once things are fully operational, we shareholders are going to be making back a decent ROI as reward for our investments.

[bigdude]

Here is why AMC can not sell the chips.  There are no provisions for employees, unless you hire 4 at the same time.  There are no provisions for any kind of sales expenses one you hire the 4 employees.  There are no provisions for any kinda of hosting services.  There are no provisions for hiring someone to develop a website to sell the chips.  Even if you hired the 4 employees, the expenses are limited to a 10% maximum.  So please tell me how this would be done.

Cool, you posted that 7 seconds before my post above

You are making everything way too complicated.

How is ASICMINER able to do everything under one company? But somehow, you think it's an impossibility

I am not saying that it can't be done.  I am saying that the description of the offering of AMC makes it impossible to do.

Ok, that's the first step, you acknowledge that one company can be done.

The second point, that the description of the offering of AMC makes it impossible to do ... well ... change the description!!

This thread is FULL of posts from real shareholders, such as myself, asking you to change it and fix the whole AMC/VMC debacle.

It CAN be done, and it SHOULD be done.


Edit: by the way, something you should keep in mind. The people who are going to buy the asic miners from what you think is VMC, will NOT buy them with this whole AMC/VMC drama happening. So while you may want to keep VMC separate so that you can profit off two companies, you alienate the very customers who would have bought them.

You need to:
- combine AMC/VMC and remove all the problems that its causing
- sell chips, miners etc through AMC (just like ASICMINER does)
- focus on building trust in AMC, the brand
- THEN bitcoin miners will:
a) invest in AMC, and
b) buy mining rigs from AMC

(none of the above will happen with AMC and VMC being separate and all these dramas going on)

[kslaughter]

Third, why does AMC need VMC to re-sell its chips in bulk? Why can't AMC handle that itself? So, you bulk-sell chips to VMC, VMC sells them on, AMC gets 70% of the profits, VMC 30%? Why do it like that? Why  not just have AMC/VMC together, AMC sells the chips and it receives 100% of the profits from these sales?

Let me just ask you  a simple question.  How would AMC sells chips itself?  Explain to me how that would be done?

First, it was me who asked that question. Second, why *can't* AMC do this? I mean, if you're running VMC (and according to http://www.virtualminingcorp.com/about.html, you are), then surely you have all the infrastructure (staff, contacts, distribution systems etc etc etc) all up and running anyway? So if that's the case, and it must be since VMC is your planned chip seller, and you're the CEO of VMC, then why couldn't you do this?
[/quote]

So let me ask again, How is AMC going to pay for all of this?

[kslaughter]

Here is why AMC can not sell the chips.  There are no provisions for employees, unless you hire 4 at the same time.  There are no provisions for any kind of sales expenses one you hire the 4 employees.  There are no provisions for any kinda of hosting services.  There are no provisions for hiring someone to develop a website to sell the chips.  Even if you hired the 4 employees, the expenses are limited to a 10% maximum.  So please tell me how this would be done.

Cool, you posted that 7 seconds before my post above

You are making everything way too complicated.

How is ASICMINER able to do everything under one company? But somehow, you think it's an impossibility

I am not saying that it can't be done.  I am saying that the description of the offering of AMC makes it impossible to do.

Ok, that's the first step, you acknowledge that one company can be done.

The second point, that the description of the offering of AMC makes it impossible to do ... well ... change the description!!

This thread of FULL of posts from real shareholders, such as myself, asking you to change it and fix the whole AMC/VMC debacle.

It CAN be done, and it SHOULD be done.


Edit: by the way, something you should keep in mind. The people who are going to buy the asic miners from what you think is VMC, will NOT buy them with this whole AMC/VMC drama happening. So while you may want to keep VMC separate so that you can profit off two companies, you alienate the very customers who would have bought them. You need to:
- combine AMC/VMC and remove all the problems that its causing
- sell chips, miners etc through AMC
- and build trust in AMC, the brand
- THEN bitcoin miners will be a) invest in AMC and b) buy mining rigs from AMC
(none of the above will happen with AMC and VMC being separate and all these dramas going on)

Can't change the description, it is a contract and their are not provisions in the contract to change it.

[Thalum]

New Section 5 in the FAQ's

5) So, how can AMC be valued since shares do not directly represent ownership, but profits?
You can use a simple conversion for it: [#investor's_shares * current_price], with [1 - #investor's_shares/40M] (%) of dividends being kept for reinvestment.
Using current values (2nd July 2013), there are ~6M shares sold to investors and ~34M in the growth/expansion fund. At a price of 0.001, AMC is valued at 6M*0.001 = BTC6000, with 1-6/40 = 85% of dividends being kept for reinvestment.

Ugh, more obfuscation!

Why are unsold shares being given dividends? If the unsold/unissued shares are treasury shares, they shouldn't get dividends (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treasury_stock). 85% of dividends (should this be 'profit'?) being kept for reinvestment? I thought that's why shares were sold in the first place? To raise capital? Having read this, http://www.sharesexplained.com/shares-explained, it seems that it's to raise funds for capital expansion/start up, but it sometimes looks as though it's more to 'reward the owner', which is odd, given that the company has barely even started.

If the value of the company is BTC6000, then it's worth ~$600k. But you've issued 40 million shares, so any coins mined at the moment are split up over 40 million shares, soon to be 100 million shares in a year. Call me crazy, but I don't see how that's in the best interests of investors.

[bigdude]

Ok, that's the first step, you acknowledge that one company can be done.

The second point, that the description of the offering of AMC makes it impossible to do ... well ... change the description!!

This thread is FULL of posts from real shareholders, such as myself, asking you to change it and fix the whole AMC/VMC debacle.

It CAN be done, and it SHOULD be done.


Edit: by the way, something you should keep in mind. The people who are going to buy the asic miners from what you think is VMC, will NOT buy them with this whole AMC/VMC drama happening. So while you may want to keep VMC separate so that you can profit off two companies, you alienate the very customers who would have bought them.

You need to:
- combine AMC/VMC and remove all the problems that its causing
- sell chips, miners etc through AMC (just like ASICMINER does)
- focus on building trust in AMC, the brand
- THEN bitcoin miners will:
a) invest in AMC, and
b) buy mining rigs from AMC

(none of the above will happen with AMC and VMC being separate and all these dramas going on)

Can't change the description, it is a contract and their are not provisions in the contract to change it.

Seriously?

Are you saying that a business/company, once formed, can't reform itself by changing its own mission/description/goals?

Seriously?

[TheSwede75]

Here is why AMC can not sell the chips.  There are no provisions for employees, unless you hire 4 at the same time.  There are no provisions for any kind of sales expenses one you hire the 4 employees.  There are no provisions for any kinda of hosting services.  There are no provisions for hiring someone to develop a website to sell the chips.  Even if you hired the 4 employees, the expenses are limited to a 10% maximum.  So please tell me how this would be done.

Cool, you posted that 7 seconds before my post above

You are making everything way too complicated.

How is ASICMINER able to do everything under one company? But somehow, you think it's an impossibility

I am not saying that it can't be done.  I am saying that the description of the offering of AMC makes it impossible to do.

Ok, that's the first step, you acknowledge that one company can be done.

The second point, that the description of the offering of AMC makes it impossible to do ... well ... change the description!!

This thread of FULL of posts from real shareholders, such as myself, asking you to change it and fix the whole AMC/VMC debacle.

It CAN be done, and it SHOULD be done.


Edit: by the way, something you should keep in mind. The people who are going to buy the asic miners from what you think is VMC, will NOT buy them with this whole AMC/VMC drama happening. So while you may want to keep VMC separate so that you can profit off two companies, you alienate the very customers who would have bought them. You need to:
- combine AMC/VMC and remove all the problems that its causing
- sell chips, miners etc through AMC
- and build trust in AMC, the brand
- THEN bitcoin miners will be a) invest in AMC and b) buy mining rigs from AMC
(none of the above will happen with AMC and VMC being separate and all these dramas going on)

Can't change the description, it is a contract and their are not provisions in the contract to change it.

To be fair. If you and AMC owns VMC, the only thing needed is to rewrite the contract and motion for share holders to alter the original contract.

[Thalum]

Can't change the description, it is a contract and their are not provisions in the contract to change it.

Companies change contracts all the time. Companies merge all the time. You're the CEO of both companies. You're not offering any good reasons as to why this can't be done.

[Thalum]

To be fair. If you and AMC owns VMC, the only thing needed is to rewrite the contract and motion for share holders to alter the original contract.

I've got a horrible feeling shareholders don't have voting rights.... :/

[SoylentCreek]

Here is what is listed on the AMC profile page: "Issuer may Modify Description: Option not set."

I do not know if this is what you are saying cannot be changed, but it appears that this certainly can be.

[kslaughter]

Ok, that's the first step, you acknowledge that one company can be done.

The second point, that the description of the offering of AMC makes it impossible to do ... well ... change the description!!

This thread is FULL of posts from real shareholders, such as myself, asking you to change it and fix the whole AMC/VMC debacle.

It CAN be done, and it SHOULD be done.


Edit: by the way, something you should keep in mind. The people who are going to buy the asic miners from what you think is VMC, will NOT buy them with this whole AMC/VMC drama happening. So while you may want to keep VMC separate so that you can profit off two companies, you alienate the very customers who would have bought them.

You need to:
- combine AMC/VMC and remove all the problems that its causing
- sell chips, miners etc through AMC (just like ASICMINER does)
- focus on building trust in AMC, the brand
- THEN bitcoin miners will:
a) invest in AMC, and
b) buy mining rigs from AMC

(none of the above will happen with AMC and VMC being separate and all these dramas going on)

Can't change the description, it is a contract and their are not provisions in the contract to change it.

Seriously?

Are you saying that a business/company, once formed, can't reform itself by changing its own mission/description/goals?

Seriously?

No, I am say that the description on bitfunder.com can not be changed.  It is a contract between the issuer and shareholders.  The only way to change it would be to close the company and liquidate it and then do a new offering.

[kslaughter]

Here is what is listed on the AMC profile page: "Issuer may Modify Description: Option not set."

I do not know if this is what you are saying cannot be changed, but it appears that this certainly can be.

Yes, if the description could be changed, the this would be set to yes.  I other words, the description does not have
any provisions for the description to be changed.

[Thalum]

Ok, that's the first step, you acknowledge that one company can be done.

The second point, that the description of the offering of AMC makes it impossible to do ... well ... change the description!!

This thread is FULL of posts from real shareholders, such as myself, asking you to change it and fix the whole AMC/VMC debacle.

It CAN be done, and it SHOULD be done.


Edit: by the way, something you should keep in mind. The people who are going to buy the asic miners from what you think is VMC, will NOT buy them with this whole AMC/VMC drama happening. So while you may want to keep VMC separate so that you can profit off two companies, you alienate the very customers who would have bought them.

You need to:
- combine AMC/VMC and remove all the problems that its causing
- sell chips, miners etc through AMC (just like ASICMINER does)
- focus on building trust in AMC, the brand
- THEN bitcoin miners will:
a) invest in AMC, and
b) buy mining rigs from AMC

(none of the above will happen with AMC and VMC being separate and all these dramas going on)

Can't change the description, it is a contract and their are not provisions in the contract to change it.

Seriously?

Are you saying that a business/company, once formed, can't reform itself by changing its own mission/description/goals?

Seriously?

No, I am say that the description on bitfunder.com can not be changed.  It is a contract between the issuer and shareholders.  The only way to change it would be to close the company and liquidate it and then do a new offering.

Well can't you transfer stock options over to the new offering?

[kslaughter]

Ok, that's the first step, you acknowledge that one company can be done.

The second point, that the description of the offering of AMC makes it impossible to do ... well ... change the description!!

This thread is FULL of posts from real shareholders, such as myself, asking you to change it and fix the whole AMC/VMC debacle.

It CAN be done, and it SHOULD be done.


Edit: by the way, something you should keep in mind. The people who are going to buy the asic miners from what you think is VMC, will NOT buy them with this whole AMC/VMC drama happening. So while you may want to keep VMC separate so that you can profit off two companies, you alienate the very customers who would have bought them.

You need to:
- combine AMC/VMC and remove all the problems that its causing
- sell chips, miners etc through AMC (just like ASICMINER does)
- focus on building trust in AMC, the brand
- THEN bitcoin miners will:
a) invest in AMC, and
b) buy mining rigs from AMC

(none of the above will happen with AMC and VMC being separate and all these dramas going on)

Can't change the description, it is a contract and their are not provisions in the contract to change it.

Seriously?

Are you saying that a business/company, once formed, can't reform itself by changing its own mission/description/goals?

Seriously?

No, I am say that the description on bitfunder.com can not be changed.  It is a contract between the issuer and shareholders.  The only way to change it would be to close the company and liquidate it and then do a new offering.

Well can't you transfer stock options over to the new offering?

I don't know of anyway to do it, except the one above.

[TheSwede75]

To be fair. If you and AMC owns VMC, the only thing needed is to rewrite the contract and motion for share holders to alter the original contract.

I've got a horrible feeling shareholders don't have voting rights.... :/

The fact that the shares are non voting shares (in company specific issues) has nothing to do with being able to vote in listing issues such as contract changes and exchange related issues.

[Thalum]

If that's the case, then it would be worthwhile talking with the mods/staff at bitfunder and seeing what, if anything can be done. As I'm sure you've noticed, it's something that almost everyone here is clamouring for, and it would go a long way to soothing much of the craziness that has been going on in this thread over the past four days.

[kslaughter]

To be fair. If you and AMC owns VMC, the only thing needed is to rewrite the contract and motion for share holders to alter the original contract.

I've got a horrible feeling shareholders don't have voting rights.... :/

The fact that the shares are non voting shares (in company specific issues) has nothing to do with being able to vote in listing issues such as contract changes and exchange related issues.

There are no provisions in the description for changing it, also bitfunder.com has no provisions for motions or anything else like that.  The description is a contract between each and every shareholder.  Now if we could get each and every shareholder to agree to the change, then I think we could do it.