[AMC]-The Official Active Mining Cooperative Discussion

[SoylentCreek]

So, my proposal for the VMC shares would be:

• 9 to 10M for investors at 0.0025
• 10M for Ken

For a total of 19-20M. If more funds are needed in the future, more shares can be issued as needed, as means to increase the capital of VMC.

Ken did/is doing the hard work on everything, so he should get a nice amount of shares, and it's only thanks to him that there's an ASIC coming (one year of work already on optimizing Xilinx code).

Thoughts?

These numbers look sensible to me!

Would this number be viable for a 1 to 1 share swap?  How many shares have currently been issued and are owned by the public.  If that number is or will exceed 9,000,000, then that will not work.  Here's my suggestion for issuing shares.

10,000,000 Total (if possible)

4,500,000 are issued to the public all at once
2,000,000 are held by VMC to pay overhead, Ken's salary, etc.
3,500,000 are also held by VMC and all dividends that are paid to these will be reinvested into the company.

At no point or time should Ken or VMC be able to increase shares, or sell to the public any of the 5.5M that are held by VMC.

The total number of shares does not matter much, as the price per share will fall in accordingly. Offering more shares to the public if needed is a benefit to VMC, not a drawback. What if VMC needs more capital now, but don't has enough dividends to cover it?

- The public holds around 6M AMC shares, with around 3-4M more to be sold at .0025 for the NRE.
- Ken should be intitled to around 50-70% of the total shares, for all the work he has done so far and continues to do.
- VMC should hold no shares. Reinvestment cash should be taken as a cut from profits before issuing dividends. Having always a fixed % for reinvestment doesn't make sense in the long term.

My thinking right now is to reduce my ownership from 100% down to 60%

Then in that case:

4,000,000 are issued to the public all at once.
500,000 are on reserve to be issued at a later date.
2,000,000 are held by VMC to pay overhead, Ken's salary, etc.
3,000,000 are also held by VMC and all dividends that are paid to these will be reinvested into the company.

[1715115716]

1715115716

[1715115716]

1715115716

[1715115716]

1715115716

[1715115716]

1715115716

[1715115716]

1715115716

[steveioio]

Everyone is getting really excited over nothing of substance. Please hold out until you see real evidence and get the contractual certainty you need before taking this seriously. It's not smart to rush back into this after a few assurances made on a forum. They won't stand up in court. You need a contract and evidence and until that materialises you are throwing good money after bad.

How do any of you know this isn't a ploy to get more money flooding into AMC before the big dissapearing act? The answer is you don't.
A few more days hyping this 'new development' up could net Mr Slaughter a dream-sized wad of cash.

And even forgetting the scam line - if this is a genuine company how do you know they are competant enough to follow through? What happens 3months down the line when they can't deliver and shares nose dive back to 0.0005 or lower? There is only one way to invest in any company and that is based on facts, evidence and finally projections of profit. You only have the last one of these three right now = sit on your hands.

[Vbs]

My thinking right now is to reduce my ownership from 100% down to 60%

My proposal #2 for the VMC shares would be:

• 10M for investors at 0.0025 (40%)
• 15M for Ken (60%)

For a total of 25M. If more funds are needed in the future, more shares can be issued as needed, as means to increase the capital of VMC.

Ken did/is doing the hard work on everything, so he should get a nice amount of shares, and it's only thanks to him that there's an ASIC coming (one year of work already on optimizing Xilinx code).

Then in that case, 15M go to overhead and 5M remain on reserve (or something to that nature) to be issued to the public on an "as needed" basis only.  Once those 5M are issued, that's it, no more.  Otherwise, Ken will eventually be called out again for trying to manipulate the market again.

No need to, because if more are sold, his % of VMC also diminish. If more 5M are sold, VMC banks all profits from that sale (so it's arguably increasing value) and shareholders will have 50% of VMC while Ken the other 50%.

[SoylentCreek]

So, my proposal for the VMC shares would be:

• 9 to 10M for investors at 0.0025
• 10M for Ken

For a total of 19-20M. If more funds are needed in the future, more shares can be issued as needed, as means to increase the capital of VMC.

Ken did/is doing the hard work on everything, so he should get a nice amount of shares, and it's only thanks to him that there's an ASIC coming (one year of work already on optimizing Xilinx code).

Thoughts?

These numbers look sensible to me!

Would this number be viable for a 1 to 1 share swap?  How many shares have currently been issued and are owned by the public.  If that number is or will exceed 9,000,000, then that will not work.  Here's my suggestion for issuing shares.

10,000,000 Total (if possible)

4,500,000 are issued to the public all at once
2,000,000 are held by VMC to pay overhead, Ken's salary, etc.
3,500,000 are also held by VMC and all dividends that are paid to these will be reinvested into the company.

At no point or time should Ken or VMC be able to increase shares, or sell to the public any of the 5.5M that are held by VMC.

The total number of shares does not matter much, as the price per share will fall in accordingly. Offering more shares to the public if needed is a benefit to VMC, not a drawback. What if VMC needs more capital now, but don't has enough dividends to cover it?

- The public holds around 6M AMC shares, with around 3-4M more to be sold at .0025 for the NRE.
- Ken should be intitled to around 50-70% of the total shares, for all the work he has done so far and continues to do.
- VMC should hold no shares. Reinvestment cash should be taken as a cut from profits before issuing dividends. Having always a fixed % for reinvestment doesn't make sense in the long term.

My thinking right now is to reduce my ownership from 100% down to 60%

Then in that case:

4,000,000 are issued to the public all at once.
500,000 are on reserve to be issued at a later date.
2,000,000 are held by VMC to pay overhead, Ken's salary, etc.
3,000,000 are also held by VMC and all dividends that are paid to these will be reinvested into the company.

Oops, I forgot how to math. 

3,500,000 are issued to the public all at once.
500,000 are on reserve to be issued at a later date.
2,500,000 are held by VMC to pay overhead, Ken's salary, etc.
3,000,000 are also held by VMC and all dividends that are paid to these will be reinvested into the company.

[Vbs]

Oops, I forgot how to math. 

3,500,000 are issued to the public all at once.
500,000 are on reserve to be issued at a later date.
2,500,000 are held by VMC to pay overhead, Ken's salary, etc.
3,000,000 are also held by VMC and all dividends that are paid to these will be reinvested into the company.

1) You need sufficient shares to do a 1-to-1 trade from AMC to VMC
2) There's no need to "reserve" shares
3) Dividends should be only paid after expenses are factored in. It would not be good to have a fixed share value for that.
4) Having also a fixed % of reinvestment is also not good in the long term

[steveioio]

Oops, I forgot how to math.  

3,500,000 are issued to the public all at once.
500,000 are on reserve to be issued at a later date.
2,500,000 are held by VMC to pay overhead, Ken's salary, etc.
3,000,000 are also held by VMC and all dividends that are paid to these will be reinvested into the company.

1) You need sufficient shares to do a 1-to-1 trade from AMC to VMC
2) There's no need to "reserve" shares
3) Dividends should be only paid after expenses are factored in. It would not be good to have a fixed share value for that.
4) Having also a fixed % of reinvestment is also not good in the long term

Look I'm no rocket scientist but what sort of company holding lots of peoples money has it's structure organized and formulated by some random strangers on an internet thread?

Think about it - your money is in the hands of a company with NO CLUE.

If they can't sort out their own share structure (and have already F-ed up bigtime once already) HOW THE HELL ARE THEY GOING TO MAKE MILLIONS WITH INCREDIBLY COMPLEX ASIC MACHINES? BLF has a team of complete experts yet look at the trouble, the delays, the let downs. How do you think one guy from Springfield who used to run a web hosting server in his garage do? If he's no scammer then he is a very very naive and incompetent businessman. If you want to invest in success you need to invest in talent. I don't see any here.

[SoylentCreek]

Oops, I forgot how to math.  

3,500,000 are issued to the public all at once.
500,000 are on reserve to be issued at a later date.
2,500,000 are held by VMC to pay overhead, Ken's salary, etc.
3,000,000 are also held by VMC and all dividends that are paid to these will be reinvested into the company.

1) You need sufficient shares to do a 1-to-1 trade from AMC to VMC

I made this point earlier, which is why I said that 10,000,000 would be good only if possible.  I do not know how many are currently in the public's hands.

2) There's no need to "reserve" shares

If I understand you correctly, Ken should have the ability to just make more shares out of thin air.  I'm sorry, but I disagree with you on this.  

3) Dividends should be only paid after expenses are factored in. It would not be good to have a fixed share value for that.

I'd like a few more people to chime in on this.

4) Having also a fixed % of reinvestment is also not good in the long term

If I'm not mistaken, this is how AM does it, and it is working fine for them.  Again, there is no need to reinvent an already rolling wheel.

[runam0k]

If you want to invest in success you need to invest in talent. I don't see any here.

Cool. Still planning to stick around or are you going to leave us to it?

[SoylentCreek]

Oops, I forgot how to math.  

3,500,000 are issued to the public all at once.
500,000 are on reserve to be issued at a later date.
2,500,000 are held by VMC to pay overhead, Ken's salary, etc.
3,000,000 are also held by VMC and all dividends that are paid to these will be reinvested into the company.

1) You need sufficient shares to do a 1-to-1 trade from AMC to VMC
2) There's no need to "reserve" shares
3) Dividends should be only paid after expenses are factored in. It would not be good to have a fixed share value for that.
4) Having also a fixed % of reinvestment is also not good in the long term

Look I'm no rocket scientist but what sort of company holding lots of peoples money has it's structure organized and formulated by some random strangers on an internet thread?

Think about it - your money is in the hands of a company with NO CLUE.

If they can't sort out their own share structure (and have already F-ed up bigtime once already) HOW THE HELL ARE THEY GOING TO MAKE MILLIONS WITH INCREDIBLY COMPLEX ASIC MACHINES? BLF has a team of complete experts yet look at the trouble, the delays, the let downs. How do you think one guy from Springfield who used to run a web hosting server in his garage do? If he's no scammer then he is a very very naive and incompetent businessman. If you want to invest in success you need to invest in talent. I don't see any here.

Then don't invest.  Problem solved.  Please do not turn this into another trollfest.  We have actually been making some decent headway.

[lewicki]

My thinking right now is to reduce my ownership from 100% down to 60%

My proposal #2 for the VMC shares would be:

• 10M for investors at 0.0025 (40%)
• 15M for Ken (60%)

For a total of 25M. If more funds are needed in the future, more shares can be issued as needed, as means to increase the capital of VMC.

Ken did/is doing the hard work on everything, so he should get a nice amount of shares, and it's only thanks to him that there's an ASIC coming (one year of work already on optimizing Xilinx code).

Then in that case, 15M go to overhead and 5M remain on reserve (or something to that nature) to be issued to the public on an "as needed" basis only.  Once those 5M are issued, that's it, no more.  Otherwise, Ken will eventually be called out again for trying to manipulate the market again.

No need to, because if more are sold, his % of VMC also diminish. If more 5M are sold, VMC banks all profits from that sale (so it's arguably increasing value) and shareholders will have 50% of VMC while Ken the other 50%.

I'm on board for something like this.

There's 6 million shares currently held by shareholders. Ken said that he needs 10,000 BTC. That WAS 4,000,000 shares @ $100/BTC. AMC sold ~1million @ around 100.0/BTC. He still needs around 8333BTC. Which is 3,333,333 shares @ .0025BTC/share @~$/90BTC

6m+~3.5m, so the 10 for investors makes sense

As far as VMC's cut:
somewhere in the 50 to 70%, so 10-15m for VMC

So:
10M for investors
10-15M for VMC, and do with it as they see fit.
2M unissued shares as reserve.

This way share price exchange is 1-1

[Vbs]

Oops, I forgot how to math.  

3,500,000 are issued to the public all at once.
500,000 are on reserve to be issued at a later date.
2,500,000 are held by VMC to pay overhead, Ken's salary, etc.
3,000,000 are also held by VMC and all dividends that are paid to these will be reinvested into the company.

1) You need sufficient shares to do a 1-to-1 trade from AMC to VMC

I made this point earlier, which is why I said that 10,000,000 would be good only if possible.  I do not know how many are currently in the public's hands.

2) There's no need to "reserve" shares

If I understand you correctly, Ken should have the ability to just make more shares out of thin air.  I'm sorry, but I disagree with you on this.  

3) Dividends should be only paid after expenses are factored in. It would not be good to have a fixed share value for that.

I'd like a few more people to chime in on this.

4) Having also a fixed % of reinvestment is also not good in the long term

If I'm not mistaken, this is how AM does it, and it is working fine for them.  Again, there is no need to reinvent an already rolling wheel.

1) There are around 6M in public hands
2) The question is not about making shares out of thin air. It's about that any shares created must be sold for profit to VMC's coffers, so that VMC's capital increases. It's not making shares out of thin air and gifting them with VMC receiving nothing in return.
4) AM varies the % they keep for reinvestment based on many fluctuating things. That's why you never know what the next dividend is gonna be.

[steveioio]

If you want to invest in success you need to invest in talent. I don't see any here.

Cool. Still planning to stick around or are you going to leave us to it?

If you think this situation has progressed over the past few days (it has certainly changed) then it is thanks to doubters like me not the sycophants. If me and Mega had not persisted with this you would still be in the VMC/AMC mess with no guarantees over rights and ownership. Now Ken from what I've read has said he's looking at solutions. The doubters have made him say that. Whether that is a genuine statement IS YET TO BE KNOWN.

What I'm saying basically is you need to question everything in this setup. When you get answers you then question them too. And finally if you want to invest - you do it ONCE YOU HAVE SEEN THE EVIDENCE. We are still at the question and answer stage and like I said there is still no evidence that this isn't going to end very badly. In any serious investors mind nothing has changed. It's only fools buying AMC right now and if they double or more their money here then on the next investment they will loose it - because they don't know how to ask the right questions.

[mobile]

Look I'm no rocket scientist but what sort of company holding lots of peoples money has it's structure organized and formulated by some random strangers on an internet thread?

Think about it - your money is in the hands of a company with NO CLUE.

If they can't sort out their own share structure (and have already F-ed up bigtime once already) HOW THE HELL ARE THEY GOING TO MAKE MILLIONS WITH INCREDIBLY COMPLEX ASIC MACHINES? BLF has a team of complete experts yet look at the trouble, the delays, the let downs. How do you think one guy from Springfield who used to run a web hosting server in his garage do? If he's no scammer then he is a very very naive and incompetent businessman. If you want to invest in success you need to invest in talent. I don't see any here.

Reading the last couple pages of this thread is a breath of fresh air. Steveioio, not coming at you but help me understand your point on "HOW THE HELL ARE THEY GOING TO MAKE MILLIONS WITH INCREDIBLY COMPLEX ASIC MACHINES?". There was some obvious some gaps with share structure & business side of things, which leaves much room for improvement. If Ken's talent is "engineering" & structuring the company is not then all that is left is improvement from the business side of things, which in my mind is not a massive hurdle.

[SoylentCreek]

My thinking right now is to reduce my ownership from 100% down to 60%

My proposal #2 for the VMC shares would be:

• 10M for investors at 0.0025 (40%)
• 15M for Ken (60%)

For a total of 25M. If more funds are needed in the future, more shares can be issued as needed, as means to increase the capital of VMC.

Ken did/is doing the hard work on everything, so he should get a nice amount of shares, and it's only thanks to him that there's an ASIC coming (one year of work already on optimizing Xilinx code).

Then in that case, 15M go to overhead and 5M remain on reserve (or something to that nature) to be issued to the public on an "as needed" basis only.  Once those 5M are issued, that's it, no more.  Otherwise, Ken will eventually be called out again for trying to manipulate the market again.

No need to, because if more are sold, his % of VMC also diminish. If more 5M are sold, VMC banks all profits from that sale (so it's arguably increasing value) and shareholders will have 50% of VMC while Ken the other 50%.

I'm on board for something like this.

There's 6 million shares currently held by shareholders. Ken said that he needs 10,000 BTC. That WAS 4,000,000 shares @ $100/BTC. AMC sold ~1million @ around 100.0/BTC. He still needs around 8333BTC. Which is 3,333,333 shares @ .0025BTC/share @~$/90BTC

6m+~3.5m, so the 10 for investors makes sense

As far as VMC's cut:
somewhere in the 50 to 70%, so 10-15m for VMC

So:
10M for investors
10-15M for VMC, and do with it as they see fit.
2M unissued shares as reserve.

This way share price exchange is 1-1

I'm for the 25,000,000 shares split 60/40.  Again, the details need to be locked in on VMC's side.  I would suggest 40% for the public, 20% overhead and 40% reinvestment, or you could do 40/30/30.

[steveioio]

Please do not turn this into another trollfest.  We have actually been making some decent headway.

For your own benefit you really need to learn the difference between 'troll' posts and people raising areas of concern and asking genuine questions. Questions that any serious CEO and company have to answer.

[Exocyst]

A couple points, so they don't get lost in the share shuffle. These would help VMC succeed:

• VMC Contract on Bitfunder can be changed with shareholder approval (this would have made AMC capture of VMC much simpler)
• VMC can post motions for shareholder approval (this would have made VMC capture of AMC much simpler)
• Plan to passthrough new VMC offering to btct.co, so that BitFunder wary investors have another option for investing (this will obviously take time to get approved LTC-GLOBAL, so is not a top priority but I would like to see a plan in place)

[SoylentCreek]

If you want to invest in success you need to invest in talent. I don't see any here.

Cool. Still planning to stick around or are you going to leave us to it?

If you think this situation has progressed over the past few days (it has certainly changed) then it is thanks to doubters like me not the sycophants. If me and Mega had not persisted with this you would still be in the VMC/AMC mess with no guarantees over rights and ownership. Now Ken from what I've read has said he's looking at solutions. The doubters have made him say that. Whether that is a genuine statement IS YET TO BE KNOWN.

What I'm saying basically is you need to question everything in this setup. When you get answers you then question them too. And finally if you want to invest - you do it ONCE YOU HAVE SEEN THE EVIDENCE. We are still at the question and answer stage and like I said there is still no evidence that this isn't going to end very badly. In any serious investors mind nothing has changed. It's only fools buying AMC right now and if they double or more their money here then on the next investment they will loose it - because they don't know how to ask the right questions.

You hear that?  It's the sound of no one caring.  I think a majority of us who have a stake in this company, put in no more than we were willing to lose.  Now, we are working to try to get this company in a position where we will hopefully see some decent ROI at some point.  Now, if you have nothing else to add, please run along sweet child.

[SoylentCreek]

A couple points, so they don't get lost in the share shuffle. These would help VMC succeed:

• VMC Contract on Bitfunder can be changed with shareholder approval (this would have made AMC capture of VMC much simpler)
• VMC can post motions for shareholder approval (this would have made VMC capture of AMC much simpler)
• Plan to passthrough new VMC offering to btct.co, so that BitFunder wary investors have another option for investing (this will obviously take time to get approved LTC-GLOBAL, so is not a top priority but I would like to see a plan in place)

Technically, if VMC plans to always hold 60% of the company, then there is no need to allow voting privileges, other than it being a good gesture.  However, the option to modify the contract is a definite must that should have been implemented originally.

[steveioio]

There was some obvious some gaps with share structure & business side of things, which leaves much room for improvement. If Ken's talent is "engineering" & structuring the company is not then all that is left is improvement from the business side of things, which in my mind is not a massive hurdle.

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? How many missed deadlines and non-shipping of goods promised are people going to take from AMC before the shares you all paid good money for nose dive? What happens then? Does VMC fold?

Lets face it - everyone is looking at the upside potential of these shares and that's natural as everyone wants to be wealthy. But just stop for a minute and think about how the hell one guy is going to do what BFL couldn't do. BFL are coming round now but if Ken takes that long VMC will fail. If he's twice as quick to the market he might do well. CAN HE BE TWICE AS QUICK TO THE MARKET AS BFL? WITH ALL THEIR EXPERTISE THEY COULDN'T DO WHAT KEN IS PROMISING.

That's the logistical concern and it's a massive one ontop of the legal side of this, let's face it, farce.

[Exocyst]

A couple points, so they don't get lost in the share shuffle. These would help VMC succeed:

• VMC Contract on Bitfunder can be changed with shareholder approval (this would have made AMC capture of VMC much simpler)
• VMC can post motions for shareholder approval (this would have made VMC capture of AMC much simpler)
• Plan to passthrough new VMC offering to btct.co, so that BitFunder wary investors have another option for investing (this will obviously take time to get approved LTC-GLOBAL, so is not a top priority but I would like to see a plan in place)

Technically, if VMC plans to always hold 60% of the company, then there is no need to allow voting privileges, other than it being a good gesture.  However, the option to modify the contract is a definite must that should have been implemented originally.

It is critical to have a voting provision, for Ken to have the ability to poll shareholder opinion in a formal way rather than on this forum thread which is not limited to shareholders.