If you want to see AMC listed on BitFunder.Com Vote YES Here.

[kslaughter]

Vote YES if you want to have a chance to invest in the most dynamic mining company to challenge ASICMiner.

If you have any questions about the offering you can give me a call at the number listed below.  My extension is 700 or
if you like PM me.

Read the offering here: https://bitfunder.com/asset/AMC

Here are some advantages AMC investors receive.

First,

Investors start getting revenue as soon as the 6 Avalons on order start mining and producing income. Another advantage to investors.

Investors get 50% of the profit from the machines and 50% of the profit goes into a growth and expansion fund to purchase more
bitcoin mining machines to produce more revenue for the Investors.  The maximum expenses is 10% of revenue.  This split
is guaranteed for the first 12 months from the date of the IPO. Advantage to the investors in AMC.

Second,

AMC gets the first machines VMC produces.  AMC can't get the first machines Avalon or BFl produces.  Advantage to investors in AMC.

Third,

AMC gets the first rights on future machines VMC produces.  Another advantage to investors in AMC.

Fourth,

AMC gets a 10% royalty from VMC on machines that use AMC technology. Another advantage to investors in AMC

Last,

AMC purchases machines from VMC at manufactures cost.  AMC can't purchase Avalons or BFL machines at manufactures cost. This is a big advantage to investors in AMC.


All of the above is why AMC is a good investment and why you should vote YES!

Kenneth E. Slaughter, CEO
Virtual Mining Corporation
(855) One-Bitcoin (663-2482)

[Mac65]

I vote Yes

[Mac65]

I vote Yes,
Sorry, not trying to vote twice. Just didn't hit the reply the first time.

[InstantBTC]

IMHO, it is not. Based on my conversation with you, I feel like it's not ready for a relauch. However, if you where to address my concerns that we discussed. I would vote yes and I would even give serious consideration to investing.

[usagi]

I say fine, let 'em launch, but I think that you are being a little too ambitious.

If you have six avalons on order, just open a mining company and pay your dividends out for a couple of months, and then start either a new issue as another subsidiary of VMC, or announce that as part of your growth and maintenance plan you will be porting and/or developing ASICs. There's no need to hit people over the head with 3 year forward estimates of ordering 100s of 80ghash and 400gh miners. Okay, you have vision, that's nice, but what investors want and need is to see you execute on a simple plan first. In short, just be a miner for now, and gain trust with lots of photos of your gear, a few interviews, and not stealing people's money like Ian Bakewell.

Just give us a name and a telephone number for an investor relations contact and you should be ok.

[furuknap]

I vote no for a couple of reasons. I have read the original thread, including the points made by the other participants.

1. I freak out when I see

Return on Investment(ROI) Early Adopters: 40,000,000 Issued Shares
Net Estimated ROI/24 Months Early-Adopters @ .0005 BTC/Share------2,812%/24 Months for an APR of 1,405%
Return on Investment(ROI) Fully Diluted: 100,000,000 Issued Shares
Net Estimated ROI/24 Months Early-Adopters @ .001 BTC/Share------------562% /24 Months for an APR of 281%

(my epmhasis)

Instinctively, numbers such as these makes me cringe, and I'm much more hesitant to trust the prospectus. That said, based on your projection of grossing 562K BTC, with a 10% cost, your ROI calculations may be right on the money. I did come up with ฿0.001458 over 24 months, but I may have used slightly different numbers.

As such, I reviewed the financials, and I cannot find sufficient details to defend such revenue claims.

2. You want to grab 25% of the BTC mining market, or its equivalent.

In 24 months, roughly, there will be 2.5M BTC mined. You propose to gross 25% of that on average. I find that difficult to believe, seeing the competion is already way on its way to grab a significant share. You would not only have to catch up with them, you will need to beat them at a game they have been playing far longer (and in ASIC terms, a year is two generations).

For me to invest, I would want to see real deliveries that match your projections. In other words, you would need to prove that you a) have a plan with dates and b) that the plan and the dates match up with real deliverables.

3. The plan

I don't see sufficiently credible evidence about your earning projections. 'Whenever someone else delivers something' is not a very comforting statment (as you have said with your Avalon deliveries). I understand that the control will be better once VMC starts, but even these projections are very vague (5-10 weeks; which is it? estimated maximum production time of 12 months; what is realistic? 12 months is a lifetime, if it's 1 month, it can be great, if it's 12 months, it can be a disaster).

Come up with realistic milestones (Avalon delivered by May 1, next-gen ASIC published schematics date XXX, ng ASIC production order date YY, etc). Stick to them, report on progress, and show that you have your act together.

[kslaughter]

I say fine, let 'em launch, but I think that you are being a little too ambitious.

Just give us a name and a telephone number for an investor relations contact and you should be ok.

Here is you name and number:

Kenneth E. Slaughter
855-One-Bitcoin (663-2482) X700

[lophie]

Bitfunder asset is frozen 

[kslaughter]

Bitfunder asset is frozen  

That is what this vote is about.  If you want to see AMC listed on bitfunder.com and made active and unfrozen the vote YES.  If
you want to have a chance to invest then vote YES.

[ninjaboon]

I vote Yes.

[Deprived]

I voted no.  Reason is this:

1.  Are any commitments (with penalties for failure to meet) being made by VMC to AML in respect of delivery of the hardware?
2.  What rights does AML have to cancel the agreement with VMC - specifically if VMC fails to meet deadlines/performance targets?  It's pretty critical that this crystal clear if the two entities are managed by the same team - otherwise conflict of interest issues could easily arise.
3.  Further to 3. can you confirm that if VMC fails (to a large extent) to meet deadlines/performance targets then AML WOULD cancel the contract and look for alternative sourcing?
4.  If VMC fails to deliver in a reasonable time-frame is there any assurance that they would be able to refund AML the pre-order funds?


Where two entities run by the same team interact AND take outside investment it's absolutely key that all interaction between them is precisely defined in advance.

More general questions relating to VMC:

Obviously VMC needs a certain amount of capital to produce the ASICs.  You've indicated that it may be seperately listed.

1.  Would VMC be able to produce the hardware with ONLY the pre-order cash from AML (plus whatever cash you already have from other sources for it)?
2.  If the answer to 1. is NO then what happens if VML fails to raise sufficient capital?  What percentage (roughly) of necessary capital does the AML pre-order funds represent?
3.  If the answer to 1. is YES then why would you need to float VML?

+10

Great post Deprived.

I will be creating a contract between AMC and VMC that will protect the investors of AMC and be fair to VMC.

I will post the proposed contract here in this thread.  The contract will be executed as soon as AMC has funding.

Sight of the contract between AML/VMC (and any undertakings given by VMC in respect to ability to refund preorders if VMC fails) is essential for potential investors to make any sort of informed decision on the extent to which the pre-orders with VMC have value in the event of VMC encountering difficulties.  Contracts such as this particularly need to be disclsoed in advance where there's a potential conflict of interest (which there obviously is if you're acting on behalf of both parties) - as a clear contract is what stops any such conflict arising in practice.  That's also why, of course, not only is the contract needed but an explicit answer to my question 3 (which can only be given once the contract is published) - so that the decision about when a refund would be requested is made now rather than having to be addressed later when there'd be an enormous conflict of interest (as it would NEVER be in VMC's interest for AML to cancel the pre-order).

[kslaughter]

I voted no.  Reason is this:

1.  Are any commitments (with penalties for failure to meet) being made by VMC to AML in respect of delivery of the hardware?
2.  What rights does AML have to cancel the agreement with VMC - specifically if VMC fails to meet deadlines/performance targets?  It's pretty critical that this crystal clear if the two entities are managed by the same team - otherwise conflict of interest issues could easily arise.
3.  Further to 3. can you confirm that if VMC fails (to a large extent) to meet deadlines/performance targets then AML WOULD cancel the contract and look for alternative sourcing?
4.  If VMC fails to deliver in a reasonable time-frame is there any assurance that they would be able to refund AML the pre-order funds?


Where two entities run by the same team interact AND take outside investment it's absolutely key that all interaction between them is precisely defined in advance.

More general questions relating to VMC:

Obviously VMC needs a certain amount of capital to produce the ASICs.  You've indicated that it may be seperately listed.

1.  Would VMC be able to produce the hardware with ONLY the pre-order cash from AML (plus whatever cash you already have from other sources for it)?
2.  If the answer to 1. is NO then what happens if VML fails to raise sufficient capital?  What percentage (roughly) of necessary capital does the AML pre-order funds represent?
3.  If the answer to 1. is YES then why would you need to float VML?

+10

Great post Deprived.

I will be creating a contract between AMC and VMC that will protect the investors of AMC and be fair to VMC.

I will post the proposed contract here in this thread.  The contract will be executed as soon as AMC has funding.

Sight of the contract between AML/VMC (and any undertakings given by VMC in respect to ability to refund preorders if VMC fails) is essential for potential investors to make any sort of informed decision on the extent to which the pre-orders with VMC have value in the event of VMC encountering difficulties.  Contracts such as this particularly need to be disclsoed in advance where there's a potential conflict of interest (which there obviously is if you're acting on behalf of both parties) - as a clear contract is what stops any such conflict arising in practice.  That's also why, of course, not only is the contract needed but an explicit answer to my question 3 (which can only be given once the contract is published) - so that the decision about when a refund would be requested is made now rather than having to be addressed later when there'd be an enormous conflict of interest (as it would NEVER be in VMC's interest for AML to cancel the pre-order).

See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=158806.msg1979322#msg1979322 for answers to the concerns above.