|
kslaughter
|
 |
June 24, 2013, 01:38:34 AM |
|
(...)
AMC - Price: 100 000 000 * 0.0008 = 80000 BTC. Book value (6 Avalons at 70 GH/s + 5 TH/s of future hashing) 2260 BTC. Price to book 35
It should be obvious why these securities are beneficial only to their issuers, and why listings for BFMINES and AMC on BTCT.co should be rejected.
There is a difference between outstanding shares and authorized shares. I would suggest you looking into it before writing these shiny pearls of information...  You are nothing but a useful idiot for Ken. Ken has issued 100 Million shares. He controls 60 million of these shares. 20 million of those are a vehicle for retained earnings. They are still outstanding shares. And the price to book for AMC is still 35. Well over 10 times ASICMINER right now. There are only 40 Million Issued shares. See the proof below: From your asset profile on Bitfunder: 1 share of AMC on BitFunder represents 1/100,000,000th of 100% of the monthly profits after all expenses.
AMC shares offer no voting rights. Shares of AMC on BitFunder do not represent real world shares of the
company. The shares are solely a distribution mechanism for rights to profits.
20,000,000 shares will be retained by AMC to maintain a growth and expansion fund.
As of the time of this writing, up to 40,000,000 will be released over time to the public on a varying
time scale as capital is required to complete the project. Any remaining shares not included in the
IPO are owned/maintained/controlled by AMC. These shares will be used at the issuers discretion
for any uses deemed fit. These uses are not limited to, but may include employment.
1 share is one 100 millionth of AMC. And AMC's assets are worth less than 1/35th of the share price. Plus as you specifically state, "As long as AMC does not sell it's shares below 0.0005 then they may do as they please with their shares. It is their company, their ownership, and their shares." So you can fuck your shareholders any way you want, if you ever decide that a 3500% mark up wasn't enough. SDICE shareholders are learning all about that experience right now. @Entropy-Uc Have you ever disclosed that AMC is your competitor, because you are a miner yourself. |
|
|
|
|
|
Entropy-uc (OP)
|
|
June 24, 2013, 01:44:29 AM |
|
And the price to book for AMC is still 35. Well over 10 times ASICMINER right now.
@Entropy-Uc Have you ever disclosed that AMC is your competitor, because you are a miner yourself. LOL. Yes, you are a terrifying competitor to me. Because as you say, I have mining hardware. In fact I hold a deep hatred for anyone with a GPU and a copy of cgminer. Get a grip on reality. Your business is selling shares to suckers. I don't sell shares to suckers. So I am not your competitor. I do have more hashpower than you and your 'company' on order, all of it paid for with profits from bitcoin mining. And it does disgust me the way people like you rip off newbies to bitcoin. And I worry that this kind of scamming, much like the more blatant ripoffs that are endemic here will damage the long term value of bitcoin. That is my stake in the argument. By the way. Nice try to change the topic from your lie that there are only 40 Million shares in AMC. |
|
|
|
|
|
kslaughter
|
|
June 24, 2013, 01:47:33 AM |
|
Here is my calculation of the Price To Book value of AMC
5.651 TH/s future hashing starting by August 31, 2013 at 40,000,000 Difficulty (Over 2X the current difficulty) by that time would generate $1,458,007.07 in eight months, the time left for the 40,000,000 Million shares to receive 100% of the dividends. Now, take 50% of that revenue stream and reinvested that back in mining to keep the revenue stream up with the rise of the difficulty for the next 8 months. Now, the revenue stream after the 50% reductions would be $729,003.535. Now, lets convert that to BTC at the conversion rate used in the profit calculation which was $104.87 so that is 6951.497425384 BTC. Now, lets calculate the Price To Book Value which would be (40,000,000 * .0008) / 6951.497425384 = 4.603324729 Price To Book Value, which makes AMC at this point a great value.
Of course, Bitcoinx.com "Extrapolating bitcoin difficulty or price is pure voodoo", but above we have tried to take a stab at something that just might be close. This does give us some idea of what the value of AMC is at this point in time.
Kenneth E. Slaughter, CEO/CTO
Active Mining Corporation
95 Wilton Road
Suite 3
London
SW1V 1BZ
United Kingdom
Fax: +44 (0)20 3004 1756
Active Mining Corporation (AMC) is a Belize International Business Company DBA Active Mining Cooperative and
is a wholly owned subsidiary of Virtual Mining Corporation (VMC) a Delaware Corporation.
You are talking about earnings, and in an incredibly disingenuous way.
Book Value is the value of the assets owned by a company. That is your 6 Avalons, and the orders you have for Avalon chips - although it's not clear what is owned by VMC your company versus AMC the shell company you are selling shares in. The Avalons I priced at 3 BTC / GH/s which is about 50% higher than Avalons are selling for at auction today. I also attributed a generous valuation to the chips on order at the cost of hashpower when they would be ready, rather than the purchase price of the chips. Still I get a price to book of 35. Hardly the 2 that ASICMINER sold at when they were raising funds, and certainly in no way comparable to the ~3 they are valued at today. I wonder why you keep comparing yourself to Friedcat? You are exactly right about Book Value, however in the Bitcoin world Book Value really does mean anything. Where can you buy anything for $4,500 which is what the 3 Avalon's AMC has hashing now cost and get ~$4,500 a week for that asset which is what the Avalon's are making at this time. So, I used the income stream over the next 8 months as the value of the asset, makes a lot more since in the world of Bitcoin than what you tried to prove with you high Price To Book Value example. |
|
|
|
|
|
furuknap
|
|
June 24, 2013, 01:47:50 AM |
|
Hardly the 2 that ASICMINER sold at when they were raising funds, and certainly in no way comparable to the ~3 they are valued at today. I wonder why you keep comparing yourself to Friedcat?
Hang on... Your valuing AM at ~3? What is the asset value of AM? It certainly cannot be any existing blades because by your own definition, those will never make a profit. In other words, in a situation where AM would be liquidated, they would need to sell those blades at market value, which you've claimed is never profitable and only sold to idiots (their market price for their blades were 0,005/mhs and my asset priced 20% lower will according to you never make a profit). Or are you pricing them based on acquisition cost? If so, would they be able to sell them at acquisition cost? I think I read that AM pays about $10,000 per TH/s, which is $10 per GH/s, and according to your earlier statements, that's ripping people off (or rather, selling at anything above 2x that would be ripping people off). Because AM currently mines at ~43TH/s and probably has a bit more in reserve (say the original 62TH/s they claimed they ordered) their book value must be 62*$10000*2 which is $1,24 million. With a price of all 400K shares of 3BTC, however, the price of AM is $120 million or a P/B of almost 100. Where do you get your remaining $58.6 million in book value? Does AM have 600TH in mining blades on hold somewhere? Do they have a stock of 580,000 USB miners in their warehouse? .b Edit: My bad, I used P/B of 2, not 3. you only need to account for $31.06 million to reach a P/B of 3. .b |
|
|
|
|
Vbs
|
|
June 24, 2013, 01:53:26 AM |
|
Guys!!!  Please stop! You are ruining his chances on getting the next Nobel on Economic Sciences on the use of Book Value as the mother of all measures!  |
|
|
|
|
|
kslaughter
|
|
June 24, 2013, 01:55:31 AM |
|
And the price to book for AMC is still 35. Well over 10 times ASICMINER right now.
@Entropy-Uc Have you ever disclosed that AMC is your competitor, because you are a miner yourself. LOL. Yes, you are a terrifying competitor to me. Because as you say, I have mining hardware. In fact I hold a deep hatred for anyone with a GPU and a copy of cgminer. Get a grip on reality. Your business is selling shares to suckers. I don't sell shares to suckers. So I am not your competitor. I do have more hashpower than you and your 'company' on order, all of it paid for with profits from bitcoin mining. And it does disgust me the way people like you rip off newbies to bitcoin. And I worry that this kind of scamming, much like the more blatant ripoffs that are endemic here will damage the long term value of bitcoin. That is my stake in the argument. By the way. Nice try to change the topic from your lie that there are only 40 Million shares in AMC. Your stake, since you are a miner is to try and keep AMC down, so that your hashing rate will make you more bitcoins. You have said this in your post before and I will paraphrase "Mining is a zero sum game you have to take it away from some other miner to make it yourself". So that is your stake in attacking AMC. AMC is building a very large mining farm and you want to do everything you can to stop what we are doing. It has nothing to do with you trying to protect newbies and everything to do with protecting your mining income. Yes, you are a competitor AMC mines bitcoins you mine bitcoins, very simple. That is the truth, there are only 40 Million Issued shares of AMC. Just look at the image posted in this thread. |
|
|
|
|
|
Entropy-uc (OP)
|
|
June 24, 2013, 02:00:48 AM |
|
And the price to book for AMC is still 35. Well over 10 times ASICMINER right now.
@Entropy-Uc Have you ever disclosed that AMC is your competitor, because you are a miner yourself. LOL. Yes, you are a terrifying competitor to me. Because as you say, I have mining hardware. In fact I hold a deep hatred for anyone with a GPU and a copy of cgminer. Get a grip on reality. Your business is selling shares to suckers. I don't sell shares to suckers. So I am not your competitor. I do have more hashpower than you and your 'company' on order, all of it paid for with profits from bitcoin mining. And it does disgust me the way people like you rip off newbies to bitcoin. And I worry that this kind of scamming, much like the more blatant ripoffs that are endemic here will damage the long term value of bitcoin. That is my stake in the argument. By the way. Nice try to change the topic from your lie that there are only 40 Million shares in AMC. Your stake, since you are a miner is to try and keep AMC down, so that your hashing rate will make you more bitcoins. You have said this in your post before and I will paraphrase "Mining is a zero sum game you have to take it away from some other miner to make it yourself". So that is your stake in attacking AMC. AMC is building a very large mining farm and you want to do everything you can to stop what we are doing. It has nothing to do with you trying to protect newbies and everything to do with protecting your mining income. Yes, you are a competitor AMC mines bitcoins you mine bitcoins, very simple. That is the truth, there are only 40 Million Issued shares of AMC. I have said no such thing but go ahead and imagine what you will. 1 share entitles you to 100 Millionth of the profits after expenses. Whether there are 6 or 60 million circulating doesn't matter. In terms of valuation there are effectively 100 Million. Ukyo has busted you for lying about revenues. I doubt he would be pleased to see you deceiving people about the ownership rights of the shares on these boards. |
|
|
|
|
|
Vbs
|
|
June 24, 2013, 02:01:51 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
furuknap
|
|
June 24, 2013, 02:11:52 AM |
|
62 TH/s at 3 B / GH/s, plus the 200 TH/s of hardware on the way, plus inventory of USB miners for sale, plus the business value of the sales of hardware. P/B of 3 is probably low because I have know idea of the value of the capital equipment they have in terms of power supplies and cooling etc for the data centers.
I see. So, selling at 3BTC/Ghs, or $300/Ghs, is not ripping people off, when selling at $400/Ghs is? Where is the line between ripoff and not ripoff? Halfway between? Would you then agree that at $350/GHs, my investment would be a good investment? Or do you expect that the valuation of AM must be based on finding $120 million in sucker's pockets? Besides, as I understand it, AM doesn't hold funds back much at all, certainly not enough for paying off 200TH at $10K/THs. They had to hold back dividends to pay for USB miners for one. Investors have always needed to pay for additional blades from their dividends. That's fine, but it's a bit of a stretch to account for TH they haven't paid as part of book value. The inventory of USB miners were around 6,000 last I checked, so that's another ~$600,000 with the latest price of 0,99/333mhs. Keep going, you're down to not accounting for $31 million. But let's give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you were able to sell off your blades at $300/GHs. With 62TH owned (assuming they didn't sell a single blade, just to be nice) we're talking about $18 million, which would get AM to a much more respectable P/B of 6. Of course, it's still nowhere near 3, so you'd need to conjure up another $15 million and still find that sucker with $40 million in cash. .b |
|
|
|
|
Entropy-uc (OP)
|
|
June 24, 2013, 02:15:51 AM |
|
62 TH/s at 3 B / GH/s, plus the 200 TH/s of hardware on the way, plus inventory of USB miners for sale, plus the business value of the sales of hardware. P/B of 3 is probably low because I have know idea of the value of the capital equipment they have in terms of power supplies and cooling etc for the data centers.
I see. So, selling at 3BTC/Ghs, or $300/Ghs, is not ripping people off, when selling at $400/Ghs is? Where is the line between ripoff and not ripoff? Halfway between? Would you then agree that at $350/GHs, my investment would be a good investment? Or do you expect that the valuation of AM must be based on finding $120 million in sucker's pockets? Besides, as I understand it, AM doesn't hold funds back much at all, certainly not enough for paying off 200TH at $10K/THs. They had to hold back dividends to pay for USB miners for one. Investors have always needed to pay for additional blades from their dividends. That's fine, but it's a bit of a stretch to account for TH they haven't paid as part of book value. The inventory of USB miners were around 6,000 last I checked, so that's another ~$600,000 with the latest price of 0,99/333mhs. Keep going, you're down to not accounting for $31 million. But let's give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you were able to sell off your blades at $300/GHs. With 62TH owned (assuming they didn't sell a single blade, just to be nice) we're talking about $18 million, which would get AM to a much more respectable P/B of 6. Of course, it's still nowhere near 3, so you'd need to conjure up another $15 million and still find that sucker with $40 million in cash. .b How much did you pay for the hardware you have ordered? That is the value of the assets you are selling. How much are you pricing the assets at? Divide the 2. That is a price to book value. What's a good price to book? That depends upon the investment, and the investor's view of the future of the asset. I am just showing a straightforward benchmark. If you don't like what it tells you, then maybe you need to restructure your deal. |
|
|
|
|
|
furuknap
|
|
June 24, 2013, 02:19:40 AM |
|
How much did you pay for the hardware you have ordered?
That is the value of the assets you are selling.
Cool, thanks for the clarification. You're using acquisition cost and AM now has a P/B of around 100. How much are you pricing the assets at?
Divide the 2. That is a price to book value.
OK, so my acquisition cost is aroud $10000/THs. I sell it at $500000/THs. My P/B is thus 50 right? .b |
|
|
|
|
Vbs
|
|
June 24, 2013, 02:25:17 AM |
|
Absolutely. If I didn't have a method to value the future hardware that is on order your darling AMC would have a price to book of 100:1. You would howl like a baby then wouldn't you.
AuuuUUUuuuUUU (can I be a baby wolf?) My darling AMC has currently sold 5M shares to investors at a minimum of BTC0.0005/share, so BTC2500 minimum. Using your math it has only BTC2260 in "assets" (seems like the wallet balance doesn't count for you). Pretty good I'd say. But you already knew that. Your book value also assumes all shares are sold to investors, which is false ofc. Once more shares are sold, the price to book can only go down. But you already knew that too. Only 40M shares receive dividends so far. Again, you already knew that. Failing to use all available information for transparency is what really makes this thread a joke.  (Not that I'm complaining, as I love a daily dose of humor!  ) |
|
|
|
|
|
Entropy-uc (OP)
|
|
June 24, 2013, 02:27:47 AM |
|
How much did you pay for the hardware you have ordered?
That is the value of the assets you are selling.
Cool, thanks for the clarification. You're using acquisition cost and AM now has a P/B of around 100. How much are you pricing the assets at?
Divide the 2. That is a price to book value.
OK, so my acquisition cost is aroud $10000/THs. I sell it at $500000/THs. My P/B is thus 50 right? .b If you are selling something for 50 times the value of the underlying assets, you have a price to book of 50. Did the hashpower you have on order cost you 2% of your proposed bond price? You seem to be confused about valuing assets that are on hand and operating, versus hardware that will arrive sometime in the future. Hardware on hand is substantially more valuable than a promise of hardware sometime in the future. KNC sold hashpower to be delivered this fall at $20 / GH/s, so that is a decent valuation for hardware delivered at that time. Folks on here seem to think that $300 / GH/s is a reasonable number for hardware on hand today. So I used that value for all my comparisons. I actually think it is a bit high, since the clearing price for Avalons seems to be closer to 2 BTC / GH/s but I used 3 to save on debating the precise valuation. Your asset could be worth more if you waited until the hardware arrives and is operational. Or it could be delayed greatly. You are trying to offload that risk, and take a handsome profit in advance. |
|
|
|
|
|
Entropy-uc (OP)
|
|
June 24, 2013, 02:30:47 AM |
|
Absolutely. If I didn't have a method to value the future hardware that is on order your darling AMC would have a price to book of 100:1. You would howl like a baby then wouldn't you.
AuuuUUUuuuUUU (can I be a baby wolf?) My darling AMC has currently sold 5M shares to investors at a minimum of BTC0.0005/share, so BTC2500 minimum. Using your math it has only BTC2260 in "assets" (seems like the wallet balance doesn't count for you). Pretty good I'd say. But you already knew that. Your book value also assumes all shares are sold to investors, which is false ofc. Once more shares are sold, the price to book can only go down. But you already knew that too. Only 40M shares receive dividends so far. Again, you already knew that. Failing to use all available information for transparency is what really makes this thread a joke. (Not that I'm complaining, as I love a daily dose of humor! ) Here is the exact statement from AMC's bitfunder profile. "1 share of AMC on BitFunder represents 1/100,000,000th of 100% of the monthly profits after all expenses."Regardless of any short term arrangement, that is what you own when you buy AMC. Laugh all you want. In less than 6 months you will be crying about the money you lost. I've seen at least 3 cycles of this already. |
|
|
|
|
|
Deprived
|
|
June 24, 2013, 02:31:04 AM |
|
The money's always in selling spades not in digging. That's why ASICMINER is so much better than most - as they do both.
PMBs rent you a spade - usually at a price that's a LOT more than actually buying a spade yourself.
Mining shares use YOUR (investors) money to buy spades, dig with them and keep some of whatever's produced by digging themselves. Even when the spade never digs enough to cover its cost.
AMC uses YOUR money so another company owned by Ken can make profit from building and selling spades. You get some spades yourself in return, but have to pay for your them in advance to him even though by the time the spades arrive you could probably buy them elsewhere cheaper. There's no guarantee the spades will ever be delivered - and no penalty in the contract if they're late.
I think Entropy's P/B valuation is unfair on AMC - as it should also include whatever cash AMC has. But Ken pretending his personal shares don't count as they aren't shown as issued on Bitfunder is hilarious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
furuknap
|
|
June 24, 2013, 02:32:56 AM |
|
OK, so my acquisition cost is aroud $10000/THs. I sell it at $500000/THs. My P/B is thus 50 right?
If you are selling something for 50 times the value of the underlying assets, you have a price to book of 50. Did the hashpower you have on order cost you 2% of your proposed bond price? Oh, sorry, my bad, I got the numbers wrong; those were the numbers for AM and their sales of Erupter blades. .b |
|
|
|
|
furuknap
|
|
June 24, 2013, 02:34:51 AM |
|
The money's always in selling spades not in digging. That's why ASICMINER is so much better than most - as they do both.
PMBs rent you a spade - usually at a price that's a LOT more than actually buying a spade yourself.
Technically, PMBs also dig for you, if you want the analogy correct :-) However, you're right that this usually costs you more than if you bought the spade and dug yourself. .b |
|
|
|
|
Deprived
|
|
June 24, 2013, 02:36:32 AM |
|
The money's always in selling spades not in digging. That's why ASICMINER is so much better than most - as they do both.
PMBs rent you a spade - usually at a price that's a LOT more than actually buying a spade yourself.
Technically, PMBs also dig for you, if you want the analogy correct :-) However, you're right that this usually costs you more than if you bought the spade and dug yourself. .b I was talking about the outcome - the analogy isn't correct in terms of where the spade physically resides and who does the digging. Lease would probably have been a better term than rent - the buyers don't own the spades but DO get all that it produces. EDIT: And yes - it HAS to be more than the cost of buying a spade or there'd be no point anyone selling a PMB. The issue isn't the "more" it's the "LOTS". |
|
|
|
|
|
Vbs
|
|
June 24, 2013, 02:44:39 AM |
|
The money's always in selling spades not in digging. That's why ASICMINER is so much better than most - as they do both.
PMBs rent you a spade - usually at a price that's a LOT more than actually buying a spade yourself.
Mining shares use YOUR (investors) money to buy spades, dig with them and keep some of whatever's produced by digging themselves. Even when the spade never digs enough to cover its cost.
AMC uses YOUR money so another company owned by Ken can make profit from building and selling spades. You get some spades yourself in return, but have to pay for your them in advance to him even though by the time the spades arrive you could probably buy them elsewhere cheaper. There's no guarantee the spades will ever be delivered - and no penalty in the contract if they're late.
I think Entropy's P/B valuation is unfair on AMC - as it should also include whatever cash AMC has. But Ken pretending his personal shares don't count as they aren't shown as issued on Bitfunder is hilarious.
I agree with your spades metaphor. However, he is valuing AMC against assets that are selling a fixed amount of spades, at a fixed price, so they have a static book value. As AMC is buying more spades with any shares sold+dividends (income), its book value is constantly increasing, as the maximum share number is already fixed. |
|
|
|
|
|
Entropy-uc (OP)
|
|
June 24, 2013, 02:46:25 AM |
|
The money's always in selling spades not in digging. That's why ASICMINER is so much better than most - as they do both.
PMBs rent you a spade - usually at a price that's a LOT more than actually buying a spade yourself.
Mining shares use YOUR (investors) money to buy spades, dig with them and keep some of whatever's produced by digging themselves. Even when the spade never digs enough to cover its cost.
AMC uses YOUR money so another company owned by Ken can make profit from building and selling spades. You get some spades yourself in return, but have to pay for your them in advance to him even though by the time the spades arrive you could probably buy them elsewhere cheaper. There's no guarantee the spades will ever be delivered - and no penalty in the contract if they're late.
I think Entropy's P/B valuation is unfair on AMC - as it should also include whatever cash AMC has. But Ken pretending his personal shares don't count as they aren't shown as issued on Bitfunder is hilarious.
You are correct. Any cash assets that are owned by AMC should be included in the book value. But I don't see any clear accounting that shows such cash on hand. SDICE shareholders found themselves out 6100 BTC when Erik decided that dice funds were actually his. I don't see any documentation that would prevent the same gambit from Ken. In any event it would be immaterial. Changing the P/B from 35 to 32 isn't going to make AMC a good investment. |
|
|
|
|
|
