[ActiveMining] The Official Active Mining Discussion Thread

[Streets 2.0]

How are we going with the AMC BTC-TC -----> AM BTC-TC. I see its still awaiting approval by BTC-TC?

Nothing on that we can do but wait for approving votes

BTCT would probably give at least 1 more approval vote if the requested ticker were changed from AM to ACTM.

"BlackLilac voted ABSTAIN with comment: I find it very questionable that this asset is trying to use the abbreviation "AM". That seems like an apparent attempt to cause confusion between and/or association with ASICMINER."

I share the same opinion - at the minimum, it gives the appearance that ActiveMiner is embracing brand confusion as a marketing ploy. Why not clear this up?

The ticker is ActiveMining

Update:  Removed the AM after ActiveMining in the details.

That's a good move, I think the details was the hang up since clearly it is tickered as ACTIVEMINING

[kleeck]

How are we going with the AMC BTC-TC -----> AM BTC-TC. I see its still awaiting approval by BTC-TC?

Nothing on that we can do but wait for approving votes

BTCT would probably give at least 1 more approval vote if the requested ticker were changed from AM to ACTM.

"BlackLilac voted ABSTAIN with comment: I find it very questionable that this asset is trying to use the abbreviation "AM". That seems like an apparent attempt to cause confusion between and/or association with ASICMINER."

I share the same opinion - at the minimum, it gives the appearance that ActiveMiner is embracing brand confusion as a marketing ploy. Why not clear this up?

What does the score need to be for the security to be launched? Or is that not how this process works?

[canth]

How are we going with the AMC BTC-TC -----> AM BTC-TC. I see its still awaiting approval by BTC-TC?

Nothing on that we can do but wait for approving votes

BTCT would probably give at least 1 more approval vote if the requested ticker were changed from AM to ACTM.

"BlackLilac voted ABSTAIN with comment: I find it very questionable that this asset is trying to use the abbreviation "AM". That seems like an apparent attempt to cause confusion between and/or association with ASICMINER."

I share the same opinion - at the minimum, it gives the appearance that ActiveMiner is embracing brand confusion as a marketing ploy. Why not clear this up?

The ticker is ActiveMining

Update:  Removed the AM after ActiveMining in the details.

Good deal. As to the question of how many votes are needed, the answer is at least 5 and then with a majority if there are no's.

[lewicki]

What does the score need to be for the security to be launched? Or is that not how this process works?

I think it was +4 last time it was instantly approved.

[JordanL]

How are we going with the AMC BTC-TC -----> AM BTC-TC. I see its still awaiting approval by BTC-TC?

Nothing on that we can do but wait for approving votes

BTCT would probably give at least 1 more approval vote if the requested ticker were changed from AM to ACTM.

"BlackLilac voted ABSTAIN with comment: I find it very questionable that this asset is trying to use the abbreviation "AM". That seems like an apparent attempt to cause confusion between and/or association with ASICMINER."

I share the same opinion - at the minimum, it gives the appearance that ActiveMiner is embracing brand confusion as a marketing ploy. Why not clear this up?

The ticker is ActiveMining

Update:  Removed the AM after ActiveMining in the details.

I think that is a good move, kslaughter. I have removed my objection from BTC-TC and voted to approve this asset.

Best of luck.

[kslaughter]

How are we going with the AMC BTC-TC -----> AM BTC-TC. I see its still awaiting approval by BTC-TC?

Nothing on that we can do but wait for approving votes

BTCT would probably give at least 1 more approval vote if the requested ticker were changed from AM to ACTM.

"BlackLilac voted ABSTAIN with comment: I find it very questionable that this asset is trying to use the abbreviation "AM". That seems like an apparent attempt to cause confusion between and/or association with ASICMINER."

I share the same opinion - at the minimum, it gives the appearance that ActiveMiner is embracing brand confusion as a marketing ploy. Why not clear this up?

The ticker is ActiveMining

Update:  Removed the AM after ActiveMining in the details.

I think that is a good move, kslaughter. I have removed my objection from BTC-TC and voted to approve this asset.

Best of luck.

Thanks

[Streets 2.0]

How are we going with the AMC BTC-TC -----> AM BTC-TC. I see its still awaiting approval by BTC-TC?

Nothing on that we can do but wait for approving votes

BTCT would probably give at least 1 more approval vote if the requested ticker were changed from AM to ACTM.

"BlackLilac voted ABSTAIN with comment: I find it very questionable that this asset is trying to use the abbreviation "AM". That seems like an apparent attempt to cause confusion between and/or association with ASICMINER."

I share the same opinion - at the minimum, it gives the appearance that ActiveMiner is embracing brand confusion as a marketing ploy. Why not clear this up?

The ticker is ActiveMining

Update:  Removed the AM after ActiveMining in the details.

I think that is a good move, kslaughter. I have removed my objection from BTC-TC and voted to approve this asset.

Best of luck.

Thanks BlackLilac!!!  We all really appreciate it!

[shrodes]

What does the score need to be for the security to be launched? Or is that not how this process works?

I think it was +4 last time it was instantly approved.

Don't think so, as KENILWORTH (https://btct.co/security/KENILWORTH) is currently +4 and not yet approved. I'm also curious as to this.

Actually I think it has to be positive after the two week moderation, not sure if there is an auto-approval (but can't find any more details on it). From the create page (https://btct.co/create):

Once the issuer lock is removed, the site mods will start voting on your asset. Your asset will have two weeks to pass the moderation stage.

[Technologov]

As an investor, I ask to hold a shareholder's vote to dramatically reduce a dividend, and limit paying up to 10% of profits at most. This is required for growth and for NRE.
Else the company will not be able to grow.

We must establish a growth fund.

[lolstate]

As an investor, I ask to hold a shareholder's vote to dramatically reduce a dividend, and limit paying up to 10% of profits at most. This is required for growth and for NRE.
Else the company will not be able to grow.

We must establish a growth fund.

Why not 5%? What is the rational for 10%? Do we vote every month to vary this percentage?

The prospectus is quite clear that dividends are paid after all expenses are deducted and this includes payment for new hashing power to go towards in-house mining. Remember the original AMC proposal got too complex and the new ActM is intentionally much simpler, and we are all the better for it, in my opinion. A 10% cap will needlessly limit the share price, which isn't what you want with a high risk, high growth stock.

[Technologov]

There is no chance for a company to grow, if it pays fat dividends.

>Do we vote every month to vary this percentage?
Nah. Every 2 or 3 years is enough.

[freedomno1]

There is no chance for a company to grow, if it pays fat dividends.

 Asic  

[ArcticWolf]

There is already a growth fund in the contract (as seen below), however the exact amount isnt specified.

...
Dividend payment
The global ActiveMining's income, including mining income, hardware sales via bitcoins, other cryptocoins and fiat transferred to bitcoins, will be paid to ActiveMining shareholders proportionally, when all manufacturing, maintenance, labor costs, R&D, growth and miscellaneous expenses are deducted. The first BTC0.0025/share dividends will only be paid to the first 10,000,000 ActiveMining shares, providing public investors a priority in getting back 100% return of their investment.

[ffssixtynine]

Ken, thanks for adjusting the name as regards AM. That's a rather important move for trust reasons.

[lolstate]

There is no chance for a company to grow, if it pays fat dividends.

>Do we vote every month to vary this percentage?
Nah. Every 2 or 3 years is enough.

You can't be serious! Limiting dividends for 2-3 years at 10%? I don't know where to begin listing all the reasons this won't work.

[ChefBorjan]

Found some leftover BTC and bought a handful of shares at 0.0025 from BTC-TC even though I could have got more for my money at Bitfunder... its all about getting the money to AM now.

[Vbs]

As an investor, I ask to hold a shareholder's vote to dramatically reduce a dividend, and limit paying up to 10% of profits at most. This is required for growth and for NRE.
Else the company will not be able to grow.

We must establish a growth fund.

Growth expenses are already factored in. I did the following post on the speculation thread, using 50% of the profits for growth, you can see that works pretty well:

New update, this time I considered some hardware selling estimates, as well as the impact of Ken's 15M shares on the whole operation.

(any errors found, just shout! )

Considerations:

• Mining
• Klondikes mining at August (worst case)
• Avalon chips overclocked to 380MHz, since they will be running on Springfield Underground data center
• November/December (worst case) hashrate increase from the high-volume process (low-volume is not worth it for just a ~month difference), using BTC1.2 per chip+assembly cost, chips at 16GH/s, not overclocked
• 50% of mining dividends used to buy new Fast-Hash-One 16GH/s chips
• Total network hashrate includes ActM's mining plus hardware sold to other parties (200% markup)
• Sales
• Sales volume is really hard to predict. I just assumed it to be 2x the profits of mining, which I still think is really on the low side, as ActM is gonna also sell chips in bulk. For example, Avalon in getting ready to ship its ~BTC164,000 in bulk chips. There is definitely money to be made in bulk chip sales!

Conclusions:

• Investors are fully reimbursed of their paid BTC.0025/share around December/January
• The MH/s/share and MH/s/BTC are indeed crazy profitable
• As soon as the unit price of chips gets down (it will drop 1/3 to 1/4 even before going to easicopy), the hashrate can rise even much further
• Having direct access to buy hardware at manufacturing cost is what really makes this possible
• The effect of hardware sales is just mind boggling

[Streets 2.0]

@ChefBorjan - wow, talk about dedication...

I have refused to buy at BitFunder on principle.  If you are in this long, then there is no point shooting yourself in the foot by purchasing the undercut sell orders.  Earlier this week on BTCT I stepped over the 0.00249 sell wall to purchase at 0.0025... that NRE has to be completed, we aren't strained by 30 day deadline, that was more of an estimation by Ken to eASIC, but to get the ball rolling we should beat that timeline as best we can.

[ffssixtynine]

Vbs, aren't your predictions 1 month out based on when things are due to go online, basically end July and end August? Or have I misunderstood?

[Vbs]

Vbs, aren't your predictions 1 month out based on when things are due to go online, basically end July and end August? Or have I misunderstood?

Exactly, it's the "balance" at the end of each respective month.