[ActiveMining] The Official Active Mining Discussion Thread

[ChronoX5]

Hey Ken, I just wanted to congratulate you on the funding of the NRE. Looking forward to the next months.

[Effayy]

hi all,

I've lurked in this thread for quite a long time and let me state this right up front:  yes I do hope that everything is above board and it's a win/win for Ken and shareholders alike.  I'm not a manipulative FUDster troll.  I am, however, someone who holds a few shares and would like a little clarification for the record.

As was mentioned a few posts ago, I also remember when the wall was all that was required for the NRE funds to pan out. Then I see that there are pre-orders in for ASICs that could help with the start-up funds as well. Excellent! So if BTC stays low, there would be something to draw from at least to aid in the NRE.  Suddenly there is mention of a new wall of shares for extra expenses.

Now I really want to give the benefit of the doubt here, but my spider senses are tingling.  Confidence is shaken somewhat when a load of new shares is added shortly after a massive wall has finally been eaten up.  It gives it more of a cash grab feel than planned capital.  As was started before by someone, it would be much better if instead of just stating "adding more shares now" and leaving it at that, if you would both provide some lead-time as well as state some numbers behind the request.  Transparency is key here, especially when this (and everything BTC, let's face it) is extremely high-risk.  Knowing how much is left to fully fund eASIC for example, and what these other expenses are and their relative cost would be crucial to investor confidence.

Again, don't take this as FUD please. I feel this is a valid point and something that should be expanded upon.

[matuszed]

Just a side note, AMC-PT has 1000BTC more 24h volume than ASICMINER-PT on BTC-TC!

That is freaking amazing. Ok, if we were not on Friedcat's radar before today, we are now!

Friedcat mentioned AMC in the last Quarterly report.

[lolstate]

Just a side note, AMC-PT has 1000BTC more 24h volume than ASICMINER-PT on BTC-TC!

That is freaking amazing. Ok, if we were not on Friedcat's radar before today, we are now!

Friedcat mentioned AMC in the last Quarterly report.

What did he say? Was it a name check or did he go into specific detail/speculation?

[matuszed]

Just a side note, AMC-PT has 1000BTC more 24h volume than ASICMINER-PT on BTC-TC!

That is freaking amazing. Ok, if we were not on Friedcat's radar before today, we are now!

Friedcat mentioned AMC in the last Quarterly report.

What did he say? Was it a name check or did he go into specific detail/speculation?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=220837.msg2325968#msg2325968

Just a name check he doesn't go into much except Bitfury a little, I would assume someone on the AsicMiner team is at least reading this thread, this is good for them though and they realize the need for diversity in the BTC Mining world.

[ffssixtynine]

Now I really want to give the benefit of the doubt here, but my spider senses are tingling.  Confidence is shaken somewhat when a load of new shares is added shortly after a massive wall has finally been eaten up.  It gives it more of a cash grab feel than planned capital.  

That's because it is a cash grab. Basically it's the chance to get all the funding he wanted very quickly. That's understandable but once the share popularity became obvious, it should have come out on here and been stated very clearly, e.g.:

Due to the high levels of interest, I am proposing we do a further, small IPO to cover the costs of XXX. These were not accounted for in the initial IPO as it was assumed that actual sales and the share offering would take longer than has been the case. These costs would have been covered over the forthcoming time period.

The alternative is to wait and see if the orders are fully paid for, and to earn other income from mining as initially planned.

The opportunity here is to shave 2 weeks off our schedule (I'm making this up - in reality it isn't 100% clear to me and I wish ken would explain properly, but this is my assumption).

Proposal: issue 350k shares on btct and 150k shares on bitfunder at market rate or 0.028, which ever is higher.  The issue will be made in 5 days, that's Wednesday xxx July.

No further shares will be issued within X weeks.

2,000,000 more shares will be issued between x August and y December at market rate. A minimum of 14 days notice of price and share issuance will be given on this thread.

- the above is just my example of what I think should have happened and in fact what should still happen. Numbers all made up etc, this is just an example post!

[stslimited]

hi all,

I've lurked in this thread for quite a long time and let me state this right up front:  yes I do hope that everything is above board and it's a win/win for Ken and shareholders alike.  I'm not a manipulative FUDster troll.  I am, however, someone who holds a few shares and would like a little clarification for the record.

As was mentioned a few posts ago, I also remember when the wall was all that was required for the NRE funds to pan out. Then I see that there are pre-orders in for ASICs that could help with the start-up funds as well. Excellent! So if BTC stays low, there would be something to draw from at least to aid in the NRE.  Suddenly there is mention of a new wall of shares for extra expenses.

Now I really want to give the benefit of the doubt here, but my spider senses are tingling.  Confidence is shaken somewhat when a load of new shares is added shortly after a massive wall has finally been eaten up.  It gives it more of a cash grab feel than planned capital.  As was started before by someone, it would be much better if instead of just stating "adding more shares now" and leaving it at that, if you would both provide some lead-time as well as state some numbers behind the request.  Transparency is key here, especially when this (and everything BTC, let's face it) is extremely high-risk.  Knowing how much is left to fully fund eASIC for example, and what these other expenses are and their relative cost would be crucial to investor confidence.

Again, don't take this as FUD please. I feel this is a valid point and something that should be expanded upon.

It doesn't matter how verbose you make it, you are asking the obvious questions all of us are. At least those of us asking any questions at all.

Its a quite simple matter to deduce what just happened and what the outcome is, out of all scenarios they are all problematic and require Ken to instill confidence, like any other "Confidence Man" <- the reason why any action he takes to explain this is a problem (its either mismanagement, poor judgement, or intentional mismanagement)

a way to rectify this situation would be to amend the charter for ActiveMining to require more things to be put to shareholder approval, at a higher percentage than the majority stakeholder has.

[VolanicEruptor]

on the phone ken told me he had put up 50,000 shares and they went pretty fast.  If he puts up a 500k wall instead of a 450k then I can see 50k that has nothing to do with funding, at least as we know it.  

[lolstate]

hi all,

I've lurked in this thread for quite a long time and let me state this right up front:  yes I do hope that everything is above board and it's a win/win for Ken and shareholders alike.  I'm not a manipulative FUDster troll.  I am, however, someone who holds a few shares and would like a little clarification for the record.

As was mentioned a few posts ago, I also remember when the wall was all that was required for the NRE funds to pan out. Then I see that there are pre-orders in for ASICs that could help with the start-up funds as well. Excellent! So if BTC stays low, there would be something to draw from at least to aid in the NRE.  Suddenly there is mention of a new wall of shares for extra expenses.

Now I really want to give the benefit of the doubt here, but my spider senses are tingling.  Confidence is shaken somewhat when a load of new shares is added shortly after a massive wall has finally been eaten up.  It gives it more of a cash grab feel than planned capital.  As was started before by someone, it would be much better if instead of just stating "adding more shares now" and leaving it at that, if you would both provide some lead-time as well as state some numbers behind the request.  Transparency is key here, especially when this (and everything BTC, let's face it) is extremely high-risk.  Knowing how much is left to fully fund eASIC for example, and what these other expenses are and their relative cost would be crucial to investor confidence.

Again, don't take this as FUD please. I feel this is a valid point and something that should be expanded upon.

Hi Effayy

I'd say, if your spider sense is tingling, consider two extreme possibilites:

1. ActM is a scam (as recent posters would have you believe, with getaway Ferraris on order for example)
2. It is the real deal with an amazing upside

Now, consider how much time and effort has been spent by Ken and his team getting us to a successful IPO. All the accusations thrown about on this and sibling threads, which would have made the skittish run. The independent checks myself and others have done/commissioned behind the scenes.

Then, decide which makes most sense:

1. ActM is a scam
2. It is the real deal

The obvious conclusion is it would have been easier to pull off a scam and do a runner before now, than continue to the IPO stage and beyond. So we either have an incompetent group of scammers (would have been banged up by now), or a competent team who have successfully delivered the first tranche of a start up, yet are probably cursing the day they agreed to start out, lol.

QED your spider sense, while a useful input into your decision making process, should not override rational consideration.

[lolstate]

on the phone ken told me he had put up 50,000 shares and they went pretty fast.  If he puts up a 500k wall instead of a 450k then I can see 50k that has nothing to do with funding, at least as we know it.  

How do we know you are not lying?

[knybe]

geez... feel like I'm watching the trollbox on BTC-e today.

[VolanicEruptor]

I have no reason to lie.  I'm a shareholder and have verified that in the past.  I would have no reason to cut Ken's funding short by 50k shares. 

[lolstate]

Just a side note, AMC-PT has 1000BTC more 24h volume than ASICMINER-PT on BTC-TC!

That is freaking amazing. Ok, if we were not on Friedcat's radar before today, we are now!

Friedcat mentioned AMC in the last Quarterly report.

What did he say? Was it a name check or did he go into specific detail/speculation?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=220837.msg2325968#msg2325968

Just a name check he doesn't go into much except Bitfury a little, I would assume someone on the AsicMiner team is at least reading this thread, this is good for them though and they realize the need for diversity in the BTC Mining world.

Yeah, is defo good for them and they have said many times they *need* competition to grow, so fingers crossed ActM provide it for their benefit (and ours!)

[LordMeowMeow]

The obvious conclusion is it would have been easier to pull off a scam and do a runner before now, than continue to the IPO stage and beyond. So we either have an incompetent group of scammers (would have been banged up by now), or a competent team who have successfully delivered the first tranche of a start up, yet are probably cursing the day they agreed to start out, lol.

I play online poker and there have been much more drawn out and much more elaborate scams when big amounts of money are at play. While your rationale is logical there's not much weight to it in this case as there is $1M+ at play. In the end only time will tell how AMC will pan out so we're all just speculating as to whether this is legit or not or if it will succeed.

[lolstate]

I have no reason to lie.  I'm a shareholder and have verified that in the past.  I would have no reason to cut Ken's funding short by 50k shares. 

You just implied he could steal 50k shares from us. That would be quite a serious accusation, if made, which is why I asked.

[VolanicEruptor]

I have no reason to lie.  I'm a shareholder and have verified that in the past.  I would have no reason to cut Ken's funding short by 50k shares. 

You just implied he could steal 50k shares from us. That would be quite a serious accusation, if made, which is why I asked.

How would we ever know?  Can you tell which shares are his?
He will account for the 50k now that I posted it, guaranteed.

[knybe]

The obvious conclusion is it would have been easier to pull off a scam and do a runner before now, than continue to the IPO stage and beyond. So we either have an incompetent group of scammers (would have been banged up by now), or a competent team who have successfully delivered the first tranche of a start up, yet are probably cursing the day they agreed to start out, lol.

I play online poker and there have been much more drawn out and much more elaborate scams when big amounts of money are at play. While your rationale is logical there's not much weight to it in this case as there is $1M+ at play. In the end only time will tell how AMC will pan out so we're all just speculating as to whether this is legit or not or if it will succeed.

Why even entertain such nonsense?
The more you focus on negative outcomes, as so many people have seemed to flip to in here today, the more momentum you give the negative outcome.

[ArcticWolf]

I dont see any real walls anywhere. Did Ken end up putting any other walls up?

[VolanicEruptor]

I dont see any real walls anywhere. Did Ken end up putting any other walls up?

He said he was putting them up in small chunks.  They're all over the place.

[Rawted]

I dont see any real walls anywhere. Did Ken end up putting any other walls up?

He said he was putting them up in small chunks.  They're all over the place.

Why is this still needed? If we've hit the NRE, how about we let the market dictate the price, and stop with these 200k+ walls? You're only hurting your investors, Ken.

Ken, transparency gains respect and trust. I hope you understand that and answer shortly.