|
aquarius
|
 |
September 23, 2013, 02:21:41 PM |
|
Ken, would our ActM shares also grant us a stake in the AMC Exchange, in the event that it goes live?  according to Ken, yes  AMC already has a Stock Exchange built and is in the testing phase.
If BF failed and we used that exchange, would it be owned by the shareholder and would we receive the trade fee as a dividend? Yes, at this time AMC owns the exchange. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Once a transaction has 6 confirmations, it is extremely unlikely that an attacker without at least 50% of the network's computation power would be able to reverse it.
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
San1ty
|
|
September 23, 2013, 02:36:15 PM |
|
Sure, that is a possibility also.
I think BF for the immediate future is the best idea. At least it would join both the markets finally. IMHO Havelock is a much better choice. If so, can we move all BF shares too? I want them joined as I have shares on both exchanges. Also 1 big liquid market is far better than 2 smaller ones. We had two exchanges set up just in case something happened like this. Then as a backup plan, we developed our own. So, I think it is better to have two exchanges trading the shares. Please allow us to have to option to choose on which exchange we want the shares (Havelock, BF). I will look in to Havelock; however, we will have to get approved and pay the fee if required. Hi Ken, Have a look at the PM I sent you for Havelock contact details. |
Found my posts helpful? Consider buying me a beer :-)!:
BTC - 1San1tyUGhfWRNPYBF4b6Vaurq5SjFYWk NXT - 17063113680221230777
|
|
|
|
kleeck
|
|
September 23, 2013, 02:46:31 PM |
|
Ken, would our ActM shares also grant us a stake in the AMC Exchange, in the event that it goes live? according to Ken, yes AMC already has a Stock Exchange built and is in the testing phase.
If BF failed and we used that exchange, would it be owned by the shareholder and would we receive the trade fee as a dividend? Yes, at this time AMC owns the exchange. " He also stated that he would have to move the exchange under a different corporation due to licensing issues... So, if it isn't owned by AMC do we get a stake in the transfer fees? |
|
|
|
Sou
Full Member
 Offline
Activity: 210
Merit: 100
(Bitcoin related text here)
|
|
September 23, 2013, 02:49:35 PM |
|
Ken, would our ActM shares also grant us a stake in the AMC Exchange, in the event that it goes live? according to Ken, yes AMC already has a Stock Exchange built and is in the testing phase.
If BF failed and we used that exchange, would it be owned by the shareholder and would we receive the trade fee as a dividend? Yes, at this time AMC owns the exchange. " He also stated that he would have to move the exchange under a different corporation due to licensing issues... So, if it isn't owned by AMC do we get a stake in the transfer fees? From the way i understand it the exchange would be an additional subsidiary of AMC. |
|
|
|
|
|
ffssixtynine
|
|
September 23, 2013, 02:59:14 PM |
|
I have already though about that. AMC already has a Stock Exchange built and is in the testing phase. If Bitfunder is shutdown also, shares would be transferred to Active Mining Corporation own Stock Exchange. To avoid problems with the US, the Stock Exchange will block all US IP's and ask during signup if you are a US citizen.
This may not be sufficient, depending how much they want to go for you. You may need to use a proper ID service to stay off their radar properly and that is only the US. Gambling companies went through all of this pain at one point. Also note that ActiveMining itself is based on Belize. This is good on the one hand but 'virtual shares' have no coverage by law there either and they have a strict securities commission. There is the risk for a C&D in Belize unless they have said ActM doesn't need compliance (unlikely - no one knows how to deal with this stuff yet but it'd likely be considered a public offering and that's what I was told when I enquired about doing my own IPO). Also note that ActM's legal documentation basically says this is all totally at the buyer's risk when you get down to it. That's not a criticism by the way, they at least had some lawyers do it. Ken's done what he can other than being completely legal somewhere which is easier said than done unfortunately, but investors should understand the risks with all securities. They are dependent on the law not having caught up, that's all there is to it. A new exchange may not even make it off the ground or may push the boat only for a bit longer, or may expose the owners to a tricky legal situation (Ken is in the US and that's exposure enough IMHO). Any new exchange needs to be set up in a location with -no- securities commission - suspect Bitfunder is. Or based nowhere. And be anonymous yet trustworthy. Which will probably happen. Running an exchange is non-trivial in the extreme. Ask UKYO. It'll cost a fortune in legal fees alone. |
|
|
|
|
drawingthesun
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1015
|
|
September 23, 2013, 03:11:46 PM |
|
Lets just focus on getting ActM on either Bitfunder or Havelock (since looking Havelock does seem to be a much better choice)
It would be nice to have a 1 time option to decide where we want our shares, HL or BF.
If HL becomes an option I would like all my BF shares one time moved over too please.
After that we need to focus on making miners and selling miners. This should be priority and any new exchange system should really take a backseat right now. We need income and profits big time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
crumbs
|
|
September 23, 2013, 03:22:18 PM |
|
...
We need income and profits big time.
Truth. |
|
|
|
|
|
Pale Phoenix
|
|
September 23, 2013, 03:34:13 PM |
|
Sure, that is a possibility also.
I think BF for the immediate future is the best idea. At least it would join both the markets finally. IMHO Havelock is a much better choice. I'm not a big fan of Bitfunder either, but let's not complicate this at the moment. The important thing is to maintain liquidity, so immediately moving to Bitfunder makes the most sense as no setup is required. |
|
|
|
Puppet
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 980
Merit: 1040
|
|
September 23, 2013, 03:34:29 PM |
|
Have to say Im impressed by the foresight of already having developed your own exchange as "plan C". Ken may not be a marketing genius, but he is showing something here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
zumzero
|
|
September 23, 2013, 03:53:00 PM |
|
This is actually very bullish news I´m definitely gonna buy more shares +1 this  bump |
|
|
|
|
funkymunky
|
|
September 23, 2013, 04:12:29 PM |
|
Sure, that is a possibility also.
I think BF for the immediate future is the best idea. At least it would join both the markets finally. IMHO Havelock is a much better choice. I'm not a big fan of Bitfunder either, but let's not complicate this at the moment. The important thing is to maintain liquidity, so immediately moving to Bitfunder makes the most sense as no setup is required.Yes, these are my thoughts on this too. |
|
|
|
|
|
auto2nr1
|
|
September 23, 2013, 04:13:26 PM |
|
I'm not a big fan of Bitfunder either, but let's not complicate this at the moment. The important thing is to maintain liquidity, so immediately moving to Bitfunder makes the most sense as no setup is required.
Let's merge everything into BitFunder for liquidity purposes. |
|
|
|
|
|
SoylentCreek
|
|
September 23, 2013, 04:20:52 PM |
|
I'm not a big fan of Bitfunder either, but let's not complicate this at the moment. The important thing is to maintain liquidity, so immediately moving to Bitfunder makes the most sense as no setup is required.
Let's merge everything into BitFunder for liquidity purposes. +1 |
Was I helpful or insightful? Feel free to say thanks! 1PuoasR1dYtNq9yYNJj9NreDAfLEzc3Vpe
|
|
|
|
PurpleTentacle
|
|
September 23, 2013, 04:22:53 PM |
|
I'm not a big fan of Bitfunder either, but let's not complicate this at the moment. The important thing is to maintain liquidity, so immediately moving to Bitfunder makes the most sense as no setup is required.
Let's merge everything into BitFunder for liquidity purposes. +1 +1 |
|
|
|
|
San1ty
|
|
September 23, 2013, 04:26:46 PM |
|
I'm not a big fan of Bitfunder either, but let's not complicate this at the moment. The important thing is to maintain liquidity, so immediately moving to Bitfunder makes the most sense as no setup is required.
Let's merge everything into BitFunder for liquidity purposes. +1 +1 -1 Let's merge everything at Havelock for liquidity purposes. |
Found my posts helpful? Consider buying me a beer :-)!:
BTC - 1San1tyUGhfWRNPYBF4b6Vaurq5SjFYWk NXT - 17063113680221230777
|
|
|
canth
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1442
Merit: 1001
|
|
September 23, 2013, 04:27:32 PM |
|
I'm not a big fan of Bitfunder either, but let's not complicate this at the moment. The important thing is to maintain liquidity, so immediately moving to Bitfunder makes the most sense as no setup is required.
Let's merge everything into BitFunder for liquidity purposes. I'm sure Ukyo is giggling like a school girl when he hears stuff like that. Well, aside from the worries about the same issues that threatened BTCT. |
|
|
|
canth
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1442
Merit: 1001
|
|
September 23, 2013, 04:28:29 PM |
|
Let's merge everything into BitFunder for liquidity purposes.
+1 +1 -1 Let's merge everything at Havelock for liquidity purposes. I believe that there's no question that BF has more liquidity than Havelock. Havelock has some better features like notifications, however. |
|
|
|
|
kslaughter (OP)
|
|
September 23, 2013, 04:28:37 PM |
|
Ken, would our ActM shares also grant us a stake in the AMC Exchange, in the event that it goes live? according to Ken, yes AMC already has a Stock Exchange built and is in the testing phase.
If BF failed and we used that exchange, would it be owned by the shareholder and would we receive the trade fee as a dividend? Yes, at this time AMC owns the exchange. " He also stated that he would have to move the exchange under a different corporation due to licensing issues... So, if it isn't owned by AMC do we get a stake in the transfer fees? Yes, the profit would go to AMC as that corporation would be owned by AMC. |
|
|
|
|
|
SoylentCreek
|
|
September 23, 2013, 04:31:22 PM |
|
I'm not a big fan of Bitfunder either, but let's not complicate this at the moment. The important thing is to maintain liquidity, so immediately moving to Bitfunder makes the most sense as no setup is required.
Let's merge everything into BitFunder for liquidity purposes. +1 +1 -1 Let's merge everything at Havelock for liquidity purposes. -1 Let's try to be realistic. Ken has so far shown little interest in getting us listed on Havelock in the immediate future. While I really want to see us on there, I do not see it happening in the near term. Bitfunder will be the easiest solution for the time being. |
Was I helpful or insightful? Feel free to say thanks! 1PuoasR1dYtNq9yYNJj9NreDAfLEzc3Vpe
|
|
|
|
kslaughter (OP)
|
|
September 23, 2013, 04:34:54 PM |
|
I'm not a big fan of Bitfunder either, but let's not complicate this at the moment. The important thing is to maintain liquidity, so immediately moving to Bitfunder makes the most sense as no setup is required.
Let's merge everything into BitFunder for liquidity purposes. No, setup is required, as we already have planned for this. All I have to do is take the shares off of BTC-TC and issue the shares on Bitfunder. |
|
|
|
|
|
