|
kleeck
|
 |
November 17, 2013, 08:13:21 PM |
|
I could probably find the answer to this if I dug through the last 50ish pages but I've got the flu and ain't got time for that:
What's happening to our dividends whilst this whole Bitfunder collapse thing is going down? Are they being saved up to be paid out when we're back on an exchange?
Yes. From what I understand. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In order to achieve higher forum ranks, you need both activity points and merit points.
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
hazryder
|
|
November 17, 2013, 08:14:53 PM |
|
I could probably find the answer to this if I dug through the last 50ish pages but I've got the flu and ain't got time for that:
What's happening to our dividends whilst this whole Bitfunder collapse thing is going down? Are they being saved up to be paid out when we're back on an exchange?
Yes. From what I understand. That's fine then, thanks for the quick reply. I'm off to pound down paracetamol and hot juice until my head stops hurting. |
|
|
|
|
stereotype
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 1554
Merit: 1000
|
|
November 17, 2013, 08:19:29 PM |
|
After looking through the various exchanges, we currently have only two semi-legal options: https://796.com/And https://www.havelockinvestments.com/All the other exchanges currently available are for play money only and not legal at all. Remember there is no fully legal exchange for Bitcoin securities at the moment, but the two above have done more than anyone else. I understand the long term view is to be listed on a decentralized exchange however for the next 2-3 months this is not possible, and its within the next 2-3 months that a lot of trading will occur due to the eASIC chips coming online. I really do not want to be listed on another play money exchange. At least have some type of licence for money transmission etc... Does anyone disagree? How about this? You will see your 'play money' problem is addressed directly..... https://forum.litecoin.net/index.php/topic,7176.msg54823.html#msg54823This is really good news. Have they addressed how they will handle US investors? No different from the Chinese investors they are considering (via translated site), i guess. You think there is/should be a distinction/consideration for the US? |
|
|
|
|
|
kslaughter (OP)
|
|
November 17, 2013, 08:27:43 PM |
|
After looking through the various exchanges, we currently have only two semi-legal options: https://796.com/And https://www.havelockinvestments.com/All the other exchanges currently available are for play money only and not legal at all. Remember there is no fully legal exchange for Bitcoin securities at the moment, but the two above have done more than anyone else. I understand the long term view is to be listed on a decentralized exchange however for the next 2-3 months this is not possible, and its within the next 2-3 months that a lot of trading will occur due to the eASIC chips coming online. I really do not want to be listed on another play money exchange. At least have some type of licence for money transmission etc... Does anyone disagree? How about this? You will see your 'play money' problem is addressed directly..... https://forum.litecoin.net/index.php/topic,7176.msg54823.html#msg54823This is really good news. Have they addressed how they will handle US investors? No different from the Chinese investors they are considering (via translated site), i guess. You think there is/should be a distinction/consideration for the US? From WoodTech about CIPHERTRADE: At this time we don't believe that we need to be regulated since BDO's view is that cryptocoins are probably "beans" or vouchers under UK law. We would therefore be operating a sort-of barter and contract brokerage service.
However, our intention is to operate in a transparent manner and work with the relevant authorities to comply with any necessary regulation. There is a good precedence for this in the UK; our online gambling industry worked with the authorities rather than try to be surreptitious and as a result we are world-leaders in that space.
|
|
|
|
|
stereotype
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1554
Merit: 1000
|
|
November 17, 2013, 08:31:22 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
kleeck
|
|
November 17, 2013, 08:37:26 PM |
|
Ok, but aren't we right back in the same boat then, for US investors? The SEC says that US investors can't do business with unregistered securities. If you do business with US residents then the SEC will come-a-knockin'. Same scenario with Bitfunder, no? Correct me where I'm wrong. |
|
|
|
minerpart
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 280
Merit: 250
IIIIII====II====IIIIII
|
|
November 17, 2013, 09:09:11 PM |
|
Absolutely NOT backed by comments from HMRC.Your first link is months old and can be disregarded. The second contains the latest from them and it is ambiguous at best, shows no understanding (or an intentional misrepresentation) of bitcoin and so the UK Gov position is highly suspect at this time. Remember London is the largest FX market in the world. The financial services industry keeps the UK afloat and has done for years. Cameron and his chums in the City are going to do everything they can to stifle BTC. As the article says, if they impose VAT on BTC any exchange would die a quick death. 'As Tom Gullen described on his blog, Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs (HMRC) seems to be classifying bitcoins as vouchers, which means VAT would be due on any sales.'As for unregulated, un registered securities exchange, they could easily do an SEC shutdown, And why wouldn't they if they are already trying to keep a lid on BTC. They know they are not vouchers for petes sake.
|
|
|
|
|
stereotype
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1554
Merit: 1000
|
|
November 17, 2013, 09:09:21 PM |
|
Ok, but aren't we right back in the same boat then, for US investors? The SEC says that US investors can't do business with unregistered securities. If you do business with US residents then the SEC will come-a-knockin'. Same scenario with Bitfunder, no? Correct me where I'm wrong. If thats what the US authorities have decided for their citizens, thats a matter for them (i guess this may be clarified over the coming week). If the question is, should a UK company consider the seemingly all-pervading importance of the SEC....maybe for a nano second, possibly. Surely what matters, is what working relationships the SEC has with our Treasury Dept. and what the SEC has to gain by interfering with other tax jurisdictions. Because its really just about tax, in UK/Europe (cant speak for ROW), and not this self defeating sledgehammer of legal/criminal fear, that seems to be consuming the US Bitcoin space recently. As Kate has eluded to, the crypto world is a relaxed affair here as far as regulatory control goes, and as and when conditions may change, we'll just have to keep-calm-and-carry-on.  |
|
|
|
|
minerpart
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 280
Merit: 250
IIIIII====II====IIIIII
|
|
November 17, 2013, 09:13:07 PM |
|
Get real fellow UK guys. BTC is a massive threat to the City Boys. I really think there is a high chance they will not allow an exchange to operate here.
If/when HMRC/The Treasury say otherwise that would be the time to act - not before.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
minerpart
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 280
Merit: 250
IIIIII====II====IIIIII
|
|
November 17, 2013, 09:19:51 PM |
|
I did - can I have that 3mins of my life back please? |
|
|
|
|
|
kleeck
|
|
November 17, 2013, 09:23:11 PM |
|
Ok, but aren't we right back in the same boat then, for US investors? The SEC says that US investors can't do business with unregistered securities. If you do business with US residents then the SEC will come-a-knockin'. Same scenario with Bitfunder, no? Correct me where I'm wrong. If thats what the US authorities have decided for their citizens, thats a matter for them (i guess this may be clarified over the coming week). If the question is, should a UK company consider the seemingly all-pervading importance of the SEC....maybe for a nano second, possibly. Surely what matters, is what working relationships the SEC has with our Treasury Dept. and what the SEC has to gain by interfering with other tax jurisdictions. Because its really just about tax, in UK/Europe (cant speak for ROW), and not this self defeating sledgehammer of legal/criminal fear, that seems to be consuming the US Bitcoin space recently. As Kate has eluded to, the crypto world is a relaxed affair here as far as regulatory control goes, and as and when conditions may change, we'll just have to keep-calm-and-carry-on. Let me ask a different way, then. If Kate allows US traders is she prepared to deal with the ensuing inevitability of the SEC? Inviting US investors is inviting the SEC. The only way to avoid the, "self defeating sledgehammer" is to say "No" to US investors. If this exchange is saying "No." to US investors then a large (I think?) portion of ActM investors will not be interested. If they say, "We don't care about the SEC, come one, come all!" Then we'll have to be OK with a fate identical to Bitfunders, where US investors are barred from entry. My question is, "What is CipherTrading's stance on US investors?" |
|
|
|
|
VolanicEruptor
|
|
November 17, 2013, 09:31:44 PM |
|
After looking through the various exchanges, we currently have only two semi-legal options: https://796.com/And https://www.havelockinvestments.com/All the other exchanges currently available are for play money only and not legal at all. Remember there is no fully legal exchange for Bitcoin securities at the moment, but the two above have done more than anyone else. I understand the long term view is to be listed on a decentralized exchange however for the next 2-3 months this is not possible, and its within the next 2-3 months that a lot of trading will occur due to the eASIC chips coming online. I really do not want to be listed on another play money exchange. At least have some type of licence for money transmission etc... Does anyone disagree? How about this? You will see your 'play money' problem is addressed directly..... https://forum.litecoin.net/index.php/topic,7176.msg54823.html#msg54823This is really good news. Have they addressed how they will handle US investors? No different from the Chinese investors they are considering (via translated site), i guess. You think there is/should be a distinction/consideration for the US? From WoodTech about CIPHERTRADE: At this time we don't believe that we need to be regulated since BDO's view is that cryptocoins are probably "beans" or vouchers under UK law. We would therefore be operating a sort-of barter and contract brokerage service.
However, our intention is to operate in a transparent manner and work with the relevant authorities to comply with any necessary regulation. There is a good precedence for this in the UK; our online gambling industry worked with the authorities rather than try to be surreptitious and as a result we are world-leaders in that space.
99% of the questions in this thread are begging you to tell us the progress you are making with the chips, and you ignored every single one of them. As each day ticks away, investors gain a little bit more hatred for you. Eventually they will all be in my position and your head may be on a stick (metaphorically of course  ) |
|
|
|
stereotype
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1554
Merit: 1000
|
|
November 17, 2013, 09:34:05 PM |
|
Ok, but aren't we right back in the same boat then, for US investors? The SEC says that US investors can't do business with unregistered securities. If you do business with US residents then the SEC will come-a-knockin'. Same scenario with Bitfunder, no? Correct me where I'm wrong. If thats what the US authorities have decided for their citizens, thats a matter for them (i guess this may be clarified over the coming week). If the question is, should a UK company consider the seemingly all-pervading importance of the SEC....maybe for a nano second, possibly. Surely what matters, is what working relationships the SEC has with our Treasury Dept. and what the SEC has to gain by interfering with other tax jurisdictions. Because its really just about tax, in UK/Europe (cant speak for ROW), and not this self defeating sledgehammer of legal/criminal fear, that seems to be consuming the US Bitcoin space recently. As Kate has eluded to, the crypto world is a relaxed affair here as far as regulatory control goes, and as and when conditions may change, we'll just have to keep-calm-and-carry-on. Let me ask a different way, then. If Kate allows US traders is she prepared to deal with the ensuing inevitability of the SEC? Inviting US investors is inviting the SEC. The only way to avoid the, "self defeating sledgehammer" is to say "No" to US investors. If this exchange is saying "No." to US investors then a large (I think?) portion of ActM investors will not be interested. If they say, "We don't care about the SEC, come one, come all!" Then we'll have to be OK with a fate identical to Bitfunders, where US investors are barred from entry. My question is, "What is CipherTrading's stance on US investors?" Fair question. Lets ask her/Cipher to answer. |
|
|
|
|
|
LorenzoMoney
|
 |
November 17, 2013, 09:40:56 PM |
|
So let's play some speculation.
What if Ken really does come through and within a month or so, or at least not too long after the competition, he begins mining TerraHash speeds and puts all the ordered chips onto boards and mines away, and what if, additionally, Ken manages to find a viable exchange to trade ActM shares.
Isn't that what we all want? These two things: 1) A viable exchange to trade shares and 2) for Ken to succeed in producing miners and to begin mining large scale. And, what do you want? For Ken to reveal as much as he can about a viable exchange and definite dates for producing those miners.
But, back to the top, What if Ken succeeds with 1 and 2? Then Active Mining shares will shoot up in value and people who hold shares will make loads of money from mining dividends and from the sale of shares.
Oh, by the way, we all do not really own shares of a company. We have no voting rights and no ownership of the company. What we have are shares of unsecured loans. Yes, my friends, yes, my Brother in Satoshi, we do not actually own stock. We share in shares of a great big unsubstantiated loan.
Let us just hope and Pray to Lord Satoshi that Ken succeeds with both 1 and 2 above.
|
|
|
|
drawingthesun
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1015
|
|
November 17, 2013, 09:43:19 PM |
|
VE, I am sure you are incorrect! Yes its frustrating when Ken ignores our pleas
to find out what is going on with our hardware, but I very much doubt we are hating Ken more and more. Even with the amount I could lose I don't hate Ken at all. You really must chill out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
LorenzoMoney
|
|
November 17, 2013, 09:46:04 PM |
|
It took you 3 minutes to read that? It only took everyone else 30 seconds. Bucko-Minerpart, no wonder you are Crumbs-bait. Now, on to something more interesting, Where is VBS? He used to be such a sane voice on here. Streets and VBS are liked baked bread. Ken should have chosen me for the PR guy. Maybe Ken did me a favor, since Ken knew he would frustrate anyone who would have to work with him to get information to use in public statements. Yes, it was a big favor not to have appointed me for PR guy. In anycase, unlike Streets, I would have expected compensation. I did - can I have that 3mins of my life back please? |
|
|
|
Tazo
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 12
Merit: 0
|
|
November 17, 2013, 09:50:13 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
kleeck
|
|
November 17, 2013, 10:14:30 PM |
|
Run the numbers. We don't want more sales, we want more mining power. The more I crunch the numbers and probable price per chip the more I'm OK with Ken's poor marketing tactics. We need just enough cash/BTC to fill our obligation to customers as well as about ~6K chips to kick us off into the ~100Th/s range. That'd be a nice start. |
|
|
|
|
zumzero
|
|
November 17, 2013, 10:21:33 PM |
|
I read the Coindesk article on 'taxable vouchers' and the impression I get is that the UK Gov don't, at this time, want to commit to classifying Bitcoin. Once they've decided on their rules, this CIPHERTRADE exchange will either get the go ahead or not. It rests on the toss of a coin, but either way, the new exchange offers no protection for US investors from the SEC and therefore is not a viable solution for ActM.
|
|
|
|
|
