minerpart
Sr. Member
 Offline
Activity: 280
Merit: 250
IIIIII====II====IIIIII
|
 |
January 21, 2014, 01:37:04 AM |
|
Loaded statement.
I don't think it was a mistake. I think it is smart business to exaggerate your successes and keep quiet about your set-backs.
Actually every successful company does exactly that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
kslaughter (OP)
|
|
January 21, 2014, 01:37:32 AM |
|
I said months ago that I sold them when I quit and I have had no ActM shares since then.
I'm also not going to get into an argument with you ken because despite what you may think, I actually want you to make this work. However, it's depressing seeing a mistake like that happen and it's a symptom of you needing help running your business rather than it all being on your shoulders. This is the kind of mistake that shouldn't be happening.
Still insider trading, you sold on inside information. That is a lot worst that anything I may have done. That is like the pot calling the kettle black. |
|
|
|
|
|
ffssixtynine
|
|
January 21, 2014, 01:43:36 AM |
|
I think it was a joke dude. You are just too slow to get it. FF69 said last week in a large post on here he had no more info that the rest of us. All the Board members have said the same. They advised about strategic decisions. The only stuff they knew about was potential product line and that was to advise on it.
To correct that slightly, I also knew what ken was experimenting with regarding Intellihash as I guessed what it was. I will not be revealing what it is unless ken says I can, although I am not under NDA. We played around with product line ideas and prices/costs, and we did know about the fact that eASIC had signed a few days before the press release. I did no trade on that and afaik no one else did. We didn't have any proof so we were waiting on the pr as much as anyone. We disagreed massively on the whole sales and marketing side. Ken was and probably is adamant that he was right. If general, Ken keeps his cards close to his chest. Ken, I sold because primarily I had no faith in the sales and marketing. Your commercial approach and mine are completely different. We hadn't hidden our opinion by that point, people were well aware of our issues with the website, logo, et al. May I suggest that dragging things up isn't the most positive thing to do either. It's also not the point. You mislead people over sales and that was extremely silly. Just be straight. Delays happen. It's also disappointing that you come here to attack me when I have actually defended you a lot in the past, and I will still vehemently defend that you are doing what you believe is right for the company, rather than to actually address valid questions many people who have had concerns and questions in the last 4 months. It is not all cover by NDA, you are choosing not to answer them. That's your right, but don't then come posting what you just did. It's just odd. |
|
|
|
|
|
Entropy-uc
|
|
January 21, 2014, 01:44:00 AM |
|
I said months ago that I sold them when I quit and I have had no ActM shares since then.
I'm also not going to get into an argument with you ken because despite what you may think, I actually want you to make this work. However, it's depressing seeing a mistake like that happen and it's a symptom of you needing help running your business rather than it all being on your shoulders. This is the kind of mistake that shouldn't be happening.
Still insider trading, you sold on inside information. That is a lot worst that anything I may have done. That is like the pot calling the kettle black. If FF69 had insider information to trade upon, then you would be liable for that trading under regulation FD. I'm sure the SEC has much larger axes to grind with you than selective disclosure of material information. |
|
|
|
|
minerpart
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 280
Merit: 250
IIIIII====II====IIIIII
|
|
January 21, 2014, 01:44:23 AM |
|
I will get my lawyers onto you FF69. How do you like the sound of that? Bloody muppet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
zumzero
|
|
January 21, 2014, 01:46:49 AM |
|
The Board of Advisors would have been well aware of the effect their resignation would have on moral and consequently share price. If any of them sold a single share prior to issuing their resignation statement then it's insider trading. The audacity of someone who may well have colluded with other Board Members to then come in here and mount a passive aggressive attack on ActM is shocking. It's no wonder Ken is clearly riled by FFS69's antics.
|
|
|
|
minerpart
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 280
Merit: 250
IIIIII====II====IIIIII
|
|
January 21, 2014, 01:50:09 AM |
|
To be fair there was a very slow decline after the board left, but yes no matter how you put it they got inside ACtM then decided to sell at a certain point when they had seen enough. It's suspicious that they all exited at the same time. Conspiratorial. Now they are all in NeoBee? Well I hope NeoBee haven't made any misleading statements.
|
|
|
|
|
|
ffssixtynine
|
|
January 21, 2014, 01:50:40 AM |
|
If FF69 had insider information to trade upon, then you would be liable for that trading under regulation FD.
I'm sure the SEC has much larger axes to grind with you than selective disclosure of material information.
Yes as would Gerald. I have avoided pointing all this out before but individuals have repeatedly been told selective information, including VE back in the day. Read a few posts from the last few days and it's evidentially not changed. But meh, in the big scheme of things it's not something worth pulling people up on, Ken or Gerald included. It happens big time with all bitcoin securities because they have all been in such a grey area, and it's not the primary concern of the sec as things stand. Asicminer was chock full of it. People getting their money back and fraud not being committed is what the sec probably care about most. Zum - actually the share price didn't really move anywhere much when we quit. It more or less continued what it was doing. We thought quitting may affect it but we had no choice. Remember we were just a bunch of volunteers and it was feeling like we were playing whack a mole for a professional company, doing full time work unpaid and without much effect. As for why we did it en masse, well not a lot of option. None of us wanted to continue without the rest, and we were all very unhappy by that point. Better to give a chance to start a new board or hire professionals internally, which is what we recommended. I still do. I really think ken needs a proper professional boardroom. |
|
|
|
|
minerpart
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 280
Merit: 250
IIIIII====II====IIIIII
|
|
January 21, 2014, 01:53:50 AM |
|
It happens even bigger time on Wall Street every day of the week. What's the point? Are NeoBee clean? I doubt that. Do you want the SEC investigating NeoBee because some freaky Muppet on a forum claimed the CEO is misleading shareholders? I bet I could find numerous exaggerations or misleading statements from the NB CEO. I really can't be bothered though.
BTW you are suggesting it's inappropriate for family members to buy shares? It's not. Gerald works at the company so he needs to know operational details. That doesn't mean he can not legally hold shares. But obviously he must not trade them based on insider info. Good luck proving he's ever done that. Without a scanner in his mind you can't.
|
|
|
|
|
interJ
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 37
Merit: 0
|
|
January 21, 2014, 01:55:18 AM |
|
Ken, if you're on-line now, would you care to address some more pertinent questions and concerns about what's going on with the company?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bargraphics
|
|
January 21, 2014, 01:56:52 AM |
|
Forgot I had a delay in Atlanta. Of course my non-stop flight gets cancelled and I have to switch airlines to one with a stop.
Looks like you guys are already passed a full two pages. Impressive.
I shared the same opinion as FF69 that it was misleading. I expressed this to Ken myself. I was less worried about it in all due to shares being untradable during the announcement and still now after clarifying.
Looking forward to upcoming announcements. Continue ignoring the trolls guys and keeping discussion constructive. Stay crazy VE, don't less us down.
|
|
|
|
|
|
WildFire.ca
|
|
January 21, 2014, 01:56:55 AM |
|
No No... Giving insider info is not against the law. Trading on that info is.
|
|
|
|
minerpart
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 280
Merit: 250
IIIIII====II====IIIIII
|
|
January 21, 2014, 01:57:44 AM |
|
No No... Giving insider info is not against the law. Trading on that info is.
snap |
|
|
|
|
|
ffssixtynine
|
|
January 21, 2014, 01:59:47 AM |
|
No No... Giving insider info is not against the law. Trading on that info is.
True. In fact isn't it a bit more complex than that even? Anyway, it's not as simple as people seem to think and it's not really important at the mo. Of all the things to be looking at, I think I'd be more interested in if ken was just trying to protect the company by the wrong means (probably) and getting solid detail on the future. |
|
|
|
|
|
kslaughter (OP)
|
|
January 21, 2014, 02:03:20 AM |
|
Ken, if you're on-line now, would you care to address some more pertinent questions and concerns about what's going on with the company?
I will do that in the Wednesday PR's |
|
|
|
|
|
kslaughter (OP)
|
|
January 21, 2014, 02:04:50 AM |
|
If FF69 had insider information to trade upon, then you would be liable for that trading under regulation FD.
I'm sure the SEC has much larger axes to grind with you than selective disclosure of material information.
Yes as would Gerald. I have avoided pointing all this out before but individuals have repeatedly been told selective information, including VE back in the day. Read a few posts from the last few days and it's evidentially not changed. But meh, in the big scheme of things it's not something worth pulling people up on, Ken or Gerald included. It happens big time with all bitcoin securities because they have all been in such a grey area, and it's not the primary concern of the sec as things stand. Asicminer was chock full of it. People getting their money back and fraud not being committed is what the sec probably care about most. Zum - actually the share price didn't really move anywhere much when we quit. It more or less continued what it was doing. We thought quitting may affect it but we had no choice. Remember we were just a bunch of volunteers and it was feeling like we were playing whack a mole for a professional company, doing full time work unpaid and without much effect. As for why we did it en masse, well not a lot of option. None of us wanted to continue without the rest, and we were all very unhappy by that point. Better to give a chance to start a new board or hire professionals internally, which is what we recommended. I still do. I really think ken needs a proper professional boardroom. I saw how that worked out. |
|
|
|
|
SebastianJu
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2674
Merit: 1082
Legendary Escrow Service - Tip Jar in Profile
|
|
January 21, 2014, 02:21:54 AM |
|
I see that you did not say what your timing was when you sold your shares. Mostly likely you sold because of being on the board and having inside information.
So instead simply answering the main question that is going around "what product did you ship" you chose to point to someone who once tried to help you? Sounds like the old game "If the people suffer and you fear they will come after you give them a hint that a random group is guilty. So the anger is canalized away." Worked perfectly in the world history. And it looks users in here happily jump on it. I would prefer the answer to what was shipped. If there was something shipped. Before someone claims otherwise... i own a significant part of ActM.
No one with an IQ out of the single digits is a "shareholder" in this ridiculousness.
I guess you missed that a shareholder doesnt has a choice nowadays. Though i even wouldnt be able to chose when the shares are tradeable. |
Please ALWAYS contact me through bitcointalk pm before sending someone coins.
|
|
|
minerpart
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 280
Merit: 250
IIIIII====II====IIIIII
|
|
January 21, 2014, 02:24:03 AM |
|
Selectively disclosing material non-public information is, in fact, a violation of SEC reg.
So is you buying your shares on BitFunder. Are you ready to go to jail punk? |
|
|
|
|
|
ffssixtynine
|
|
January 21, 2014, 02:24:44 AM |
|
I saw how that worked out.
You had a professional board of directors at a previous co and it went wrong? Maybe, but it is the best way to do things and you have to many responsibilities IMV. If you were referring to us, we were volunteers with no say in the running of the business, part time in theory, unpaid, no information beyond the little disclosed, no formal position, and no contract. I am not complaining about it either, just pointing at the fact that it isn't what I am suggesting. At the time you said it was tough to find the right person or people to join the management team, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't do it. Having management help and being able to delegate is a good thing! You could do this or could try some other form of advisory, even if just one or two representatives but with a stricter remit. Maybe BarG or Zum or whatever, but at the very least solve the communication issue that persists. Despite what you may think, I wish you good luck. |
|
|
|
|
|
zumzero
|
|
January 21, 2014, 02:24:55 AM |
|
No No... Giving insider info is not against the law. Trading on that info is.
Selectively disclosing material non-public information is, in fact, a violation of SEC reg FD. Since Ken is in violation of many, many SEC regulations I doubt he cares. Never do business with someone who deceives you using semantic games. And never trust anyone who would defend such behavior. For that post you can have 'up to 100% free of charge'. |
|
|
|
|
