[ActiveMining] The Official Active Mining Discussion Thread [Self-Moderated]

[VolanicEruptor]

I've also realized how putting up 2 selling walls kind of fucked us.
Not all shares were sold at .0025.  Most of them were given at .0005
We need 3.25 million in profit to pay us off, but we have invested not even half of that.  This was kind of a way to artificially inflate the share price and make it harder to earn .0025/share.  

In a perfect shareholder utopia, everyone would have paid the same price, so that the $ needed to pay off IPO price EQUALS the $ originally invested.. this way we would only have to make our original investment back to break even instead of needing 250%.  

If we are needing $3.25 million to pay off .0025/share, then we should have invested 3.25 million in the first place.. now the .0025 shareholders have to earn three times as much of their investment just to break even, due to buying an overvalued .0025 IPO

Look at it this way, the true "break-even" profit will always be 10,000,000 * IPO, however in our case the IPO does not = .0025.  Instead the IPO is averaged out between .0025 and .0005.  This puts the break-even profit point much lower than .0025.

I will lay this out on a spreadsheet to make it more clear

[crumbs]

I've also realized how putting up 2 selling walls kind of fucked us.
Not all shares were sold at .0025.  Most of them were given at .005
We need 3.25 million in profit to pay us off, but we originally invested not even half of that.  This was kind of a way to artificially inflate the share price and make it harder to earn .0025.  

In a perfect shareholder utopia, everyone would have paid the same price, so that the $ needed to pay off IPO price EQUALS the $ originally invested.. this way we would only have to make our original investment back to break even instead of needing 250%.  

I think i have a promising solution:  
Ken starts a company, a virtual identity wholly owned by ActM, with:

1.  A pre-IPO blowout sale.
2.  Float the IPO & see where that goes.
3.  ? ? ?
4.  PROFIT!!

Oh, wait... He did that already...

[VolanicEruptor]

I've also realized how putting up 2 selling walls kind of fucked us.
Not all shares were sold at .0025.  Most of them were given at .005
We need 3.25 million in profit to pay us off, but we originally invested not even half of that.  This was kind of a way to artificially inflate the share price and make it harder to earn .0025.  

In a perfect shareholder utopia, everyone would have paid the same price, so that the $ needed to pay off IPO price EQUALS the $ originally invested.. this way we would only have to make our original investment back to break even instead of needing 250%.  

I think i have a promising solution:  
Ken starts a company, a virtual identity wholly owned by ActM, with:

1.  A pre-IPO blowout sale.
2.  Float the IPO & see where that goes.
3.  
4.  PROFIT!!

Oh, wait... He did that already...

To be fair, "Icedrill" is doing the same thing as what I described, but in this case the lowest sell wall was for private investors only.  You my friend, are in the exact same boat in that regard.  Time will tell you that..

[lavalampoon]

I really think a lot of sellers/liquidators should look again at what eASIC bring to the table and have a serious think about where this company will be in 2months time.

There are mature industries that specialize in building hardware. It had always seemed odd to me that three people could design a chip and mount that chip to a custom board in a way that somehow gives an advantage over the efforts of the experienced companies. If you meet Ken you realize that he has an unorthodox genius with a honest determination. Gerald brings a diverse technical understanding that far exceeds normal. It seemed plausible that these guys could somehow grab this opportunity before experienced companies realized the potential.

The experienced competition had enough capital to keep their efforts private. Two companies are showing better delivery odds now. ActM suddenly became a laggard on costs, marketing, and performance. ActM's following comes from it being a company that small investors can easily buy into. ActM investors can buy into both hardware and at-cost mining at the same time. There may be a timing advantage too, but that could easily disappear when difficulties are encountered. Fortunately eASIC's technology can speed ActM though some of the design flaws. ActM still has a chance to come out stronger than the competition, but I judge those as long odds now.

LABCOIN and BFL have soured the market with undelivered promises. I recall Ken anticipating that BFL would repeat their past delivery failures. LABCOIN looked like it would beat ActM on timing but technical difficulties turned into prolonged silence. It is a predictable cultural reaction, but it was a silence that was too similar to that of ActM's after NRE was raised. ActM has not reached the development stage that LABCOIN claimed. Difficulties are to be expected in anything so technical. A concern is that Ken's silence would allow the market price to crumble much as LABCOIN currently leaves investors with undue levels of risk with investments subject to inference from a series of vague updates that each come too late. My intuition tells me that Ken would be more open about delays and flaws than LABCOIN is, but I also perceive he cares enough about investors that trolls affect him personally. He went quiet when attacks and threats became personal, and yet he still allows known trolls to post to his new thread. Ken is a nice guy, and that is being used against him.

Investors don't leave because there are technical difficulties or reasonable delays, they leave when behavior appears unpredictable and better opportunities emerge. Leaving ActM is more about finding a better portfolio balance. I still hope for ActM to succeed, but these are markets with little liquidity and I'm not likely to rebalance to again favor ActM.

[jinyoubei]

@VolanicEruptor I think you forget the mining profit, which will be not bad if ActM keeps a certian mount of percentage, say %5. http://blockchain.info/stats here I can see there are 4675 bitcoins mined for 24 hours, so ActM can mine 4675 *5% = 233BTC a day. and 25000 / 233 = 107 days to pay off?

Corrent me if I am wrong?

[VolanicEruptor]

@VolanicEruptor I think you forget the mining profit, which will be not bad if ActM keeps a certian mount of percentage, say %5.

Say that the total costs for high volume production and assembly is $2/GH.
At this rate, total network come Dec 1st will be about 5,000TH/S.
To hold 5% of the network short-term, this would require 250TH/S.
This mining farm would require a production/assembly cost of $500,000.
Not sure how much Ken is planning on putting into the mining farm, but it must be much less than this.  

[EskimoBob]

@VolanicEruptor I think you forget the mining profit, which will be not bad if ActM keeps a certian mount of percentage, say %5.

Say that the total costs for high volume production and assembly is $2/GH.
At this rate, total network come Dec 1st will be about 5,000TH/S.
To hold 5% of the network short-term, this would require 250TH/S.
This mining farm would require a production/assembly cost of $500,000.
Not sure how much Ken is planning on putting into the mining farm, but it must be much less than this.  

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=254930.msg3203773#msg3203773

[jinyoubei]

Thanks.

@VolanicEruptor I think you forget the mining profit, which will be not bad if ActM keeps a certian mount of percentage, say %5.

Say that the total costs for high volume production and assembly is $2/GH.
At this rate, total network come Dec 1st will be about 5,000TH/S.
To hold 5% of the network short-term, this would require 250TH/S.
This mining farm would require a production/assembly cost of $500,000.
Not sure how much Ken is planning on putting into the mining farm, but it must be much less than this.  

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=254930.msg3203773#msg3203773

[Puppet]

Who is doing the PCB and software ? How far along is that?

bump

[Vbs]

September 16, 2013

Subject: ActiveMining’s virtual “Board of Advisors” Stand Down

It is with deep regret that we wish to announce that the current ActiveMining’s virtual “Board of Advisors” is standing down, effective immediately.

The reasons for our resignation are threefold:

1) Some members of the board wish to pursue other avenues within the Bitcoin world that are tied to potential conflicts of time and interest, so the ethical choice is to step-down.

2) The board was originally convened primarily to improve upon pressing communication issues and the initial setup of the internal structure of ActiveMining. Despite our best efforts, some issues still remain in these areas, especially Marketing/PR. As such, we have recommended and facilitated the hiring of professional PR services which Ken has agreed to do.

3) Various strategies being undertaken by ActiveMining are contrary to those being advised and incompatible to the beliefs of current advisors to what would be the best overall outcome. At this time, we feel ActiveMining would be better serviced by a new board with a line of thought more in-line with the CEO vision and/or the hiring of key internal staff, such as a Director of Sales and Marketing.

We have made a number of diligences and recommendations, including:

- Engaging professional PR services to resolve what we see as significant PR and marketing issues.
- Creating a high quality website incorporating a new web store (for which we prepared a template).
- Revamping of the product line-up to reduce costs and to increase clarity for customers (for which we provided specifications) from the consumer to the professional market.
- A more strategic approach to the business as a whole, emphasising profitability and stability (for which we provided detailed guidance).
- Reduced emphasis on the CEO being the key decision maker across all areas of the business. In particular, we strongly recommend that ActiveMining hires new staff in key areas.
- Increased communication and clarity for shareholders.
- Increased information for customers.

We are grateful for the opportunity to serve as virtual advisors for ActiveMining since the 20th August 2013, and we offer our best wishes for its success.

Since there's been some controversy about the reasons why the advisory board was dissolved, I thought to elaborate a bit.

The initial motive for creating it in the first place was to push forward some issues that kept reappearing, especially the lack of consistent PR. Everyone on the advisory board kept at it while it made sense to do so. The decision to step down was mostly because we felt a certain point was reached where we've already addressed and insisted as much as possible on what we believed are/were the main issues we thought ActM needed improvement on (the list above) and concluded what Ken really needs is on-site help from key internal staff.

Like the title says we were "advisory" and there's not much else to do when you feel you've pretty much addressed everything, whether agreed to or not.

Personally, I think professional PR services/marketing is of the utmost importance and should be pursued asap. Other than that I would say that the consumer side of VMC is still unexplored and smaller systems on mini-ITX cases would rack a lot of sales, as not everyone wants a 4U case.

[EskimoBob]

I've also realized how putting up 2 selling walls kind of fucked us.
Not all shares were sold at .0025.  Most of them were given at .0005
We need 3.25 million in profit to pay us off, but we have invested not even half of that.  This was kind of a way to artificially inflate the share price and make it harder to earn .0025/share.  

In a perfect shareholder utopia, everyone would have paid the same price, so that the $ needed to pay off IPO price EQUALS the $ originally invested.. this way we would only have to make our original investment back to break even instead of needing 250%.  

If we are needing $3.25 million to pay off .0025/share, then we should have invested 3.25 million in the first place.. now the .0025 shareholders have to earn three times as much of their investment just to break even, due to buying an overvalued .0025 IPO

Look at it this way, the true "break-even" profit will always be 10,000,000 * IPO, however in our case the IPO does not = .0025.  Instead the IPO is averaged out between .0025 and .0005.  This puts the break-even profit point much lower than .0025.

I will lay this out on a spreadsheet to make it more clear

Where did this We need 3.25 million in profit to pay us off come form?

IPO is averaged out between .0025 and .0005.

Or in other words, 'coin raised'/'number of outstanding shares'.

Do any of you recall, how much coin in total was raised via sell of shares?

[VolanicEruptor]

I've also realized how putting up 2 selling walls kind of fucked us.
Not all shares were sold at .0025.  Most of them were given at .0005
We need 3.25 million in profit to pay us off, but we have invested not even half of that.  This was kind of a way to artificially inflate the share price and make it harder to earn .0025/share.  

In a perfect shareholder utopia, everyone would have paid the same price, so that the $ needed to pay off IPO price EQUALS the $ originally invested.. this way we would only have to make our original investment back to break even instead of needing 250%.  

If we are needing $3.25 million to pay off .0025/share, then we should have invested 3.25 million in the first place.. now the .0025 shareholders have to earn three times as much of their investment just to break even, due to buying an overvalued .0025 IPO

Look at it this way, the true "break-even" profit will always be 10,000,000 * IPO, however in our case the IPO does not = .0025.  Instead the IPO is averaged out between .0025 and .0005.  This puts the break-even profit point much lower than .0025.

I will lay this out on a spreadsheet to make it more clear

Where did this We need 3.25 million in profit to pay us off come form?

IPO is averaged out between .0025 and .0005.

Or in other words, 'coin raised'/'number of outstanding shares'.

Do any of you recall, how much coin in total was raised via sell of shares?

.0025BTC x 10,000,000

=3.25 million dollar market capitalization at .0025 .. we need this profit to actually earn .0025

[EskimoBob]

...............

.0025BTC x 10,000,000

=3.25 million dollar market capitalization at .0025 .. we need this profit to actually earn .0025

Market cap is irrelevant at the moment.
Do you know how much coin in total was raised via sell of shares?

EDIT2:
1) Can we estimate, that ~7685 BTC was from btct.co Activemining placement?
2) bitfunder AMC+Activemining:

EDIT1:
Is it correct to say, that at the moment Actm has 6898797+3074084=9972881 shares outstanding.
15027119 shares are held as treasury stock for now but will be transferred to management (founders?) when total of 0.0025 dividends area paid to holders of 10M shares.
We also know, that Actm hold at least 1400 BTC (Avalon refund)
and mines with 6 Avalon miners, currently running on BTC Guild under "Team AMC" for around 415 GH/s;


July Sales  later corrected as profit form sales:
Total             $20,495.00
Average        $661.13/Day

August Sales later corrected as profit form sales :
Total           $89,969
Average   $2,902.23

and there is another August sales number : $330,000?
I assume this is revenue
Revenue: 330000?
Cost of goods sold:  240031 ?
Profit: 89969?

[VolanicEruptor]

All I see is that you're puking out arbitrary numbers and low sales figures... you didn't even make a point.  3.25 million market cap is more important than anything, because we need that same amount to earn .0025/share, and we're not even close to that because Ken is incompetent.   Plain and simple.  

[RoadStress]

All I see is that you're puking out arbitrary numbers and low sales figures... you didn't even make a point.  3.25 million market cap is more important than anything, because we need that same amount to earn .0025/share, and we're not even close to that because Ken is incompetent.   Plain and simple.  

So you realize this now? I thought you were praising and defending Ken while others questioned him.

[Puppet]

 3.25 million market cap is more important than anything, because we need that same amount to earn .0025/share

Only if all the IPO money would actually have been spent.

[VolanicEruptor]

All I see is that you're puking out arbitrary numbers and low sales figures... you didn't even make a point.  3.25 million market cap is more important than anything, because we need that same amount to earn .0025/share, and we're not even close to that because Ken is incompetent.   Plain and simple.  

So you realize this now? I thought you were praising and defending Ken while others questioned him.

I still praise the 28nm eASIC chip technology, and I am blown away by the amazing potential of VMC.  However, put a monkey behind the wheel of a Ferrari and you're still going to have a disaster.  The performance of said Ferrari is limited by what this monkey can do, and right now all he's doing is throwing his poop at those who gave him the car loan.  
If this monkey learns how to make this Ferrari scream down the Blockchain highway, then maybe we stand a chance.  But.. it's only a monkey.  

[EskimoBob]

All I see is that you're puking out arbitrary numbers and low sales figures... you didn't even make a point.  3.25 million market cap is more important than anything, because we need that same amount to earn .0025/share, and we're not even close to that because Ken is incompetent.   Plain and simple.  

I think you need to get yourself a dictionary and look up what "arbitrary" means.
Those sales figures are published in Actm threads and by Ken.
Do you want me to make them look better? What font colour do you prefer?

Also, I am still unclear wtf are you so hell-bent on that market cap - share price times the number of shares outstanding
Are you trying to say that share price needs to climb back to 0.0025? Please elaborate because you make no sense and I am sure this is just a problem with semantics.

[VolanicEruptor]

All I see is that you're puking out arbitrary numbers and low sales figures... you didn't even make a point.  3.25 million market cap is more important than anything, because we need that same amount to earn .0025/share, and we're not even close to that because Ken is incompetent.   Plain and simple.  

I think you need to get yourself a dictionary and look up what "arbitrary" means.
Those sales figures are published in Actm threads and by Ken.
Do you want me to make them look better? What font colour do you prefer?

Also, I am still unclear wtf are you so hell-bent on that market cap - share price times the number of shares outstanding
Are you trying to say that share price needs to climb back to 0.0025? Please elaborate because you make no sense and I am sure this is just a problem with semantics.

For ken to pay us .0025 in dividends, 25000 BTC needs to be made.  This is about 3.25 million dollars.  Simple math. 

[EskimoBob]

All I see is that you're puking out arbitrary numbers and low sales figures... you didn't even make a point.  3.25 million market cap is more important than anything, because we need that same amount to earn .0025/share, and we're not even close to that because Ken is incompetent.   Plain and simple.  

I think you need to get yourself a dictionary and look up what "arbitrary" means.
Those sales figures are published in Actm threads and by Ken.
Do you want me to make them look better? What font colour do you prefer?

Also, I am still unclear wtf are you so hell-bent on that market cap - share price times the number of shares outstanding
Are you trying to say that share price needs to climb back to 0.0025? Please elaborate because you make no sense and I am sure this is just a problem with semantics.

For ken to pay us .0025 in dividends, 25000 BTC needs to be made.  This is about 3.25 million dollars.  Simple math. 

Correct, and it has NOTHING to do with market capitalization aka market cap. 

Following numbers are a bit worrisome:

and there is another August sales number : $330,000
I assume this is revenue
Revenue: 330000?
Cost of goods sold:  240031 ?
Profit: 89969?

This only a 27.26% gross margin or 37.48% Mark Up. I personally hope, this is some type of anomaly and official reports, Ken has promised to publish soon, will clear this up for good. If those are correct numbers, my calculations show that Gh cost is somewhere between 6-8 USD.
I hope I am wrong.