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

[MilkyWayMasta]

As a user affected by the weexchange mess, I really blame Ken that is liquidating Ukyo's shares to get his debt back before other users.

We are all users effected by the WeEX mess - Ukyo stole 106BTC of our investment capital. That was money from us investors stolen by Ukyo.

Now your money might well be important to you but you need to remember who stole it from you. You also need to realise ACtM has lost money from it's balance sheet and that money needs to be returned. Hundreds of people are invested in this company and we and the employees of ACtM have a legal right to get our stolen money back. You obviously don't like that but it's out legal right and we are exercising it for the sake of this company. If you want to see some of your money back buy these shares, at this price you are guaranteed a full return on your money.

It is really easy to get, probably you are in bad faith.

Let's explain with easy numbers.

Ukyo stole 1000 XBT from 10 users, Ken was on of the users and robbed by 100 XBT
Ken holds (not owns) 100 ActM Ukyo's shares with 1XBT value each one.
Those shares are owned by Ukyo and he could (and should) liquidate them to partially refund ALL weexchange users, so 10XBT each one
Ken instead sells him and pays back his debt entirely, leaving none to the other users.

Is it fair? Is it legal?

Why do you keep bringing up the users Ukyo stole from? How is Ken responsible for them? He is only responsible in recouping his companies lost funds.

[minerpart]

Is it fair? Is it legal?

News for you - business isn't fair. If you want to succeed in business you often need to play hard-ball and make big decisions.

Is it legal? Absolutely, within the spirit and letter of the law. Without any court order instructing him otherwise, Ken is like any debtor who has seized assets, entitled to sell them to recover his losses. The fact that other parties have a claim against Ukyo is a side issue for Ken. They need to take up their own acts of seizure or legal disputes with Ukyo.

[minerpart]

Yep, and only 6.72 BTC being offered for the remaining 80%.

You don't understand how an exchange works. It a bit like a shop. Not every customer is in Walmart at every second of the day. Not everyone - infact very few big buyers - use buy orders.

[drawingthesun]

I don't understand how they would sell at that price. Are they worth 0.0001 or not?

If Ken had put up 40,000 and reinstated our shares, with good news I reckon Ken might have been able to sell them at 0.0025 within a month or so. However with this curveball, (A panicking CEO trying to get 100 bitcoin as soon as possible) confidence is eroding away even for the most loyal of investors.

The way the 100 bitcoin situation is being handled does not bode well for how our company is being handled.

I had some confidence after Ken's update and Bargraphics report, but this just shits on the cake.

[MilkyWayMasta]

Is it fair? Is it legal?

News for you - business isn't fair. If you want to succeed in business you often need to play hard-ball and make big decisions.

Is it legal? Absolutely, within the spirit and letter of the law. Without any court order instructing him otherwise, Ken is like any debtor who has seized assets, entitled to sell them to recover his losses. The fact that other parties have a claim against Ukyo is a side issue for Ken. They need to take up their own acts of seizure or legal disputes with this individual.

Wait, don't seized assets get split between ALL the debtors?

[drawingthesun]

Guys lol.. There is no fire sale, because there are no buyers.

Haven't 20% of the shares been sold already? Am I missing something?

Yep, and only 6.72 BTC being offered for the remaining 80%.

This is a terrible argument, demonstrating a terrible understanding of exchanges and the current situation.

Duffer, people can buy shares without having to sit them in the order book.

That 6.~ bitcoin has been stable whilst 25 bitcoin has moved in purchasing UKYO's shares. Obviously that 6.~ amount does not reflect the entirety of the situation.

[EduardoDeCastro]

Yep, and only 6.72 BTC being offered for the remaining 80%.

You don't understand how an exchange works. It a bit like a shop. Not every customer is in Walmart at every second of the day. Not everyone - infact very few big buyers - use buy orders.

If Wal-Mart had an 80% OFF EVERYTHING SALE...

[Pompobit]

Is it legal? Absolutely, within the spirit and letter of the law. Without any court order instructing him otherwise, Ken is like any debtor who has seized assets, entitled to sell them to recover his losses. The fact that other parties have a claim against Ukyo is a side issue for Ken. They need to take up their own acts of seizure or legal disputes with this individual.

Ok, I'm sure now you are in bad faith, if you can say it is legal to sell something you don't own.
By the way, I'm not here to convince you, I know you are invested in this company and you desperately need to keep the shares worth something, it's time wasted for me.
I was just here to let Ken to know that Ukyo is not the only one willing to sue him, as I said, I'll investigate if it is possible to include this event in the legal action against weexchange.

[Jasun7211]

Is it fair? Is it legal?

News for you - business isn't fair. If you want to succeed in business you often need to play hard-ball and make big decisions.

Is it legal? Absolutely, within the spirit and letter of the law. Without any court order instructing him otherwise, Ken is like any debtor who has seized assets, entitled to sell them to recover his losses. The fact that other parties have a claim against Ukyo is a side issue for Ken. They need to take up their own acts of seizure or legal disputes with this individual.

Wait, don't seized assets get split between ALL the debtors?

Nothing is seized yet, if ever at all.  This is not the regulated business environment.  In this bitcoin world you have to take it while its hot.  Remember these are virtual shares in a virtual currency.    

[EduardoDeCastro]

...
Wait, don't seized assets get split between ALL the debtors?

Just stop it.  This is two pickpockets stealing from each other.  No need to bring corporate law into this.

[minerpart]

Wait, don't seized assets get split between ALL the debtors?

Well not in my country. There has to be a court order to make that sort of distribution compulsory. When a car is repossessed does the car seller/repossesor share the proceeds out with the landlord who hasn't been paid his rent? We are taking back assests that were sold by us directly to Ukyo. So we have recovered those assets and are in the process of selling them to refund our losses. 100% legit.

[Pompobit]

Wait, don't seized assets get split between ALL the debtors?

you get the point now.

It is really easy to get, probably you are in bad faith.

Let's explain with easy numbers.

Ukyo stole 1000 XBT from 10 users, Ken was on of the users and robbed by 100 XBT
Ken holds (not owns) 100 ActM Ukyo's shares with 1XBT value each one.
Those shares are owned by Ukyo and he could (and should) liquidate them to partially refund ALL weexchange users, so 10XBT each one
Ken instead sells him and pays back his debt entirely, leaving none to the other users.

Is it fair? Is it legal?

[minerpart]

Ok, I'm sure now you are in bad faith,

I am simply referring to US law. You don't have to take my word for it do some research on lien.

[EduardoDeCastro]

Ok, I'm sure now you are in bad faith,

I am simply referring to US law. You don't have to take my word for it do some research on lien.

You should be quoting Belize law.  Active Mining is a Belize Virtual Identity

[MilkyWayMasta]

Wait, don't seized assets get split between ALL the debtors?

Well not in my country. There has to be a court order to make that sort of distribution compulsory. When a car is repossessed does the car seller/repossesor share the proceeds out with the landlord who hasn't been paid his rent? We are taking back assests that were sold by us directly to Ukyo. So we have recovered those assets and are in the process of selling them to refund our losses. 100% legit.

Your analogy clear it up for me, thanks.

[minerpart]

I was just here to let Ken to know that Ukyo is not the only one willing to sue him, as I said, I'll investigate if it is possible to include this event in the legal action against weexchange.

I hope you are still reading this as I have a scenario for you:

Ken sells 25% of the shares and recovers all ACtM losses.
Ken returns the 75% of the shares to Ukyo.
Then what happens?

Does Ukyo sell the rest and distribute the money to other WeEx users? I don't think that is ever going to happen. This guy is going to jail. No question, he is a multimillion dollar fraudster. He would expect to serve 15-20 years for such a crime even if he tried to pay some of the money back. A lenient judge might give him 10years.

Now why would he hang around if he made 500BTC by selling his 75%. Why wouldn't he disappear to Mexico?

So the point is, you you have zero chance of getting any money back from this criminal. Ukyo will keep any money he gets and use if for his life on the run. He may already be in Mexico.

[kleeck]

Wow. What a complete and utter clown show! Such a beautiful mixture of highly emotional bitching, drudging up the same old bullshit FUD (that's been put down more times then I'd like to count), and general group-think freak outs. Glorious.

[damiano]

I dont even know why I come to the shit show anymore

Every day I hope to pick out something useful

[knybe]

Buncha legal experts you all are.

If anyone is buying any of these cut rate shares for a company that hasn't proven one iota of its business goals, I suggest you consider using monies that you can afford to lose.

Big fat gamble at this point.

[Jasun7211]

I really like this company, too bad my vision of a shareholders meeting is something like the movie It's a Mad, Mad, Mad , Mad, Mad World where everyone is looking for a big W.  

Ken...keep on keepin on brotha!!!