[ActiveMining] Official Shareholder Discussion Thread [Moderated]

[Jasun7211]

All I kmow is I was in actm when btc was around $13 per btc, so mayne that .05 is actually lookimg pretty good

[1713491805]

1713491805

[1713491805]

1713491805

[shrodes]

provided they purchased them direct from Active Mining.

Only the Whales bought at 0.0025 and they have all sold up long ago and gone. I bet almost no-one left here will find in their BF log that they bought at exactly 0.0025.

So this is a joke.

Pretty sure I bought most of mine at 0.0025, but is there any way of getting BTCT data now?

[kslaughter]

Ken had two separate IPOs, one @.0005 and one @.0025.
The people who bought his second IPO are getting 20 cents on the dollar.  Either MSD is not aware of this, or Ken is lying again

I'd imagine both ipo s would be the same as the first ipo had a much lower BTC/USD price.  Remember you guys need to look at this from the establishment's view.  Business views arn't the state's.  The state just needs to be legaly sufficient!!

If investors purchased shares (not tendered shares from the first IPO) in the second IPO, they will be getting ~$.25 per share, provided they purchased them direct from Active Mining.

It doesn't matter where the shares were purchased from,

As soon as you tendered them to a whole new "IPO" the "IPO" that they are currently "making you refund' that is named "ActiveMining".

You owe investors (Anyone with shares regardless of where they came from) 0.0025 BTC Per share. Whatever BTC Price was when you opened up the new IPO (July 8th by my records https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=252531.msg2685508#msg2685508) is the USD you have to pay + "8% Interest")

http://www.coindesk.com/price/

On July 8th, BTC was at $74.56 by CoinDesks Historical Price so each share would be worth $0.1864

So to put this in perspective, every 10,000 Shares of ActiveMining would get a refund of $1,864 or $2,500 at Ken's ~$0.25.

The MSD says the investors original purchase price, so the second IPO if you tendered shares from the first IPO you will receive the first IPO price of .0005 BTC if you want a refund.

[JoTheKhan]

Yeah I can prove I moved shares from BTCT to Bitfunder.. And then from Bitfunder to Cryptotrade

[kslaughter]

Pretty sure I bought most of mine at 0.0025, but is there any way of getting BTCT data now?

No, all you can see is the ammount you tendered to BF in your BF log. You can't login to btc-tc anymore.

Ken how do we prove what we paid for them on BTC-TC?

The investor will have to prove what they paid with documents.  Some of the details with MSD have to be ironed out.

[iamnot_]

Ken are you able to mention anything today about the Hashfast situation or future develops for the company? I know there are many who may be interested in keeping their shares despite all this MSD stuff.

[sartech]

Ken are you able to mention anything today about the Hashfast situation or future develops for the company? I know there are many who may be interested in keeping their shares despite all this MSD stuff.

+1

[kslaughter]

Ken had two separate IPOs, one @.0005 and one @.0025.
The people who bought his second IPO are getting 20 cents on the dollar.  Either MSD is not aware of this, or Ken is lying again

I'd imagine both ipo s would be the same as the first ipo had a much lower BTC/USD price.  Remember you guys need to look at this from the establishment's view.  Business views arn't the state's.  The state just needs to be legaly sufficient!!

If investors purchased shares (not tendered shares from the first IPO) in the second IPO, they will be getting ~$.25 per share, provided they purchased them direct from Active Mining.

It doesn't matter where the shares were purchased from,

As soon as you tendered them to a whole new "IPO" the "IPO" that they are currently "making you refund' that is named "ActiveMining".

You owe investors (Anyone with shares regardless of where they came from) 0.0025 BTC Per share. Whatever BTC Price was when you opened up the new IPO (July 8th by my records https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=252531.msg2685508#msg2685508) is the USD you have to pay + "8% Interest")

http://www.coindesk.com/price/

On July 8th, BTC was at $74.56 by CoinDesks Historical Price so each share would be worth $0.1864

So to put this in perspective, every 10,000 Shares of ActiveMining would get a refund of $1,864 or $2,500 at Ken's ~$0.25.

The MSD says the investors original purchase price, so the second IPO if you tendered shares from the first IPO you will receive the first IPO price of .0005 BTC if you want a refund.

There's no first or second IPO Ken. AMC wasn't told to repay investors, ActiveMining was. When we Tendered them over that was our "purchase" of ActiveMining at a 1:1 ratio. We purchased ActiveMining with our AMC Shares at ActiveMining's IPO Price. There's no way around this logically and the MSD would agree wholeheartedly.

You are wrong, the language states the original purchase price.  It is what you paid in USD to acquire the shares, it is what your cost basis is in the shares plus 8%, that is what the Missouri law states and that is what the MSD is going to make us do.

[arousedrhino]

Ken are you able to mention anything today about the Hashfast situation or future develops for the company? I know there are many who may be interested in keeping their shares despite all this MSD stuff.

+1

+1 Would like an answer to this as well.

[shaofis]

The MSD says the investors original purchase price, so the second IPO if you tendered shares from the first IPO you will receive the first IPO price of .0005 BTC if you want a refund.

I guess you leave no option but for everyone here to take it up with MSD directly. How do you think you'll fare if that happens?

[JoTheKhan]

If you bought on BTCT, they sent you an email everytime you bought at the exact time and date you bought along with the price and the number of shares lol

Not only that. Burnside sent out API Keys that should let you access your records. BTCT.co is still up btw.

[Bargraphics]

You are wrong, the language states the original purchase price.  It is what you paid in USD to acquire the shares, it is what your cost basis is in the shares plus 8%, that is what the Missouri law states and that is what the MSD is going to make us do.

Actually I'm correct, what do you think the original purchase price was when you IPO'd at 0.0025BTC and traded shares for a 1:1 Ratio?

The original purchase was was 0.0025BTC as soon as you took our AMC shares. This is how business works. Instead of taking USD or BTC, you took shares that you valued at 0.0025 BTC Each.

This is exactly how they will see it, there's no funny games here. I have records showing the transaction of AMC Shares for ActiveMining Shares (At ActiveMining's Original IPO) that were valued at 0.0025 BTC on July 8th 2013.

[kslaughter]

OK Ken so you will need to find 10,000,000 x $0.25 which is 2.5Mill USD. A bit less that I thought before - will this bankrupt the company?

No, we did not sell 10,000,000 shares @ $.025, sorry.

[pedrog]

OK Ken so you will need to find 10,000,000 x $0.25 which is 2.5Mill USD. A bit less that I thought before - will this bankrupt the company?

How do you know that?

[snowdropfore]

i do not understand ,i bought shares at many price, 0.0025,0.005,0.001.00089,0.0005 so what should i refund?? or i can still keep my shares???

[bigdude]

Ken,

Can you give some information about the future prospects of the business so investors can decide to keep their shares or have them reimbursed.

Assuming all investors shares are reimbursed for those who choose so, what then for the rest of the company?

What are your plans?

What are the prospects?

Clearly this is a complete stuff up, so now is the time to simply be clear and transparent on everything.

[kslaughter]

You are wrong, the language states the original purchase price.  It is what you paid in USD to acquire the shares, it is what your cost basis is in the shares plus 8%, that is what the Missouri law states and that is what the MSD is going to make us do.

Actually I'm correct, what do you think the original purchase price was when you IPO'd at 0.0025BTC and traded shares for a 1:1 Ratio?

The original purchase was was 0.0025BTC as soon as you took our AMC shares. This is how business works. Instead of taking USD or BTC, you took shares that you valued at 0.0025 BTC Each.

This is exactly how they will see it, there's no funny games here. I have records showing the transaction of AMC Shares for ActiveMining Shares (At ActiveMining's Original IPO) that were valued at 0.0025 BTC on July 8th 2013.

You traded one security for another, your basis in the first security is what counts.  You did not purchase the second security you did an exchange.

[kslaughter]

You are wrong, the language states the original purchase price.  It is what you paid in USD to acquire the shares, it is what your cost basis is in the shares plus 8%, that is what the Missouri law states and that is what the MSD is going to make us do.

Actually I'm correct, what do you think the original purchase price was when you IPO'd at 0.0025BTC and traded shares for a 1:1 Ratio?

The original purchase was was 0.0025BTC as soon as you took our AMC shares. This is how business works. Instead of taking USD or BTC, you took shares that you valued at 0.0025 BTC Each.

This is exactly how they will see it, there's no funny games here. I have records showing the transaction of AMC Shares for ActiveMining Shares (At ActiveMining's Original IPO) that were valued at 0.0025 BTC on July 8th 2013.

Why let filthy fiat get between two of Bitcoin's greatest visionaries?  

The MSD.

[Jasun7211]

You are wrong, the language states the original purchase price.  It is what you paid in USD to acquire the shares, it is what your cost basis is in the shares plus 8%, that is what the Missouri law states and that is what the MSD is going to make us do.

Actually I'm correct, what do you think the original purchase price was when you IPO'd at 0.0025BTC and traded shares for a 1:1 Ratio?

The original purchase was was 0.0025BTC as soon as you took our AMC shares. This is how business works. Instead of taking USD or BTC, you took shares that you valued at 0.0025 BTC Each.

This is exactly how they will see it, there's no funny games here. I have records showing the transaction of AMC Shares for ActiveMining Shares (At ActiveMining's Original IPO) that were valued at 0.0025 BTC on July 8th 2013.

While I agree with you in the business world, in the eyes of the state that isn't how it works.  They need to follow their own statutes.  Really now that btc is defi ed as property actm shares are a deriviative of that property yet still property, but all that is irrlelvant .  The state only cares about the exchange of value as denominated in legal tender.  They don't distinct between btc and actm shares.  Trust me I know how they think.....I work for them.   It is a special way of thinking.....logical....yes,...but in an infantile sort of way.  But these laws are written by simpletons.   This is a classic example of what people talk abiut when they say "by the time the govt figures it out and regulates it, their laws won't apply since the speed of the technology moves so fast"  remember the state just needs to be legally sufficient as interpreted by their laws.....no more no less.

[Bargraphics]

While I agree with you in the business world, in the eyes of the state that isn't how it works.  They need to follow their own statutes.  Really now that btc is defi ed as property actm shares are a deriviative of that property yet still property, but all that is irrlelvant .  The state only cares about the exchange of value as denominated in legal tender.  They don't distinct between btc and actm shares.  Trust me I know how they think.....I work for them.   It is a special way of thinking.....logical....yes,...but in an infantile sort of way.  But these laws are written by simpletons.   This is a classic example of what people talk abiut when they say "by the time the govt figures it out and regulates it, their laws won't apply since the speed of the technology moves so fast"  remember the state just needs to be legally sufficient as interpreted by their laws.....no more no less.

Thank you for your insightfulness,

I'm sure with your connections you would be able to provide me direct access with talking to someone who has authority and not a "trust me I know how they think" buckle on their belt.