[ActiveMining] Official Shareholder Discussion Thread [Moderated]

[lobbes]

I made the same move myself when the Bitfunder news broke only to get scammed out of a tidy profit by Danny Brewster.  I wonder how things could have turned out if Uncle Sam had left btct.co and Bitfunder alone.  I'd also love to know how much, if anything, VE had to play in Uncle Sam's interest in Ken.  I'd be especially keen to know if Ken's involvement in the HF bankruptcy was impeded by the MSD's announcement and if a significant deal was scuppered by the untimely announcement.  Too much of a coincidence?

If you honestly think this thing had a chance of working you are insane.

Neo didn't work because danny was a scammer.

This didn't work because Ken is. Who cares what happened to btct.co bitfunder or hashfast when Ken couldn't accomplish a thing throughout this entire process. He couldn't even ship in hand product in a timely fashion.

He was also a well-documented liar, and didn't even try to move product (probably by design). There are still a good number of customers still waiting for refunds, and we all know of Ken's non-existent customer service; also probably by design. Why try to sell and have a good reputation if you already have the money? Just fade away...

In the end, Ken was just another scammer.

Any newcomers thinking of investing gambling in this space should take a look at this saga in its whole and hopefully notice a pattern that shows up with the majority of scams/fails in this place:

- Initial offering; clouded in ambiguity and hyped by wild speculation from shills and/or dummies. Any attempt to get more info is met with a convenient excuse, such as 'NDA' or 'CEO is smart and playing his cards close to his chest'
- n00bs who don't know any better (I fell into this category) buy into it and decide to gamble
- People who do know better try to warn others - they fail, being labeled 'trolls' or 'the competition'
- Censorship begins, because the 'trolls are going to destroy the company's reputation'
- Eventual fallout: OP disappears or just screws everyone and still hangs around

[1714796772]

1714796772

[1714796772]

1714796772

[1714796772]

1714796772

[zumzero]

I genuinely see ActM as a failed business and not a scam.  Also I don't believe that businesses can start out with genuine intentions and then become scams.  I think successful scams are well planned from the outset and well executed buy people who are very talented.  Sound like Ken?  

Answer this;  Why didn't Ken run with the initial funds raised in the IPO?  Why did he pay $1,000,000 to eASIC if he could have simply pocketed the money?  Why was he transparent enough to publicize his identity, business and home addresses, phone numbers and all the other details which meant he could never run away with the stash?

@lobbes - you're making valid points and it is absolutely clear that potential investors should be wary from investing in this space.  But for more than just the reasons that you are citing.  You see 'noobs' like yourself, as you put it, find it much easier to blame fellow noobs by mislabeling them as shills because it's easier for some to imagine a dark conspiracy rather than a boring old fashioned failed business.  You, and potential investors should realize that investing in verey high reward tech companies is also very high risk.  That is, less than 10% of businesses will succeed.  This is why I'm not acting as butt hurt as some of you.  Because I jumped with both feet BECAUSE it was being labelled as a scam in the very early days.  You don't make money by buying shares high then selling low.

The reality is, Ken wasn't a good business man and he failed.  He failed himself, his family and all of us.  Simple.  He won't be going to prison for failing as that is not a crime, however he's going to be asked to part with what money he might  have left and that's where some of you might finally find solace.  

Don't invest more than you can afford to lose.  It seems that most ActM investors made that very mistake.  Those that didn't are well gone.

[stereotype]

- People who do know better try to warn others - they fail, being labeled 'trolls' or 'the competition'

There's just not enough people with the tenacity and focus to expose what most people cant, or refuse to see.

Who am i thinking of, who has that skill to slap ones face, with a big wet fish of pertinent facts, with pretty good accuracy???  

[Phildo]

Ken didn't run with the initial ipo money for the same reason madoff didn't run with the initial money, so he could make more money in the long run.

Every delay allowed him and his family members to take more money in "legitimate" salary, take in money from more "sales" and give him more time to "use" the ipo money. Every delay made it easier for the money to disappear, and harder for anyone to come after him.

how many scams have there been where the guy doesn't run immediately? If he runs immediately, everyone goes after him and he can can caught easily and with most of the money. By not running immediately, geniuses like you give him time to spend the money, and make it harder for him to get caught.

[lobbes]

Ken didn't run with the initial ipo money for the same reason madoff didn't run with the initial money, so he could make more money in the long run.

Bingo

I think successful scams are well planned from the outset and well executed buy people who are very talented.  Sound like Ken? 

Yes, it does sound like him. Ken executed the scam very well. Looking back, it is pretty obvious that he wasn't just your run-of-the-mill, incompetent businessman; he was purposefully deceitful and misleading (which can be considered a crime). This is the crucial difference.

If ActM isn't enough proof, just check out some of his past ventures:

Announcing TorEx "Anonymous Bitcoin Exchange"
Million-dollar Web Hosting

In the end, it is not about being butt-hurt; Ken won, and it is indeed over.

It is about learning from mistakes and not repeating them. If you take a look at bitcointalk.. well, I would rather just gamble BTC away on a dice throw. Again, at least it is provably fair and not some random dude on the internet.

If you're looking to increase your BTC... you probably won't find a way here. I can't think of one venture here that is still providing a return to investors who bought at IPO. Day-trading profits? Sure, but then you are just sticking the bag with the 'greater fool.' Sounds kind of immoral to me.

[zumzero]

Those links don't convince me but each to their own I suppose.  I stand by what I said and am looking forward to learning more when things start to go public.  

I'll leave you with this thought.  Do you think that someone like Bargraphics or Vince could have made a success of this company if they'd taken full ownership from the moment the Board of Advisors was instated?

[Phildo]

Do bargraphics or Vince know how to make ASICs? Why didn't anyone ask that question about Ken?

[drawingthesun]

Someone tried accessing my CryptoTrade account a little while ago and I'm 40% sure who it was.

Anyone else here had their accounts get a failed login email from CryptoTrade in the last 12 hours?

EDIT: So this was a phishing attempt. It would be nice if CryptoTrade had an option to move shares to a new account so that it is clean.

[RoadStress]

I genuinely see ActM as a failed business and not a scam.  Also I don't believe that businesses can start out with genuine intentions and then become scams.  I think successful scams are well planned from the outset and well executed buy people who are very talented.  Sound like Ken?  

Answer this;  Why didn't Ken run with the initial funds raised in the IPO?  Why did he pay $1,000,000 to eASIC if he could have simply pocketed the money?  Why was he transparent enough to publicize his identity, business and home addresses, phone numbers and all the other details which meant he could never run away with the stash?

@lobbes - you're making valid points and it is absolutely clear that potential investors should be wary from investing in this space.  But for more than just the reasons that you are citing.  You see 'noobs' like yourself, as you put it, find it much easier to blame fellow noobs by mislabeling them as shills because it's easier for some to imagine a dark conspiracy rather than a boring old fashioned failed business.  You, and potential investors should realize that investing in verey high reward tech companies is also very high risk.  That is, less than 10% of businesses will succeed.  This is why I'm not acting as butt hurt as some of you.  Because I jumped with both feet BECAUSE it was being labelled as a scam in the very early days.  You don't make money by buying shares high then selling low.

The reality is, Ken wasn't a good business man and he failed.  He failed himself, his family and all of us.  Simple.  He won't be going to prison for failing as that is not a crime, however he's going to be asked to part with what money he might  have left and that's where some of you might finally find solace.  

Don't invest more than you can afford to lose.  It seems that most ActM investors made that very mistake.  Those that didn't are well gone.

You are really stupid, but what can I expect from someone who paid 10k pounds just to delete some forum posts. Ken didn't run with the initial funds because if he did it then he would have to stay on the run his whole life. But by doing what he did he gets away with money, mining machines and he has a clean record.

As for the 1M paid to eASIC how can you believe that? Did you actually saw the transfer? Or any signed documents besides the NDA? I don't think so. A long con is much more efficient than a plain and simple scam of running with money. You as a shareholder didn't saw a single document that proved that Ken really tried to create 2-3 ASIC chips. YOU SAW NOTHING, but you still believe that this wasn't a scam. Amaizing! What about the recovered money from eASIC? I haven't heard anything about that. Why is it so hard to ask for some proofs?

[zumzero]

The eAsic website is proof enough.  You're going over old arguments that were put to bed over a year ago you fucking prick.  Learn to spell you muppet!

[GTR_JOEY]

So.. When do we start the hunt for blood

[drawingthesun]

So.. When do we start the hunt for blood

I think most of the shareholders have just given up and are trying to move on (which is what the scammer would want of course!) and no one seems serious about taking Ken and his scamming family down.

Most of the shareholders at most have talked to some Government entity, but it seems that very few people are actually engaging Ken directly in court. I assume the shareholders that have taken Ken to court are instead making out of court settlements, because court records are public and I am sure someone would have found a court case involving Ken and some shareholder.

[tempestb]

I doubt Ken has settled with anyone over anything.  He has likely paid some refunds and not paid others.  Most investors are waiting for the MSD investigation to announce how they intend to handle refunds.  If he is out of money, they'll slap liens on his property.  Being that he's old, they can garnish his Social Security checks and any pension he might have.  So one way or another, he's going to pay everyone back.  It just may take awhile and it depends on how many games he wants to play by shuffling money into Bitcoin wallets.

[zumzero]

A sensible and level headed post tempest.  A discussion point I'd like to raise from that is whether we can expect Ken to be forced to return bitcoin or fiat value relative to shareholders initial purchases.  It has been discussed before but do we know how Uncle Sam is likely to perceive it?  My guess is that they'll see it as amount invested in fiat should be returned in fiat.

All this talk of it being a scam I find hilarious.  He isn't a scammer, in part, because he has always been well and truly aware that he couldn't run and will have to abide by the law of the land.

This 'perfectly executed' scam theory simply doesn't hold.  Ken is going to court and as you suggest will be held to account for his business activities.  He's referred to his legal representatives throughout and if there is anything he doesn't skimp on, I bet, it's trying to cover himself from a legal standpoint.

[HardwareReviewer]

Sending 2 invalid checks on purpose (as I am not the only one), is what I call scamming people.

[zumzero]

So do I.

[bitorious]

Sending 2 invalid checks on purpose (as I am not the only one), is what I call scamming people.

What proof do you have that it was on purpose?

[HardwareReviewer]

Sending 2 invalid checks on purpose (as I am not the only one), is what I call scamming people.

What proof do you have that it was on purpose?

I agree this would be questionable, if I would have been the only one.

As there are many others he pulled this on, it can hardly qualify as being careless.

[meccaflare0]

I despise Ken.

[knybe]