Quote from: kslaughter on June 28, 2013, 03:38:23 PM

Quote from: bigdude on June 28, 2013, 03:23:19 PM

Quote from: ChefBorjan on June 28, 2013, 03:16:03 PM

I still see the shares on Bitfunder. Oddly I now see 1.6 million, slightly higher than before.

'Still' ... just means you missed the disappearing act

Ken, I think we need an explanation of whats going on ... why did it disappear, then re-appear with more shares?

Yes, I did it out of frustration and I apologize, since my expertise is engineering, I am still learning the ins and out of the Bitcoin stock market. The sell order is not going away until sold or until it's not needed anymore due to mining profits. I commit to announcing in this thread before any share price movements in the future.

I did add a few more shares that were in the account as I did not know the exact amount of shares when I canceled the sell order. If anyone remembers the exact amount, I'll re-list them as that.

Don't do this. As as investor that bought in at 0.0005 with over 100k in shares i have seen this manipulation from Ken several times. Let the market do what it needs to do to value the shares. Just leave it alone and step back.

Quote from: Kushedout on June 28, 2013, 05:44:02 PM

I am under the impression that Ken cares more about the share price on daily bases then delivery of goods.

I would have more faith if he just released all the shares at once at IPO price and let the free market do its things.
The more he tries to control and manipulate the price the more he hurts his/company reputation.

I think this would have been the best idea. Maybe Ken should have released all the IPO shares initially which should have been 40,000,000 shares. Or maybe even break it down into 2 rounds and do 20m first and the other 20m at the market price of announcement.

Quote from: Ac3Upz on June 28, 2013, 04:49:38 PM

I think that this deal could be summarized in this way:
The cca 6,000,000 shares sold (and another 14,000,000) are mainly for loan for funding R&D and production for VMC company. The risk of the loan is solely on investors in AMC.
For that 20,000,000 shares the investors are entitled to 2% of VMC's profits (AMC gets 10%, 20 mil. shares gets one fifth of that).
Also AMC has the option to buy the machines first (which is a great advantage, because the profit with mining much depends on when do you start mining compared to the difficulty) and is entitled to profits from mining (but at least 60% of the mining profits goes in Ken's pocket).

I don't like this whole VMC/AMC structure. Why are we risking everything to fund VMC's hardware project? Wouldn't it be better for VMC/AMC to be one entity and manufacture hardware and mine just like ASICMINER? I've been reading this thread since day 1 and there is so much drama, confusion and lack of transparency. Why can't we just keep it simple? Wouldn't it make more sense to have VMC/AMC operate under one roof. AMC can manufacture hardware and mine. AMC can use the hardware to mine or sell it if it will generate additional income on the side just like ASICMINER. With the mining revenue and hardware sales it will to back to the shareholders in dividends. The 20m in growth and expansion fund will then be used to continue manufacturing and selling more hardware. If more shares need to be released to raise funds for more growth and expansion then those shares can be released at the market price at that time. What do you guys think? Isn't this more easier to work with? Then AMC will be able to take in profits from mining and hardware sales and the investors will be happy and it will give the company more value.

Quote from: ronaldlee0917 on June 28, 2013, 03:04:41 PM

Yep, we are risking our money for small potential profit.
I want to ask what if VMC default the loan?
The issuer is unaffected because it is just a transfer of money from his left pocket to his right pocket. But to all shareholders, it is a 100% loss!
Sorry, just sold all my shares, perhaps I am a weak hand, couldn't take the huge risk for small profit.

I think as shareholders we are taking the risk so the reward should be that much greater.

Quote from: lysr on June 28, 2013, 02:27:16 PM

I don't get the part AMC is using its shareholder's money to fund the project of VMC and only get 10% royalty in return.

I don't get his either. If we the shareholders are using the money to fund a project it should be AMC's project and we should be entitled to the returns/dividends. I think at the time of the IPO only the 6 avalons were on order. The IPO funded the 20K in chips that will be used to make VMC's machines. Wouldn't it be better for AMC to fund the project to make the machines and profit from the mining and hardware sale dividends?