Quote from: sayaz on October 01, 2013, 09:46:43 AM

Lol that logic is flawed.

Cheerleaders or not it was impossible for that particular board to make change happen. They could say anything and Ken just yes/no. Mostly no.

Not the board's fault. Ken's 'fault'.

Will this board of yours actually have any say in procedures or is it another advisory panel?

Thank you. This is exactly the problem we had. To say that ActM's board were a bunch of cheerleaders is a complete lie as anyone who followed anything I posted would know. IceB/crumbs were just there to stir.

I've already posted on this thread saying that an advisory board is not needed, a real board with decision making power is. There is a fair chance the only real thing this company has of value is the 50% remaining BTC. And that hasn't been evidenced as it is (inexcusable if it isn't done today).

Moreover, anyone going on any sort of board at this point is potentially exposing themselves to legal risks. Regardless of deliberate fraud, mismanaging investor money to this extent may get the attention of national regulators (and the SEC don't care so much for territorial boundaries). In the SEC's case they care a great deal about people having a chance to get their original investment back.

Frankly, this looks like it was a get rich quick scheme. Not a scam as such but with the capacity to turn into one, and definitely not a well thought out company.