Quote from: yokione on June 02, 2014, 02:17:12 AM

Quote from: NotLambchop on June 02, 2014, 01:50:39 AM

Quote from: yokione on June 02, 2014, 01:24:07 AM

Quote from: NotLambchop on June 01, 2014, 07:48:12 PM

...
OK, jimmothy:

You own stock in company A, which makes widgets.
I own company A, and want to make your shares worthless.
I form company B, and form a contract to sell it my widgets at laughably low prices.
This bleeds out company A, while I get to keep all muh munyz through company B profits.

So now you know

Well, What if "I", the owner of company A, himself possesses more than 50% shares of company A? And "I" take a risk by collude with all the board members, who possess another 30% shares, only to bleed the rest 20% of the company out...

The TL;DR answer is you don't own 50% of company A, or any company.

What you do own is a few ASICMINER sharez, worth ~50% less than they used to be just a couple of days ago. That's also bragworthy, in its own way.

Why start with outlandish hypotheticals when equally lulzy personal examples are at hand?

*Now that we're on the same page, what exactly did you wish to know?

Sorry, I'm not English native speaker, maybe I failed to express myself clear.
What I really want to mean is: FC himself already possesses more than 50% shares of AM through BitFountain. I don't find any good reason for him to take a risk by collude with all the board members, who possess another 30% shares, only to bleed the rest 20% of the AM out.

Hi, not a native speaker either, though I don't think we have a language problem.
Since we're dealing purely with hypotheticals (you don't own 50% of company A), i'll offer a few of my own:

As I have mentioned before, the board members, along with FC, could have unloaded their shares, used those shares to back additional funding, or funding for starting new companies--any number of things. So assuming that 80% of ASICMINER shares are in the hands of those in control of the company, whose interests are aligned with yours, is simply unreasonable.

Then there's the risk you referred to, begging the question "WTF are you talking about?" In countries with draconian securities regulations, bleedouts of the type I've described happens all the time.
What of a Hong Kong firm with an anonymous CEO, trading on an unlicenced Panamanian exchange, funded by selling its stock to non-qualified investors? What, exactly, is the risk? This thread gets a few angry posts and FC's Bitcointalk trust rating turns red? The horror!

Finally, if your reasoning is sound, it surely must apply to other touchstones of Bitcoin finance, like NeoBee? Local finance enthusiasts tripped over each other to mock me and fling invectives when I suggested that Mr. Brewster was anything less than capable and sincere.

Finally, consider that remaining 20%--the reward side of teh risk equation. That's millions of dollars. Many in this thread would do more than cook the virtual, unaudited books of a virtual company to lay their hands on such sums Undecided