|
redbeans2012
|
 |
February 03, 2014, 11:44:14 PM |
|
Just did my bi-monthly check in to see how my investment is doing. Yep.  |
|
|
|
|
mainline
Newbie
 Offline
Activity: 56
Merit: 0
|
|
February 03, 2014, 11:45:18 PM |
|
All 10mill shares get divs no matter what people pay for them and we can only take 106btc from these assets - no more. Its not so hard to understand.
... If Ken plans to pay .0025 per share in divs, it's much smarter to destroy the shares than sell them @.0005. .002 per share smarter, to be precise. @VE: Nah, it's only 400%. Ken has to pay extra .0020, not .0025. |
|
|
|
|
|
JoTheKhan
|
|
February 03, 2014, 11:49:14 PM |
|
All 10mill shares get divs no matter what people pay for them and we can only take 106btc from these assets - no more. Its not so hard to understand.
... If Ken plans to pay .0025 per share in divs, it's much smarter to destroy the shares than sell them @.0005. .002 per share smarter, to be precise. @VE: Nah, it's only 400%. Ken has to pay extra .0020, not .0025. Agreed. Destroying the shares will net him way more money if he plans to pay the .0025 per share. Ken can you please give us an update about our share situation. |
|
|
|
|
|
kleeck
|
|
February 03, 2014, 11:50:42 PM |
|
All 10mill shares get divs no matter what people pay for them and we can only take 106btc from these assets - no more. Its not so hard to understand.
If Ken sold them at 0.01 we would still only make 106 btc from them.
nav there are no rules Ken can offer them to the market at any price - what rules??
So you're telling me if someone had bought up all 230k shares at .01, Ken would have sent the excess BTC back to Ukyo? Obviously Ken can do whatever he want because he's the only one with shares, but from a business standpoint it doesn't make very much sense. And I have to agree with VE that it comes across very much like an exit strategy. Just call the share value .0005. Boom, we've got 115 BTC worth of assets back from Ukyo. If they appreciate in the future, the company will be in even better shape. The shares are not Ken's, they are ActMs. You have to be pretty dense or just simply love slinging complete bullshit (which is absolutely the case with VE  ) to say that Ken recouping his losses to Ukyo is an exit strategy. And yes, the way the corporate lien works, as I understand it, is that Ken only gets to recoup his company's loss from Ukyo (106BTC) by executing the lien. The rest would go back to Ukyo to deal with his debts as he sees fit. As usual we have a pretty simple, cut and dried scenario here being obfuscated and fudstered. Real neat. |
|
|
|
minerpart
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 280
Merit: 250
IIIIII====II====IIIIII
|
|
February 03, 2014, 11:50:49 PM |
|
Jo-
I know you might not see it this way but this is a great buying opportunity. Why not buy more shares?
You might want out but I want this company to succeed and if Ken thinks ACtM should secure this 106 btc right now then he should.
Ken can't destroy the shares they are Ukyo's seized assets.
|
|
|
|
|
|
mannybitcoins
|
|
February 03, 2014, 11:52:15 PM |
|
Ken can we get your thought process behind why you've decided to sell the shares at .0005? Why do you need to sell the shares so quickly?
|
|
|
|
|
|
JoTheKhan
|
|
February 03, 2014, 11:52:29 PM |
|
I know you might not see it this way but this is a great buying opportunity. Why not buy more shares?
You might want out but I want this company to succeed and if Ken thinks ACtM should secure this 106 btc right now then he should.
Ken can't destroy the shares they are Ukyo's seized assets.
Because I can guarantee you the price will go lower than this. Especially now that ken put up such a huge sell wall. |
|
|
|
|
mainline
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 56
Merit: 0
|
|
February 03, 2014, 11:57:59 PM |
|
Jo-
I know you might not see it this way but this is a great buying opportunity. Why not buy more shares?
... ROFL!!1!!1! U can't be 4 realz!  @"Ken can't destroy the shares they are Ukyo's seized assets." lelelelelellee @everyone: Extra lulzy - shit ain't selling at .0005. Way less than a single BTC sold |
|
|
|
|
navitatl
Member
Offline
Activity: 119
Merit: 10
|
|
February 04, 2014, 12:00:03 AM |
|
The shares are not Ken's, they are ActMs. You have to be pretty dense or just simply love slinging complete bullshit (which is absolutely the case with VE ) to say that Ken recouping his losses to Ukyo is an exit strategy. And yes, the way the corporate lien works, as I understand it, is that Ken only gets to recoup his company's loss from Ukyo (106BTC) by executing the lien. The rest would go back to Ukyo to deal with his debts as he sees fit. As usual we have a pretty simple, cut and dried scenario here being obfuscated and fudstered. Real neat. So when Ken lowered the price, Ukyo lost out on ~2185 BTC. Now there is no "the rest". How is that any better than simply destroying the shares? Please educate me on whatever arcane code of conduct we're following. |
|
|
|
|
minerpart
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 280
Merit: 250
IIIIII====II====IIIIII
|
|
February 04, 2014, 12:04:14 AM |
|
nav I already told you - look up lien. These shares are not ours to destroy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
kleeck
|
|
February 04, 2014, 12:06:05 AM |
|
The shares are not Ken's, they are ActMs. You have to be pretty dense or just simply love slinging complete bullshit (which is absolutely the case with VE ) to say that Ken recouping his losses to Ukyo is an exit strategy. And yes, the way the corporate lien works, as I understand it, is that Ken only gets to recoup his company's loss from Ukyo (106BTC) by executing the lien. The rest would go back to Ukyo to deal with his debts as he sees fit. As usual we have a pretty simple, cut and dried scenario here being obfuscated and fudstered. Real neat. So when Ken lowered the price, Ukyo lost out on ~2185 BTC. Now there is no "the rest". How is that any better than simply destroying the shares? Please educate me on whatever arcane code of conduct we're following. He lost 100BTC from the company books to Ukyo. That isn't cause to destroy shares, ffs... Where do you clowns come from?! The shares are an asset claimed by Ken via the lien to recoup his losses. His current listing price will recoup his losses. It's all very complicated, clandestine, and conspiratorial.  |
|
|
|
|
wasubii
|
|
February 04, 2014, 12:07:55 AM |
|
This cluster-fuck just keeps getting more cluster-fucky
|
|
|
|
|
mainline
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 56
Merit: 0
|
|
February 04, 2014, 12:10:13 AM |
|
Guys, wise kleek is totally right - this is no big deal. Barely any shares are getting sold. It doesn't matter. Your shares are officially worthless... |
|
|
|
|
|
VolanicEruptor
|
|
February 04, 2014, 12:11:20 AM |
|
What I would have given to be in Ukyo's shoes! I would have kept every BTC and then laughed in Kens face "Go ahead, destroy my worthless shares!". Ukyo is my idol, actually..
|
|
|
|
|
snowdropfore
|
|
February 04, 2014, 12:12:37 AM |
|
i will buy some。 but i do not understand why ken is selling at 0.0005,are you so eager to get the 106btc??
|
|
|
|
|
wasubii
|
|
February 04, 2014, 12:12:43 AM |
|
This is just the latest in a long line of 'Fuck-you's' from Ken to existing shareholders.
He has failed in every respect to date and there are a lot of people who just want to sell their shares for the best possible price and GTFO of this bullshit.
And then Ken goes and completely FUCKS the market price.
Thanks Ken - real fucking nice of you...
Just when you think it can't get any worse...
|
|
|
|
|
|
MilkyWayMasta
|
|
February 04, 2014, 12:18:54 AM |
|
He lost 100BTC from the company books to Ukyo. That isn't cause to destroy shares, ffs... Where do you clowns come from?! The shares are an asset claimed by Ken via the lien to recoup his losses. His current listing price will recoup his losses. It's all very complicated, clandestine, and conspiratorial. The condescension isn't necessary - I'm making an honest effort to understand your perspective on this, and how this can be seen as a reasonable decision. Let's see, under lien on Wikipedia I see "In other common-law countries, the term lien refers to a very specific type of security interest, being a passive right to retain (but not sell) property until the debt or other obligation is discharged". So what definition of lien are we using here? Do I need to dig up some Belize lawbooks? I understand that the losses will be recouped, but how is this the best way to do it, rather than just keeping the shares as a company asset? The losses were in BTC, not in ActiveMining shares. Maybe Ken wants to buy a new car with the recouped BTC funds or use the funds for the company, who knows. |
|
|
|
mainline
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 56
Merit: 0
|
|
February 04, 2014, 12:20:22 AM |
|
...
I understand that the losses will be recouped, but how is this the best way to do it, rather than just keeping the shares as a company asset?
The shares are worthless, thus worthless as a company asset. Even for a totally worthless company like ActM. In the words of immortal Killdozer, "Therein lies the rub." |
|
|
|
|
drawingthesun
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1017
|
|
February 04, 2014, 12:30:38 AM |
|
Ken.
If you believe in active wouldn't you hold the shares to make the dividends back? Why are you so desperate to make 100 bitcoin right now?
|
|
|
|
|
mainline
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 56
Merit: 0
|
|
February 04, 2014, 12:36:14 AM |
|
Ken.
If you believe in active wouldn't you hold the shares to make the dividends back? Why are you so desperate to make 100 bitcoin right now?
Ken's not desperate. He's doing it for the lulz. |
|
|
|
|
|
