Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
I wouldn't mind seeing Logan appoint a Board of Directors now while we wait for FINRA. This is something he will need to do if CGAC is to uplist. It would be a check off the "to do" list and give shareholders a positive toward moving forward.
That's for sure. No new miners since January 31.
Not for sure what you're asking. I take the statement as they own no real estate, land, buildings, etc. It's in the filings.
Interesting. I believe it to be good news. We'll have to wait and see.
I've been keeping an eye on that since news of the split. Figure shares can't be offered at the 1-A offer price after the split. Maybe Logan got confirmation from FINRA regarding name change and split.
Thank you for bringing the matter to his attention. Makes a huge difference on how Q1 is received. To say your efforts are always appreciated is an understatement.
hmmm, as far as I know he is not able to change it. If Logan claimed on the annual a 1:160 split due to a vote in October 2023 and now claims a 1:300 split due to a vote in October 2023 is misleading shareholders. Although, all he has to do is amend Q1 with a different vote date after January 1st since it's only his vote that counts. Also, still bothered by discrepancies in the issuance of preferred shares, particularly series B, and a name that appeared on the first annual before it being amended.
Thank you Eli for clarifying. Guess there are some contradictions between the wording in the form filed by CGAC and the actual rules.
The late filing notice clearly states 5 additional calendar days. No later than five (5) days after the prescribed due date. Am I misreading something or not understanding? Wouldn't be the first time.
Calendar days. It is stated in the filing as 5 additional calendar days.
They added 30 miners on January 31 to bring total to 752 +/- (from Jan 31 tweet). So, 722 miners for January and 752 +/- miners for February and March.
BTC daily average high price January = 43.8k, February = 50.3k, March = 67.6k. Average daily high price for BTC during 1st quarter = 53.9k. I'm thinking around $2.1 million projected revs for Q1. Just a guess with some fuzzy math.
I may be one of those that go silent until we have something to talk about. I appreciate the effort by Eli for arranging the Q&A with Logan and for Logan participating. Unfortunately, his answers left me with more questions than I had before the Q&A. I do hope Logan is being sincere in answering your question regarding PR's, "Working with counsel to format a shareholder letter". Long overdue.
There were several things from the Q&A that stood out to me.
1) The time frame for uplisting being 18 to 24 months. I was expecting 6 to 12 months.
2) Short term goal of 10,000 miners in 12 to 24 months. That would put Logan halfway to his goal of 20,000 miners prior to uplisting.
3) A projected share price of .09 after the R/S. IMO that's low. A split at the current price of .0003 would translate to .048 post-split. Better than halfway to .09. Maybe my math is wrong. (4,288,470,972 O/S converts to 26,802943 shares after 1:160 split).
4) While it looks like the R/S is inevitable, IMO it is not imminent.
Meanwhile we have Q1 results in 10 +/- days to look forward to.
Thank you Eli and Logan. Real answers.
Absolutely fair.
Not going to engage. You have your thoughts and I have mine.
Maybe, but IMO the election has nothing to do with BTC's rise or fall. BTC is too global. A.R.T. Digital's success is in Logans hands. This will prosper or tank on his actions. One problem with having ETF's, especially as big as they are, may be their ability to manipulate BTC price.
IMO, I think we will find that the short-term goal is 1500 miners. Long term goal will be significantly higher.
Thanks for your efforts, Eli.
Carlson - I don't know.
I fully understand your point. Been through a 1:1000 and 1:1250 R/S and it failed for both shareholders and company. Whenever I buy into these sub-penny stocks I always cringe at the idea that a R/S could happen. I guess anymore I expect them to happen. I'm not trying to convince anyone that a R/S here is great news. I almost sold on the first trading day after the announcement but gave it a lot of thought and decided not to. Everyone has to make their own decision for whatever their reason.
I see it this way, a R/S may or may not hurt shareholders, a share buyback may or may not slow the growth of a company. Maybe Logan took shareholders into consideration when he set the R/S at a reasonable 1:160. Could have easily been 1:250 or higher. He could have heavily diluted then do a 1:1000 or higher R/S, but he didn't. Who knows, maybe the R/S gets cancelled or maybe Logan finds a way to split the difference with a better R/S and share buyback combination. I don't like to lose money but the little voice in my head is telling me to stay put and see this through. My choice, my loss or gain. Maybe we get some clarity from the Q & A this coming week.
Looking forward to the shareholders Q & A on Monday/Tuesday. Big thanks to both, Eli-316 for arranging this and Logan for agreeing to take part.
I understand the desire for a share buyback over a R/S. However, even to buyback 1 billion shares at .0002 comes to $200,000 and only accomplish lowering the O/S to 3.288 billion. Would that be enough to raise pps to assure uplisting to attract serious investors that can move A.R.T. Digital forward and away from bottom feeding lenders and possible future dilution. How many miners would that $200,000 buy that would be generating revenue.
If we're talking about changing share structure to a level that makes a difference, do we buyback 2 billion shares at .0002/$400,000, 3 billion shares at .0002/$600,000. That equates to a lot of miners not being purchased. Do the funds even exist for a buyback.
With a R/S, the share structure and pps is improved for uplisting and the funds that would have been used for a share buyback can be put toward purchasing more miners. Without more miners this goes nowhere. Guess I'm on board with whatever Logan decides to do.
Eli, this is a fantastic opportunity for shareholders. Much thanks for your efforts to arrange this.
1) Are there any plans to expand A.R.T. Digital beyond being solely a BTC mining operation.
Don
Mifflinburg, PA
Attorney letter posted on OTCMarkets. That completes requirements. Good to go.
Hi marcis. First, I want to say I meant no disrespect by putting you on ignore. You seem like a good person with no ill intent toward posters on this board or A.R.T. Digital. However, please stop blaming traders for the down pps in CGAC. pps is all up to Logan, not how people choose to trade.
I'm not a BTC or miner enthusiast. Of course there is money to be made, BTC is just not my thing. As far as the errors on the Annual, you're right, they should not have happened. When you tout that you have engaged a reputable accounting firm to handle filings there should be no mistakes. However, Logan did make the corrections and that should mean something to all shareholders. If he is able to uplist he'll have to jump through hoops to satisfy requirements so I think matters will move more smoothly from here. Just my opinion.
As far as the R/S is concerned, or surprise on an R/S, Logan has no obligation to address such matters to shareholders. He is watching out and planning for the future of A.R.T Digital, not how any actions affects A.R.T. Digital this week, next week, or next month. Think about it, if this went to .01 or .02 the majority of current shareholders probably would have sold and moved on. I have claimed to be long here, but if pps moves up I may decide to be gone. I'm only long until I'm not, reality.
Logan has to plan ahead for when there is a changeover of shareholders. He has to be thinking long term, which may not be the same definition as some shareholders. Logan has to be concerned about the legitimacy of the company long term, not for current shareholders. This is his money on the line, not ours. Logan has far more to lose than we do. Logans priority has to be himself and the company long term. We're just hoping to ride his coattails to success while we're here.
Go figure. The only reason I put marcis on ignore is because I'm bipolar, ocd, dyslexic, and adhd. The 6 concussions don't help matters. He/she was a bit too much for me to handle. Heck, there are days I'm unable to post because I don't trust what the result will be. You're right, marcis means no harm, just a concerned shareholder. The others I'm taking off ignore are a different batch.
okay, so I took Orange Cassidy and Marcis off ignore so I have someone to talk to. Be kind guys and keep your posts sensible. Others off ignore to follow......maybe.
I bought into this when it was a shell without any idea who would move in. That's on me. No one put a gun to my head and told me to buy. I took a gamble on risk/reward and here I am. Was I happy with a BTC miner taking over, nope. It is what it is. I'm here so I'll entrust Logans process/plan/vision, don't have much choice. However, I/we can still respectfully call him out when things don't add up. Still huge potential here.
A sale may very well be in the works. I've always had the thought that the BTC mining was a means toward something greater. Mine BTC to fund another operation. However, that can be achieved by selling the current operation or continue mining. Logan seems set on increasing the number of miners so who knows what's up here.
Any thoughts on the amended filing? or A.R.T. Digital in general? or the coming Q1? or Bitcoin?
I checked into the LLC when the first filing came out and came up empty. It may just be an LLC set up to protect personal property from business liability. I've been in other stocks over the years that had a subsidiary LLC set up in Wyoming without explanation. I know that doesn't answer your question but that's all I got for you.
Much better report in regard to accuracy. The six main issues I had with the first report were addressed or clarified. Come on FINRA get the name change approved so we can move on and up!
You are absolutely right firebag. It is Logans timeline, and he has accomplished a lot since becoming CEO. I'm sure he's working on matters every day. I agree with the big bounce you speak of. Didn't mean to sound negative today. Guess frustration got the best of me.
We don't know. However, Logan did change the website, linkedin, and media to reflect A.R.T. Digital. Also changed name in Nevada and used contact info under Code Green Corp as A.R.T Digital in the Annual. All we can do is wait and keep checking FINRA. It's ridiculous that Logan has left shareholders hanging for so long.
A buy out is certainly possible. CGAC can have success on their own or with partners, but they need to act fast. IMO The longer they trail, the more likely a buyout happens. Can only be unstainable for so long.
I could see a merger or two with private companies of similar size if their books are clean and have more to offer than just the addition of miners. Put those 10 million preferred shares after name change to good use. If growth can't happen from within then consolidating may be the only way to save small mining operations. If CGAC is still at 753 miners that's a problem. IMO need to get that number up to 10k +/-.
Unfortunately, most likely need to wait for the name change approval with FINRA before we hear anything of value from Logan. It was submitted at least 68 days ago at minimum. More likely it was submitted on or around January 2nd when the A.R.T. Digital Holdings name first appeared in documents on the Nevada Business Portal. That would put the name change filing with FINRA well over 100 days ago. Logan needs to step up and deliver in a big way for shareholders after the name change.
Thanks much, I try. Having some good and smart posters on this board gives me incentive. I've learned a lot from many here.
Now I get what you want. Since the fins state an "as of date", I can only guess the value for BTC held will be the closing price on the "as of date" on the fins. Example: The two "as of dates" used throughout the latest annual were 12/31/2023 as a period end date and 04/01/2024 for other matters as the release date of the fins. Don't know which date they used for BTC held, but I would think it would be the date used for assets on page 16. The date used for assets was 12/31/2024. Hope that makes sense, and if I'm wrong then sorry for the misinformation. FYI, under assets it states Intangible Assets - Bitcoin - $115,715. The closing price for BTC on December 31, 2023, was $42,265.19. So, if what I think to be correct then as of December 31, 2023 = 2.73 BTC held.
Hope Logan is selling only enough BTC to pay bills and buy more miners. Holding some in reserve for after the halving when a price jump in coin is more likely.