lesgetrich
3 년 전
You cite a report that is over ten years old regarding some bad actors and draw a set of tenuous relationships to Simon Rubin who is currently involved with the management of First Bitcoin (BITCF), Bots (BTZI) and Kronos (KNOS).
First let's note that KNOS is currently listed on the OTC as Pink Current Information, Verified Profile 08/2021, Transfer Agent Verified and with Independent Directors.
Regarding the exchange of 600,000,000 BIT for $1,000,000 in debt, Coinmarketcap.com lists BIT as an "Untracked Listing" and shows the following...
First Bitcoin (BIT) Price Quote on Coinmarketcap.com
BIT Price Live Data
First Bitcoin (BIT) is a cryptocurrency . Users are able to generate BIT through the process of mining. First Bitcoin has a current supply of 20,707,629,255.20859 with 0 in circulation. The last known price of First Bitcoin is 0.00558929 USD and is up 8.65 over the last 24 hours.
This would put the current value of 600,000,000 BIT coins at $3,353,574. I'm not sure what the value was on the day of the trade but it seems to me that KNOS came out pretty sweet on the deal.
Now BITCF got suspended in 2017. The coin/debt exchange didn't take place until 2018. Now, if as you say, the coins were only worth $315,054 on the date of the transaction, why wouldn't a suspended company try to receive a $1 million debt note for just over $300 in assets. In the meantime, KNOS bought an investment that produced a 1,000% return in three years. It seems to me, both companies did pretty well.
Next, I don't see anything surprising in the fact that after BITCF loaned $1,250,000 in 2018 & 2019 to KNOS, a company that showed virtually no revenue at the time, BITCF management would join the management of KNOS. You erroneously claim Greg Rubin to be the control person of BITCF when it is actually Simon Rubin and the relationship to Michael Rubininov, President and Head of Business Development at Kronos, is unclear to non-existent. Moreover, the only relationship of Simon Rubin to Greg Rubin that you've made is that they worked together for a time prior to 2010.
Now regarding your claim...
KNOS also moved its corporate address next door to a Dentist Office where Greg Rubin worked for many years in Calabasas, CA.
This is just factually incorrect. The Corporate offices of Kronos are at 2501 Garfield Ave, Parkersburg, West Virginia, 26101
You go on to claim...
Well for starters, the $1,250,000 in toxic debt will lead to dilution when it is converted into discounted free trading stock.
But you don't supply any evidence that this is toxic debt. The debt cannot be converted into more than 9.9% of KNOS's OS and now that the management of KNOS and BITCF are combined and KNOS is a virtual subsidiary of BITCF there is no incentive for BITCF to do anything to damage the KNOS pps. Toxic debt makes no sense here.
Moreover, you state that KNOS made only $3,000 in 2019 but failed to mention that they produced $503,000 by June 2021.
All in all I'd say this is a poorly constructed hit job on BITCF and KNOS that pretty much boils down to a bunch of innuendos.
klonerpride
3 년 전
BITCF and KNOS are most def connected
On December 31, 2019, BITCF transferred 600 million BIT tokens, a digital currency, to KNOS in exchange for a $1,000,000 debt Note owed to BITCF by KNOS. It is confirmed in filings made by both companies.
KNOS filing (see page 5)
https://backend.otcmarkets.com/otcapi/company/financial-report/240225/content
BITCF filing (see pages F-15 and F-72)
https://www.otcmarkets.com/filing/html?id=13835398&guid=NPIHUK9-QPwku3h
So how much are those 600 million BIT tokens worth?
Well KNOS values them at $1,000,000 on its balance sheet which is the price they paid for the tokens, but GAAP accounting doesn't allow for it to be valued that way. The actual value would be based on what the security is worth. BitTokens currently sell at $.00002615 each so 600,000,000 of them is worth $15,684.
https://www.coingecko.com/en/coins/bitrewards-token
Even back on December 30, 2018 when they were "sold" to KNOS they were only worth $.00052509 each for a total of $315,054.
So BITCF got the better end of that deal.
(if that's the wrong currency please let me know the correct one)
As of September 30, 2019 (the last date BITFC reported financials), BITCF only showed $13,187 in digital currencies left on its balance sheet.
So why did BITCF give KNOS such a good deal? Well that's simple.
BITCF got suspended by the SEC for on August 23, 2017
https://www.sec.gov/litigation/suspensions/2017/34-81474.pdf
Quote:
"because of concerns regarding the accuracy and adequacy of publicly available information about the company including, among other things, the value of BITCF’s assets and its capital structure,"
The BITCF insiders probably understood that the BITCF offered very little value at that point so they eventually started looking for ways to monetize their assets.
KNOS was led by a guy named Marc Kloner from Woodland Hills, California, the same hometown of BITCF's control person, Greg Rubin (aka Greg Rubinov).
And eventually whatever relationship Kloner and Rubin developed that led to the sale of the BIT tokens led to much more.
The connections between KNOS and BITCF would become much deeper starting in late 2019.
On October 1, 2019, BITCF loaned KNOS $250,000 (see the first image above).
Around the same time, the Chairman of BITCF, Vyacheslav Abramov, became the new Chairman of KNOS and Micheal Rubinov (related to Greg Rubin - control person of BITCF) became the new president of KNOS.
https://backend.otcmarkets.com/otcapi/company/financial-report/240225/content
The CFO of BITCF, Michael Handelman, became the new accountant for Kronos
https://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/KNOS/profile
KNOS also moved its corporate address next door to a Dentist Office where Greg Rubin worked for many years in Calabasas, CA.
https://www.calabasasdentalinstitute.com/dentist-in-calabasas/
https://web.archive.org/web/20140119144621/http://calabasasdentalinstitute.com/greg-rubin-dds/
For the record, BITCF also has very small associations with SING, REFG, PQEFF, and DATI in the form of nominal share ownership in those Issuers due to arrangements involving some kind of WEED token and the sale of other tokens, but nothing like how the BITCF crew basically took over KNOS.
So why does it matter that the BITCF crew has such a big presence now in KNOS?
Well for starters, the $1,250,000 in toxic debt will lead to dilution when it is converted into discounted free trading stock.
But more so because of the bad history of BITCF which goes much deeper than just an SEC suspension.
Read an indepth history at the following link:
https://web.archive.org/web/20140116031348/http://www.pumpsanddumps.com/2014/01/bitcon-bitc-is-destined-to-defraud.html
For better or worse, KNOS has basically become the new BITCF.
Good luck with those old portable air purifier systems
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=155794471
KNOS made a whopping $3,000 in 2019 so that's not exactly a great start.
And good luck with Kevin Harrington. He has a notably bad history with other penny stocks:
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=155738012
lesgetrich
3 년 전
Do you realize that First Bitcoin received controlling interest in BTZI as a byproduct of that transaction. In other words, they own Bots, Inc. They simply moved the subsidiary that owned the patent (Bitcoin Capital, LLC) which was not publicly traded into a new subsidiary (Bots, Inc) that was publicly traded and whose stock price could benefit from the move. Consequently, BITCF was able to benefit from the increased valuation of their new BTZI subsidiary.
Bots 2FQ22 10-Q Financial report
Note 5. Acquisition
On May 15, 2020, the Company acquired First Bitcoin Capital, LLC and all the assets of First Bitcoin Capital Corp. The Company acquired all cash, inventory, prepaid expenses, inventory, fixed assets, and intellectual property for a total purchase price of $10,120,000. The Company issued 100,000,000 common shares and 30,000,000 Series A Preferred shares at the rate of $0.0253 per underlying common share. The Company has 60,000,000 Series A Preferred held in reserve for issuance should certain milestones be achieved over the course of three years.
Why they hadn't tried to enforce the patent previously is an open question but it may have to do with the fact that they did not have much cash and there may not have been enough ATM's in circulation at that time to justify the expense of pursuing legal action.