Topic: ASICMINER: Entering the Future of ASIC Mining by Inventing It - page 1212. (Read 3917543 times)
I think the fairest pricing strategy would be auction.
Regarding selling devices. I appreciate the cautious tone friedcat takes about pricing. It would not surprise me if certain other ASIC companies never ship, as pre-orders were in $US that has now depreciated 90% against BTC since those prices were announced. Pricing in BTC seems to mitigate the risk of error to me.
Also, will any consideration be given to shareholders to purchase devices? One can hope...
Also, will any consideration be given to shareholders to purchase devices? One can hope...
Data centers in china are extremely expensive. It isn't a 1:1 comparison.
All the more reason to start looking for cheap power at data centers outside of China.
Iceland, Canada, Washington, and Nevada all have cheap power. So do Belarus and Ukraine, from what I hear around here.
^
This. We can restructure for a lower cost structure later.
Data centers in china are extremely expensive. It isn't a 1:1 comparison.
All the more reason to start looking for cheap power at data centers outside of China.
Iceland, Canada, Washington, and Nevada all have cheap power. So do Belarus and Ukraine, from what I hear around here.
Data centers in china are extremely expensive. It isn't a 1:1 comparison.
All the more reason to start looking for cheap power at data centers outside of China.
Iceland, Canada, Washington, and Nevada all have cheap power. So do Belarus and Ukraine, from what I hear around here.
Part of my day-to-day work is running a data center, if you guys are in Toronto, more than willing to volunteer my time ~~
^This. AM should have planned out exactly which data centers to deploy at ahead of time.
The data centers should be selected on the basis of cheap power and proximity to their pools' hosts.
Scrambling around building their own is a big loss of time and focus from their core competency of designing, producing, and running ASICs.
Data centers in china are extremely expensive. It isn't a 1:1 comparison.
newbie question: if i want to buy some shares i see both bitfunder and btctco got them, any ups and down to buying on either? or anywhere else?
what happens if one of the exchanges pull a quick one and disappear, do i still have the stocks linked to my btc address or email?
sorry if this has been answered already.
what happens if one of the exchanges pull a quick one and disappear, do i still have the stocks linked to my btc address or email?
sorry if this has been answered already.
The shares on the exchanges are passthroughs, so if you buy them you dont have a contract with asicminer, but with the owner of the passthrough. And this owner has a contract with asicminer. Till now i only know that deadterras Passthrough allows it that you can change the pt-shares into real shares once you have 240shares. (or around that number) The thread linked is for selling real asicminer shares.
https://btct.co/security/ASICMINER-PT
- Free transfers in and out with NO MINIMUM share requirement.
- Lower per-transaction fees than the competition.
- Documented dead man's switch (view btct.co/faq while logged in) that works 100% because of how btct.co shares asset lists with it's issuers. All my co-workers have to do is forward friedcat the latest list that comes into my email.
Hope that helps!
So had a crazy idea. Presuming the reason that Friedcat is looking to sell boards, is because of the lack of power, space, manpower and cooling. Rather than straight selling of the boards at auction, thinking there are probably a number of mining corps that would love to get their hands on the boards. (Especially now that Avalon is hoarding theirs for their own mining operation and BFL looks really really late.)
How insane would it be if Friedcat sold boards at a reasonable markup (less than the maximum he could get) to selected mining operations, in exchange for a percentage of either the mining companies equity, or the coins they mine?
-helixone
How insane would it be if Friedcat sold boards at a reasonable markup (less than the maximum he could get) to selected mining operations, in exchange for a percentage of either the mining companies equity, or the coins they mine?
-helixone
Clarification of Unsold Shares
Now ASICMINER controls 163,962/400,000 of the whole identity, while Bitfountain controls 236,038/400,000.
Now ASICMINER controls 163,962/400,000 of the whole identity, while Bitfountain controls 236,038/400,000.
I was under the impression that 50% of all profits were to be distributed to the investors and the other half to the Bitfountain founders. Now it's become roughly 41% for investors and 59% for BF because you stopped selling shares early. Did the original contract allow for this?
What if ASICMINER had been fully funded after only 50k shares were sold instead of after 164k, because of a sudden rise in BTC price? Then we'd have 50k/400k = 12.5% share for investors and 350,000/400,000 = 87.5% share for Bitfountain now?
Doesn't look like a fair solution to me. To get back to a 50/50 ratio for investors and founders, as it was originally announced, you'd have to subtract the 36k unallocated shares from the 200k Bitfountain shares instead of adding them. No?
Quite surprised as to the degree of difficulty of deploying the machines that AM is facing. The networking issue is a bit surprising. While there's always room for improvement, I think AM should be given credit for what they have accomplished.
But I really think AM should create its own pool or solo mine, that saves the pool fee - an "easy way" in enhancing shareholder value . Given the hash power relative to the network, I think it's well worth the variance.
But I really think AM should create its own pool or solo mine, that saves the pool fee - an "easy way" in enhancing shareholder value . Given the hash power relative to the network, I think it's well worth the variance.
Stratum should let them run all 50TH over a 2400 modem.
Making a pool is not AM's core competence any more than data centers. Let the specialists handle those things; farm them out.
Better to advertise by taking the top spots on the top pools. Plus the community likes the transparency of using third party pools.
btct.co traded ASICMINER-PT (burnside) only requires a minimum transaction of 50 shares, which pretty much matches the minimum OTC trades you will find.
Are you sure its 50, because burnside stated "no minimum shares" in the thread some posts above. Of cours 50 was the minimum amount at the orderbook thread too, so it would be possible to use the pt instead the now closed thread.
No minimum.
The contract states that fees will be waived for transfers over 50 shares. I've committed to waiving all fees for the first 90 days, so effectively, no minimum, and no fees for now. We have processed requests for transfers as low as 7 shares.
helixone had also sent out information via PM to some that requested it stating that there is a 5% fee on divs. Most of his content is very insightful/helpful but regarding the divs he was incorrect.
The fee is waived the first 90 days, and is scaled based on how many shares are being managed. Right now the fee would be 1%. Once we hit 10k shares being managed by the fund the fee will drop again to 0.5%. The fees are necessary to cover time spent operating the fund. Our initial fee structure was modeled after DeaDTerra's BitFunder & BTCT passthrough's at the time. (S.DICE, GSDPT, etc.) We got slightly blindsided by the free offer from BitFunder, but that's what happens when you're first to market. The other guys get to learn/adjust.
Dirt seems to fly all over the place regarding btct.co. I spend a lot of time setting misconceptions straight. It doesn't really surprise me much, this is bitcoin after all.
Cheers.
Part of my day-to-day work is running a data center, if you guys are in Toronto, more than willing to volunteer my time ~~
^This. AM should have planned out exactly which data centers to deploy at ahead of time.
The data centers should be selected on the basis of cheap power and proximity to their pools' hosts.
Scrambling around building their own is a big loss of time and focus from their core competency of designing, producing, and running ASICs.
Quite surprised as to the degree of difficulty of deploying the machines that AM is facing. The networking issue is a bit surprising. While there's always room for improvement, I think AM should be given credit for what they have accomplished.
But I really think AM should create its own pool or solo mine, that saves the pool fee - an "easy way" in enhancing shareholder value . Given the hash power relative to the network, I think it's well worth the variance.
Quote
[22:40:07] ;;genrate 6420000
[22:40:09] The expected generation output, at 6420000.0 Mhps, given difficulty of 6695826.2826, is 482.18990446 BTC per day and 20.0912460192 BTC per hour.
[22:40:09]
So for example to make a guesstimate of weekly dividends per ASICMINER share going forward (assuming current hash power and constant difficulty) would something like this be reasonable/correct?
((482.18990446 BTC * 7) - x) / 400,000 = y
where x is whatever amount of bitcoins retained to pay expenses, rent, electricity, salaries, etc.
of which ASICMINER shareholders will receive 163,962 * y total bitcoins and Bitfountain 236,038 * y
Or am I misunderstanding something?
Part of my day-to-day work is running a data center, if you guys are in Toronto, more than willing to volunteer my time ~~
^This. AM should have planned out exactly which data centers to deploy at ahead of time.
The data centers should be selected on the basis of cheap power and proximity to their pools' hosts.
Scrambling around building their own is a big loss of time and focus from their core competency of designing, producing, and running ASICs.
wow, ASICMINER is rallying hard on all the PTs! 0.898 hit on bitfunder 
Yeah, I wish I had the coins to pick up more at the other auction threads!!!!
Let's hope the deployment can complete soon ~~~
Part of my day-to-day work is running a data center, if you guys are in Toronto, more than willing to volunteer my time ~~
wow, ASICMINER is rallying hard on all the PTs! 0.898 hit on bitfunder
So expect the distribution key to be 164k:236k, and in future 1/163,962 over 41% of all dividend payments for each share. So this is in effect a 5% reduction in dividend payments for ASICMINER shareholders as expected per contract (where 50% would go to ASICMINER). However, this comes with the insurance of no further dilution, which I consider priceless, and for that reason I approve. Also 1/163,962 of 41% is equivalent to 1/200,000 of 50%, so it's not unexpected based on the contract if all shares had sold. (you can see where the fuzziness came from)
I think its fair in the way that if all shares had been sold we would still earn the same dividend as we earn now. But they werent sold and still asicminer was able to launch. It could have happen that nothing could run at that time and the whole project stopped. So i think its ok when bitfountain and their owners get some extra now. Of course i would like to see this being compensated by more hashingpower mining in the net... *g*
Update
Clarification of Unsold Shares
Now ASICMINER controls 163,962/400,000 of the whole identity, while Bitfountain controls 236,038/400,000. The former shares will not be diluted, while the latter will. Whenever we need to sell shares to raise funds or giving potential core employees shares/options, only our (Bitfountain's) shares will be reduced.
We consider it to be very fair to investors, because while either letting the investors break even first or protecting the investors from dilution are seen everywhere, having both at the same time is not that common, especially when the portion at the investors' side is already large.
Clarification of Unsold Shares
Now ASICMINER controls 163,962/400,000 of the whole identity, while Bitfountain controls 236,038/400,000. The former shares will not be diluted, while the latter will. Whenever we need to sell shares to raise funds or giving potential core employees shares/options, only our (Bitfountain's) shares will be reduced.
We consider it to be very fair to investors, because while either letting the investors break even first or protecting the investors from dilution are seen everywhere, having both at the same time is not that common, especially when the portion at the investors' side is already large.
As an answer to:
Nevertheless, bitfountain has to decide how they want to handle the issue.
So expect the distribution key to be 164k:236k, and in future 1/163,962 over 41% of all dividend payments for each share. So this is in effect a 5% reduction in dividend payments for ASICMINER shareholders as expected per contract (where 50% would go to ASICMINER). However, this comes with the insurance of no further dilution, which I consider priceless, and for that reason I approve. Also 1/163,962 of 41% is equivalent to 1/200,000 of 50%, so it's not unexpected based on the contract if all shares had sold. (you can see where the fuzziness came from)
Seems reasonable. But what happend to dividends of unsold shares? Have unsold shares receive dividends? If not, IPO shares received 1/163962 of mining profits each and not 1/200000 (until IPO break-even). If unsold shares received dividends, however, they shouldnt have been entitled to IPO break-even privileges, because nobody actually invested. In either case there are contradictions of what has been stated here.
Please clarify this. Maybe i just dont get it...
Maybe when the auction start the actual machine can be linked to a new account at btcguild. With a name something like "Asicminer auction 1" or so. This way the buyer can see that the machine is already working and can be shipped as soon as he bought it. Plus it would work as an advertisement. And as soon as the buyer bought it the machine is shipped. So that the machine doesnt have to stand there too long and block power supply.
Im interested to see the first auction start.
Nice. No such thing as dead stock plus it gives them a thorough testing.Im interested to see the first auction start.
and I think that good think would be to sell boards/units with different hash speed. that would be great for people that would like to start with mining. I think that they would prefer to buy new ASCI board instead of FPGA board, but also would like something not so expensive for the first try. -or simply the do not have so much money. and If power requirements are not exotic, units without power module could also be available. I'm not saying to have units like this from prepared for this auction, but in the long run we should not target just on big and expensive units. targeting and selling to mining beginners and "broke students" could earn some money too.
Update
Clarification of Unsold Shares
Now ASICMINER controls 163,962/400,000 of the whole identity, while Bitfountain controls 236,038/400,000. The former shares will not be diluted, while the latter will. Whenever we need to sell shares to raise funds or giving potential core employees shares/options, only our (Bitfountain's) shares will be reduced.
We consider it to be very fair to investors, because while either letting the investors break even first or protecting the investors from dilution are seen everywhere, having both at the same time is not that common, especially when the portion at the investors' side is already large.
Clarification of Unsold Shares
Now ASICMINER controls 163,962/400,000 of the whole identity, while Bitfountain controls 236,038/400,000. The former shares will not be diluted, while the latter will. Whenever we need to sell shares to raise funds or giving potential core employees shares/options, only our (Bitfountain's) shares will be reduced.
We consider it to be very fair to investors, because while either letting the investors break even first or protecting the investors from dilution are seen everywhere, having both at the same time is not that common, especially when the portion at the investors' side is already large.
As an answer to:
Nevertheless, bitfountain has to decide how they want to handle the issue.
So expect the distribution key to be 164k:236k, and in future 1/163,962 over 41% of all dividend payments for each share. So this is in effect a 5% reduction in dividend payments for ASICMINER shareholders as expected per contract (where 50% would go to ASICMINER). However, this comes with the insurance of no further dilution, which I consider priceless, and for that reason I approve. Also 1/163,962 of 41% is equivalent to 1/200,000 of 50%, so it's not unexpected based on the contract if all shares had sold. (you can see where the fuzziness came from)
Jump to: