Topic: ASICMINER: Entering the Future of ASIC Mining by Inventing It - page 1276. (Read 3917543 times)
February 10, 2013, 05:30:03 AM
where can one get asicminer share these days
February 10, 2013, 04:51:05 AM
Happy Chinese new year. The year of the snake will bite as usual.
Luckily friedcat et al. have prepared some antivenom for us. May the hashing commence.
Luckily friedcat et al. have prepared some antivenom for us. May the hashing commence.
I find it funny that asicminer will have its entire hashing power online before Avalon customers do. I thought Avalon had beaten asicminer, but I guess not. Hurray.
February 10, 2013, 03:30:07 AM
Happy Chinese new year. The year of the snake will bite as usual.
Luckily friedcat et al. have prepared some antivenom for us. May the hashing commence.
Luckily friedcat et al. have prepared some antivenom for us. May the hashing commence.
February 09, 2013, 08:14:59 PM
Peeping over one of our subracks:
What, no fans? These ASICS need moar fans. Everyone knows ASICS use lots of fans.
Check out my operation, IceASIC Inc:
February 09, 2013, 06:42:26 PM
Peeping over one of our subracks:
What, no fans? These ASICS need moar fans. Everyone knows ASICS use lots of fans.
Check out my operation, IceASIC Inc:
February 09, 2013, 06:41:29 PM
The only venue that those extra shares doesn't benefit shareholders is if bitfountain pockets them and that's the end of it. Where the operation and R&D cost would be full cost and no extra dividends (if it would have been redistributed, which has been implied that it is not the plan).
Ok, thanks. That gives me a little more clarity about if retained shares earn dividends and for what purpose the proceeds would be used.
Let's hope "implied" as you said is the real deal. And that %12 of shares could equate to a very large amount of money. I will raise an eyebrow if dividends are suspended.
I'll just concede in regards to the 50/50 matter.
February 09, 2013, 06:16:59 PM
I agree on both points. Even though I don't think RE has all of the same kind of implications when ASICMiner isn't a true equity stake.
And the faster payback point will be so temporary that's not my concern at all.
And I don't care to get in to conversations about stock valuations based on increased assets due to RE.
My point, which was sidestepped with this RE tangent, is that was the IPO written in such a way to imply that exactly half of the company would be sold to the public?
So, shareholders fund the entire startup costs of the company and end up with 38% 'ownership.' It was exactly this point, what is ASICMiner's % of the company, that was debated in some detail when ASICMiner announced the IPO.
In my mind that was the expectation set. Whether or not it happened immediately after IPO or eventually as more buyers appeared.
Of course, there are no rules to prevent a 'best effort' IPO with unsold shares retained by the issuer. But with this 50/50 ownership thing in mind what is right? Jacking up RE or selling off the 12% of shares?
Anyway, it's a pretty pointless discussion. We know the likely answer is RE instead of selling off the remainder of what was offered at IPO.
Interesting, I was approaching the valuation from the other side. The principals in this company have put in the same effort that they would have if they had been funded 100% to plan, but they only attained 76% of the intended capital because of circumstances beyond their control. This means that ASICMiner (not the parent) retains ownership of those shares (which will not get dividends), and they could release them to raise additional funding if desired/needed, but that would dilute the dividend value of our shares so I'm not for it unless the benefit will outweigh the dilution.
I'm curious why you think it matters if they have 50% or 62%, it's not like a hostile takeover was likely to work without a lot of lawyers.
Hmm. The spirit of the initial discussion around the IPO, IIRC, what % would be available to the public in exchange for financing. Me bringing this point up again has little to do with take-overs, or wanting to buy that 12% cheaply as Sabastian accused me of.
Since ASICMiner is in a fortunate position to have an extra 12% of shares what are they being used for?
Are they being retained and not receiving dividends?
If what you say is correct, and if it is I completely agree with your point of view, that dividends will be distributed to a smaller number of shares - GREAT!
If not and these shares receive dividends where is this money going? Re-investment? Ok, good. Not a bad thing at all. But if they take dividends of 12% of shares for OpEx and R/D, but then down the road say 'Hey, we don't have enough money we need to withhold dividends to gain capital,' well, wouldn't that be crap. A pretty good reason to cry foul.
If you look at Jatarul's comments below it leaves me in a confused state as to whether or not shares are retained, earn dividends and if those dividends are used for re-investment.
Might as well hold off on issuing the rest of the shares till more funds are needed for expansion? I'm assuming the entire batch of chips/materials ordered were already funded - so any additional funding would not be in the best interest of ASICMINER Shareholders?
It has been confirmed that there is currently no plan to issue them....And the "option" the reissue them has no effect on ownership or dividends since its 1/400000 either way. The only reason to sell them would be for quick capital.
Since it was agreed upon by us that it was split 1/400000, there is not much to argue about here, but IMO, those unsold shares should be a direct fund for operation cost. Which, I believe is fair to all shareholders, as opposed to some alternatives.
The only venue that those extra shares doesn't benefit shareholders is if bitfountain pockets them and that's the end of it. Where the operation and R&D cost would be full cost and no extra dividends (if it would have been redistributed, which has been implied that it is not the plan).
February 09, 2013, 06:07:05 PM
I agree on both points. Even though I don't think RE has all of the same kind of implications when ASICMiner isn't a true equity stake.
And the faster payback point will be so temporary that's not my concern at all.
And I don't care to get in to conversations about stock valuations based on increased assets due to RE.
My point, which was sidestepped with this RE tangent, is that was the IPO written in such a way to imply that exactly half of the company would be sold to the public?
So, shareholders fund the entire startup costs of the company and end up with 38% 'ownership.' It was exactly this point, what is ASICMiner's % of the company, that was debated in some detail when ASICMiner announced the IPO.
In my mind that was the expectation set. Whether or not it happened immediately after IPO or eventually as more buyers appeared.
Of course, there are no rules to prevent a 'best effort' IPO with unsold shares retained by the issuer. But with this 50/50 ownership thing in mind what is right? Jacking up RE or selling off the 12% of shares?
Anyway, it's a pretty pointless discussion. We know the likely answer is RE instead of selling off the remainder of what was offered at IPO.
Interesting, I was approaching the valuation from the other side. The principals in this company have put in the same effort that they would have if they had been funded 100% to plan, but they only attained 76% of the intended capital because of circumstances beyond their control. This means that ASICMiner (not the parent) retains ownership of those shares (which will not get dividends), and they could release them to raise additional funding if desired/needed, but that would dilute the dividend value of our shares so I'm not for it unless the benefit will outweigh the dilution.
I'm curious why you think it matters if they have 50% or 62%, it's not like a hostile takeover was likely to work without a lot of lawyers.
Hmm. The spirit of the initial discussion around the IPO, IIRC, what % would be available to the public in exchange for financing. Me bringing this point up again has little to do with take-overs, or wanting to buy that 12% cheaply as Sabastian accused me of.
Since ASICMiner is in a fortunate position to have an extra 12% of shares what are they being used for?
Are they being retained and not receiving dividends?
If what you say is correct, and if it is I completely agree with your point of view, that dividends will be distributed to a smaller number of shares - GREAT!
If not and these shares receive dividends where is this money going? Re-investment? Ok, good. Not a bad thing at all. But if they take dividends of 12% of shares for OpEx and R/D, but then down the road say 'Hey, we don't have enough money we need to withhold dividends to gain capital,' well, wouldn't that be crap. A pretty good reason to cry foul.
If you look at comments below it leaves me in a confused state as to whether or not shares are retained, earn dividends and if those dividends are used for re-investment.
obviously, but that wasn't part of my quoted message.
Since it was agreed upon by us that it was split 1/400000, there is not much to argue about here, but IMO, those unsold shares should be a direct fund for operation cost. Which, I believe is fair to all shareholders, as opposed to some alternatives.
Since it was agreed upon by us that it was split 1/400000, there is not much to argue about here, but IMO, those unsold shares should be a direct fund for operation cost. Which, I believe is fair to all shareholders, as opposed to some alternatives.
Still, the important question is: what is the fate of profits belonging to the unsold shares? This does have effect on my shares - Bitfountain simply scooping these profits is different from these profits being accumulated and used to maintain ASICMINER's competitive advantage through re-investment, upgrades, and covering operating costs.
No. That wouldn't make sense. The unsold shares of ASICMINER act as potential equity in future financing rounds. The availability of unsold shares has the advantage that dilution can be avoided if the 12% cover financing needs.
Edited to clean up the quotes
February 09, 2013, 05:52:20 PM
What would change when the rest of the shares would sell? There would only one or more shareholders. So what should that be good for? The dividends now go to bitfountain and if the shares are sold these dividends would go to a shareholder. You wouldnt have an advantage.
I mean you could have bought when the ipo was. To claim that these shares has to be sold now sounds a bit like you want to invest in a sure profit for low money. I dont think that is worth to discuss.
I mean you could have bought when the ipo was. To claim that these shares has to be sold now sounds a bit like you want to invest in a sure profit for low money. I dont think that is worth to discuss.
In short, no. Not my point or intention at all. Nice accusation, though, thanks.
February 08, 2013, 08:15:15 PM
Might as well hold off on issuing the rest of the shares till more funds are needed for expansion? I'm assuming the entire batch of chips/materials ordered were already funded - so any additional funding would not be in the best interest of ASICMINER Shareholders?
It has been confirmed that there is currently no plan to issue them....And the "option" the reissue them has no effect on ownership or dividends since its 1/400000 either way. The only reason to sell them would be for quick capital.
Since it was agreed upon by us that it was split 1/400000, there is not much to argue about here, but IMO, those unsold shares should be a direct fund for operation cost. Which, I believe is fair to all shareholders, as opposed to some alternatives.
February 08, 2013, 05:51:22 PM
Might as well hold off on issuing the rest of the shares till more funds are needed for expansion? I'm assuming the entire batch of chips/materials ordered were already funded - so any additional funding would not be in the best interest of ASICMINER Shareholders?
It has been confirmed that there is currently no plan to issue them....And the "option" the reissue them has no effect on ownership or dividends since its 1/400000 either way. The only reason to sell them would be for quick capital.
February 08, 2013, 03:28:10 PM
Might as well hold off on issuing the rest of the shares till more funds are needed for expansion? I'm assuming the entire batch of chips/materials ordered were already funded - so any additional funding would not be in the best interest of ASICMINER Shareholders?
It has been confirmed that there is currently no plan to issue them....And the "option" the reissue them has no effect on ownership or dividends since its 1/400000 either way. The only reason to sell them would be for quick capital.
February 08, 2013, 11:43:49 AM
Might as well hold off on issuing the rest of the shares till more funds are needed for expansion? I'm assuming the entire batch of chips/materials ordered were already funded - so any additional funding would not be in the best interest of ASICMINER Shareholders?
February 08, 2013, 06:19:22 AM
What would change when the rest of the shares would sell? There would only one or more shareholders. So what should that be good for? The dividends now go to bitfountain and if the shares are sold these dividends would go to a shareholder. You wouldnt have an advantage.
I mean you could have bought when the ipo was. To claim that these shares has to be sold now sounds a bit like you want to invest in a sure profit for low money. I dont think that is worth to discuss.
I mean you could have bought when the ipo was. To claim that these shares has to be sold now sounds a bit like you want to invest in a sure profit for low money. I dont think that is worth to discuss.
February 08, 2013, 12:29:03 AM
Update
Peeping over one of our subracks:
Four of them waiting to populate on racks:
Peeping over one of our subracks:
Four of them waiting to populate on racks:
Very PROFESSIONAL looking, like the spirit
February 08, 2013, 12:20:37 AM
Has there ever been a confirmation on what will happen with the excess BTC that was not convertd to $
The exchange rate doubled since, will go a long way towards designing a next-gen chip, or will it b distributed as a special dividnd?
Operational cash is the most likely scenario. Could be used for R&D or for covering utility bills.The exchange rate doubled since, will go a long way towards designing a next-gen chip, or will it b distributed as a special dividnd?
Technically, these shares belong to ASICMINER itself - it thus acts like a shareholder who invests all dividends back into the business.
So if I understand correctly, from what you say, bitfountain now effectively owns 250k shares?
No. That wouldn't make sense. The unsold shares of ASICMINER act as potential equity in future financing rounds. The availability of unsold shares has the advantage that dilution can be avoided if the 12% cover financing needs.
February 07, 2013, 09:42:27 PM
I agree on both points. Even though I don't think RE has all of the same kind of implications when ASICMiner isn't a true equity stake.
And the faster payback point will be so temporary that's not my concern at all.
And I don't care to get in to conversations about stock valuations based on increased assets due to RE.
My point, which was sidestepped with this RE tangent, is that was the IPO written in such a way to imply that exactly half of the company would be sold to the public?
So, shareholders fund the entire startup costs of the company and end up with 38% 'ownership.' It was exactly this point, what is ASICMiner's % of the company, that was debated in some detail when ASICMiner announced the IPO.
In my mind that was the expectation set. Whether or not it happened immediately after IPO or eventually as more buyers appeared.
Of course, there are no rules to prevent a 'best effort' IPO with unsold shares retained by the issuer. But with this 50/50 ownership thing in mind what is right? Jacking up RE or selling off the 12% of shares?
Anyway, it's a pretty pointless discussion. We know the likely answer is RE instead of selling off the remainder of what was offered at IPO.
Interesting, I was approaching the valuation from the other side. The principals in this company have put in the same effort that they would have if they had been funded 100% to plan, but they only attained 76% of the intended capital because of circumstances beyond their control. This means that ASICMiner (not the parent) retains ownership of those shares (which will not get dividends), and they could release them to raise additional funding if desired/needed, but that would dilute the dividend value of our shares so I'm not for it unless the benefit will outweigh the dilution.
I'm curious why you think it matters if they have 50% or 62%, it's not like a hostile takeover was likely to work without a lot of lawyers.
February 07, 2013, 09:14:04 PM
I hate to be a d*ck, but...
I'm trying to decide if it's a bad thing that asicminer will own, at a minimum, just above 4/7 of the company when the IPO was designed as an even split.
Keep this in mind if an issue is brought to the asicminer board about suspending dividends to accumulate capital for R/D.
In a situation like that I'd say, why not just sell those extra 50k shares you decided to keep indefinitely.
Retained Earnings are good for us as shareholders and will lead to a faster payback.
http://bit.ly/W15QPs
I agree on both points. Even though I don't think RE has all of the same kind of implications when ASICMiner isn't a true equity stake.
And the faster payback point will be so temporary that's not my concern at all.
And I don't care to get in to conversations about stock valuations based on increased assets due to RE.
My point, which was sidestepped with this RE tangent, is that was the IPO written in such a way to imply that exactly half of the company would be sold to the public?
So, shareholders fund the entire startup costs of the company and end up with 38% 'ownership.' It was exactly this point, what is ASICMiner's % of the company, that was debated in some detail when ASICMiner announced the IPO.
In my mind that was the expectation set. Whether or not it happened immediately after IPO or eventually as more buyers appeared.
Of course, there are no rules to prevent a 'best effort' IPO with unsold shares retained by the issuer. But with this 50/50 ownership thing in mind what is right? Jacking up RE or selling off the 12% of shares?
Anyway, it's a pretty pointless discussion. We know the likely answer is RE instead of selling off the remainder of what was offered at IPO.
February 07, 2013, 07:27:02 PM
I hate to be a d*ck, but...
I'm trying to decide if it's a bad thing that asicminer will own, at a minimum, just above 4/7 of the company when the IPO was designed as an even split.
Keep this in mind if an issue is brought to the asicminer board about suspending dividends to accumulate capital for R/D.
In a situation like that I'd say, why not just sell those extra 50k shares you decided to keep indefinitely.
Retained Earnings are good for us as shareholders and will lead to a faster payback.
http://bit.ly/W15QPs
February 07, 2013, 06:14:57 PM
I hate to be a d*ck, but...
I'm trying to decide if it's a bad thing that asicminer will own, at a minimum, just above 4/7 of the company when the IPO was designed as an even split.
Keep this in mind if an issue is brought to the asicminer board about suspending dividends to accumulate capital for R/D.
In a situation like that I'd say, why not just sell those extra 50k shares you decided to keep indefinitely.
It honestly make no odds. Imagine the shares were split exactly 50/50. If Bitfountain all vote for something what would be the odds that EVERY shareholder would vote no? About 0%.
If you don't trust them to act in good faith you shouldn't invest in the first place - it's not like there's some SEC equivalent with any power to do anything is there?
Even if every single shareholder voted, with a 50/50 split bitfountain would only need to hold 1 share of the ones sold on GLBSE to get a majority. So it makes no practical odds as far as voting is concerned that they hold 4/7 instead of 1/2. The single biggest difference not selling those shares makes is that the original 0.1 BTC/share paid gets repaid faster.
And at some point down the line it will almost certainly make sense to suspend or cut-back on dividends to fund growth/R&D -
that's why we bought equity in a company rather than some shitty mining bond/company that will pay out dividends whilst losing value at a faster rate than it pays out.
Jump to: