Yes, but they sold at a loss (at least according to the data they released). Who cares what they did in sales if they lost money? Only thing that matters is profits.
What are you talking about?
Chips are sold at around $0.5/gh and cost around $0.2/gh.
If they sold at a loss how would they have $9,000,000 in assets?
And distributors sell miners at well over 1$/GH which means that FC isn't maximizing profits for his shareholders. The distributors seem to do a much better job on that.
What? How did you extrapolate that? I think you are imagining FC could have sold the same amount of chips at $1+/gh which is not realistic.
$4,000,000 in chip sales suggests FC knows what hes doing.
And distributors aren't fleecing anyone. For example hashratios production costs are $0.8/gh and sold for $1/gh. Extremely small margins. Even at the average price of AM hardware at $1.4/gh the margins are not huge.
Certainly nowhere near the profit per gh on overpriced hardware like spondoolies but exorbitant prices does not equal maximizing profit.
Extrapolating? I'm not extrapolating anything. I'm just stating facts. You just said that hashratio is selling for 1$/GH. That's a simple fact.
I didn't say that FC should sell chips for more than 1$/GH. I said that he could sell miners for more than 1$/GH if he could produce them. How come that last year FC was able to sell for over 30$/GH when the market was below 15$/GH, but he can't do it again?
Let's see how many chips will FC sell after the big sale worth 4 mil $ (from which you saw no dividend) because those 4 mil $ mean nothing if the chips which he paid won't get sold.
Spondoolies seems to really get you since you mention them so often. This is not about SP-Tech. I was just trying to find out why would FC settle for ~0.2$/Gh profit when I think that he could get more. If hashratio has the same 0.2$/Gh profit then doesn't that mean that by producing his own miners FC could get at least 0.4$/Gh as profit?
