Topic: ASICMINER: Entering the Future of ASIC Mining by Inventing It - page 334. (Read 3917468 times)

One supplier order 3PH AM chips, he mention that market price for late june is actually less than that (for bulk order)
so somethings don't add up.

I'm sorry, please change May to April and June to May.
Okay, please explain the following issue at hand: The April (not May as I erroneously stated) batch had 8.5 PH/s. Why do we only have $3,691,731 in chip sales? This would translate (as mentioned earlier) to a price of $0.43/GH/s for May. We should have yielded more revenue.
- What makes you think we achieved a price of $0.50-$1.00/GH/s (we all know this used to be the target)
- How can we achieve a price exceeding $0.40 for June+ batches, when the market price (although preorder) is supposedly at $0.35 and we probably haven't even achieved that price for the earliest (April) batch?

The May batch was around 30 Ph/s given the value of 5,727,500 USD spent on wafers in the cash flow report. At 0.2 USD/Gh (friedcat said less than 0.2 though) you'd get a hashrate of 28,637,500 Gh/s (28.64 Ph/s).

Each wafer gives around 40 TH/s [url-https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=99497.msg5025133#msg5025133]according to Jutarul[/url]. If we assume a 30 Ph/s total hashrate then that gives 750 wafers. Some nice round numbers to work with:

750 wafers,
40 Th/s per wafer,
30 Ph/s total hashrate.

Given that we know 5,727,500 USD was spent on wafers and assuming the hashrate of those wafers to be 30 Ph/s, the cost per G would be 0.19092 USD/Gh. The price for chips in that batch is 0.49-0.99 USD/Gh depending on the size of the order. That's a total of between 14,700,000 and 29,7000,000 USD in chip sales for the May batch.

Ditto.

i have been doing the same

How is the price so low  Time to load up on shares 

If it was a direct sale, then how would you notice since the shareholder list is based off of dividends and there were 0 since March?

The idea that friedcat somehow unloaded his shares is absurd.  Anyone who noticed him unloading his shares would realize that in him unloading his shares, the value of those shares is near nill... with the liquidity on havelock, the thought of being able to sell a few thousand shares is absurd.  Being able to unload 200,000 shares?  Impossible...  And we would notice 200,000 shares moving. 

Hi, not a native speaker either, though I don't think we have a language problem.  
Since we're dealing purely with hypotheticals (you don't own 50% of company A), i'll offer a few of my own:

As I have mentioned before, the board members, along with FC, could have unloaded their shares, used those shares to back additional funding, or funding for starting new companies--any number of things.  So assuming that 80% of ASICMINER shares are in the hands of those in control of the company, whose interests are aligned with yours, is simply unreasonable.

Then there's the risk you referred to, begging the question "WTF are you talking about?"  In countries with draconian securities regulations, bleedouts of the type I've described happens all the time.
What of a Hong Kong firm with an anonymous CEO, trading on an unlicenced Panamanian exchange, funded by selling its stock to non-qualified investors?  What, exactly, is the risk?  This thread gets a few angry posts and FC's Bitcointalk trust rating turns red?  The horror!

Finally, if your reasoning is sound, it surely must apply to other touchstones of Bitcoin finance, like NeoBee?  Local finance enthusiasts tripped over each other to mock me and fling invectives when I suggested that Mr. Brewster was anything less than capable and sincere.

Finally, consider that remaining 20%--the reward side of teh risk equation.  That's millions of dollars.  Many in this thread would do more than cook the virtual, unaudited books of a virtual company to lay their hands on such sums

I'm not sure which competition you're referring to. There is the one that is already shipping (and took your money already) and the one that has taken pre-orders (and also took your money already).

I think everyone has enough money for the next round (possibly two) and some are building or have built their own mining operation (and are thus less likely to suffer from AM's pricing in the short term). Besides, you don't win by selling at, or under cost unless you have bigger cash reserves than the competition and I doubt AM's in the best position there.

They must also preserve their profit margin as the move to 28nm and lower will be tricky. It will be costly and will require experienced professionals (Gen3 is child's play in comparison).

Which would perfectly foster the claim of a wafer cost of $0.2/GH/s for batches after the first one.
Chip sales are sales, though. And achieving 0.43 for the first batch in May isn't exactly good and definitely below expectations. How is the price supposed to up from there?

Inventory is listed as production cost, NOT sales price.

Well, it means we wont take the loss, the other company will. Right now I don't know who is absorbing the loss. Does anyone know? Is this info even public?

Assuming projected batch sizes (May April: 8.5 PH/s, June May 33.5 PH/s) and assuming that the reported chip sales ($3,691,731) are the May batch and the Hardware in stock ($1,420,233+ $6,104,800=$7,525,033) is the June batch, we can conclude that AM achieved a price of: $0.43 for April and $0.22 for May. I know, at least the June numbers suggest that something doesn't add up and we may still expect payments for them. But it doesn't seem that AM is achieving the prices it has hoped for. And they won't increase. Even accepting a delayed payment won't do the trick. And that's the reason why the financial report seems worrysome.

Let me see if I understand, you mean that if the buyer pre-paid those chips and then difficulty rose more than expected, well he has already paid so that's good for AM, right?

What if we already have a whole bunch of chips ordered and paid for by these umbrella operations we are working with at a higher than fair market price. wont that be good for us?

What are you implying? i.e., how does this affect the price at which we are able to sell chips after this month / in the general future? The price is simply determined by the difficulty, BTC/$ price, and competitors. And 2 of them won't stop working "against" AM. The BTC price may make the chips more desirable, yet will slash dividends which are priced in BTC.
Long story short: Things aren't getting better with time. Chip manufacturers need to work as fast as possible. Promises of $0.5-$1.0/GH/s won't become reality anymore, things took too long.

We are selling chips to other umbrella operations, I have seen some of the IPOs listed on the forum. Did they happen to prepay for all the stuff we are going to make? Is this known to us?

Hum? I'm asking how AM is possibly going to sell for more than $0.4 if the "retail" (even preorder) price for June is already at $0.35. I used a price of $0.4 in my optimistic-realistic calculation on the last page. I don't see a scenario where we are selling chips for more than $0.4 after June. And even for June it's questionable.
And yes, my sentiment has changed since the financial report.

If there is a good core group of you who want to join cryptocrypt.org we can set up your own thread or even subsection if you want. The forum is moderated and the only rules are pretty much is no trolling and be respectful. I like to troll as much as others but there is a time and a place for it. It is really hard to know what is going on with AM with all this noise. The other forum has much more signal and from a decent group of guys.

Let me know.