Topic: ASICMINER: Entering the Future of ASIC Mining by Inventing It - page 625. (Read 3917468 times)

ex-trader, http://mining.thegenesisblock.com/ will help you with those calculations.

Friedcat has been updating news himself lately. The board hasn't needed to help as there is no additional public news to report.

The first & last update "by the Board" is from October 2nd  (almost one month old)

should we expect update soon? board? ...

reminder : also "end of October" deadlines are here.

Will someone cleverer than me please work out the breakeven purchase price for a Blade given current difficulty and compare it to the last sale prices for the same hardware. That'll tell you what 500TH of these chips will be worth.

"tumbling" is an inaccurate description.  The price had been reduced a few times, but demand has not been reduced. 

Prices were still higher than reasonable ROI, so that's an indication that demand is still very healthy.  Sure, prices had to come down as the network expands and competition came on to the market, but AM sold all of the hardware they had for sale.

If demand had been reduced as well, price would have dropped a lot more to increase demand.

Let's not forget that there are ~ 400K AM shares vs ~ 10M ActM shares. Assuming they ever reach the same market cap it would be 0.64 BTC/share for AM vs 0.0256 BTC/share for ActM.

Right... shareprice should look different... but you can see its relatively strict connected to the divs. And i think its not a miracle why this is the case. Friedcat is relatively silent and this means doubts. Of course we can think it will jump to 2BTC soon... we only dont know.

And even if its relatively certain... selling now could still make sense because we dont have a clue if the price wont drop to 2.5btc soon. A loss never could be made in by divs in the short time. That means one could buy the double amount of shares then. (Except big shareholders of course.) But the small traders "make" the prices and the orderbook is way too thin.

When i look at the market... Asicminer is at 0.64BTC and ActiveMining at 0.0008BTC. They both work on 28nm process node if im not mistaken. Both have shown in the past that they can do IPO's though friedcat is the only one that has shown he can bring out ASIC's. Asicminer has 400,000 shares while ActiveMining has 10,000,000 shares. Thats 25 times more. So ActiveMinings Price compared would be 0.02BTC to get the same percent of the company like one asicminer share has. Both have relatively good chances to succeed but only the divs keep asicminer's share price high.

If the shareprice really would be set because of future grows then activemining should be valued way higher i think.

That's a shortsighted view: back then it was obvious that ASICMINER wouldn't be able to maintain its network share indefinitely without eating the profits to reinvest. The value of a share shouldn't be linked to the short-time dividend history but take their future evolution into account (after all past dividends have zero value for someone buying shares, only future ones do).

The question today is if ASICMINER will be able to raise its future dividends. The last ones were nearly 100% mining income and 0% hardware sales. As they are on the path to gen2, if there's no accident obviously in the future they will raise hardware sales and maybe mining income too.

This is why I think it made sense to sell at 4.5 and it makes sense to buy now. Basing sell/buy decisions just on the last dividends is a recipe for losing bitcoins in my opinion.

You do realise that price is the intersection of demand and supply, and you cut out the part where he pointed out that price tumbled?

And yes, the price was tumbling even before the new 500TH.

citation required

as far as I can see, AM has sold out of hardware, so that doesn't indicate that demand has decreased.

Is there any estimated date for when the blockchain based exchange will open?

It does not take a genius to see the obvious trend of AM share value matching the 30% APR of dividends.

What apparently it does take is a genius to realize is that FC has literally eviscerated the dividends over the last few months in order to raise millions for reinvestment, and so basing the AM share value on dividends alone is using deficient logic. If all of that income diverted to reinvestment went into a black hole and lost forever with no return whatsoever, then one would expect the current value of AM to be reasonable at 30% APR. If you believe that all of the dividends held back are gone forever with no possibility of return on them, then for you the current price is correct.

On a basic level, if one were to assume that FC held back 50% of dividends, then by the rationale above the share prices should be worth at least double what they currently are.

To extrapolate, if one assumes that for every btc FC holds back now he will generate 2 btc in profit later, then the correct price of a share should be 4x the current value.

Usually stocks are priced to accommodate expected future dividends, not purely an expression of historical dividends. When dividends are held back for reinvestment and expansion, the historical data is much less valid.

I would like to ask friedcat too that he is releasing infos in this thread or in the rep-forum. I guess if a chinese girl can ask him then most probably there is someone in rep-forum who can ask friedcat too so we get the infos fast.

I guess infos first given to big shareholders is not a problems since where should they sell 5000 shares fast? I dont see how.

---

Though the divs obviously show that the sales arent so great. So either he should order more chips to sell them or mine with them. Self mining at least has the advantage that its a relatively constant income stream.

He probably only complained because the divs... If we still would have the nice divs we once had the shareprice would be still high and no one would complain. Though the selling seems not to work too good and mining isnt built up.
Though it may be that deploying more own mining is a big work with not good return now since the old tech means way more work at deploying then newer chips mean.

---

Like ex-trader wrote... that includes hardware sales. Would you treat other miner selling companies like this you probably would get a network hashrate a multiple as big as it is really.

What i would like to know... when we had 30% of the network hashrate... we sold miners too... i guess if you calculate it your way we easily could have 100% of the total network at that time.

---

Thats not correct. When it was at 4.5BTC the shareprice was so high that it had a 30% annual profit. Now the shareprice again is 30% of the annual return the divs are bringing. So no, the shares werent overpriced back then. Otherwise it would mean the shares are overpriced now too.

Did they?

If I count correctly, the publicly traded shares on bitfunder + havelock amounts to just 25k full shares, out of 400k total.  Not sure how many are issued on 796.  Regardless of whether the whales traded privately to exit, the bulk of the shares are still held privately by other whales.

You could look at the direct shares list to know if they are being aggregated somewhere or not (I guess not).
I guess most people who still have some shares are in "wait and see" mode.

How do you come up with 15 % or 4,876 BTC per week? This would take 17.33 weeks to cover the net income of 84,513 BTC. A quarter covers 1/4 of a year, not 1/3.

The last financial statement was published on 23 July 2013. The time span between Oct 27 and Jul 23 is 96 days or 13.71 weeks. I covered 13 - 15 weeks to include some buffer and came up with 19.16 - 25.80 % of all mined coins and 23.72 - 31.94 % without expenses.


The expenses were listed with 210,119.50 USD and 12,680,873.16 RMB. With an exchange rate of 6.087 RMB/USD this is combined 2,293,390.92 USD. BTC nominated expenses are stated with 20,109.31 BTC.

2,293,390.92 USD/20,109.31 BTC = 114.05 USD/BTC

This exchange rate seems plausible, so I guess the expenses listed in the income statement are the same as in the cash flow statement/expense breakdown.

Edit:


Yup, that's true. To increase the income something must be done of course. From 02 October 2013:


This sounds as if the process of accumulating reserves was already finished when this post was published. Without further information there is no way to determine, if gen 2 hardware is already in production or not though.

Three problems with claiming there's any glory in these statements.

1. The income is not all mining it's part hardware (a big part), and the price and demand for these has tumbled.

2. The average hash share over the period was maybe good, but it's 3 months and it basically declined through the period, it started in the 10-20% range of the network and ended at 1-2%. The most relevent one is the current levels. From 29/7-29/10 ( 3 months) AM hashrate rse slightly from 38 to 62 TH, but the network grew from 223TH to 2798TH.

3. Having 4m USD equivalent sounds good, but thats a Net Asset Value of only 0.04 BTC/share. Thats not to say this determines price, but it bascially should have negligible influence on the actual value.

(104622-20109)*3/53 = 4876 BTC per week
which is 0.012 BTC per week per share, which is what we saw more or less.

This is an effective share of 15% of the network over the last quarter.

Not clear on the time period (which is very important) but this would indicate a quarter.

But, I'm having trouble reconciling it with the cashflow statement.

Notice also that expenses go down in BTC terms since the recent price rise.

Of course, past performance is no guarantee of future performance.

this must be some kind of error right?

http://asicminercharts.com/

thanks for the instructions, i planned on doing that for some time now.
since the bitcointalk downtime recently i suppose havelock is probably a better place for AM shares than solely relying on forum auction system.