This is a game of degrees, not wrong or right. Nobody knows with certainty. You can only evaluate your odds by examining many factors, and this is a factor I think people are overlooking (while getting excited about things that don't matter, like advertisements).
If I'm evaluating my odds i see an investment for one of the few companies for mining hardware that
- hasn't broken any promises or shipped overdue/shitty products to its customers (compared to most of the rest of the market)
- currently holds 10% of the network hashrate
- didn't take preorders to finance 2nd gen production (compared to every other company on the market)
- doesn't need to brag about data of unfinished products because there's no need for advertising to get preorder money
- has a good (if not the best) brand reputation in the small mining community
These degrees feel quite good for my taste of security in a wildly speculated high-risk market.
oh and while I'm at it let me evaluate...
user
- is short on AM
- is concerned when AM buys advertising space
- seems resistant to any positive news and instantly bad-mouthes them.
(irrespictive of the fact that there were no negative news besides growing competition (=based on promises for unreleased products), low divs because of 2nd gen investment and partially low hashrate charts in the last weeks)
- has ridiculous demands for shareholders' comfort from a small startup company (that isn't even given by big companies in a regular market), just to ease his position
- not informed on present delievery status of AM's product portfolio
- sometimes has a postcount of more than 50% per page on a speculation thread
- starts to seed doubts on company's reliability without any proof when he runs out of arguments ignoring the fact that he's just adressing fundamental risks that every shareholder should already be aware of in the first place.
- tends to get an sarcastic undertone after broad criticism and continues preaching his standpoint instead of confessing several flaws in his argumentation to allow a constructive discussion
you really seemed like a good counterbalance at first but shifting focus of a thread by constant posting from a goodlooking hashrate chart and decent news on advertising back to two pages of argumentation for your distorted standpoint is really the icing of the cake.
congrats and welcome to my ignorelist (with your rate of being quoted it won't help though)
Interesting that you would write such a thorough list immediately before introducing me to your ignorelist. That makes the ignorelisting seem more like an attempt to discredit than an actual distaste for the posts.
But we need to go through these one by one, I think, since the accusations do need to be addressed whether you will see the rebuttal or not.
- hasn't broken any promises or shipped overdue/shitty products to its customers (compared to most of the rest of the market)
Hyperbole. Promises have been broken. See here.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.3027585- currently holds 10% of the network hashrate
Of course. The discussion is about what that is worth.
- didn't take preorders to finance 2nd gen production (compared to every other company on the market)
They also have the luxury of a revenue stream. Ultimately, the source of funding will not impact the quality and competitive positioning of their competiors' products.
- doesn't need to brag about data of unfinished products because there's no need for advertising to get preorder money
Horrible, horrible argument. If AM expects people to hold off on preordering with their competition, they had better release those specs. Every preorder with a competitor is a lost sale.
- has a good (if not the best) brand reputation in the small mining community
Nobody gives a shit about brand. If you demonstrate the ability to deliver a better deal, that is all it takes. This isn't about the coolest type of sunglasses or cell phone, this is about profit margins.
OK - now on to the personal attacks.
- is short on AM
Honestly, this should increase my credibility. I'm not a sockpuppet, or a burned business partner, or a major holder in the competition. I've actually got money on this, just like you do.
- is concerned when AM buys advertising space
Don't be obtuse. The
reaction of shareholders to the advertising space was the point - the investors are still euphoric about the most mundane things, and that demonstrates that there is quite a way left for AM to fall.
- seems resistant to any positive news and instantly bad-mouthes them. (irrespictive of the fact that there were no negative news besides growing competition (=based on promises for unreleased products), low divs because of 2nd gen investment and partially low hashrate charts in the last weeks)
This is too vague for me to address properly. I wish you'd given examples or something. It honestly seems like you listed bad news in the parentheses, so...
- has ridiculous demands for shareholders' comfort from a small startup company (that isn't even given by big companies in a regular market), just to ease his position
If things are going as well as you all think they are, I will lose my shirt if FC comes out with an update.
It is NOT unreasonable to expect this level of updates and feedback from a startup company. Do you have any idea the level of engagement that VC firms typically have with their client startups? Startups are VERY communicative. FC got his VC from the community, but lately he has gone dark.
- not informed on present delievery status of AM's product portfolio
Wow, get fucked. I am now informed - I don't see how this is an issue. I know WHAT AM's products are, and being a little confused about the details of the transition from the old blades to the new blades does not really impact the big picture very much.
Would you ignore another user for this confusion? Ridiculous.
- sometimes has a postcount of more than 50% per page on a speculation thread
Guess it's gonna be kinda quiet in here for you, huh? A lot of people argue with me or ask me questions directly, and I take the time to answer them, which is why I sometimes constitute so many of the posts on a single page.
- starts to seed doubts on company's reliability without any proof when he runs out of arguments ignoring the fact that he's just adressing fundamental risks that every shareholder should already be aware of in the first place.
"seed doubts on company's reliability"? Where have I questioned 'reliability', exactly? Nor have I run out of arguments, I assure you.
Investors should be aware of the fundamental risks, but it is proven time and time again in this thread that many are not.
- tends to get an sarcastic undertone after broad criticism and continues preaching his standpoint instead of confessing several flaws in his argumentation to allow a constructive discussion
You are right that I can get defensive, which is a flaw and something I am aware of. However, I do not believe I ignore good counterarguments like you are insinuating. Mostly I feel like I can adequately defend my thesis from criticism.
Anyway, cheers, hope this thread improves for you without my posts.
(sorry to the ignorers)
