No one will recognize that they are mining until...
- An unsatisfied employee squawks
- A visitor happens to notice
- Suspicious activity is recognized at a pool or particular IP address
- Something else happens (other unknown risk of being discovered)
Now couple that risk with the fact that they wouldn't be able to mine the whole 3500 BTC. They might be able to mine a few hundred BTC and not be noticed for at least a little while. But what is a few hundred BTC a day? $3,800? Over a year, they make less than $1.5M? Sure, not pennies, but far less than what they have generated in sales thus far, and they're looking at the long-term plan too. You think they're going to risk tens of millions in future sales (if Bitcoin continues to be successful) for a measly $1.4M in a year? I just don't see it as a viable business plan, much less an attractive alternative compared to maintaining a solid reputation and continuing sales.
Anonymous mining is not a problem. As for the rest you're right (An unsatisfied employee squawks, A visitor happens to notice). If the sale is more profitable than mining , what is the point to buy ASIC
. If they will have more profit from sale than from mining its means that mining is unprofitable! If people will buy ASIC for $ 10 million they count on fast ROI (10million $), If a company sold $ 10 million worth ASIC, earns ~ $ 5 million. Who earns more, the people or ASIC company? If a company have already ASIC technology and access to very low-cost chips (all for free, with money customers), have reached goal and no longer need customers in the future. They already have or will have from mining the funds for the second-generation ASIC and will earn more from mining. It is not possible to make more money by selling money-producing machine (assuming that these machines have a fast and reliable ROI) than using these machines . Someone always has to lose to another may gain, "Money Does not Come from Nothing" !!!
They can do two things at once, sell and mining (additional profit). Is it just a rumor that the BFL / Inaba has big FPGA mine ?
No, I agree with you - more money cannot be made than can be made in mining. But, BFL is looking at the long term. They hope Bitcoin is successful. If the Bitcoin price raises from $13 to $26, they can sell twice as many ASICs. If it goes to $1000, they can sell hundreds of millions of dollars worth. Now, you might say that if they mine, they would also see the same increases in profit based on price, which is true, but the price isn't going to go up if one entity controls a large amount of hashpower either - no one would trust the large entity to not acquire 51% and stage an attack.
So then, if they mine, they could not feasibly acquire more than, say, 10% of the daily prize without everyone losing confidence in Bitcoin and the price plummeting to nothing. If they sell the miners, their miners could make up 80% of the network. So they would make more money by selling the miners, because they could acquire (indirectly through the sale of miners), say, 80% of the network profit instead of 10%.
Also, as Bitcoin matures and stabilizes, miners will be willing to outlay capital for longer and longer ROI periods. So the current expected (based on preorders) 4 month ROI will stretch to 6 months, 8 months, a year, longer... that ROI stretching will stretch sales as well.
It is obvious that BFL is not interested in big risks, and there are many risks and unknowns with mining Bitcoins. How would their investors feel if they destroyed their reputation for a mining spree that killed confidence in Bitcoin, and now they have worthless equipment to mine a worthless currency without any ability to pay back their investors? This sort of risk is not in the plan - it just isn't reasonable for a company backed by venture capital to take such a risk.
BFL does NOT have an FPGA farm. Inaba does, but it is separate from his employment, and he profits from it, not BFL. Most of the miners he has in his 500GH/s are other people's miners that he stages on their behalf for a monthly fee.