Topic: [BitFunder] IceDrill.ASIC IPO (235 Thash Mining Operation powered by HashFast) - page 102. (Read 378562 times)

Think we're talking at cross-purposes.

You're talking about what happens with mining revenue - and payments to shareholders from profits.  I'm talking about what happens with funds raised from IPO.

It has nothing at all to do with dividends.  What happens with funds raised from IPO varies (especially around here):

Sometimes the shares are sold directly by the company - and funds raised become the property of the company (and thus used to the benefit of teh company).
Sometimes the shares are treated as being sold by a previous owner - and so go the that owner (the issuer).
Other times it's a mix of the two.

My concern was (and remains) that the last is the case - that investors don't actually get the benefit of all funds raised from IPO.  I asked a few questions about this pages back but received no reply.  There's more to it than just whether immediate cash benefit is taken - such as whether other revenue from secondary usage of facilities is also treated as profit for investors.

One of the reason I had the concern was because no disclosure was being made of how much was raised from sale of private shares.  That lack of disclosure made no sense IF all funds raised were being used for the company - as the amount raised from sale of private shares would HAVE to end up being made public whenever first accounts were produced (even if not disclosed as a liine item it could be worked out by subtracting the value of public sales from the total listed IPO revenue).

Another reason is simply that other IPOs have gone that route - raising $X then giving investors $X/Y (Y being >1) worth of assets in return.

A final reason was the repeated reference to fixed number of hashes per share - which makes no sense when the final performance of the hardware isn't known.

But I asked my questions before so don't really want to keep repeating them if they aren't going to be answered - there were other issues I raised such as the degree of care that had been taken when agreeing contracts for delivery of hardware.

Moving the assumption to "middle of September" doesn't change the outcome, as long as the estimated global hashrate is not crossed. I've already explained why it's still valid. Understand the math or don't, your choice.

Confirmed (see FAQ 2, Q4).


See IPO wording @ bottom:
Clause added in benefit of public shareholders
No dividends will be paid to the holders of private shares until holders of public shares have received an accumulated dividend of 0.0016 BitCoin per share.


This statement is factually incorrect.

wow! I like your logical thinking Jimbo. You might be right or you might be wrong but the fact that you actually back up your thinking with some valid logical deduction with facts is great. Your logic seems to make sense the most to me as well given what I asked earlier and none of the skeptics were able to answer. (ie. my line of questioning matches with yours except I wasn't as smart as you to deduce from the BabyJet price. I didn't even know they have one)


Wouldn't the hardware supplier be smart enough to squeeze every last cent out of the selling price of chips to maximize profit from the middle man? (ie. do a quick discounted cashflow of possible BTC mined via some mumbo-jumbo simulations) Unless you are assuming that the hardware providers are naive enough to sell chips at cost + profit margin as if they are any other hardware makers...

Yes Vbs, "increasingly inaccurate" is increasingly accurate.  The lapsing "middle of August" assumption is particularly untenable in light of Avalon's protracted delays/fiascos/implosion/intrigues and spiking difficulty.

It's only fair to dividend-oriented investors to correct inaccurate assumptions and stop misrepresenting ACTM's short-to-medium term hashpower.

I also notice your silent de facto consent as Goody Stuart/VE trashed ice.drill on the ACTM thread, and bragged about enjoying "shitting all over" this one, has suddenly reversed, now that your baby is in a similar situation here. 

Turnabout is fair play!   

I already explained one way that could be the case earlier - if some of the funds raised in IPO were just pocketed by issuers rather than being used to maximise amount of mining capacity purchased.  Another means would be if the issuers were linked to the hardware vendors and so received profit either from investment in there or from kick-backs.

The first one can be easily denied - and would be demonstrably not the case if accounts were produced later.  The latter has to be taken more on trust.  But first a denial that the first is the case would be appropriate - as rather obviously if issuers keep some of the IPO funds they'd be making profit before investors had broken even.

The reason I've raised the first possibility is simply that the tone of the contract is that investors are buying into a mining company - but the letter of the contract reads more like it's a PMB with an undisclosed markup potentially being raked off immediately.

Would suggest you get DT or someone to confirm that issuers don't keep (or receive as 'management fees') any IPO funds (they're all used to grow the mine) before repeating again that they don't receive anything until investors have recouped their investment.  As the issuers have never claimed or committed to that - so don't see how you can be in a position to give assurances that they've refused to.

How do you square this with the fact that these shares pay out .0016 btc before the issuers get any money from the mine? All of the profits are front loaded to the public investors.

sorry, i will quote what I asked previously. I am not a businessman nor a game-theorist but I would assume the HF guys are pretty clever, no?

Wouldn't the hardware supplier be smart enough to squeeze every last cent out of the selling price of chips to maximize profit from the middle man? (ie. do a quick discounted cashflow of possible BTC mined via some mumbo-jumbo simulations) Unless you are assuming that the hardware providers are naive enough to sell chips at cost + profit margin as if they are any other hardware makers...

Is re-investing 25% a bad thing? From what I have read so far, hardware is a depreciating asset in this mining game. If you don't upgrade constantly, you would be left in the dust, no?

Agree that it is a good deal for the hardware seller but I thought this IPO is for the farm, not hardware seller, right? So where does the issuer profit come in? Wouldn't the hardware supplier be smart enough to squeeze every last cent out of the selling price of chips to maximize profit from the middle man? (ie. do a quick discounted cashflow of possible BTC mined via some mumbo-jumbo simulations) Unless you are assuming that the hardware providers are naive enough to sell chips at cost + profit margin as if they are any other hardware makers...

I thought they weren't going to issue more shares into IPO and even if they do, each share will still be entitled to an rough estimate of 10 megaHash or something? or gigahash? sorry, i still cannot get my head around all the numbers. With the fact that IPO shares would be paid 0.0016 BTC first... where is the profit from?

Sorry, I am not that good with Math but how much would it cost to buy all those hardware from HashFast and then set up a farm with this size? Has anyone estimated the total cost required that is needed to run this operation? Do you think IPO money is sufficient to cover all that cost?

I don't mean to quesiton a HERO member since I am a newbie in all this but I am just curious whether someone knows some real facts (or anything close to facts).

There is still hope that btct will reject it. If it does (rightly so), I'm liquidating all my bitfunder stock and moving everything to btct.
We can be glad one exchange actually has standards for what they approve.
Who knows though, this whole thing is a circus. A lot of people with no dog in the fight pointed this out, while all pro-IceDrill are just trying to pump their shares.

1) This is the IceDrill thread, so try to respect that.

2) Increasingly inaccurate? My estimation for August global hashrate (478TH/s) is still above the current mark, so it's still very valid. Months are unimportant, the only thing that matters for estimating profits is the global hashrate at the time when the hardware is put online.

BTCGarden doesn't even exist anymore - keep up.

Deprived,

I am convinced IceDrill is a shitty PMB in a thinly veiled disguise of an ASICMINER clone. Basically they are selling future hashes at a fixed price, and forcing people to reinvest 25% of mining profits in more hashing power at a price the issuer controls. It's basically a PMB guaranteed to only make money for the issuers, and their hardware suppliers (if they aren't secretly one and the same). The difference between this and a run of the mill PMB is they plan to mask some of those losses by having a depreciation timeline that's been stretched out a bit, so it takes a little longer for it to become apparent that it is a money losing investment.

Best as I can tell, this investment will only make money for the issuers, their hardware suppliers, and perhaps a few flippers, if the issuers aren't too aggressive about issuing more shares too quickly. (Bear in mind they are allowing themselves the right to issue an additional 20,000,000 shares after the IPO sells out, so be careful trying to flip.)

I will say, it's really ballsy in the scale they are doing it at. It's also kinda scary that they have a bitcoin-assets exchange operator backing it. (Ukyo). I'm also very sad to see DeadTerra and Ukyo frittering away any goodwill they had left, for a relatively short term naked money grab.

-helixone

P.S. - Best as I can tell this asset is being setup to create a captive buying group for the "HashFast" ASIC producer, as well as suck up as many coins as possible out of the bitcoin-assets marketplace.
P.S.S. - It's a times like these I really wish that there was margin/shorting on the exchanges to keep crappy behavior like this in check. (This security, ActiveMining, Labcoin, BTCgarden and perhaps even ASICMINER could all use a healthy dose of very large shorting right about now.)

Apologies, things have been a bit busy this side... I have no idea what's the craic with page 18 and VE?

Anyone care to give me a concise breakdown? Don't want to open a can of "off-topic", so would appreciate it by PM if someone doesn't mind too much.

No new shares will be issued. The maximum amount of shares is 50 million.

Your EDIT:


Again, I just posted the link for all to see. Are you literally insane?

You making another killer deal - now that would be terrible news, how long would you bang on about it for next time? I couldn't abide another week of your smug and self-praising petty little postings about how many people you have turned over. For this reason alone I hope you get hit by a bus, or your internet gets cut. Either would be fine but one is more preferable than the other.

I didn't question the statement about batch 7 - did I???

I can read that he has cancelled the order for batch7, as can anyone who follows the link I just posted. You tart.

Oops, I must have learned to selectively quote from Goody Stuart!  


Vbs really should update his spreadsheet to reflect this adverse development, and that goes double for the Activemining asset profiles on Bitfunder/BTCT.

I'm not surprised you ACTM cultists prefer deflecting from this terrible news to cute fluff about Easter eggs! 

EDIT:

mmm I'm sure you are not wishing to intentionally misquote or misrepresent anybody but your little excerpt is not only incorrectly quoted but also gives a false impression of doubt through your poor contextualization ......sooo here is the full quote:

'We remain optimistic the chips which have already been ordered will be delivered, though we do not have any information as to when our orders will be fulfilled. We are exploring our options, and will continue to monitor the situation closely. We will post an update the moment we have definitive information.'

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/liquid-synergy-designs-inc-asic-mining-hardware-192916

So I can't see what you are making a fuss about, that's perfectly clear.

Please try to get back OT this is the IceDriller thread after all. Thankyou.


EDIT opps, almost forgot -