Topic: [BitFunder] IceDrill.ASIC IPO (235 Thash Mining Operation powered by HashFast) - page 11. (Read 378708 times)

I'm an iD/HF investor/customer (not a "shill"), but am glad you agree that your friend should take responsibility for his decisions, and not whine when risk fails to reward.

Sorry you were too risk-averse to enjoy the benefits of being an early ASICMINER investor or Avalon customer!   

(You do realize that I'm mocking your idiotic 'if success then legit; if fail then scam' ex post facto logic, right?)

I am sure will and deadterra have done quite well on this scam...

I'm sure many of us are well aware where the funds have gone, what we really lack is any insight into what justified such fucking stupid decisions.

Stop holding my coins hostage, pay out my divs so I may reinvest them. I am loosing potential profit because of your practice. You are doing twice the damage to me by holding on to my coins.  This is not a game fellas or sandbox for your experiments.

This is MY MONEY your playing with.

Cryptomex is so bad.  Seriously, get these "profit units" (or whatever legal wants to call them) on counterparty or swap them for coloured coins already.  Let people out if they want out.

Not letting people trade these ALREADY ISSUED securities is retarded.

Lets start with ANY return...

What about my withdrawal? I've requested 0,1BTC withdrawal from cryptomex almost one month ago (2nd Oct) and nothing.

Hi All

I'm back from a bit of required leave and just getting back into the thick of things.

First off, welcome to 297, and thank you for the comprehensive update. We've been in direct and constant communication with 297 from the start and throughout this year. They have been a great source of advice and guidance over the last few months.

Audit
As there has been some accusation of improper handling of company funds I have invited a detailed audit of all internal operations of DigiMex. As 297 stated, the audit will go beyond the normal accounting submissions as was required for the financial reports (Jan/July) and cover everything that the auditor deems fit to investigate, including (but not limited to) mining reporting, payout endpoints, wallet transparency and expenditures. My only request to the auditor was that the privacy of any involved parties (other than my own) remain intact, unless relevant.

Communication
Public communication from my side has been very few and far between. There really is no excuse for this and is a major shortcoming of myself. I have been in constant and direct communication with the group of people who represent a majority of the public shares, but I've not always been as vocal as I would have liked to have been on this forum (publicly). That said, while I've had to execute on some NDAs, I've never initiated any, so if you've had a conversation with me on any topic please consider the information in the public domain and feel free to share it here.

Creditors Committee
Committee work is ongoing. Apart from the information which is publicly available I'd prefer not to divulge any other information or my opinion of the process here, lest it jeopardise our position on the creditors committee. Much to my chagrin, the Debtor renewed their NDA to committee members, and legal counsel gave the go-ahead to execute on it. What I can say is that I don't serve solely as representative of DigiMex on the committee, US bankruptcy law allows for a alternate DigiMex representative on the committee and I felt it prudent to solicit that representation. The appointed person was also instrumental in the structuring of our filed proof of claim, which is backed by contractual guarantees.

Pool Development
There is much to say regarding the ongoing bitcoin mining development work that we're involved in. I agree with 297 that an update on the status of developments and the reasons for the pool undertaking is due. After a full year of what can only really be described as "damage control" it made sense to leverage the lessons we've learnt from the problems we (and others) faced and use them to build something which has the potential for long-term relevance.

Hey dropt,

Did you fill out your form correctly?

Hey Wil, Ludvig, and others,

  Have you seen this?

https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/sec-sends-inquiry-letters-hundreds-bitcoin-companies-unregistered-securities/

Were you contacted by the SEC?  If not, let me know so I can be sure to point them in your direction.

+1 can't argue with this, and I'd certainly welcome your outlook coming to fruition.

Patience is a virtue; time a commodity, but here's hoping the s.s. cointerra has patched those holes.

Isn't the point of a hedge to neutralize the vagaries of volatility, rather than be good or bad per se?   

The opportune time to sell CT shares is when we have an opportunity to realize a profit, whether in BTC or fiat.

I also suspect we are in the red with regard to CT, as is par for this course, notwithstanding a pleasant surprise from Will and Ravi.   

So yes, 'wait and hope' is the available alternative to realizing a massive loss due to BTC depreciation combined with CT's early missteps and unfortunate circumstances.

I disagree that the risk is necessarily less than proportional reward, because CT stock has a reasonable chance of providing leverage to BTC appreciation.

YMMV depending on risk tolerance, but in the event of BTC resuming its moonward trajectory, the rising tide should lift all boats.

But how would an opportune time to sell shares to the most benefit of the investors be determined? Without knowledge of the specific details of the investment or the agreement between ID and CT, and judging upon 297's comment, I believe it's safe to assume we're in the red in regard to CT share value. So what you proposed was to wait and hope for Cointerra to assume a mining market dominance.

My argument was that I didn't see the risk worth the reward in waiting as I believed any potential appreciation in the value of the CT shares would largely be as a result of an increase in btc price as opposed to an advancement of Cointerra itself. Even if the USD value of the shares increase, the quantity of BTC those USD can purchase once those shares are finally sold are likely to remain roughly the same.


I'm not saying it was necessarily a bad hedge, but I wouldn't call it a good one either.

Over the timescale between the date of purchase and date of sale.  Since we're hloding plenty of BTC, the CT stock makes a good hedge.

Of course investing in ASICs and their manufacturers is risky.  We already knew that.  No risk, no reward.

Not even sure how to feel about that happening honestly, but I find it more likely that I go outside tomorrow to survive a lightning strike only to be killed by a micrometeoroid as I leave the hospital.

Outperforming holding btc; over what timescale? Any considerable appreciation of our assets in Cointerra are most likely to follow a relative price path with bitcoin. And even if didn't, Cointerra, while showing the effort to remain relevant, won't find the opportunity at obtaining an Intel-like status in as polarized of a market. The cost and complexity of designing for a mining purposed chip is nowhere near as inhibiting to engineers, allowing a markedly wider potential pool of qualified entrants/competitors ...on top of which you're dealing with a market whose quantified potential for profits and opportunities for competition to join the market are already heavily reliant upon bitcoin's price.

Our shares in CT also remain denominated in USD, so whatever theoretical profits can be taken from the sale of shares (assuming they're not paying dividends lol) at some arbitrary point in the future, will likely only be able to buy us back roughly the equivalent amount of bitcoin as it would get us today (best case scenario). In a sense, a USD valuation of our shares in a company like Cointerra and any appreciation thereof is practically irrelevant when the shareholder's ..err ID profit-unit-holders are to be paid in BTC.



So that would seem to account for the deficit between current balance and July, however, that doesn't take into consideration anything that would have been mined in that same time frame.

I'm not expecting further figures from you, 297. I realize our cry for answers has reached the 'beating a dead horse' phase, but that audit has certainly made it to the top of my 2015 must reads list. Thank you very much for the explanations you've provided.

My final questions; Can you provide us the mining addresses? And what is our cumulative hashrate now?

Unless we've already sold the CT, the loss is only theoretical, not actualized.  CT is still in the running to be the Intel of BTC, so there's a decent chance our stock will outperform just hloding the BTC.

Thanks for the update!

I expect Willem to address this aspect when he comes around to provide updates on the pool development. So far I have not seen any development which would offer a comparative offer to ghash.io.

The question whether IceDrill funds were used will be covered by the internal audit.

To my knowledge Digimex still owns its share of Cointerra stock.

In terms of BTC, Cointerra was not a good decision. Cointerra was acquired at peak level BTC valuation.

Breaking the silence is part of a deescalation strategy I've recommended for a while now. So far no plausible reason was offered for not communicating transparently. Note that it requires some character to come out in January and tell your own investors that you've screwed up a 20,000 BTC deal. Between January and June, Willem still hoped that HashFast would turn around and help them achieving a ROI for investors, but you know the end of that story. The other issues which became apparent with Willem and Ludvig is that self-imposed deadlines are not being observed, which leads to assumptions of bad faith where none should exist.

Note that Willem was drawing two salaries from the funds and that some billing items had to be covered. This likely resulted in a short term negative cash flow of maybe 100 BTC between the time of your post and now. On Oct 9, there were still some funds (~75 BTC) allocated for upcoming expenses (25), a reward reserve (25) and as a pool buffer (25).
The internal audit will shine light on this issues. The term "appropriately" simply means that the funds were not used on non-business related items - it doesn't necessarily imply "good use" of funds. Digimex and its officers are still liable for code of conduct.

25% of the machines are currently in transit to the new location. 75% of the machines will reside at the location in Montreal until Dec.7, when the contract expires, after which they will also be shipped.

The current proposal is to pay out on a fixed schedule (e.g. 50BTC/month) once the audit is sufficiently completed and the shareholder information is consolidated.

Talk about poor decisions mating with bad luck and having an ugly baby. To argue now that putting all your btc in one HF basket was a bad idea, or exactly when shareholders agreed to funding the development of a pool, or the feeling of being mislead in that a reasonably priced hosting contract had already been secured at IPO launch -or at least why a query for a facility wasn't put out to invested parties when failure was realized is all now moot, however disgustingly frustrating it is. As somewhat concerning our point of contact shifting to some surprise anon may be, the update you've provided is very appreciated. So thank you for that.

~Are the machines currently in this new facility -or in the process of being moved? What is the anticipated remaining lifetime?

~Will distributions be withheld until the audit is complete and the HF bankruptcy comes to a resolution?