"Also, I don’t speculate in difficulty changes as a policy, but I’ve chosen to account for 15% per month for the next two months when comparing the numbers. This may or may not be right but regardless, it shouldn’t affect the comparison of assets too much, only mining investments in general."
I can see no rational basis for assuming a 15% rise per month in the next 2 months for difficulty. Even a quick look at current trends shows that in recent months the rise is consistently around double that. That's with only 3 companies providing ASICs - and one of them (BFL) only just really getting going.
Like I said, that number isn't really relevant in terms of comparing mining assets which was the point of that article. The number is relevant in terms of evaluating mining investments as a whole only.
I continue to avoid speculating on when or how much the increase will be, but I've said several times that it is likely we reach 1-1.5PH more than we have now before mining again becomes too marginal to make huge investments interesting. At 2PHs, BFMines, TAT.VM, and your own DMS.Mining still yield a return that beats NASDAQ composite by at least 200%, so how you can say that it is a horrible investment is beyond me.
And to answer your question about the fourth mining company; Metabank must ship, of course. They put a cap on sales at less than 400 units. That's a whooping 50THs, or roughly one AM's worth of mining.
KnC? No idea about how many units they will manage to sell, but they're now competing with the next batch of Bitfury based machines.
The argument you've made a few times about difficulty having to stop rising because of the cost of hardware ignores three things:
1. The price of hardware WILL fall - and massively so. Current prices are a massive markup on cost (after NRE has been recovered) and will inevitably drop through competition once supply becomes reliable and demand becomes somewhat satiated.
Of course it will. The prices of securities will also drop. This is explicitly stated in the contract. It is not ignored anywhere.
However, this isn't going to be a revolution one day, where KnC or Metabank announces they're cutting their prices by 95%. The market needs to buy first to create the income to make larger orders and smaller chips possible.
We're already preparing for 28nm. At 20nm, we have to start competing with the development resources of Intel to get smaller. KnC still hasn't shown a single working chip. Bitfury's chips (at 55nm) were massively underperforming (but are on time so far at least). BFL has struggled for a year to get their 65nm chips out. 100th is over a month late and needs to get more funds from investors. Even Avalon at 110nm are having major issues and as of a couple of hours from now are joining the ranks of those officially late on their estimates.
AM seems to be virtually the only company to get stuff out more or less on time, and even they have yet not fulfilled their estimates of having 62TH online (they're right now at roughly half of that) by late March 2013.
And yet you're confident we'll just keep having prices drop like rocks. I don't share your confidence. I think prices will fall, just not now and just not yet.
2. If the price of Bitcoin rises then that immediately allows more hardware to be added without problem. Long-term the price of Bitcoin has to rise or it will stagnate and die (the cause/effect is actually the other way round).
And if all Bitcoin mining investments are unprofitable, do you then think that Bitcoin will survive?
For a rise in BTC/USD to counter just holding coins as opposed to mining, mining returns must be massive. For mining returns to be massive, we need a high difference between mining difficulty and BTC/USD. However, if your stated assumption of a higher and higher difficulty comes true, mining investments of any kind will be a loss, so mining will either cease, or leave investors with vastly lower yield. For any investor to accept lower yield, the risk must be reduced, and that in turn requires better confidence in the profitability of development of new technology.
3. All the time people can sell unprofitable bonds/shares to the public they'll continue buying hardware and selling shares in it. That it isn't rational for investors to buy their crap doesn't make it irrational for them to sell it - and it will continue even if mining is unprofitable before the issuers have taken their own (risk-free) cut.
You're begging the question here by assuming the answer you want as an assumption for your argument. Mining contracts are unprofitable because they are unprofitable.
You've put your credibility on the line for a very small sum - I hope that works out well for you.
I don't see it that way. I do believe in the asset I have created, and I believe it will be profitable for investors. It will not rise in price, it will not yield 500% returns, but with a reasonable risk it is likely to return a reasonable reward. You may evaluate that risk differently, which is fine. I'm not bashing DMS.Selling for never being able to return 100% ROI or predict that mining will stop after 800ths leading DMS.Selling investors to lose money. They are simply different bets; you and your investors place your bets, I and my investors place mine.
I have also, to hopefully put an end to that discussion, never claimed that mining contracts are more profitable than investing in and operating your own hardware, just like no sane person would claim that investing in Exxon is more profitable than buying and operating your own oil field, or that buying shares in Ford is more profitable than building and operating your own car company.
.b