Sorry I wasn't trying to argue for or against those as investments, was trying to keep the debate about the economics of current hardware availability out of the discussion by just accepting your opinion that they are not profitable. Buying or not buying those those aren't the only options, another option is simply to hold less in reserves. There's basically two components to this fund at this point- one part is the existing batch 2 and batch 3 orders, and one part is the large fund for unknown future purposes. These two components are very very different in nature...one, the reserve fund, is an option to buy future hardware should there be a profitable opportunity, one is a share of some valuable machinery to be delivered that will decline in value over time.
Look, keeping the avalons separate for a second, if I (or someone known with a reputation on this board) wanted to raise funds for a mining company, and the prospectus said that we had no immediate use for those funds and just wanted to be ready at some unspecified future point if a profitable opportunity arose, nobody would invest, right? Well, at this point, thats a lot of what this fund is.
I understand what you're saying, I just don't see a lot of viable alternatives. The "economics of current hardware availability" is the overriding theme with all mining assets at this time and cannot realistically be separated from the discussion. That said, raising the price of shares was done in part to slow the sale of shares and therefore the dilution of assets. This was one of my stated purposes several pages back...and it worked. The recent spike in sales is plainly due to the news that Avalon batch 2 is shipping and yes this is adding to company reserves and future shareholder value.
Keeping the Avalons separate ignores the basic premise of the entire company, but I'll play along. The contract states that we'll bulk purchase ASIC mining hardware. When it was written the company had one ASIC mining product on order and I'd lain the groundwork for large future(bulk) purchases from the very same company, but that company is now extinct and we moved by shareholder vote to another vendor. Our plans changed out of necessity...not design. I very much doubt that shareholder value would've been better protected by locking in a large order with BFL following the collapse of BTCFPGA and that was the only alternative at that time. Again, decisions had to be made with the information available at that time, not the information that's available now. The risk that we'd be unable to add ASIC mining gear in the near term due to lack of availability is precisely why I proposed a modest expansion of the company's GPU hardware several months ago, also accomplished by shareholder vote.
Cheers.