Topic: GekkoScience BM1384 Project Development Discussion - page 36. (Read 146713 times)

Let me know and I am there with some coin.


 A 5th at 1.5kwatts sounds okay to me.

I could find space for more then a few

maybe a good idea would be to contact an accountant, as nonprofit would have to dispose of any possible profit that might accrue.
As far as whales are concerned-the only "whales" I can think of possibly investing in a nonprofit venture like this might be exchanges or wallet providers (with or without some marketing endorsements).

Sounds awesome.

If you have a set design, please let me know... i can coordinate with you so people can have variety of options when cooling down everything especially for tropical countries like mine where ambient 30ºC  is the lower bound on a normal day 

The big'n won't be built around the 18-chip board.

I'm building a waterblock with the S5 form factor (hence the PM i sent you before). This could line up nicely with this project

To clarify:
Gekkoscience is a standalone entity as is Planetcrypto.
I can unequivocally say that any interaction between the proposed entity and PC will be contractual in nature as it has been between Gekkoscience and PC.
We, as a company, may elect to contribute, gratis, resources/assets to any company or individual (time on one of our super computers, for instance, for chip simulation) at our discretion.
PC will probably fund the proposed entity (subject to our share holder approval) through the share purchase vehicle as I will personally.

Currently, I'm leaning towards a corporate organizational model that files for an IRS 503(c)(6) tax status which is commonly known as a Mutual Benefit Nonprofit Corporation.
Briefly described here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual-benefit_nonprofit_corporation
This will make investing in the organization less attractive to "whales", i.e. individuals looking to make huge ROI's in the short term.
But is, I think, more philosophically inline with what the Bitcoin mining community needs.

To quote from the Wiki referene:
"Mutual benefit corporations are formed for common gain purposes such as ..." "... promoting the social or economic welfare of member individuals or organizations (for example through trade groups, professional organizations or business districts)." In this instance the the proposed organization would be loosely defined as Bitcoin mining hardware manufacturers.

Stated succinctly, The proposed Mutual Benefit Nonprofit Corporation will promote the social and economic welfare (common gain) of member individuals and organizations by getting to tapeout a state-of-the-art Bitcoin SHA-256 hashing chip.

And yeah, PC will be interested in purchasing some of those 5TH machines as well.

I'd be down for at least one of these beasts, maybe more 

There's some pre-order sale threads over in Group Buys, and I'll be starting to bring in parts before long. PCBs and heatsinks should be in hand in about two weeks. Novak's on vacation and I'm tied up with assembly tasks for a huge PSU boards order so there probably won't be any dev work done on either hardware or code until next week. I think we're going to skip Amita design and go right into a simple multi-chip board with full software control of clock, voltage and fan. From there we can extend it to 18- and 30-chip designs.

Independent from what PlanetCrypto is working on, we've been thinking about building a 4U machine made for swappable boards and such. With BM1384 it'd put up 5TH, so next-gen chips would be even better. The plan was to make the layout fairly flexible, internal connections a generic USB bus, and publish the specs in case anyone else wanted to build boards for the same form-factor. Basically, an intention to define an open standard. Once I get back to hardware dev we'll see what happens.

takin from the sticks pre order area


i do beleave that hes covered this here in orginal posting but there are always possibilities of delays and he said any delays will be posted in this so please

be patient

Ok, thanks Sidehack.

GekkoScience and whatever PlanetCrypto does are completely separate entities. Of course I'll separate my business from his investors. The only GekkoScience products that go unfinished because a whale retrieved the investment are projects specifically commissioned by said whale who then backed out of the contract, which makes it not investment but a contract job. In general, we are our own financing entity.


There is no news of the sticks. Until I get the parts in to start building and shipping, everything that needs to be said has been said already.

And some news of the sticks ?

" If the many what put up cash want to elect the "inner circle" based on criteria of competence in their various fields (technical expertise for dev teams, managerial experience for administration, etc), then have no further real active role in the process, that'd be alright"

Pretty much what i meant


But please remember that you are still dividing gekkoscience from the investors

"My company (GekkoScience) will never be publicly traded. No shares will ever be sold. I am fundamentally opposed to the idea of paying someone who did not work for it, and I don't consider "having money already" as an adequate replacement for actual labor. I am also fundamentally opposed to the idea of someone buying a position of authority over my decisions. It's for these reasons that we avoid investors wherever possible (and loans are a last-ditch measure)."

Having a financing entity AND gekkosciance is pretty much the same than financing INTO gekkoscience.

You can call it as you want but if a whale retrieves the investment you lose the ability to finish your product...
Thin line between whay you stated and what planetcrypto stated.

Still think that he he is right about caring on investors.

Whouldnt you reward philipma for babysitting the eventual thread?
Cheers guys, have a nice day

I think my opinions regarding publicly-traded companies is reasonably well-known, but I'll go ahead and restate it. My company (GekkoScience) will never be publicly traded. No shares will ever be sold. I am fundamentally opposed to the idea of paying someone who did not work for it, and I don't consider "having money already" as an adequate replacement for actual labor. I am also fundamentally opposed to the idea of someone buying a position of authority over my decisions. It's for these reasons that we avoid investors wherever possible (and loans are a last-ditch measure).

Yes, I know a two million dollar price tag pretty much requires investors. Loans are probably out because there's no security; just like with a building loan, the collateral is being invented and until all the money is spent to finish the project it's not really worth anything. I just really don't like the idea of some nontechnical with money being able to dictate the goings-on of a technical enterprise simply by paying for the right. If the many what put up cash want to elect the "inner circle" based on criteria of competence in their various fields (technical expertise for dev teams, managerial experience for administration, etc), then have no further real active role in the process, that'd be alright.

As for compensation of individuals working within the project, I really have no opinion yet worth expressing. That'll take some time to think about. Something like a salary, dividing up the required tasks and assigning a value to each portion, payable upon completion of that portion, I'd accept that for myself at least. That motivates a person to get things done efficiently but effectively.

Are you offering to spawn a thread and mother it for the chip thingy?

Hope so, cuz' I suck at that.

In the extreme, the "whales" are technologically clueless "people with lots of money who want to make lots more money".
Gauging competence (in any discipline) is the task of the many and is delegated by the many through the referendum process.
As, ultimately, the many are supremely responsible and culpable for the actions of the entity.
Personally, I pay attention to competence regardless of the individuals chosen field; engineering, administration, physical prowess, financial, sales, people skills, etc. . .

"I know people with fat wallets are going to want to keep a tight leash on what happens with their money." I categorize it as a disease, akin to obsessive hoarding. The more one hoards (money in this example) the more the individual agonizes over retaining the hoard and eventually becomes delusional.

"But if the goal of the project is to do something technically impressive ..."
The goal here is to not just do something technologically impressive, to some extent that's already been done and your efforts are a prime example, but to take that technological thing and make it the defacto standard of the many. Thereby causing the playing field to become leveled for all players.

I think that any "folks putting up 30 hours a week in free time to do all the heavy lifting," "ought have more say than the guy who spent five minutes" doing whatever.

"Is there a business model where a group of people come together with an idea of how something should be done, people hand them money in order to let them do it, and then have approximately no say after that because the core group is capable of doing it all themselves?"
Yes there are plethora of them.

"Something where investors just sit back and watch instead of being able to screw things up."
Yes, any publicly traded company on any of the exchanges meets this criteria.

The difference between a startup and a publicly traded company can be distilled down to track record. The previous has none while the latter oozes success. And that's where the rub is when initiating a venture that requires hideous amounts of capital.

I can easily imagine that if a technologically advanced chip is brought to tapeout any endeavors the entity would want to pursue after that will be easily funded.
That entity, "having figured out the wheel" could then transpose that model to others who may have other disruptive ideas.

well I can always add 2-6 coins to a joint venture.

I can run a demo/review thread.

And since I am only going for 2 to 6 coins my vote is going to agree with sidehack and Novac.  I don't want much say in the venture.  As I am more of a guy that does a little bit of everything.  I am more of a Doctor Watson then a sherlock Holmes.

I would be sidehack's sidekick (pun was poor but well meant)

 

I mostly agree with Sidehack in this round, except for one thing

i also think that a whale wallet should not be able to interfere with the ideas of a "technical" experts, but we must recognise that the technical expert should have the agreement from THE INNER CIRCLE (cit. american dad)
The inner circle is as side said the ensamble of technical, management, sales and pr team.

These people should be elected by every other inner circle's startup component OR/AND by shareholders accordingly.

The thing that i agree the most with sidehack is that more money should not mean more voting capacity, IMO every holder counts 1(because the only thing we assume as always true is that every shareholder has interest in the success of the company).

i personally do not agree with what side said about importance of duty holders.
i am sure for personal experience that a dev will not arrive to success without a salesman, a manager or a pr guy(or a financier). BUT true also that any of these others will not obtain anything without a dev!
The hours that you put now into the project will be the same that the others will dedicate when the product will be ready (i am not saing that these hours have the same technical or financial value.. maybe less or maybe more).

About the value given to a worker like sidehack...
too many options... really...
-Assign a fixed percentage of every financier's input to him or anyone else actively working (inner circle)
-Salary (totally given or partially converted in shares)
-Assign a value to him(and all the inner members) based on the job done or to do in the project and pay it in shares

many other ways....

Thanks guys for keeping my brain moving 

Are we talking about whales with any technical expertise, or just people with lots of money who want to make lots more money? If there was a way to gauge actual competence and assign authority based on that, rather than who has the fattest wallet, I could get behind it. I'd pay a lot more attention to a filthy rich engineer with a record of building great stuff than a filthy rich investor with a record of keeping chairs warm while getting paid to watch others work.

I know people with fat wallets are going to want to keep a tight leash on what happens with their money. But if the goal of the project is to do something technically impressive (with profit as a requirement of secondary concern), and the administrative tasks require a fraction of the effort the technicals need, I'd rather see decision-making authority assigned more heavily to technical people than administrators, or people whose only vested interest is greed. The folks putting up 30 hours a week in free time to do all the heavy lifting, I think, ought have more say than the guy who spent five minutes cutting a check and an hour a week reading the group emails.

Is there a business model where a group of people come together with an idea of how something should be done, people hand them money in order to let them do it, and then have approximately no say after that because the core group is capable of doing it all themselves? Something where investors just sit back and watch instead of being able to screw things up.