Thank you for publishing the costs.
I do not feel as strongly as smoothie, but indeed, calculating the 3 FPGA minirig trade in (paid by investors who paid extra for you to have a cut), you're left with 2.5 ASIC rigs to pay to get the full 4 terahash needed to cover 100 mhash per bond (1.5 rig paid by 3 x 15000$ trade in). 30000 USD/ 11 USD per BTC = about 2725 BTC per rig. 2725 BTC per rig x 2.5 = 6812 BTC upgrade costs.
40000 x 0.25 upgrade for 100 mhash each = 10000 BTC versus 6812 BTC upgrade costs. That's a 32% apparent margin, not counting the part paid by investors for the GPU to support all the previous hashing. With .30 to .40 upgrade and 90 mhash per upgrade, we're getting closer to an apparent 50-60% margin.
I'm not making accusation and I'm fully aware you're going past the contract to offer which holds you to pay 5 mhash/s only per bond forever.
I'm saying by just looking at what you're asking versus what you give, this does not seem like a good deal with you having a very, very large margin. (and by what others seems to be saying, some may get the idea you've been put in the red by pirate investments and are passing the bill to the upgrade. With the pirate fiasco, I suppose it's expectable that people will ask for a lot more transparency.)
I suppose most are angry by such claims:
At the network being 200Th the 10% fee would be .2% of the network. At 25 BTC blocks this would generate 7.2 BTC per day and at $10 per BTC that would be $72 per day. Over the course of the month that would be $2,160/mo which is around what I would expect my costs to be around once GPU equipment is used for other things and they are no longer in the equation.
Which doesn't account for the FPGA rigs already paid for that can be traded in and reduce the upgrade price almost in half, and that price increase coincides with pirate's default.
Because one could calculate that trading in the rig paid by investors and paying 0.25 BTC for 100 mhash, Assuming 200 Terahash network (yet to reach), you'd get about 30% cut or $6500/month, more than double the current costs expected. You'd get even much more until the network reach such a point. Adding 0.05 BTC per upgrade and reducing the PPS by 10% is much more than a 10% fee, being added to a already large cut which seems to more than cover the costs of running.
Asking for 0.30 BTC +10% makes an apparent 19% cut when
FPGA trade in is not counted in and you're saying 10% might pay the costs once we reach 200 Terahash. But making abstraction of the trade in the calculations is like saying to investors that they never paid for the FPGA/GPUs, to pay for 100% of the ASICs + a cut with the upgrade price to cover expenses. Which would apparently work standalone and not count the trade in. That doesn't sound like an upgrade path at first.
Which is why
0.25 BTC for 100 mhash was well priced for me. When trade in of 3 FPGA rig is counted, you get 10k BTC and only need about 6812 BTC to pay the remaining 2.5 ASIC rigs.
You'd have an apparent 32% cut. Which sounds like enough. The 0.30 for 90 mhash does not satisfy me simply because I see no need for it unless you're not counting in the FPGA trade in (if you don't count that which is already paid for by investors, it's not really an upgrade is it?) or something dire happened which would severely reduce income like loss of part of the rig and you haven't disclosed it.
In short:
Unless you can come up with clear numbers, one can only speculate and assume everything is well and the FPGA/GPU can be used to pay for the upgrade in part, giving you a ~30% cut when you ask 0.25 BTC for 100 mhash. Hence, I believe, the questions as to why that 10% + 0.5 BTC extra charge on the upgrade is needed at all. You're saying it's an upgrade and we assume previous equipment is included to pay for the upgrade.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Perhaps TERAMINING could be costs + fixed percent deducted from 0.25 upgrade fee? (with trade in, 0.25 BTC upgrade would fetch over 5 Terahash).
It would go both ways. If difficulty doesn't raise to 200 Terahash network, more for holders, if more or costs increase, less for holders. It would guarantee costs are covered + income for you. Same about price swings.
