Topic: [Guide] Dogie's Comprehensive Manufacturer Trustworthiness Guide [1st Feb 2016] - page 8. (Read 131287 times)

I act on my own and the affiliate signature is off because the product I was advertising is out of stock. It is funny that you see my above post as an attack. I just presented the facts as I see them. Part is my interpretation and part is just a solid hard proof of your past actions. Everyone is free to interpret them as they wish and by the looks of it you do not have that many fans in your own Guide.

You can read back the history of RoadStress in this thread - it doesn't matter what Spondoolies' position is, as long as they're not first then everything is a huge scam and conspiracy against that company. Spondoolies have been using him as their attack dog so they don't have to.

In real life there are people I just have to glance at to know that this person is not worth arguing with. On a forum you assume that people are otherwise reasonable. Defend yourself, by all means. But when you've hit the post button think of that weird guy next to the slot machine in Vegas. Don't let it linger.

That's for confirming yet again that you act as Spondoolies' attack dog. You refuse to listen to reasoning and assume everything is some huge vendetta and conspiracy against Spondoolies. I'm surprised you've taken your giant ass affiliate link signature off, did sales go down? Is that my fault as well?

Thanks for making things so clear now!

So it only took you 3 months to add and use the pre-order description. At first I wondered why wasn't this included in the 10/21/2014 Changelog, but I figured that you were busy maxing out Bitmain's (the boss that is paying you big $) communication while trying to find a way to prepare the coronation of Bitmain (again the boss that is issuing commands and you promptly execute), which took place on the 12/17/2014 Changelog where you add and use the pre-order description in order to limit SP-Tech's score while maxing yet another stat, the hardware issues, for Bitmain (the boss). I must congratulate you for your december Changelog. 2 hits with one bullet!

Here are the chronological Changelog quotes in case people are lazy to search for them:

Also imagine.
Also i need hotel but don't have enough money,imposibile is make preorder whit client.(to risky)I go in bank or seek investor.
Bitcoin hardware manufacture,car manufacture,dog shelter,dog shit recycling industry all business is same.
Only scam make preorder and only stupid investor pay preorder without insurance in fast collectible assets (150-200%) .
If i investment in spondoolies i also want share of profit,before investment i need full look in accounting book,full due diligence.
If i don't do this way i am stupid investor and I deserve to lose money.

Do you really think I care about my threads being on front page? Don't you think I would bump them if that was the case? 90% of them sit off the 1st page at any one time which is exactly how it should be. When people have a question they post, I reply, the threads drop off again. Why is this okay? Because they're useful and so they gain traffic from off the forums. Yes that's right, I bring traffic and new members into /Hardware, that's my contribution.

At the same time, lets consider what your contribution to /Hardware has been shall we? Paying people to spam 15 threads onto the front page to try and crowd out the competition, because you know that you can't compete otherwise? Paying someone to start 5 threads on the same topic with loaded questions towards Spondoolies, while trying to maintain the illusion that its a neutral, organic and 3rd party survey. All the while, in pursuit of an ulterior motive that you still haven't told the public about.

Interacting with me... each time I update this rating you spend 3-4 days berating me about how much of an idiot I am, how much I need a life, how much of a scammer, fraud and lier I am. Then after a few days you get tired of trying to bully me into changing your rating so you either say sorry or storm off in a huff. Then you apologise on Skype and try and try go back to business as usual. You need to look at your actions first before declaring that I'm toxic - you're a grown ass man acting like a bully and a toddler at the same time.

What you need is to spend a minute to read what actually happened, you seem to have missed all the facts.

February 2014 - guide started.
July 2014 - Guide changed from single letter ratings to individual criteria and a total numerical score.
September 2014 - Requirement that business model must be able to support preorders and not just the promise of preorders first utilised in September 2014 against BFL. May be earlier instances.
December 2014  - Transitional arrangements implemented on TWO companies. Spondoolies still claims its unfair and used to target them only .
February 2014 - Spondoolies claims that these arrangements were never noted before December and were created solely for them.

Yup yup yup. And while we're on the subject of money, Spondoolies paid owes more money than Bitmain ever has.

Next?

Yes. You are the only one.

Am I the only one who smells desperation when the biggest mining HW manufacturers goes apeshit on a dog meme?

When I'm weighting the pros and cons of further interacting with you, the cons wins big time.

Look at your contribution and "legacy" in the Hardware subsection. The last three months thought me that you're mainly concerned with self promoting your threads.
The hardware reviews are a shining example. Even now you call them spam.

I wrote it before, your actions sucks the life out of hardware.
Your actions surrounding the manufacturers's poll are another shining example.

I don't intend to reply further.

You are not on a trial, but when you run a public service like a "Manufacturer Guide" it is fair for everyone to know all the details behind it. Otherwise you can keep the Guide for yourself.

So let me get this straight. You run this Guide since February 2014 and only in December you decided to "add more descriptive text" surprisingly in the same time where this descriptive text would make the difference between two top manufacturers, one of them being the one that pays you big $$$.

I need a minute to puke!

Because you didn't get the score you wanted? Really?

Dogie, the amount of BS you're capable of producing is simply amazing.

I came to the conclusion, probably a bit too late, that nothing good will come from further interacting with you. I see you now as a negative force in this industry.

I don't intend to post anymore in your threads and I request that you won't post in ours. I intend to delete your posts without warning.

Guy

Hurrah, an adult discussion!


The investment itself isn't being considered a preorder. What is suggestive of a preorder model though, is that unless a huge investment is received, you either can't do that generation or it has to be funded using preorders. And so in the absence of an investment - you're business model is one of preorders.

Its not acceptable to say "but we can/will get investment" and so we won't need to use preorders because its not a certainty and its not taken place. It would be like ASICMiner putting out a press release saying they can make 0.01W/GH chips with the stipulations that they need $15M, Intel will license the use of proprietary technology for free, TSMC will rush them in ahead of all other companies, and as long as their simulations are correct. ASICMiner can not be accepted to have 0.01W/GH chips until they actually make and prove them. This situation is analogous - ST is not a non preorder company / business model until they can prove it.



Its getting a bit harder to pick out questions here but I'll try. To start I'll say that this rating system uses discrete states in order to 'score' various factors as its less subjective and *should* provide less arguing and more transparency. In a system where a company can score 1-10 on any criterion then there will be endless bickering point for point both insulated within a company's own rating and comparative to other companies.

The side effect of discrete states is that its more unforgiving for those near boarders or in transition. At some point you have to set a mark and put a rating on one side or the other. Theoretically, as long as you impart the same methodology on all companies then there can physically be no disagreements without going down the conspiracy theory line like we have here. "You made it up just for us, even though you imparted the exact same methodology on another company, 3+ months prior". There isn't anything I can really do about that.

I'll answer your question with another scenario as its not really a yes or no-able question. If Bitmain continued to sell out of hand as it has done for a long long time, but said "right that's it, S6 onwards is preorder", would YOU take it into account now? I would say it would be taken into account as its clear that they're a preorder company and for the foreseeable future will be. How many notches that would put a similar company down during the transition period is debatable. Its worth remembering that going from a preorder model to a not preorder model should be and is treated differently as its not as straight forward a switch. Even with best intentions its not always possible.



As in my first paragraph, I don't consider investments themselves to be preorders. If you raise investment money via financing, private equity investment etc then good on you. In regards to the specific ST case, I object to the claim that they can do non-preorders, as long as they raise investment. Receiving an investment and wanting investment certainly aren't the same thing and so don't receive the same treatment. If we see an article on CoinDesk that ST has raised a further $XM or $XXM then great on them, and then it would go a hell of a long way towards proving it.



I keep clarifications to a minimum even when they're beneficial because it leads to all sorts of conspiracy theories as you can see. Apparently others are able to judge my criteria, my interpretations and my intentions better than me. On top of that, its the same reason why I keep updates to a minimum. Regardless of what a company scores, consumers and / or the company will be mad at me one way or another. Its not fun being flamed for days and days as a result of providing a free resource designed to help the community, by people who provide NOTHING themselves.



Never make assumptions. We've seen publicly that BFL has more bitcoins in cash than ST raised publicly in equity.



Yes, they do. I let ST know today that I've terminated our NDA but it doesn't release prior information unless Guy authorises it. If anyone's counting, I do have also have an NDA but its in a very different form which means I can disclose anything if its done in the best intentions of the company / not maliciously and has a MUCH shorter expiry time.

This back-and-forth is amusing ( less so for the parties involved, I'm sure - it's getting into B/M levels, and those did get old real fast ), but my BTC0.02:
(numbers added for clarity)

"a simple yes or no" it isn't, as it's technically 3 criteria and thus 3 questions:
1. is quite literally "pre-orders" - i.e. I give you money in exchange for a product which you say you plan on delivering later.  That should fit anybody's definition of pre-orders.

3. is more of a grey area.  That's making it sound like pre-orders, but also like investments.  An investment where the payoff would be actual gear (or mining capacity) instead of, or in addition to, shares / dividends.  The differences with 1. are that the investors are a select group who know - or should reasonably know - that they're not being promised the gear (or capacity), but instead only promised that which is written in whatever contract applies.  E.g. the prospectus or contract could outline what their goals are, what their plan for reaching those goals are, and outline the associated risks and challenges such that if things don't work out and there's no sign of mismanagement.. well, that's investments for you.

2. is the one that's perplexing me the most - since when is the need to raise capital a characteristic of a pre-order?  The ones providing said capital (be it investment, or a loan) aren't actually ordering anything.  They don't much care about what's actually being produced other than if nothing gets produced, they probably won't see any returns / that loan paid back.

Your definition used for the pre-orders scoring is a little more vague, though.

There's two points of contention I can see there:
A. the 'past and future' is not defined.  The past: If a company took pre-orders 1 year ago, does that still weigh on the scoring now?  If not, what about 2 months?  The future: Should this actually matter?  If a company announces that in 2 months they'll start taking pre-orders, should that weigh on their score now, even if in 1 month they might change their mind and say they won't take pre-orders the next month after all?

B. "prove their business model can operate without them" lies entirely at the whim of what the 'business model' is, and what the exact definition of "them" (pre-orders) is.  Just as an example: BitFury's business model is quite a different one from most of the other manufacturers'.  They also took several investment rounds.  Could they have proved to operate their business model without those investment rounds?  More importantly - if those investment rounds are equivalent to the earlier points 2/3 as it pertains to the "them" in that sentence - did they?

I'm certainly not arguing that you should change scores, but rather to rethink/clarify definitions.

The earlier points 2 and 3, in my humble opinion, have far less to do with pre-orders as most people understand them than with solvency and/or financial health. SP's solvency is probably not in question (unlike, say, BFL's given recent events), but their financial health as it pertains to their next gen development may be (as admitted by SP).  If that were a separate line item, with scores set as applicable, there may still be some argument over whether or not the scoring itself is just, or whether that item in itself is just - but not about whether or not the score actually applies to the item for which it's listed; which seems to be the main argument in the back-and-forth.

tl;dr: Define "pre-order"

As an aside: NDAs suck :)

So tldr your current business model / situation can not support generation 3 without preordering (/ preordering under another name) or some miracle investment. Under no circumstances could those statements EVER qualify you for running a business model that can get by selling purely out of hand.

You have a transitional arrangement that allows you to prove otherwise and raise the $Ms need to make it happen.

If you're asking if we can afford our entire gen3 planned capacity without injecting more funds via additional investment or pre-selling mining capacity to accredited investors, the answer is no.
The same goes for every other company in the space.

For the last time, since you seems to have difficulties in understanding: we'll not sell our gen3 products to consumers without proving the technology first. Afterwards, we might, but then it won't be pre-ordering. It might be selling by batches.

You're very tiring, I'm going to sleep.

Nope. The first 3 sentences are in reply to Josh's "Delivered miners" questions, that's pretty obvious.



Irrelevant under the criteria because your business model can't support non preorders, as below.


Can you afford generation 3 without selling preorders, raising millions of $ or using 'investment' orders? Its a simple yes or no.

Why does SPtech need to prove they can survive without preorders any more than Bitmain has to prove they've fixed their hardware/communication issues?

More importantly, why does SPtech have to prove something they've already proven? Their ENTIRE first gen was sold without preorders (was sold from stock and BTO), and half of their 2nd gen was sold from stock.

Dogie, please just stop being childish/biased and give SPtech the score they deserve.