I think the biggest issue many of us have is the original initial shipment date seemed purely picked to interfere with knc and bitfury roll outs then a realistic implementation of their schedule. True they covered their backside with caveats, but the intent seems to have been to deceive the community.
Secondarily, I also think it very discouraging with the pace and lack of professionalism regarding the changes to their TOS. They should have a history and revision numbers, like "terms of sales has been updated and version 1.1c is now in effect for new purchases. To see older versions and the dates of applicability, click this link (link to extensive TOS archive)"
As it stands it gives their customers, who are buying a very high end product the feel of a used car bait and switch. It doesn't reflect well on them.
That being said, I like that some information is being shared with the community, but again, the odd decision to use a community members rather than just coming on the board from an official rep, gives one pause.
Let's hope they are better at producing and shipping finished miners than they have been at the non engineering matters. Godspeed HF...
Thanks for the refreshingly Haterade-free post.
These are reasonable issues and must be addressed by HF in order for them to have a future as a trusted, successful ASIC vendor.
The original anticipated ship date was wildly optimistic and assumed nothing would go wrong or encounter the slightest delay.
Only the greenest noob, lacking any prior experience with ASICs, expected that scenario would really happen. Most of us experienced miners always assumed the actual date to be somewhere towards the end of the shipping window.
HashFast is very good (actually, the best) at designing and manufacturing Bitcoin ASICs; engineering is their core competence. Writing Terms of Sale is not.
There is no "bait and switch." HashFast promised to deliver the 400GH/sec Cadillac of ASICs, and that's what they're doing.
