Stop. You're wrong in several ways already. First is trivial to explain:
A company owes more to its shareholders than *a* profit. It *must maximise* the profit. At least them's the laws IRL. If you're satisfied when your investment makes a satoshi after a year, you're in the minority.
Man, you're awfully good at putting words in people's mouths. I never said anything about not maximizing profit. My point is that a measured strategy that doesn't decimate the bitcoin network would reap more rewards over the long term, both for the company and by extension its investors.
On the contrary, i'm concerned with overall profitability for the company, and its shareholders by proxy. I pointed out that profitability, short-term or otherwise, may nnot be possible without resorting to tactics detrimental to bitcoin ecosystem as a whole.
Secondly, those laws only speak to the allocation of profits. They don't say anything about how the company is run. So stop. You're wrong in several ways already.
See below.
Second, you're not justified in assuming that selling X chips @$Y ( "all the chips" -- a nonsensical number considering how chips are made) will be possible if other players flood the market with cheaper chips / raise the difficulty level to a point making your chips *unprofitable at any price*. Please consider *all* the variables.
Who ever said "all the chips"? Yet again, putting words into my mouth. More to the point, name me any other entity that has announced a chip with similar or better performance within the power limits ("under 1 joule per gh") that they have announced. No? Well then how the hell is some other entity selling more expensive chips going to price them out of the market? Please consider *all* the variables.
I'm sorry for the poor choice of words -- i meant to present a hypothetical. If you wish to present me with an alternate hypothetical, in which this company would profit by "artificially" restricting their production & sales, i'm all ears. As long as you take into account the other chip manufacturers willing to flood the market & "secretly mine."
Please remember my initial point -- that any statements by a manufacturer about welfare of bitcoin ecosystem are meaningless, if we start with the assumption that the manufacturer is motivated by profit. If you wish to continue maintaining that this company just wants *some* profit, willing to sacrifice money for the good of bitcoin, i have no case. But you are investing in a charity.
If by "artificial" you mean "not selling all the chips capable of being produced at a profit," then yes they are. If you mean something else, what???
What I meant to say is that there's a divide between flooding the market and releasing product at a very, very slow pace. It's not either/or. So yes, it is "artificial scarcity", but not to the level you are painting it out to be.
You keep avoiding *the other chip manufacturers,* who (i assume) are willing to "secret mine" -- exactly the point of the PR release. Let's stay on track. HashFast is going to save us from the wanton exploiters of bitcoin, and remain competitive in the process. That's what i find both silly & self-contradictory.
If it is in their best interest to keep the goose alive, they're not guided by goose's welfare, but by profitability. What's the difference? The difference is when the bottom line dictates it is more profitable to kill the goose, take off your hat.
Well then clearly they think it's better to keep the goose alive. Which was my point all along.
Well no, my point all along is the goose will be killed as soon as that becomes profitable, if we start with the assumption that they're in this for the money & not the good of bitcoin (which i asked you to do). If we assume these people are altruists hobbyshopping, i'm wrong, but they have no business passing themselves off as a for-profit, and you should not expect any return on investment. I hope i'm being clearer now.
. 
I have known John for several years and did business with him in the past and hes a a fair guy and always a pleasure to do business with. 
