Topic: HashFast launches sales of the Baby Jet - page 54. (Read 119669 times)

you are looking at this completely wrong.  these are money printing machines that you expect to put money in your pocket while also benefitting from a price rise from a fixed money supply. 

show me one pc you've ever bought that returned anything of similar value back to you over time.

or BTC with escrow. Otherwise too much risk

Yes No More Pre Orders

PREORDERS HURT BTC ECONOMY BY PUTING ENORMOUS GAINS IN HANDS OF BUSINESS
This makes them behave as if they got all of us by the balls (I am thinking BFL / Avalon after batch 1)

 I remember this saying fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me, 3rd time no preorders lol


STOP PAYING FOR VAPORWARE  demand manufacturers do what ALL normal businesses do TAKE RISK and have 100% motivation to get the product in your hands as they need to cover their R&D

This whole money upfront business is making this the only tech sector where electronics actually go UP in prices months after it starts selling.
If you dont like it STOP GIVING them MONEY and hold your BTC which is a hell of an investment on its OWN.

Sorry had to rant but this is just plain WRONG

It could turn out to be one, since they don't accept credit cards. Stay Away Please. No Pre order.

Well, i don't think that's going to happen.  This is an American company, they're not out of reach of US Law. I'd worry about taking legal action in China, for example but here - but I doubt an American company could get away with just stealing millions of dollars. Same thing with KnC in Sweeden.

However, Simply being late with a product isn't a crime. BFL being late isn't a crime, although all the lies they told along the way might cause it to veer into fraud. HashFast isn't even allowing refunds, so they have no reason to lie if they are late.

That's the biggest risk I think, that they might be late. I think they should man up and allow people to cancel their orders if the competition shows up with lower prices.  I understand why that would be a risk for them, but the fact is that with this arrangement - customer pays for upfront NRE, while the company gets to profit off more chip runs - means that as much of the risk as possible should be born by the supplier.

That said, the Miner protection plan is a step in the right direction, IMO. It makes it a little less risky. If HashFast was up front with how many chips they plan to sell (ex 'miner protection') that could make it an even better deal.  That's the main reason I went with Avalon instead of BFL, and it worked out for me.

But, if they're delayed until December 31st, then even 4x the chips might not help people recover their ROI.  At the same time, though it basically proves that their individual, marginal chip cost must be less then 1/5th their price. It has to be less then $2.8/Gh/s.

I'm with ya.  I ordered from BFL because they had already delivered FPGA's, thus I expected they would continue to deliver on future products.  Hashfast hasn't delivered anything.  They could up and run with everyone's millions in BTC at any moment, and what recourse would you have?

It wouldn't, if they expected you to react that way. Obvious "mistakes" are a very good way to earn credibility (because of the exact same reason you posted this).

I'm not saying it's a scam, but....

They operate a site with NOT a single mention that you're pre-ordering.
They are stating in their TOS that no refund will be processed unless they send a written agreement to that refund, and have failed to reply to my question about this.
They are acting weird, paying a hero shill to praise for them.
They have 3+1=4 "official" threads running here instead of one.
They are maintaining confusion about their (inexistant) stock, even in the last thread, where they claim to "still have 300 units".
They were following a twitter account that shilled for them here, and that was deleted right after someone noticed it.
etc.

This might not be a scam.
But it's at least totally unacceptable marketing practises.

If someone wanted to run a scam not delivering the promised product wouldn't it make sense to have the shipping a better deal or maybe even offer free shipping for orders made within the first 30 days to encourage sales?

Holy crap I thought they were part of the equations!! Too hot today here, no clear mind..

public investors also own 60% of the reinvestment (supposedly) with the other 40% going to the private investors.

this IPO was horribly structured, and not well thought out - it's too bad, I wish they followed a normal start-up business capitalization model and not confused everyone with this complicated private/public and dividend/equity-reinvestment scheme.

According to the above numbers, 90% of the mined bitcoins (from your share) are returned to you. some are returned as BTC, and some are returned as increased equity.

I think what many don't realize, is that the public investor gets 40.5% of the whole operation(=100%),
while the public investor 'paid' for 60% of the whole operation.
That is, if the private investor paid the same for shares as the public investor did, and you can question that.

But suppose all shares were sold for the same amount:
Not 40.5% of your investment is 'returned', it's actually 40.5*100/60=67.5%

Please correct me if I am wrong!

The formula I used is behind the resulting percentages !

40.5% : A*C*(100-cost)/100
The meaning of the letters is also there
A= 60% public investors
cost=running cost, 10%

ok so buying/renting via icedrill will bring only 40.5% procent mined bitcoins...

lol

System Specs
 - 1 HashFast Golden Nonce (GN) Chip

Childish, I know - but this made me laugh.

Sorry for being slow but I don't understand where do 40.5 and 27% come from!
Thanks in advance.

All of this is too hideously complex to explain in mere words!   

We need the pros at Visual Capitalist to whip up some slick graphics.   

Good question!
Which I'll answer (correct me if I am wrong):

Quote from https://bitfunder.com/asset/IceDrill.ASIC:
So, for every 100 BitCoin that we mine (with the ENTIRE mine capacity going forward, not only 300Th), minus cost (say 10), we would distribute 67.5 to shareholders and keep 22.5 to expand the mining capacity of the mine.

So yes, every investor, private or public, will see 25% being reinvested.

What was missing in my calculation is the cost that is in the quote. I added the cost.

Is it documented that the private investors pay 25% reinvestment ?

   
The profit should then be split between: