So that is some interesting info about the hashfast thing. I'm very concerned about that. I believe Garr when he says this is a separate venture, but if Joe Entrepeneur owns Business A and Business B, the massive failure of Business B *could* impact Business A (and vice versa). I understand why people are concerned. Now there is Cognitive, Cognitive Mining, and FIMB all in-flight (any more? If so, you should disclose them in case anyone else on this thread, like myself, doesn't follow the forums closely).
I think these are ok for now, but it is important for Cognitive Mining investors to understand these added risks due to your obligations and involvement with these other companies, separate though they are.
In other news, I've signed the Cognitive Mining NDA and Garrett has shared some documents with me. I can tell you that I have viewed the contract for the data center space to run our machines. It has Garrett's name on it, is priced in USD (but payable in BTC at the current exchange rate at
http://bitcoinaverage.com/#USD), is in a location where power is likely to be very. I don't have time to go figure out what the numbers mean, however, so if anyone can comment on how good ~$270/kWh/month is, that's what we've got. Additionally, the contract specifies we pay for actual usage, not projected or total capacity, which is good. Emergency support work is available for $100/hr, which seems reasonable should something explode. Hopefully we won't need that of course =)
The contract required a down payment of ~8k to make it happen, and we all know garrett is running around like a headless chicken to make this happen, so I understand why he had to use COG funds for this. If the motion fails, however, Garrett should pay back the funds to the reinvestment fund over time, as he is able. We'll have to follow up about that later. I believe he made that decision at the time trying to do the best thing for cognitive.
I have also viewed the contract with CoinTerra and I can confirm it is short and sweet. The two main holes in the wording are:
1. The 30-days 30% thing (does that mean 0% after 29 days and 30% at 30 days, and 30% at 59 days and 60% at 60 days? or 1% for each day)
2. Is "lateness" defined by the delivery of the first unit, or the last unit?
It sounds like Garrett has already gotten CT to commit to the reading of this document in our favor - and I think it is reasonable to presume that was the intent of the document (#2 is a stronger case for our favor than #1, but I think both could be argued if it came down to it).
I will continue to keep you guys up to date as more documents are shared with me, as much as I can do so within the confines of the NDA. The cointerra NDA itself, for example, cannot be shared with me (which is weird, but having seen the contract between cog and CT, I don't see any reason to need the CT NDA itself).
It is my belief that none of the above information constitutes a violation of the NDA I signed with Cognitive Mining in order to view these documents, and furthermore, the only new piece of information I've revealed (besides to confirm what has already been said) is the price we are getting for power, which, in not revealing, would open the operators of Cognitive up to accusations of insider trading, so I am confident that is not a problem.
