But you only described HF as incompetent, which is odd given both made a single good chip but only AM made two miserable failures.

I guess you didn't listen to the court hearing where the judge specifically asked the US Atty for evidence of HF incompetence, and received no satisfactory response.

It's really not fair to expect superhuman competence, sufficient to overcome truly adverse business conditions, when HF had no way to predict nor control the price of BTC and difficulty.  Sometimes, and most often in risky high-tech start-ups, the execs best isn't good enough. 

That's just economics, not incompetence.  Confusing the two is a tautological amateur mistake, as the judge explained to the humiliated and flustered US Atty when she tried to say failure necessarily indicates incompetence.

Sorry to pick on you, but I'm tired of HF being expected to prove their innocence while AM is given far more than reasonable benefit of the doubt.