I think he is merely trying to get a more accurate sense of your income statement and balance sheet to better judge your credit worthiness and more accurately value the GIGAMINING bonds.

To better judge your credit worthiness the two material pieces missing are (1) revenue capacity, what PPS% the 160GHs produces, and (2) how many unencumbered bitcoins you have in your possession allocated for building or buying more rigs.

Obviously, if the 160Ghs produces only 100%PPS and you have only 1,000 BTC in your possession then you will negative cash-flow about 125 bitcoins per week at current difficulty. Assuming a rise in difficulty this would leave about 8-10 weeks until a partial default. However, if you have 10,000 BTC in your possession then credit worthiness would be a lot higher.

Because of your unwillingness to disclose how many BTC are currently in your possession the market does not know whether you have 0 BTC or 5,000 BTC, etc. and has to begin assessing a value on the probability of default and time frame. Markets like information and transparency.

When looking at comparable issues there appears to be only one and it is interesting that BITBONDS are trading at a 13% discount to GIGAMINING. Why is this? Are they undervalued or is GIGAMINING overvalued?

Since GIGAMINING has only 80% of the equipment to back its commitments and an uncertain amount of liquid reserves to meet debt service therefore does BITBOND lack a significant amount of production capacity it has claims for to result in this material discount in the trading price?

I have not found a statement from amazingrando on the matter. Anyone?