I already explained one way that could be the case earlier - if some of the funds raised in IPO were just pocketed by issuers rather than being used to maximise amount of mining capacity purchased.  Another means would be if the issuers were linked to the hardware vendors and so received profit either from investment in there or from kick-backs.

The first one can be easily denied - and would be demonstrably not the case if accounts were produced later.  The latter has to be taken more on trust.  But first a denial that the first is the case would be appropriate - as rather obviously if issuers keep some of the IPO funds they'd be making profit before investors had broken even.

The reason I've raised the first possibility is simply that the tone of the contract is that investors are buying into a mining company - but the letter of the contract reads more like it's a PMB with an undisclosed markup potentially being raked off immediately.

Would suggest you get DT or someone to confirm that issuers don't keep (or receive as 'management fees') any IPO funds (they're all used to grow the mine) before repeating again that they don't receive anything until investors have recouped their investment.  As the issuers have never claimed or committed to that - so don't see how you can be in a position to give assurances that they've refused to.