Quote from: evoorhees on August 13, 2013, 03:57:41 AM

Quote from: jimbobway on August 13, 2013, 02:28:13 AM

So HashFast is only the true winner in this game and not IceDrill.

People need to stop thinking of business as if one person wins, and everyone else loses. I see it all the time on this forum. With that mindset, observers try to figure out "who profits the most" and then label everyone else a loser or victim of a scam. In reality, there can be multiple winners, and in any good business deal, there is.

HashFast is the firm inventing the new chips. So yes, they probably will make the most money from sale of chips, as everything else is derivative and not as value-adding as the creation of those chips. But that doesn't mean other steps in the supply chain don't also profit. And it doesn't mean that other steps in the supply chain aren't valid business propositions (such as IceDrill).

Carve away all the puffery that's gone on in this thread, and look at the numbers. Investors are paying about $14-$15 for ghs to be delivered in late oct/early nov. Estimate the difficulty at that point, and then decide if it's a reasonable risk/return ratio. Consider then that the entire mine is going to pay .0016 per public share before the subsequent revenue is split equitably, meaning the mine will pay off for public holders before it pays of for the operators. This makes it additionally attractive... in reality the investors are, at launch, getting more than a ghs for their $14 (they're also getting the operators' share of the mine proceeds until 0.0016 btc per share in dividends is paid!).

Further, whether the operators are getting some of the IPO money is absolutely irrelevant. Let's assume they are getting 99% of the IPO money and will spend it on hookers and blow, does that make the deal worse? No, because the promise is to deliver X ghs per $ invested by Y time. Unless they break that promise, it matters not at all where the IPO money goes. Maybe IceDrill got the entire mine from HashFast for $100... and thus they'll keep all the IPO money for themselves. So what? Or, maybe IceDrill is paying $14 per ghs from HashFash, and thus not earning a penny from the IPO money. So what?

All that matters is the ghs delivered to shareholders, by what date, and at what price.

How much hashfast and the operators of icedrill make, and whether one gets kickbacks from another, or whether they're the same person, and what kind of clothes they're wearing or car they're driving is completely irrelevant. They are offering a price, for a product. If you trust them to deliver, then buy shares, otherwise ignore.

You're right in theory but horribly wrong in practice. I'll ignore the issue of principle - that issuers should honestly represent what they're doing and clearly disclose what happens with funds and focus on the practical points.

Firstly, you're correct that what investors receive intially isn't impacted by the price paid for it by the issuers. But remember that a chunk of what is mined is reinvested. If that reinvested portion also suffers from being used to purchase at inflated prices then that directly reduces potential to investors.

Secondly, if the relationship between Ice-Drill and the suppliers isn't a simple buyer/seller one then it's hard for investors to rely on management having interests totally aligned with theirs. That's why I asked questions about the terms of the supply deal - what guarantees had been obtained and what due diligence conducted to ensure the suppliers would and could refund if they failed to meet defined delivery dates. And this has a double-whammy impact - as if the relationship isn't a straight-forward one then not only is there increased risk (that proper commitments in respect of delivery dates and refunds/penalties in the case of failure have not been obtained) but of course there's then the problem that a refund of what was on the contract may not return the funds the investors actually committed.

In an ideal world where everyone delivers on time always #2 wouldn't matter - but #1 STILL would remain an issue if prices used for reinvestment may not reflect the best price an unconflicted negotiator with the same purchasing power could achieve. Note that is NOT the case if it's simply a matter of some of IPO funds just being moved into various back-pockets - but IS the case if the relationship between IPO and supplier is closer than it should be for investors to rely on issuer having no conflict of interest when negotiating with supplier on behalf of investors.