We invested in AM to invest in a company that produces ASIC miners to mine bitcoins.  I want my bitcoins to fund MINING.  If I wanted to invest in an exchange, then I would have invested in an exchange.

There is a direct logical contradiction to claiming that AM is a "growth company" and that bitcoin mining suffers from the tragedy of the commons.  I see that thinking is difficult for you, so I will break it down:

A growth company is a company with rapidly expending revenues and rapidly expanding costs.  Every dollar invested will return more than a dollar but not immediately.  As a result a growth company typically requires additional capital and cannot pay out dividends. If bitcoin mining truly suffers from the tragedy of the commons, then each dollar invested will return less than one dollar.  In this situation no mining company could possibly be a growth company.

AM's revenue is very much capped by bitcoin's scheduled release and the demand for bitcoin mining hardware.  As a result AM has likely come close or already achieved to its maximum revenue (revenue is not equal to profit).  Revenues may very well slowly decline or stagnate but that is fine.

Investing in 130 nm devices to invest in bitcoin mining was an AMAZING investment when AM launched.  It was genius and the shareholders profited enormously.  That is no longer the situation and AM has to operate in a changing industry.

By the way, bitcoin mining is not even close to a "tragedy of the commons" situation.  Tragedy of the commons also doesn't really apply when the resource cannot be exhausted.  You are mis-applying the concept but I understand your point so I originally ignored this point.