Quote from: Vycid on September 07, 2013, 10:23:41 AM

Quote from: 101111 on September 07, 2013, 10:06:57 AM

Quote from: Vycid on September 07, 2013, 09:39:35 AM

How do you not understand that the current dividends are totally immaterial if the future ability of the company to remain competitive is in question?

You could say that about most businesses.

Hardly. Most businesses release product details, earnings guidance, business plans, etc. AM is supposed to be rolling out gen 2 "within the next couple months" and has shared no information. You are gambling here, and the downside is nasty - not to mention that gen 2 could launch as planned and still fail to compete, since we know next to nothing about the cost per unit or KW-h per GH or anything really.

Most companies that pay dividends provide some assurance of their ability to continue doing so in the future.

Obfuscate all you like, the fact remains that almost all businesses, and their shareholders, must continually question their competitive position.

We've all just been through the GFC so c'mon don't be so naive: earnings guidance? Assurance? Ha!

Quote from: Vycid on September 07, 2013, 10:23:41 AM

Quote from: 101111 on September 07, 2013, 10:06:57 AM

Quote from: Vycid on September 07, 2013, 09:39:35 AM

You could make 0.1 BTC per share in dividends over the next 3 months - and then end up with shares worth less than 1 BTC.

Good deal, huh? Roll Eyes

Or they could be worth more than 10 BTC, we just don't know.

I've made quantitative value arguments that 2 BTC is a fair price only if AM is successful at retaining a significant chunk of the hashrate for many years. 10 BTC is highly unlikely.

Sure, we don't know. I like my odds, though.

Good, making some progress here, please remember this bit.

Quote from: Vycid on September 07, 2013, 10:23:41 AM

Quote from: 101111 on September 07, 2013, 10:06:57 AM

Quote from: Vycid on September 07, 2013, 09:39:35 AM

There were a lot of people sputtering at 3.0 about how it was still a super profitable dividend security, too. OOPS.

And there were plenty of skeptics at 0.2. OOPS.

I thought you were going to stop spamming the thread with your negative bullshit? Factual, rational argument is welcome, and you occasionally have some worthwhile contributions, but the relentless hyperbolic fear mongering drowns out anything useful, and smacks of a self-serving smear campaign.

There were skeptics at 0.2, yes. Rightfully so, since AM hadn't proven itself yet - but it is my understanding that at that point it DID share more of its business plan with the public. 0.2 was a decent bet, considering there was not much competition on the scene, and lots of coins up for grab until the rest of the competition could mobilize.

This is NOT a comparable scenario, since AM is LESS transparent and headed for extreme competition.

It's hardly a fear campaign. If someone says "this is ridiculous!!! how could you sell, AM has the highest dividends!!" I'm going to point out why that's not really important.

Less transparent than what? Do you want FC to let the competition know his every move?

Neither of us know what the competitive landscape will look like 3 months from now let alone 1 year; we don't know if it will be extreme or how extreme; extreme is subjective anyway, your extreme is another person's 'weak', who knows. Maybe extreme is when the top 5 chip makers start getting into the game, not just a few throw away virtual business plans floating around the boards.

Yes I'm just exaggerating a bit here to get my point across that you Vycid simply do not know, yet you continue to spam the board with your pretentious declarations of doom.