1. This just seems like another pipe dream ICO selling garbage tokens that wont ever be worth anything. (it makes it that much funnier that you quote gigawatts failures, as they failed after having an ICO like you are trying). Sorry if you dont like it but the facts are ICOs are a scam and they just don't work. We have years of data to prove this now.

I actually thank you for this comment, as I am sure other people have similar concerns.

a.) When did I ever mention having an ICO? We do not plan on issuing an ICO. You mention that they are scams. I am not far from agreeing with you. What I am proposing is much more similar to a "Security Token Offering". There is a vast difference. Security tokens are based off selling equity in a project, meaning that participants in such offerings have direct asset based liquidity in their holdings.

b.) You are correct. We have years of data proving that this does not appear to work well. However, what it did prove is that vast amounts of capital can be transferred easily to fund the development of novel projects. If done correctly, the 'token offerings' could be a great benefit to build renewable energy infrastructure for cryptocurrency mining, which could have many societal benefits (we cite hydrogen production for clean fuel) down the line.

2. I think you might be missing a fundamental understanding of how this industry works.  No one in their right mind would give you money on the promise of a power station when you wont even have a prototype operational for another 5 years. This industry moves WAY TOO FAST for something like this to have any value. In 5 years the whole landscape could change rendering this obsolete.

a.) The 5-year timeline would be more or less valid for a project completed from start to finish. 4-years would be the average for such a project, and it is more like 2 years if the geothermal reservoir is already identified (if the site is already operational).

b.) I understand that the industry moves fast. I think there is a miscommunication in what you believe we are proposing, as referenced to your statement about the 'ICO'. This is an ASSET based project. You are not simply buying power for cryptocurrency mining, but rather owning the powerplant asset. What is beautiful about this, is that even if we take your example about the 5-year use case (let's assume this is correct), and cryptocurrency completely crashes, you OWN a fraction of the power plant as a security. Power can be used in various different ways (data servers, material refinement, clean fuel production ...) and is a market that will continue to grow with time.

3. 4 cent power is easily obtainable in bulk if you understand the US energy market. There really isn't much value to your proposition when the result is already available.

a.) Again, the argument is owning vs. renting. When you get 4 cents power, I assume you purchase it correct? What if you owned the infrastructure that produced the 4 cents power?

b.) I think your missing the infrastructure development piece of the proposal. I have no doubt that you can simply go to a location that perhaps sells renewable power cheaply, but this doesn't necessarily stimulate the growth for large scale adoption of renewable energy.

4. The reason mines center around places like the pacific northwest is because that is where the renewable energy already is. I run a 20mw facility powered fully by hydroelectric power. People in industrial nations outside of China are VERY RARELY running on fossil fuels, so touting this as a cleaner alternative when the vast majority is already powered by renewable sources doesn't really give you many advantages.

a.) I am a huge fan of hydroelectric, or any other base load renewable generation technology. Understood about the argument for most mining coming from renewable energy. Question for you, how much new renewable energy infrastructure is being built for cryptocurrency mining? My argument is to use cryptocurrency mining to stimulate renewable energy creation, not renewable energy adoption. There is a difference here.

5. 2.5 million per megawatt to install instantly makes this a no go for miners. With the depressed market prices, people are in survival mode. Nobody is going to spend millions and wait 5 years as most will be out of business by then.

This is one of the biggest hurdles we had when designing the model. Of course high capital costs, plus a long project development plan, makes this look unnattractive. Here is our solution for how to get around it:

1.) Re-define the miner. To be frank sir, this is not a traditional mining project. We are not trying to say "Here everybody, we have cheap power, come buy from us and mine!" What we are talking about is a truly decentralized mining operation. No targeted mining group, just a power plant producing power and generating revenue. The power plant is the money maker, not the individual, and while we highly suggesting mining, the power can in theory be used for any energy consumer.

2.) Security Token. Let's pretend that it will take the power plant 5-years to be developed. We are currently on year 1, and trying to convince people why they would ever participate in something that "takes 5-years". The solution is to not have it make the token liquid. Exchanges like t-zero now allow you to freely trade security tokens like stock. We will:

a.) Issue the security token (ownership of power plant) at a discounted rate (lower than powerplant net worth)
b.) Have the token be freely tradable on the open market (you don't have to wait 5-years to trade it)
c.) Benefit from renewable energy incentives (carbon offsets, tax reductions for capital installation), which will greatly increase the economics of the project.

Feel free to continue to raise any concerns you might have, and I will try my best to mitigate them.

-P