Quote from: qwertyqwerty on March 15, 2014, 08:30:28 PM

Quote from: rdyoung on March 15, 2014, 08:19:23 PM

Quote from: qwertyqwerty on March 15, 2014, 06:36:10 PM

Quote from: Darkstone2 on March 14, 2014, 08:27:07 PM

Please explain how cryptx can make a profit on this operation unless A) they are shareholders themselves, B) overcharge hosting costs or C) overcharge hardware costs.

all of the above already applies, yet it's still entirely possible for all shareholders turn a profit and means they have direct incentive to care for progression of PETA project rather than a private competing mine

Again, this is where the lack of knowledge comes in. For someone who knows how businesses operate you can answer your own questions with ease and likely be close to the truth.

Businesses setup parent/subsidiary relationships all the time, and they sell or rent equipment or services to/from each other.
In cryptx/petamines case, its feasible for cryptx to sell the hardware to petamine at a small markup. As I have posted before, cryptx has incentive to not overcharge petamine per ghs because they will limit the amount of growth and therefore profit that can happen.

Is there something inherently evil or wrong with cryptx making a profit off of petamine?
If cryptx is able to manufacture mining hardware for say 3$/ghs and sells it to petamine for 4$/ghs is that wrong? Am I missing something where its wrong for companies to make money?
As long as they keep the $/GHS low enough that the mine stays profitable and preferably growing, what is the problem here?

nobody is saying it's wrong. just saying; cryptx owns shares in peta (meaning they earn dividends in correlation to peta success and have interest to drive the price up if they would like to sell), as well as being able to charge hosting/management fees, meaning they are continously compensated for the mines operation, as well as being able to profit off making own hardware and sell to peta operation, and as well as being able to profit of being shareholder in an asic manafacturer (for instance they own shares in cointerra) so they also profit from simply ordering hardware, let alone building it, have a feeback loop. what's wrong about that? I'm glad to see a transparent path for cryptx to profit along with shareholder because if it wasn't there the incentive to maintain a successful operation for the public is a lot lower

I know it looked like it, but my comment was not aimed at you. I was expanding on what you said.
The way it was quoted was a bit off.

And, you made my point again. If cryptx is selling GHS to petamine its in their interest to keep the price low so that the mine stays profitable and can continue to buy hardware, IE your positive feedback loop.

I can't make heads or tails of some the people in this thread. On 1 hand they are basically saying thats its wrong for cryptx to profit off peta, and then they are saying that its not a charity.
I can provide a better argument when someone knows what their side is.