It also means increased complexity and therefore increased likelihood of failure, which increases the likelihood that you'll have to replace it sooner and/or more often, which spells profit.
No doubt as now even the cables have chips in them to report what the cable is able do and how much power it can deliver...
At OP: Do be aware that the psu you linked to supports usb-c
fast charging which per the ad:
which is different from the ordinary USB charging interface in that it has a 5V/3.6A output that can quickly charge your mobile phones and or other devices or be used to charge the device to be repaired.
so that is NOT a USB-C PD multi-voltage port.
Here is a USB-C PD 3.1 cable good for the full 100w/240w allowed
https://www.unitek-products.com/products/usb-c-power-delivery-3-1-charging-cablethis psu lets me set at 28volts and 0.01-10.0 amps
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08HYK2ZW3?psc=1&ref=ppx_yo2ov_dt_b_product_detailsand this cable lets me hook up
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07VWD929M?ref=ppx_yo2ov_dt_b_product_details&th=1the the main terminal.
So I am doing a total run around on the new chip design.
more to see if it can not use the usb-c port the way they want to.
It is quite obvious they rushed the nano-3 out ideally it would be using a 48 volt to keep amps lower
but no they want to use 28 volt
I am annoyed at their design choice. Basically if the miner just charged for an hour fine. but the idea of running 28 volt at 5 amps non stop makes me think they did us no favors.
So I want to control the dc voltage with gear I can read the results with.
I do suspect that I will end up using this psu to run the second unit.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0CL6PR2V9/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o00_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1but I do have a curiosity as to what they did with the nano.