Quote from: DireWolfM14 on September 29, 2024, 06:48:53 PM

Seriously dude! That's like Silicon Valley level start up money. Not the kind of money you get for a totally speculative business that relies on price fluctuations of the "product" (i.e. bitcoin) and the off chance that you'll be snagging a block reward a rare occasion.

Just from math perspective your proposed number of miners will produce only 1.5EH while the competition is pushing 200. That wouldn't even put you in the top 20. Not to mention, nearly $8 million of your budget is slated for stuff that isn't making you any money. I'm sorry, I don't mean to be rude, but Vod's skepticism is starting to infect me too.

If you think $150k is going to set you on your way to secure $40 million in funding for such a lopsided proposal, you truly are delusional. Or looking to scam.

Your comment is well-structured and indeed raises valid questions and doubts on the topic.

Except for the last paragraph, but I suggest we have a discussion on this topic together.

The number of machines – 3000 with a capacity of 473 terahashes (they haven’t been officially released yet, distribution starts in November) – S21 Hydro XP with water cooling.

Undoubtedly, it can be mentioned that these machines will fall behind in competition in half a year or a year, like Hut 8 machines with more than 800 terahashes per unit (these machines are expected in Q2 2025, but their new chip still needs to be tested on the mass market). However, today, the S21 XP Hydro are cutting-edge machines with significant energy efficiency (5.67 kW/h).

If you do the math, you’ll see consumption of nearly 20 MW (adding in the consumption of the cooling system).

This is regarding the machines, and I believe there’s no doubt about their reliability and efficiency.

In response to the thesis that $8,000,000 is going towards something that doesn't generate financial returns:

The farm’s efficiency depends not only on terahash performance but also on energy efficiency indicators and the cost of electricity.

A large portion of the sum is allocated to provide the location with the necessary on-grid electricity and, in fact, a fixed electricity cost contract (for up to 5 years).

Such locations exist, but in most cases, they don't have an electricity substation nearby, which means a substation capable of supplying and transmitting 20 MW from the power plant on a permanent basis needs to be built.

To have such a location for the farm, the following is required:

- Build a substation (if necessary, which it usually is)
- Purchase the location/plot of land
- Conduct due diligence on the company that owns the plot
- Perform technical inspections of the location

All of this is included in the budget mentioned above.

Also, a significant portion of the funds goes to the cooling system, which is a central element of the mining farm's operation.

Can this be avoided?
The answer is no.

Do we need funds for equipment maintenance?
Of course, equipment often breaks down, especially the new water-cooling system (immersive cooling is even more expensive to operate).

If you believe that the $8,000,000 allocated to ensure the farm's operation is going nowhere, I have no further arguments beyond those listed above.

If you also conduct market research in both the USA and Northern Europe, you’ll find that most locations cost more than $4,000,000 per location.

We have allocated $1,800,000 for this.

If mining farms weren’t profitable, no one would be involved in them.

I hope I have addressed some of the points that raised your concerns.