Re: [HAVELOCK]CBCM SHA-256 Mine IPO start 11-th of June, priced from 0.042Btc/10Ghs
In all seriousness though, that's not the way you go about supporting an offering. I don't know what the Havelock team has told CBCM, but information and communication are your keys to success...I've seen it time and time again. Without that, you welcome speculation. When you welcome speculation, 7 pages of nonsense build up in a matter of 24 hours. In the end, nobody is happy and nothing gets done.
Kinda hard to believe I have to bring this up when we're supposed to be discussing all this with experienced professionals in finance, management and IT...
Kinda hard to believe I have to bring this up when we're supposed to be discussing all this with experienced professionals in finance, management and IT...
+1 Could not have said it better. Thanks!
Spondoolies explicitly stated that it does not endorse this IPO, but merely selling 35 miners and (what appears to be brokering) the hosting. Spondoolies is either a party to this IPO (in which case the lack of endorsement is somewhat peculiar), or it is not, in which case why the "hefty collateral"?
Further, it's difficult to see how $100k collateral from cowboyminer would assure his adherence to the hosting agreement. According to Spondoolies, the collateral was taken to insure the smooth execution of this IPO. From this it is reasonable to conclude that it will be released to cowboyminer once the IPO is over. At that point, cowboyminer is yet to show compliance which the collateral is [presumably] meant to assure.
Could you, perhaps, explain the reasoning behind this collateral?
Further, it's difficult to see how $100k collateral from cowboyminer would assure his adherence to the hosting agreement. According to Spondoolies, the collateral was taken to insure the smooth execution of this IPO. From this it is reasonable to conclude that it will be released to cowboyminer once the IPO is over. At that point, cowboyminer is yet to show compliance which the collateral is [presumably] meant to assure.
Could you, perhaps, explain the reasoning behind this collateral?
I was just speaking from my limited exp. running a business - it is what I would do, if I understand situation about this deal from SPTech perspective correctly.
IMO:
- SPTech is supplier here - it does not need to endorse anything - they are just selling their miners (and will host 1st round miners)...they are not organizing it, running it or telling folks what to do. They just sell miners and make nice profit.
- SPTech is the party that might gain much if IPO takes off correctly or loose badly if there are problems (SPTech CEO said it previously, that he have met with both parties and vouch for them).
- For SPTech it is a good deal - if fund is running smoothly and enough interest is gained, they will deliver and sell their miners periodically. Selling periodically to paying customer is the deal every sane company values much more than one time customers or ad hoc customers. Periodical profit, better planning of manufacturing, better managing of cash flow etc...
- So they wanted (and possibly want) to be sole supplier of CBCM. They confirmed to CBCM that they will deliver SP10s for 1st round. But are unable to support round 2+ atm. So they simply ask their customer in good standing running hosting/mining co. to help them with delivery/hosting for further rounds. They introduced both of them and to be sure that deal will be ok, they took collateral from hoster, because they put their "name&good standing" on line being supplier in CBCMs fund. Again, I see nothing wrong or unusual with this... But what do I know
may be I do not understand it and there are other reasons. As I said, just my 2cents. Anyway, thanks for reading and GL to all.