@c2m:  Sorry if I'm belaboring this, it seems I'm not making my point clearly.  I'll try again.  Here is a numbered list.  Please point to the line[s ] (if any) you feel is inaccurate.  Once we agree on the premises, it will be easier for me to present the conclusions.

1. Spondoolies is a supplier of miners.
2. Spondoolies is also supplying (brokering?) a hosting solution--through an entity known to us only as cowboyminer.
3. The only information offered regarding the entity known as cowboyminer is that said entity has been vetted by Spondoolies.
4. Spondoolies, while both providing and vouching for cowboyminer, goes on to add that it is holding "hefty collateral" from cowboyminer (in the amount of "over a hundred thousand [dollars].")
  4a.  which begs the question:  To what degree could Spondoolies be held liable if cowboyminer vanishes with the miners/fails to adhere to [whatever] agreement?
5. The entity known to us as cowboyminer is also not a party to this IPO, but a provider of hosting chosen by Spondoolies.
6. To assure that cowboymining adheres to the previously arrived at agreement, Spondoolies [presumably] requested "hefty collateral" from cowboymining, which cowboymining has provided in the sum of "over a hundred thousand [dollars]."
7. Spondoolies stated that the collateral was taken to insure "smooth execution of this IPO."
  7a.  How would the $100K, which presumably would be returned to cowboyminer after the IPO (of which cowboyminer is not a part), assure cowboyminer's compliance?