Quote from: minerpumpkin on June 23, 2014, 11:02:51 PM

Quote from: antirack on June 23, 2014, 10:59:32 PM

Quote from: Chris_Sabian on June 23, 2014, 06:43:21 PM

Quote from: minerpumpkin on June 23, 2014, 06:08:22 PM

Quote from: DataTankMining on June 23, 2014, 03:02:18 PM

We are in discussion with a manufacturer to provide ASIC hardware in return for DataTank capacity. This is an unexpected turn of events, but it may prove to be a very important development with the potential to (a) reduce the need to finance chips and outlay required at the time of deployment, and (b) to speed up the production pipeline earlier than expected. We have agreed not to post details before a consensus is reached. How this affects existing and future DTMA holders will remain to be seen when we have results.

Does this mean a move from ASICMiner chips to another manufacturer's?

That is what it sounds like. Not good for AM holders

Last time I checked AM was a "manufacturer that provides ASIC hardware".

We're a bit worried about the "unexpected turn of events" line. AM has already been a long-term established partner of Allied Control and the initially planned partner/supplier for this operation. Now this sounds like the supplied may have changed.
Do you know more in order to wipe away those doubts?

Apologies for the confusion. AM is not at risk being the Bitcoin chip supplier of choice for this operation. Keep in mind there will also be a shift to Scrypt mining in the future, at least partially.

For DTM it's most important to deploy capacity in order to fully utilize the potential of fast deployment and efficient operations. Having manufacturer support is an important element and it is in the interest of ALL chip manufacturers for their customers (miners) to be successful and "come back for more".

Quote from: webbrowser on June 24, 2014, 12:29:15 AM

I guess that means that at their quantity levels the chips themselves should be significantly less than $0.40/G today.

Quote from: webbrowser on June 24, 2014, 12:29:15 AM

So, the public IPO of both DTMA and DTMB units have been pushed back, right?

Both is correct. The push back is mainly to avoid the risk of swings in the BTC price due to the U.S. Marashall's Service auction (unusually unstable BTC price during funding rounds may cause additional noise), and to allow sufficient time to consider the points made in yesterdays update. Less investment required for ASIC hardware is good news for stake holders and means lower funding requirement for DTMA.

The confusion should be over when concrete details can be posted, but definitely before any public offering.