...
This is predicated on other players not having sunk money into their product--an unjustified assumption.
Lower BTC/USD price makes mining less profitable--electricity and hosting costs, which must be paid in fiat, remain constant, while the return--price of the mined BTC--is lower.
It's reasonable to assume that the price one can charge for hashpower will also be lower.
That is true, which is why a company like AM who has lots of already paid for, inexpensive [citation needed], in-hand [citation needed] hardware will do better than those who are hoping to sell pre-orders to fund their next round of NRE, chips, etc. The squeeze is on for all asic producers and miners and the ones in the best reputation and position to ride it out will be the ones left standing.
I'm not disputing that the best ASIC manufacturers will be the ones left standing, merely that *ALL* ASIC manufacturers will suffer from lower BTC exchange rate. This should be obvious.
Well, thanks for pointing out the obvious then. I'm merely claiming that AM is well positioned for this environment. Why are citations needed? It's easy to know that AM has the hardware in hand and the price is very competitive.
Unless you have access to AM books, as well as those of other ASIC manufacturers, you are not in a position to say anything meaningful of AM costs, or the amount of stock AM has compared to its competitors. This, again, seems self-evident. Feel free to drop some numbers.
Regarding AM being "well positioned for this environment." When the gold rush is over, you're right to say that only the bad-assiest shovel merchants will survive. But even allowing that AM is, in fact, the biggest baddest shovel merchant, concluding that vanishing profit margins is actually a
good thing (because it would hurt other merchants more, possibly driving them out of business)... That's a bit of a stretch, no?