It's trolling to keep calling a nearly successful company a scam, when there is zero evidence of criminal intent or actions.
Two answers for this line only, dear resident troller:1) If you know HF, a company that didn't create a single dollar worth of value but rather destroyed it all the way along, to be "successful", you must have a really different definition of "successful company", where successful includes scamming, and scamming includes hiding value from creditors. I can agree with you on that.
2) About the "zero evidence", let me quote your friends over at ATM:
I genuinely see ActM as a failed business and not a scam.
Sure, it's so easy to make a 700+ GH/s BTC ASIC that Superstar Chip Designers at Cointerra could barely match 400GH/s. 
1) How do you know that CT's chip is only running at 400GH/s? I was under the impression that they said on their blog since the beginning that the asic met the specifics?
2) How much did CT spent for it's tapeout, in %, vs HF's?
3) How long from when CT had chips in hand to when they delivered? 3 months? "BTC ASIC that Superstar Chip Designers" did it right. "Sandgate, Chad, and Uniquify"... Depends on your definition of right.
It has been a while, so I played your little game and I answered. Let's see what BS you throw out of your keyboard this time.