Search content
Sort by
Showing 9 of 9 results by 4_skin
Re: [BitFunder] IceDrill.ASIC IPO (500 Thash Mining Operation powered by HashFast)
Thanks for solidifying my point! If those are all scams, then Icedrill must be a HUGE scam if even BTCT won't accept it. 
That backfired big time.. you just fell through the ice!
That backfired big time.. you just fell through the ice!
You lost tons of money on ActiveMining! Enough to buy a car and many ounces of gold. That must be making you act crazy.
I made a ton of money on ActiveMining! Enough to buy a car and many ounces of gold. You must really resent that!
My previous offer to take over the bleeding, smoldering remains of your bombed-out husk of a portfolio still stands.
Maybe now, after eating the ACTM biscuit, you'll agree to my terms (50BTC up front and 20% of profits).
ALWAYS BET ON iCE...
HAHAHAHAHAHA... oh man, thank you... that made my day... he just won't shut up.
some things people tend to neglect are logistcs costs/risks and customs risks (outbound and inbound).
it may be virtually free in kuwait or venezula or malaysia etc... but what will it cost to get your rig/machine there and will it get stuck in customs?
these are things that i believe need to be factored into any decision...
it may be virtually free in kuwait or venezula or malaysia etc... but what will it cost to get your rig/machine there and will it get stuck in customs?
these are things that i believe need to be factored into any decision...
Re: [BitFunder] IceDrill.ASIC IPO (500 Thash Mining Operation powered by HashFast)
That result didn't come up for me.. anyone who is reading this should attempt to do this search themselves. Uniquify is NOT a registered business - see it for yourself.
Dude... just stop... its getting tiring...
These guys certainly try to be the leader. Shipping is prohibitive for buying one (I live in EU). There is always IceDrill as a lower cost alternative...
Maybe someone provides hosting with these?
Cypherdoc if I order one can you provide hosting? Fee negotiable..
Maybe someone provides hosting with these?
Cypherdoc if I order one can you provide hosting? Fee negotiable..
isn't that what icedrill is doing?
Re: [BitFunder] IceDrill.ASIC IPO (500 Thash Mining Operation powered by HashFast)
Very well articulated... your points are well taken. we need more rationality as it helps those of us new and less experienced. Anything emotionally driven feels less focused and more derived...
People need to stop thinking of business as if one person wins, and everyone else loses. I see it all the time on this forum. With that mindset, observers try to figure out "who profits the most" and then label everyone else a loser or victim of a scam. In reality, there can be multiple winners, and in any good business deal, there is.
HashFast is the firm inventing the new chips. So yes, they probably will make the most money from sale of chips, as everything else is derivative and not as value-adding as the creation of those chips. But that doesn't mean other steps in the supply chain don't also profit. And it doesn't mean that other steps in the supply chain aren't valid business propositions (such as IceDrill).
Carve away all the puffery that's gone on in this thread, and look at the numbers. Investors are paying about $14-$15 for ghs to be delivered in late oct/early nov. Estimate the difficulty at that point, and then decide if it's a reasonable risk/return ratio. Consider then that the entire mine is going to pay .0016 per public share before the subsequent revenue is split equitably, meaning the mine will pay off for public holders before it pays of for the operators. This makes it additionally attractive... in reality the investors are, at launch, getting more than a ghs for their $14 (they're also getting the operators' share of the mine proceeds until 0.0016 btc per share in dividends is paid!).
Further, whether the operators are getting some of the IPO money is absolutely irrelevant. Let's assume they are getting 99% of the IPO money and will spend it on hookers and blow, does that make the deal worse? No, because the promise is to deliver X ghs per $ invested by Y time. Unless they break that promise, it matters not at all where the IPO money goes. Maybe IceDrill got the entire mine from HashFast for $100... and thus they'll keep all the IPO money for themselves. So what? Or, maybe IceDrill is paying $14 per ghs from HashFash, and thus not earning a penny from the IPO money. So what?
All that matters is the ghs delivered to shareholders, by what date, and at what price.
How much hashfast and the operators of icedrill make, and whether one gets kickbacks from another, or whether they're the same person, and what kind of clothes they're wearing or car they're driving is completely irrelevant. They are offering a price, for a product. If you trust them to deliver, then buy shares, otherwise ignore.
You're right in theory but horribly wrong in practice. I'll ignore the issue of principle - that issuers should honestly represent what they're doing and clearly disclose what happens with funds and focus on the practical points.
Firstly, you're correct that what investors receive intially isn't impacted by the price paid for it by the issuers. But remember that a chunk of what is mined is reinvested. If that reinvested portion also suffers from being used to purchase at inflated prices then that directly reduces potential to investors.
Secondly, if the relationship between Ice-Drill and the suppliers isn't a simple buyer/seller one then it's hard for investors to rely on management having interests totally aligned with theirs. That's why I asked questions about the terms of the supply deal - what guarantees had been obtained and what due diligence conducted to ensure the suppliers would and could refund if they failed to meet defined delivery dates. And this has a double-whammy impact - as if the relationship isn't a straight-forward one then not only is there increased risk (that proper commitments in respect of delivery dates and refunds/penalties in the case of failure have not been obtained) but of course there's then the problem that a refund of what was on the contract may not return the funds the investors actually committed.
In an ideal world where everyone delivers on time always #2 wouldn't matter - but #1 STILL would remain an issue if prices used for reinvestment may not reflect the best price an unconflicted negotiator with the same purchasing power could achieve. Note that is NOT the case if it's simply a matter of some of IPO funds just being moved into various back-pockets - but IS the case if the relationship between IPO and supplier is closer than it should be for investors to rely on issuer having no conflict of interest when negotiating with supplier on behalf of investors.
So HashFast is only the true winner in this game and not IceDrill.
People need to stop thinking of business as if one person wins, and everyone else loses. I see it all the time on this forum. With that mindset, observers try to figure out "who profits the most" and then label everyone else a loser or victim of a scam. In reality, there can be multiple winners, and in any good business deal, there is.
HashFast is the firm inventing the new chips. So yes, they probably will make the most money from sale of chips, as everything else is derivative and not as value-adding as the creation of those chips. But that doesn't mean other steps in the supply chain don't also profit. And it doesn't mean that other steps in the supply chain aren't valid business propositions (such as IceDrill).
Carve away all the puffery that's gone on in this thread, and look at the numbers. Investors are paying about $14-$15 for ghs to be delivered in late oct/early nov. Estimate the difficulty at that point, and then decide if it's a reasonable risk/return ratio. Consider then that the entire mine is going to pay .0016 per public share before the subsequent revenue is split equitably, meaning the mine will pay off for public holders before it pays of for the operators. This makes it additionally attractive... in reality the investors are, at launch, getting more than a ghs for their $14 (they're also getting the operators' share of the mine proceeds until 0.0016 btc per share in dividends is paid!).
Further, whether the operators are getting some of the IPO money is absolutely irrelevant. Let's assume they are getting 99% of the IPO money and will spend it on hookers and blow, does that make the deal worse? No, because the promise is to deliver X ghs per $ invested by Y time. Unless they break that promise, it matters not at all where the IPO money goes. Maybe IceDrill got the entire mine from HashFast for $100... and thus they'll keep all the IPO money for themselves. So what? Or, maybe IceDrill is paying $14 per ghs from HashFash, and thus not earning a penny from the IPO money. So what?
All that matters is the ghs delivered to shareholders, by what date, and at what price.
How much hashfast and the operators of icedrill make, and whether one gets kickbacks from another, or whether they're the same person, and what kind of clothes they're wearing or car they're driving is completely irrelevant. They are offering a price, for a product. If you trust them to deliver, then buy shares, otherwise ignore.
You're right in theory but horribly wrong in practice. I'll ignore the issue of principle - that issuers should honestly represent what they're doing and clearly disclose what happens with funds and focus on the practical points.
Firstly, you're correct that what investors receive intially isn't impacted by the price paid for it by the issuers. But remember that a chunk of what is mined is reinvested. If that reinvested portion also suffers from being used to purchase at inflated prices then that directly reduces potential to investors.
Secondly, if the relationship between Ice-Drill and the suppliers isn't a simple buyer/seller one then it's hard for investors to rely on management having interests totally aligned with theirs. That's why I asked questions about the terms of the supply deal - what guarantees had been obtained and what due diligence conducted to ensure the suppliers would and could refund if they failed to meet defined delivery dates. And this has a double-whammy impact - as if the relationship isn't a straight-forward one then not only is there increased risk (that proper commitments in respect of delivery dates and refunds/penalties in the case of failure have not been obtained) but of course there's then the problem that a refund of what was on the contract may not return the funds the investors actually committed.
In an ideal world where everyone delivers on time always #2 wouldn't matter - but #1 STILL would remain an issue if prices used for reinvestment may not reflect the best price an unconflicted negotiator with the same purchasing power could achieve. Note that is NOT the case if it's simply a matter of some of IPO funds just being moved into various back-pockets - but IS the case if the relationship between IPO and supplier is closer than it should be for investors to rely on issuer having no conflict of interest when negotiating with supplier on behalf of investors.
Re: [BitFunder] IceDrill.ASIC IPO (500 Thash Mining Operation powered by HashFast)
Hi!
We have now finalized the deal with HashFast.
The impact on the public investors is as follows:
1. The third batch does not need to be sold for the IPO to be deemed a success. This is due to that HashFast has changed the minimum amount of capital we need to bring them. Instead the more of batch three we sell the larger amount of Hashing power we can acquire. Please note that each share will still have the same initial hashing power (10 Mhash) independent on the amount we manage to raise in batch three.
2, There is a price change which will be absorbed by the private investors. Once we know how many shares we have sold and hence the hashing power the farm will have, the private vs public share ratio will be released. Please note that it will be under or equal to the current 60/40. (Please note that this is the same as for the discounts for the bulk purchases, as we maintain the hashing power per share of the public shares we will have to issue less private shares to pay for these discounts)
3, The amount of shares sold will be floating, with a maximum of 36.636 Million shares and a minimum of the current 17 million. The percent ownership of the profits will be adjusted so that each share is worth the capacity of 10 mhash at startup, please note that this percentage can only go up and not down. Hence it can not go below the current 1/50,000,000.
We think that these changes should not affect the attractiveness of the public shares and we have tried to keep the promises made as much as possible. In the cases where we could not we have tried to make it a neutral or positive change for the public investors.
//DeaDTerra
We have now finalized the deal with HashFast.
The impact on the public investors is as follows:
1. The third batch does not need to be sold for the IPO to be deemed a success. This is due to that HashFast has changed the minimum amount of capital we need to bring them. Instead the more of batch three we sell the larger amount of Hashing power we can acquire. Please note that each share will still have the same initial hashing power (10 Mhash) independent on the amount we manage to raise in batch three.
2, There is a price change which will be absorbed by the private investors. Once we know how many shares we have sold and hence the hashing power the farm will have, the private vs public share ratio will be released. Please note that it will be under or equal to the current 60/40. (Please note that this is the same as for the discounts for the bulk purchases, as we maintain the hashing power per share of the public shares we will have to issue less private shares to pay for these discounts)
3, The amount of shares sold will be floating, with a maximum of 36.636 Million shares and a minimum of the current 17 million. The percent ownership of the profits will be adjusted so that each share is worth the capacity of 10 mhash at startup, please note that this percentage can only go up and not down. Hence it can not go below the current 1/50,000,000.
We think that these changes should not affect the attractiveness of the public shares and we have tried to keep the promises made as much as possible. In the cases where we could not we have tried to make it a neutral or positive change for the public investors.
//DeaDTerra
sounds like you have a good relationship with hashfast...
Re: [BitFunder] IceDrill.ASIC IPO (500 Thash Mining Operation powered by HashFast)
greetings fellow bitcoiners... i'm new to this ipo but reading thru it is like taking a bus where the bus driver hits gas then brake every 2 seconds...
bottom line, deadterra seems to candid, honest, sincere, genuine and the level of integrity he's shown to this ipo should be rewarded. for those who've been
crucifying him, you should really ask yourself if its worth spending time typing a post for something you don't believe in. its like being in a church, listening to the sermon and staying till the end telling the priest his message was crap... why not just get up and leave? do you really have to tell the priest he's a piece of crap?
i guess if it makes you feel good...
bottom line, deadterra seems to candid, honest, sincere, genuine and the level of integrity he's shown to this ipo should be rewarded. for those who've been
crucifying him, you should really ask yourself if its worth spending time typing a post for something you don't believe in. its like being in a church, listening to the sermon and staying till the end telling the priest his message was crap... why not just get up and leave? do you really have to tell the priest he's a piece of crap?
i guess if it makes you feel good...