I see that mentality is working out well so far...




In all seriousness though, that's not the way you go about supporting an offering. I don't know what the Havelock team has told CBCM, but information and communication are your keys to success...I've seen it time and time again. Without that, you welcome speculation. When you welcome speculation, 7 pages of nonsense build up in a matter of 24 hours. In the end, nobody is happy and nothing gets done.

Kinda hard to believe I have to bring this up when we're supposed to be discussing all this with experienced professionals in finance, management and IT...

That's the problem though. Not everyone can calculate what they may or may not be able to earn over a period of time by investing in this fund (or any others). I mean no disrespect, but it's part of the job of the representative to present as much information as possible for an investor to make an informed decision.

Even better if, on top of that, you're able to present your view on the investment. What I mean is, if you say "earn 50% by Christmas", the next question I'm going to ask is "How did you come to that figure?". It would be better if you had already laid out where you think the network difficulty will be between now and then, factoring reinvestment, energy / hosting, and management costs. The more information and thoughtfulness you can put behind your argument, the better your chance for success.

By the way, I know I've mentioned PETA several times so far, but I need to include the fact that I am not invested with them and I have nothing to do with their operation. PETA is your closest competition, so comparing CBCM / SHA to PETA is the best way to gauge overall value. Giving potential investors a reason to switch their investment from them to you should be paramount.

I'm not quite sure how this has been construed into a fight against Spondoolies and Havelock.

Havelock vets new listings, and will continue to push through new IPOs because that's how they make money. How they go about that has always been questioned, but there's no point in bringing it up again since it's off topic.

Spondoolies is an equipment manufacturer who sells to thousands of individuals and businesses. It seems that 35 miners is a drop in the bucket to what they normally sell, and that's certainly not a push for funding...heck, it's only enough to fill a single full-sized server rack. Their appearance in this thread is confirmation that CBCM has a reserve set aside...which is not a direct endorsement of the offering.

@ Taras -- Given your background (supposed or otherwise), I would have thought dealing with these sorts of questions and comments would have been second nature at this point. 
Since you have a background in finance, let's change up my question a bit. What's the financial incentive for me to invest in your organization, as opposed to any number of other listings / mines?

Here's how I'm thinking about it, which may help clear this up -- Having a blueprint and contractors lined up for the nice house you're looking to build != Having the foundation dug out and concrete already poured.

Sorry, but why are you avoiding answering my main question? All I'm looking for is for someone (typically a Public or Investor Relations representative) to sell me on their investment instead of putting my money elsewhere.

Focusing on the bolded part for a moment, yes; PETA did start their offering a few months ago.

PETA, however, already had two things going for them: 1) A previous history of running a large mine and paying dividends, and most importantly 2) they already had hardware ordered, paid for out of their own pocket.

These are just differences between the funds, I get that...but you still haven't answered my question: Why should I invest in you guys over the PETA operation?

Ah, I got it, thanks for the clarification.

Since that's the case, why should I invest in you guys over the PETA operation? I can see their current share price is fractionally higher at the moment (in terms of $ per GH/s), but they already have ~1.2PH/s deployed and are paying dividends.

Just so I'm clear, since I must have misinterpreted your post...you're asking investors to float BTC1,750 (40,000 shares @ BTC0.04375 average over 8 rounds) to start a 1 PH/s mine. Since each share is 10GH/s (as noted in your prospectus and title), you're granting yourself 60% of the total hashrate (600TH/s) right from the start, leaving investors with just 400TH/s?

A $14M valuation is completely reasonable for a company with an established product, history of sales, and adequate financials.

Also, I see that the funding generated by the IPO will be used to essentially build the mining rigs, from chips all the way through custom cases, as well as provide capital to run the operation. Given that's a critical step to success, don't you find an offering of 2% to investors a bit...insulting?

That's almost impossible to know.

The simplest way to think about it...and I'm talking the bare minimum here...is revenue vs. expenses. If solo mining isn't profitable anymore (coins earned vs cost to earn them), switch to pooled mining. If neither is profitable, then it's time to stop (unless it's for a hobby, or if you want to help secure that particular coin's network).

I'm not sure it's possible to answer that question...as SirChiko pointed out:


To keep it simple: Solo mining isn't worth it anymore. Your best bet is to join a Scrypt multipool, of which there are quite a few. Here's a list of many of them: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=424541.0

Well, it's technically a binary question 

If you don't pay for power, then solo mine away and hope you find a block. But take into consideration three things: 1) the difficulty of the coin you're mining, 2) the probability of finding a block over 'X' amount of time, and 3) hardware depreciation.

If you're like most people then yes, you do pay for electricity, and no, it's certainly not worth it to solo mine. If you were to pool mine, a 280X uses somewhere around 350W at 100% sustained load (from what I've read). At 350W, you're looking at 8400W consumed per 24 hours, or ~256 Kilowatt hours per month. If mining generates enough revenue to cover 256 kWh worth of power, then keep mining.

Depends. Do you pay for electricity?

Another newbie brought this up in the PETA thread...

Define "Bitcoin price peak"? Are we at the peak now or trending down again? If you know where the peak is, quit mining and investing...you'll be making cash hand over fist trading currency.

It's interesting to see the diversity of time logged, not that it's that important.

I'm just about to hit 36 days.

From what it sounds like, you've already made up your mind that mining isn't worth it (at least subconsciously).

To spend $3,300 on mining gear, you'd have to look at how much Bitcoin (or altcoin, but lets keep it simple for now) revenue that equipment would generate. Think of it this way; if $3,300 can get you BTC5.0 (@$660 on an exchange), what equipment is out there that can generate more than BTC5.0 over time (after operational expenses)? For the most part, the smarter play is to invest in Bitcoin directly unless you have access to cheap power / low cost hosting.

This is true, and it's one of the few ways to make a nice return instead of just mining. Based on what Anonymousg64 was saying, it seemed his plan was to keep buying up new hardware without selling the least efficient of the batch. 



I assumed that was implied by saying "realistically speaking"...I mean, we are talking about BFL here. Anyone who thinks they're shipping in the next three months hasn't taken the time to dig into their past.

[1]  -- This is technically true. If you paid nothing for electricity or space, had your Monarch in hand today, and focused on an optimistic difficulty increase over time, you'd break even by September of next year. Realistically speaking, however, no...your Monarch will never break even. 

[2]  -- Define "peak BTC value"? If you're able to define that, stop mining and get into currency trading.

[3]  -- Perpetually purchasing hardware doesn't create a faster return on investment...after all, there was a cost to purchase the hardware in the first place.

This isn't true at all. Giving the public a chance to voice their opinion on a change is a fantastic way to see how they view the current situation, which is invaluable from an organizational standpoint. Ignoring / Alienating the majority of your investors because a handful of >5%+ owners want one thing or another is just bad business practice. It doesn't necessarily matter if their votes won't end up making a difference in the end. What does matter is transparency and communication.

Having just caught up on the last few pages in this thread, there seems to be an interesting dichotomy between established members and newbies on how they view the recent news. I can't say I have a reasonable view on it all at this point, but I'll still grab the popcorn and watch it all unfold.

Voting has ended and the results have been compiled.

Raw results (email addresses have been obfuscated for security): https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16OV0X2RN2-0bGPeI348Xg-e6NLf7ywSCp8DAIYl4Vrs/edit#gid=1611567700

Are you in favor of KCIM ceasing company operations (resulting in a sale of the asset or liquidation)?:
55287 -- Yes
8926   -- No
22687 -- Abstained


There's been quite a bit of feedback overall, some of which has been addressed above. It's been a mix of complements, understandable disappointment, insults and anger. Not to mention an assortment of suggestions from investors that I fear may be missing the forest for the trees, so to speak. Given the circumstances, I don't imagine this process could have gone any smoother.


Trading will resume tomorrow at 12PM (Havelock time), and the order book has been cleared. For the next several weeks, the immediate goal is to find a party interested in purchasing the entire asset outright. If you know someone like this, feel free to have them contact me and we'll take it from there.

Should no one come forward, the subsequent step would be to sell the hardware to anyone interested (of which a few people have come forward already). Any Unit Holder will have the ability to partake in an 'assets for equity' deal if they so choose.

What this means is, if you would like to run a device yourself, you could purchase it from the company using your current holdings (and/or Bitcoins, as necessary). For example, if a mining rig is being sold for BTC1.0, and the last dividend paid to you is worth BTC2.0, you can elect to receive the rig and the difference in the dividend (BTC1.0). The opposite is viable as well; say the rig is worth BTC2.0 and your last dividend is worth BTC1.0. You can purchase the rig for the difference; BTC1.0.