The problem, as has been mentioned, is issuers not doing what their contracts say they'll do. While greater transparency through accurate financial reporting wouldn't be a bad thing, it wouldn't solve the problems. Issuers that go rogue would just fudge numbers and then it would naturally be burnside's fault for not detecting it. Bitcoin is itself a currency that requires one to be responsible for their own actions. If you send 4BTC to purchase that solar powered clothes dryer, then tough cookies when you get a clothes line in the mail. Securities denominated in BTC should be no different, if investors are too dense or lazy to do any diligence then they're going to take on a lot of risk.

Though not perfect, the system in place now at btct.co is IMO the best currently available in the crypto investing world. Though the moderator system does not protect determined investors from their own inability or unwillingness to adequately assess risk, over time scores do tend to favor companies that follow their contracts. If there's an obvious failing in the current system I'd say it's in the stage prior to moderator voting. Many mods obviously keep their own council and have their own reasons for voting to approve contracts such as PETA-MINE's, but abominations such as that one never should have seen the light of day. Burnside can't possibly be expected to read through and police every contract, so perhaps someone else could read through these things and draw attention to obvious discrepancies/contradictions that can be brought to the attention of both the asset issuer and potential investors prior to moderator voting.

Equally difficult is pinning them down on power consumption estimates.

...would be my guess.

Presumably you've heard of scrypt by now? ...you are aware that single sc's are more efficient than ActM's fleet of (6)Avalons correct?

You're completely out of your element here aren't you VE?

ROFL

Whatever shred of credibility you had left just went buh bye. ActM is hashing with Avalons DOOFUS. They're doing so because their own vaporware won't be around for months.

I think we're done here...keep your overpriced inefficient vaporware.

You realize he's a brit right?

...ask a hockey question at least. lol

How 'bout a fresh PETA-MINE rant. Haven't seen one of them in awhile. They need some lovin'.

I'll have a go. Umm...Star Wars >>>> Star Trek? Nethin'?

meh. I sold out of labcoin after their last round of lies er...errors...so still waiting to be offended.

Cheers?

Why would I need a calculator? I run a mining company, I have gear running 24/7 and the electricity bills to prove it. The difference between 1w/Gh/s and 2w/Gh/s can make a huge difference in potential returns depending on price/kWh. You sound like somebody speaking about a topic for which you have little practical experience. Never mind that bitfury has gear out now that uses under 1w/Gh/s and you're hawking wares that won't even be around until December.  

...still waiting for the punchline...

Holy crap man. Do you even lift mine? Small miners that struggle to scrape together enough BTC to purchase a rig are surely going to care if their monthly power bill is going to increase by 100% or 200% regardless of how many PH it is until they're actually losing fiat to the power company. To say nothing of the fact that the heat has to be dealt with and mining gear that uses more power...PRODUCES MORE HEAT. Not everyone is lighting their cigars with $100 bills bud. Equipment that uses more power can incur unforeseen expenses. Visits from the electrician and/or the heating and cooling guy as well.

Don't care about the lack of a gimmicky mpp, but you can't possibly be serious about efficiency numbers. Someone paying for VMC equipment would still have to budget fiat for power consumption. The difference between efficient gear and inefficient gear could easily be the difference between a positive ROI and a loss for many with high electrical costs.

Potential returns are thin even if everything goes smoothly. Combined with efficiency estimates that vary wildly depending on configuration and the potential for delays, this becomes a very risky investment with little potential upside. The price cuts at least made it worth looking into.

I believe it would be difficult to classify some of these statements as something other than intentionally misleading.


That's their latest official release. They waited several days after that official release to slowly announce in a piecemeal fashion on a thread that moves several pages every day that they're not meeting their official claims. They've still not updated their website or even the OP in their discussion thread to reflect their current status.

Despite the shadiness, the only statement in their contract they're obviously violating is this one and it's pretty generic:

Hi cix888. I tend to approach the decision making process pragmatically. As such, failing to consider the advice of others would be unwise.

Thanks for the kind words. I believe the entire mining community is in for a tough Q4...It's my intention to position us to weather the storm and land on our feet when things settle. I'll keep the options you've mentioned in mind, but I don't want to spend a lot of time managing the share price that would be better spent managing the direction of the company itself.

Cheers.

It's disappointing that garbage companies like this one are siphoning funds from the crypto securities market. Done with this ridiculous circus.

unsubscribed

Totes. This security is a joke.

All LC would have to do is update the original post with their latest excuse info. This hasn't happened since late July. They could also update their own website with info, but this hasn't happened either.

Don't worry dex, we'll watch your chips for you...