I have access to inventories of every semiconductor fab in the world, and cost models for every process tech commercially available today. I know exactly what I am talking about. And a Ph.D. in the field and decades of experience in the business. Your attempt at credentialism doesn't impress me in the slightest.
Okay, do everyone a favor and put up a real cost analysis then. I'll leave this here... blog.zorinaq.com/?e=73 |
|
|
|
VBS you still aren't accounting for the shares outstanding correctly as I pointed out to you in the non-censored thread.
And masks, packaging and boards for custom chips will cost over $2M. That is 20000 BTC. It will be a long time before this 'company' won't be eating your capital.
Where are you pulling 2 million dollars from? If you don't know what's going on to the board and how many are being made, how can you come up with a number like that? Because I know what a semiconductor mask set costs. And I know what wafer starts cost. And I know what die packaging assembly and test costs. Masks two million? No way, $10K tops. Wafer starts, depends on diameter or the wafer. You don't need 300mm/450mm to make ASIC chips you can make due with 100mm and less. You just need a couple of boats of wafers, you can buy these under a thousand from suppliers. The feature sizes are relatively large for this type of devices. You don't need sophisticated lithography/etching. You can buy packaging and test equipment cheap because there is a lot of it being liquidated from semiconductor factories that upgrade. You can also outsource to get that done for you which will be even cheaper. The key is finding all of these stuff at competitive rates and pulling it together. Two million is quite a stretch. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. There are no foundries offering wafer starts at less than 110 nm on anything other than 300 mm. And 450 mm doesn't exist at all today. Masks are on the order of 100x what you imagine for a modern process node. Lets start with this. http://siliconwafer.org/index.htmlAnd so you know... I have an advanced degree in semiconductor manufacturing. |
|
|
|
VBS you still aren't accounting for the shares outstanding correctly as I pointed out to you in the non-censored thread.
And masks, packaging and boards for custom chips will cost over $2M. That is 20000 BTC. It will be a long time before this 'company' won't be eating your capital.
Where are you pulling 2 million dollars from? If you don't know what's going on to the board and how many are being made, how can you come up with a number like that? Because I know what a semiconductor mask set costs. And I know what wafer starts cost. And I know what die packaging assembly and test costs. Masks two million? No way, $10K tops. Wafer starts, depends on the size of the wafer. You don't need 300mm/450mm to make ASIC chips you can make due with 100mm or less. You just need a couple of boats of wafers and you can buy these bare or with deposited layers under a thousand from suppliers. You just need a semiconductor catalog and cash. The feature sizes are relatively large for this type of devices. You don't need sophisticated lithography/etching meaning "cheap and probably quite easy to find someone to pattern". You can buy packaging and test equipment cheap because there is a lot of it being liquidated from semiconductor factories that upgrade. You can also outsource to get that done for you which will be even cheaper. The key is finding all of these stuff at competitive rates and pulling it together. Two million is quite a stretch. |
|
|
|
|
Now that's some hardcore mining!
|
|
|
|
Nowhere I did see the statement that shares would be all selled using solely an "ask wall" method. It was stated that the price could rise due to demand.
Sure, neither does it state that they are sold on Pay-what-you-bid basis. The assumption you make about the demand is false. It took two months for the volume to decrease from 5 to 4.6mil. He created an illusion of demand by removing the stock of the market. That's the problem. Overvalued stock? So, they would be happy to pay higher for their stock, just not to the issuer? They would be really happy now, knowing they had bought from a flipper and not helping AMC a bit. Nice logic there.
Sorry, this make no sense. Of course, they would pay the flipper. Just in case you did not think that far that's what happens with stocks when IPO is bought out. Currently when people buy most stock on BitFunder they are buying it from someone who is flipping. The "Early-Adopter" shares may be posted in batches with the first batch being 5,000,000 shares.
What is the point of saying this in the contract if this is not what you are doing? Final thought... I am not completely against retrieval when mistakes happen (in this case overestimation of demand). I do think it is fair though to have the issuer make a statement when he does retrieve. It is natural for people to think that stock is in demand when orders disappear. Also for some reason, when it comes to putting large volume on the market there is no problem with communicating but when it comes to backpedaling there is. Anyway, good luck! |
|
|
|
Your point being? I'm not in this to flip anything.
Also, you have clearly no idea of the various price strategies that shares can be sold in an IPO. Pay-what-you-bid was used in the IPO of Japan Telecom, for example. Thinking that IPO shares can only be sold all at the same price reveals quite the lack of market knowledge. That's a bullshit argument. The contract reads like shares would be issued in batches or starting with a placement of 5 mil which would not come and go willy-nilly. Evidence? At least two people above thought IPO closed out and bought overvalued stock. |
|
|
|
Friedcat has very good reasons NOT to deploy more hash power as long as AM hold the current high % of the global Bitcoin hashrate, and it's already close to 30%, so there is little margin here. Approaching 50%, let alone going over it would definitely (and rightfully) be seen as a threat to the security of the network (basically AM could decide what makes it to the blockchain or not, and double spend at wish), creating big FUD on BTC and probably plummeting the exchange rate. Friedcat does not want that to happen of course...
And that's not the only problem, it also wouldn't make sense economically. Always keep in mind that the money supply is constant (less the random variance, and difficulty retargeting every 2000 blocks window, that is removed when considering longer time frames). Let's suppose AM gets close to 100% of the hashrate at, say 200 Thash/sec. Then if it starts hashing at 400 Thash/sec, it would still earn close(r) to 100% and earn... just the same, but with twice the hardware costs, same for electricity costs. See the problem here?
you are exactly right. I think the most hashrate that AM should deploy is around 35 percent of the network. More than that would be harmful to the bitcoin enviroment and economy. Anywhere below 50 is fine. |
|
|
|
|
Plausible but takes a lot of time.
|
|
|
|
Further more the first Batch was far less than 5,000,000 and you didn't publicly increase the IPO price, you removed the IPO offerings and have ever since then sold them whenever you feel like it.
This first batch never sold out. It just "disappeared" from the market causing idiots (no offence) to buy at inflated rates. |
|
|
|
|
Ok, let me elaborate...
5 million of early-adopter shares were on the market for sale on May 15, 2013. These are no longer there because issuer realised he screwed up. This is what I call retrieval and he should own up to that. Maybe explain why the placement is no more. Something like "early-adopter volume no longer trading, sorry".
Now, the whole "shares may increase in price" bit usually applies to the following releases not what was put on the market. If he wants to get them off he should buy them that way it does not appear like fuckery. Since what happened the contract started appearing quite misleading. It uses fancy terms but is out of touch with reality. When I read it I saw 5 mil shares on the market and an ongoing IPO, now I don't know what is going on.
Any more questions?
|
|
|
|
I read every word. I am objecting to the issuer playing the market.
If you wouldn't make a fuss unless they violate the contract, then you wouldn't object to the scenario where they spend 100% of funds on wages to produce a technology that is never used.
I'm further perturbed by how the issuer seems only sorry that people are upset, not about his actions.
Playing the market?  Any more questions? |
|
|
|
If this is how they act at the outset, then you won't make a fuss when I refer you to the IPO contract where it says they are free to use the funds for wages, and then tell you they had to spend it all on wages. And you wouldn't make a fuss about VMC not using the technology that AMC developed, with the result that VMC doesn't have to pay 10% to AMC. It's not about the contract. It's about trust.
Yes, and the world can also end tomorrow. Trust is lost when lines are crossed. I still haven't seen them break anything they stated in the initial contract. Please correct me if you noticed something that I didn't. 4mil was released and then retrieved. Let's say I was hypothetically putting a sum of money to buy that. The market was supposed to prevent me from making the deal not the issuer. What they are doing is not IPO. |
|
|
|
|
The problem is this...
Once they are released they should stay released.
Not some back and forth Mumbo-Jumbo shit.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
