If you aren't going to provide sufficient information for investors to work out the profitability or otherwise then please:

1.  Make a clear statement that you've calculated it will be profitable.
2.  Make a clear statement that you accept you aren't providing investors with sufficient information to verify the veracity of #1.

Then at least if you're wrong investors have a solid basis for action against you.

You can't on the one hand ask investors to do due diligence then on the other deny them the information to do so.

I simply made the assumption that the price point in the example calc you pasted of $232500 for 5TH was correct.  If that wasn't correct then what was the point of you posting it?

Your OP indicates that potential investors should conduct due diligence and you give a link to a mining calc.  How do you expect them to do that at all without a price?

Given that you posted an entirely incorrect calc yourself maybe you can appreciate why noone is too keen on just taking your word that it's profitable - how are we supposed to know you didn't screw up again?  Or that you're using reasonable projections for future difficulty?

"Give me millions of dollars THEN I'll give you the information to work out whether you'll make a profit" is just the wrong way round.

If you're going to guarantee you've correctly calculated it - and make good any short-fall yourself - then that's different.

Alydian are selling at prices where there's little if any profit at all for purchasers.  They won't sell at prices where a decent profit could be made - as it would then be better for them just to borrow the money themselves.  When you take something that will make hardly any profit (if any at all) then add on a further 10% management fee you end up with something that's just not a decent investment.

And that's why he can't post new calcs with reasonable figures - as if you look at them you find that at best it makes a tiny profit and at worst a fairly significant loss for investors.  And that's without even taking into account two layers of CP risk.

Sold   2289
Swapped   0
Total   2289
Price   0.02074
Total   47.47386
Less Fee   47.37891228
Man Fee   1.421367368

BTC Balance (BTC-TC)    1,864.44095746
10079 LTC-ATF.B1    100.79000000
Coinlenders CD 28/8    202.68288293
Coinlenders CD 12/9    100.35453128
Just-Dice Balance    242.80000000
TOTAL ASSETS    2,511.06837167
   
Outstanding MINING   113870
Outstanding SELLING   113870
Outstanding PURCHASE   13170
Effective Units   127040
   
Block reward   25
Difficulty   50810339
Hashes per MINING   5000000
   
Daily Dividend    0.00004949
50 days (Min Liquid)    0.00247443
100 days (Forced Close)    0.00494886
365 days (Buyback)    0.01806334
405 days (IPO)    0.02004288
400 days (Post SELLING div)    0.01979544
410 days (Pre SELLING div)    0.02029033
   
NAV Post MINING Div    2,504.78133983
NAV/U Post MINING Div    0.01971648
Days Dividend Post Div   398.40
SELLING Dividend    -         
NAV Post SELLING Div    2,504.78133983
NAV/U Post Selling Div    0.01971648
PURCHASE selling price    0.02070
PURCHASE buy-back price    0.01932
   
J-D House profit at report   5204

Part of problem is that no accounts are being produced.

Couple that with the apparent need to sell shares to raise capital and it suggests that what's being dividended out may be more than profits - i.e. things like advertising costs etc aren't being deducted.

Plus it's unclear to what extent capital is held in USD and hence loses BTC value when BTC rises vs USD.

In short - it's not clear whether profit (in BTC) is actually being made or is an illusion.

Quoting the whole thing for posterity - so there's no denying later that the whole initial estimate was based on a typo.

Because he didn't understand how to use the mining calculator.


He entered details for FIVE units at 5 TH each and mistakenly assumed that was 5 TH not 25 TH.  Then wrote up an IPO based on accidentally looking at the returns from FIVE times as much hashing-power/$ as he'd actually get.

The whole IPO is based on inability to use a mining calculator correctly.

You're being a bit unfair there.  If you look at ASICMINER you have to compare to the actual company not one pass-through.  Bitfountain hold over 50% of the ASICMINER shares.  And you're counting in treasury shares for Icedrill there - which distort the picture during IPO.  No idea what current share model ActiveMining have but last time I looked Ken (plus friends/family) was still getting 40% or so of all shares.

Beyond that I think it's fair to say investors are starting get mining-share-fatigue now : there's just been too many new offerings where people will make investors rich from mining/ASICs in return for a mere 10-50% of whatever gets mined/sold (Icedrill no longer falls in that particular category after the changes to the contract).  Now that those who just wanted to throw away their cash have done so it's much harder for new mining outfits to raise funds.

After the contract changes and clarifications my view is that Icedrill is one of the better value offerings out there IF you believe mining will be profitable.  My sole remaining signficiant issue with it is that it gives away equity as means of taking management fees.  Whilst one of the main problems with that has been addressed with the contract changes, it's still a horrible way to do things - leading to significant issues if there's a change in management team (this may have been addressed in whatever contracts managment have with Icedrill - but no disclosure has been made in respect of it) or closure.

Just to explain to you how the math doesn't add up.

Alydian charge $650k (about 6.5K BTC) for 10 TH with all expenses paid for 1 year.

So 70K BTC would buy over 100 TH.

Yet their plan doesn't anywhere suggest that much being deployed before they need to ask for more funds.  Why would they need more funds if they'd only deployed 10TH or 30TH and still had most of the 1st-phase IPO funds left?

Even if they don't plan on pocketting some of the IPO cash, their plan still ends up with most of it sitting around unused for months AND them trying to raise more before before they've even used the initial batch.

At best it's just someone trying profit from the gravy-train that is exploiting investors with a half-baked plan.  At worst it's a scam attempt that's not even very well disguised.

Well it's confusing as it's not clear whether phases relate to roll-out phases or funding phases.

If they only have a contract for 10 TH then surely they should only be raising funds for 10 TH in the first phase.  There's way to much ambiguity in the contract as well as weasel words like "a minimum of 1-10 TH" - which means what?  A minimum of 1 TH or a minimum of 10 TH?  A minimum should never be a range.  Do the suppliers only have to provide 1 TH not to need to provide compensation?

What happens if they don't sell enough shares on time - is the IPO cancelled and funds repaid?

If the extra cash is for expansion then do they have guaranteed commitments for delivery dates of the rest?  If not, and they fail to obtain such contracts, will those portion of funds be returned to investors?

Why are shares being used to represent management fees?  Management fees should be taken from profit (ideally) or revenue - not by being handed equity ownership from the start.  What happens if the fund has to refund capital due to closure or inability to deploy extra capital - would those refunds be shared across the management shares as well?  If management were to change how can than be accomodated when there's no provision for management fees?

etc.

It just seems a hastily cobbled together aggregate of all the bad bits from various other companies - operated on the assumption that noone will mind giving away 10% of their investment in return for someone running a pass-through to someone else actually operating a mining investment.  And the free shares model IS giving away capital not a portion of earnings.

Is all of the funds raised raised from IPO being spent to buy mining?  Or is some being taken as management fee?

In places the contract reads as though investors are buying shares in a company, in other places as though they're buying some sort of PMB with reinvestment.

You're asking in phase 1 for 70K BTC and in return saying investors get 10TH.

What happens with the vast majority of that 70K BTC that isn't needed to buy 10TH?

The maths just don't seem to add up on this.

Sold   2560
Swapped   0
Total   2560
Price   0.02078
Total   53.1968
Less Fee   53.0904064
Man Fee   1.592712192

BTC Balance (BTC-TC)    1,862.97710155
10164 LTC-ATF.B1    101.64000000
Coinlenders CD 28/8    202.55018634
Coinlenders CD 12/9    100.28907804
Just-Dice Balance    202.60000000
TOTAL ASSETS    2,470.05636593
   
Outstanding MINING   111804
Outstanding SELLING   111804
Outstanding PURCHASE   12947
Effective Units   124751
   
Block reward   25
Difficulty   50810339
Hashes per MINING   5000000
   
Daily Dividend    0.00004949
50 days (Min Liquid)    0.00247443
100 days (Forced Close)    0.00494886
365 days (Buyback)    0.01806334
405 days (IPO)    0.02004288
400 days (Post SELLING div)    0.01979544
410 days (Pre SELLING div)    0.02029033
   
NAV Post MINING Div    2,463.88261349
NAV/U Post MINING Div    0.01975040
Days Dividend Post Div   399.09
SELLING Dividend    -         
NAV Post SELLING Div    2,463.88261349
NAV/U Post Selling Div    0.01975040
PURCHASE selling price    0.02074
PURCHASE buy-back price    0.01936
   
J-D House profit at report   5147

Have put in a withdrawal request to send 40 more BTC to J-D.

He asked about DBS not DMS - not sure where he even saw DBS, let alone what it is (unless I typoed somewhere).

Someone has to ask it.

Any proof of the existence and profits of the existing company?

Sold   5419
Swapped   0
Total   5419
Price   0.0208
Total   112.7152
Less Fee   112.4897696
Man Fee   3.374693088

BTC Balance (BTC-TC)    1,817.52662774
10164 LTC-ATF.B1    101.64000000
Coinlenders CD 28/8    202.41840664
Coinlenders CD 12/9    100.22407706
Just-Dice Balance    202.50000000
TOTAL ASSETS    2,424.30911144
   
Outstanding MINING   110268
Outstanding SELLING   110268
Outstanding PURCHASE   11923
Effective Units   122191
   
Block reward   25
Difficulty   50810339
Hashes per MINING   5000000
   
Daily Dividend    0.00004949
50 days (Min Liquid)    0.00247443
100 days (Forced Close)    0.00494886
365 days (Buyback)    0.01806334
405 days (IPO)    0.02004288
400 days (Post SELLING div)    0.01979544
410 days (Pre SELLING div)    0.02029033
   
NAV Post MINING Div    2,418.26204982
NAV/U Post MINING Div    0.01979084
Days Dividend Post Div   399.91
SELLING Dividend    -         
NAV Post SELLING Div    2,418.26204982
NAV/U Post Selling Div    0.01979084
PURCHASE selling price    0.02078
PURCHASE buy-back price    0.01940
   
J-D House profit at report   5133

Sold   22481
Swapped   0
Total   22481
Price   0.02079
Total   467.37999
Less Fee   466.44523
Man Fee   13.9933569

BTC Balance (BTC-TC)    1,714.19050442
10164 LTC-ATF.B1    101.64000000
Coinlenders CD 28/8    202.28749534
Coinlenders CD 12/9    100.15950443
Just-Dice Balance    201.00000000
TOTAL ASSETS    2,319.27750419
   
Outstanding MINING   105254
Outstanding SELLING   105254
Outstanding PURCHASE   11518
Effective Units   116772
   
Block reward   25
Difficulty   50810339
Hashes per MINING   5000000
   
Daily Dividend    0.00004949
50 days (Min Liquid)    0.00247443
100 days (Forced Close)    0.00494886
365 days (Buyback)    0.01806334
405 days (IPO)    0.02004288
400 days (Post SELLING div)    0.01979544
410 days (Pre SELLING div)    0.02029033
   
NAV Post MINING Div    2,313.49862130
NAV/U Post MINING Div    0.01981210
Days Dividend Post Div   400.34
SELLING Dividend    -         
NAV Post SELLING Div    2,313.49862130
NAV/U Post Selling Div    0.01981210
PURCHASE selling price    0.02080
PURCHASE buy-back price    0.01942
   
J-D House profit at report   4709

Very large sales of PURCHASE mean that NAV/U rose very slightly even after paying today's MINING dividend.

Net connection dropped overnight - have restarted it now and the backlog has been cleared.

If it wasn't for people happily buying mining rigs (or indirectly doing so by buying mining securities) for more than they'll ever mine I'd agree with you.  The fact that they do means that the cap on mining doesn't actually apply to hardware sales - though there is an effective cap less than an order of magnitude higher (at the point where it's OBVIOUS to even idiots that the price is so high that it won't ever make a profit).

Going off on a tangent a bit here.  In general there are 4 groups of people in the mining chain (as it relates to securities) - 3 sets of whom make profit.

1.  The manufacturers (and their shareholders where relevant) - these make a profit selling for more than it costs to produce the hardware.
2.  The purchasers - these make a profit by selling shares in their mining either at a markup or with a fee structure where they receive a portion of revenue (not profit).   There's a sub-set of these who are fund managers - many of whom also make fees based on dividend revenue rather than actual profit.
3.  The resellers - these make a profit by buying at IPO then selling into the price bubble thereafter (I'm sometimes in this group).
4.  The suckers - these end up with the shares and are the only ones that don't make a profit unless they can find a bigger fool to sell to.

The mining securities eco-system is driven by the fact that groups 1-3 don't need mining to be profitable for them to profit and so supply isn't  constrained by any logical limit relating to profitability.  Group 4 vaguely realise this but are too lazy/ignorant to do some math and notice that it applies to the securities THEY buy, not just the ones everyone else buys.  And group 4 being so numerous is the main reason why mining is unlikely ever to be very profitable for long periods of time - as they provide (and will continue to provide) demand for mining capacity even when it's irrational at the prices at which it's available.

You can't at present - and I'd recommen against it for now anyway.

I'm not the author of the bot - I just paid a bounty to have it developed.  Once it's done the author can distribute it however they want - I'm not buying the code just the right to use it myself.  So it may well end up being available freely.

But right now it's still very much in development - with cross-platform functionality being added (so I can do trading where I receive on BTC-TC and it sends on LTC-Global or other way round).  At times there have been serious bugs in it where if it I'd ran it live it could have transferred out a bunch of shares costing a LOT of BTC.  I doubt it'll be released to the public until it's stable - as it would only need one careless user who couldn't understand the code and/or didn't test properly to cause a real mess.

There's still a whole section of safety/double-checking that should go in before other people used it - to protect against server-side changing of the reported time-zone of trades and also to detect changes to the format of the API results (they changed last week which just crashed the bot - but if change had been done slightly differently it could potentially have caused serious problems).

Yeah - we've already sold enough PURCHASE to get capital back up to ~2k BTC so going to send 40 BTC more to J-D now.  Had always been planning to do that once the dust had settled from the SELLING dividend.  Then will be looking at another 100 BTC Coinlenders CD next week to keep deposits there spread out as much as possible (over time) - or more than 100 BTC if sales of PURCHASE continue to be fast.

Todays dividends showed why I have to keep a lot of capital - we paid out about 1.4 of ALL capital today and I have to try to keep cash over 50 days dividend.  So in practice to stay safe on that means keeping about 40% of all assets cash at a minimum.

Ideally I'd like one more investment that could take 10-20% of capital then we'd be right where I'd want us to be.