Will the DX Mini and DX Large products be modular enough to allow future extensibility through later purchases of their respective module boards or will they be locked down to only support the number of boards they are originally purchased with?
 
IE, will a purchase of a DX Mini with 5 boards provide hardware that has the capacity to be later upgraded to the full 20 board capacity with purchases of compatible modules later on down the line?  There’s a really large slice of ambiguity on your website there, ‘Can contain up to 20 boards’ doesn't indicate if every product can do that, or just the 20 board product can do that.  If they are indeed modular, will end users be able to add capacity with purchases of later module cards without soldering or is diy a factor there?  Just how end user friendly are they?

Maybe it’s just me but I need to be absolutely certain about what I’d be getting, even if I have to look silly in the process of asking.  But… maybe think about throwing up some diagrams up for anyone that’s especially anxious / inept at deciphering the current statements.  Even a little bit of the unknown in this is harmful for you and if you can indeed provide a platform that allows miners to scale so easily - i think you'll certainly have something that some of your competitors are missing, certainly unique at this power and price point.

This is a fairly common question on the forums, using the forum search (or even just a carefully done Google query) may help you get answers quicker in the future:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=70911.msg813815#msg813815  Is a post about another client, but it will cover many of your questions.

The continual evolution of mining architecture is arguably on its way to slowly monopolizing the hashing network though isn't it?  

It’s a consolidation cycle, each time the big players increase their hardware to another generation, another group of miners has to pull out due to increased expense.  It seems to me the only possible way to ensure this power erosion doesn't happen is to ensure the big players are continually met with new opposition to feed into the competitive market which is only possible with media exposure.  Something we've thankfully started to generate at an alarming rate.  

I have to say though, allowing the handful of companies that have the expertise (and perhaps more importantly the interest) to develop ASIC to have access to the sort of financial resources we’re throwing at them for their hardware is concerning.  Just how hard would it be to perform a 51 attack across several aliases?  It’s trivial right?  Am I completely mistaken or could there be thousands of dummy accounts owned by BFL et al, sitting across many different pools waiting for the right time to surge?  

With the details above, it seems almost certain to be a scam.  The performance/$ is too good to be true, paired with the appearance and recent creation of the site... No I wouldn't trust it.*

EDIT: *I wouldn't trust it without significantly more proof.

This thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=65299.0  Seems to hold some good information on your card, if you dig around I expect you'll find what people manage to get out of them.  But from a first glance that does look a little low.

I think the hilarious parroting of shared opinions in this thread to inflate post-count is absolutely impossible to criticize without becoming part of the very same problem… We’re all here to post, but posting feels so disingenuous in a thread like this as we don’t actually get anywhere. 

The worst part is, this post is hypocritical – I wouldn't even bother to comment on the absurdity of this thread if it didn't help me get out of newbie status!