Now apparently when you have a board member stating it is of considerably less significance than the other factors he gave.

I really don't see why there is such concern for Gen4. From Jutarul's statement it appears the current concerns are with the size of the network, the cost of maintaining what they presently have or will have and the price of BTC.

If Capex and Opex are currently of greater significance then Gen 4 seeing the light of day soon, what can be said about plans and developments in that regard?

Why? It would seem to reason if more emphasis was needed to sell hardware or promote the company it would have already been forthcoming internally which leaves me the impression AM is focused on self mining with the remaining batch of Gen 3 ASICs.

FWIW slot 20 is crossed out but repeated below with another entrant.

Let's not forget the recommencement of mining.

577

1P1zV6mWXvVjAZ6L3oAVSVC8YCqeu2UNAD

I'd follow along here http://organofcorti.blogspot.ca to see if he's able to give a better application of who accounts for "unknown". Or we could just hope AM provides access to the information as we had with erpao.info in the past.

I suspect they will have a website at some point as a result of plans for manufacturing equipment and I equally expect tonight will be focused on developing and selling future product more than selling the merits of the company based on past instances. I am doubtful this meeting is designed to cater to shareholders.

Now that's a forecast we can finally all agree upon.

The first course of action was carried out we are now seeing the second; the point of which to branch was reached by volume of sales. Self mining is far from a new idea and the advantage to remain competitive as mining evolves remains with limiting expenses. One should also consider that the equipment, facilities and infrastructure will likely support future generations of ASICs when the need to upgrade arrives. This is far more cost competitive than the individual trying to compete with purchased systems.

I believe FC gave the market the proper opportunity to absorb the product before this change in direction. I also believe he made it quite clear that this was a possible outcome. My preference is to see a sustainable business model that reinvests in maintaining a sizeable percentage of the network as equipment sales margins will only diminish unless there is a profound rise in the price of BTC or something profoundly cracks the current ASIC cost/efficiency situation to be highly profitable for a short term. That term being only as long as it takes for the competition to step up or the manufacturer elects to use their own equipment.

I suspect shares may be making their way to steady hands with what appears to be a longer term strategy then some had believed. Holding ground with a percentage of the network in a position of profitability appears to be a favorable option when you are benefitting from working at the most competitive costs. AM has deep enough pockets to achieve this and is already in possession of ASICs to make it happen.

It's very simple. When you presale a device that has an anticipated hash rate you're required to forecast what you can get for it based on the where it stands in the network at the time of delivery. If you overestimate it's value when setting it's selling price you end up with pissed off customers who overpaid. If you take the more respectable route as Bitmain does selling when you can actually deliver then more network hashing equates to less profit for your product as you can't expect to get the same return from it. To discount a sizeable amount of hashing power is just foolish no matter if the flavor of that ASIC doesn't suit your pallet.

I somewhat enjoy observing competitors comments knowing that all that so called obsolete AM hashing power is effecting their future profitability. Even if FC damn near gives it away hashing power is hashing power and every ounce of it erodes the competition's projected profits and postures AM in the market for the future. Hoping a fair amount went into mining and franchising at this juncture. Gladly pay the hydro bill on it from profits until Gen4 hits the scene. Still more cost competitive then buying retail equipment and mining no matter who makes it IMHO. Really would like an update on where it all went when the product deployment dust settles and the overall strategic plan with Gen3 and 4. I get the sense there's a long term plan that has the two Gens interrelated but short term updates would be appreciated.

Your assuming they didn't sell or go into mining or franchising. Both are assumptions to be taken as merely that. Along that same vien Spoondoolies future chip specifications and availability are merely assumptions until they physically exist.

Having full control over pricing product will allow them to compete with Bitmain's "spot price" approach. Bitmain has been successful through rapidly adjusting price to market conditions by providing a total solution. Although ASIC sales may mean greater initial margins it may not result in the volume at which profitability is optimized. The problem is you immediately compete with the companies you supply and those appear to be significant.

I perceive the chart they posted as very telling of how they operate through thier efforts of forecasting profitability. As I stated before system pricing is set as a function of offering just enough incentive to buy. Bitmain has continually carefully price adjusted to changing market conditions and watching the history of the S1's pricing gave insight into just how much margin there initially was and how inexpensively it could be manufactured. The take away is mining equipment is only as competitive and lucrative as the manufacturers make it and miners accept all risk of the network expanding more quickly than before. As more of these large mining operations come online that risk of more rapidly increasing becomes higher. I would prefer to be on the side of people that control this situation than out on my own at the mercy of the situation.

This reminds me of Sea Launch in that one benefit was being able to geographically situate the operation where there was greatest efficiency. In Sea Launch's case it was to position near the equator in order to increase payload by reducing fuel necessitated by the plane change for geostationary satellites positioning on the geo belt and in this case it's to allow mining to be transported to the lowest operating cost environment.

Let's hope this one isn't forced into bankruptcy protection.

Feel free take a moment and review signature blocks to appreciate the contextual aspects of statements.

Sure but then you get these reassurances "not have to worry" like you know something everyone else doesn't. So if you're just as in the dark as the rest of us don't you know enough to stfu or state what it is you know that we may not know?