ASICMINER Speculation Thread

[deltanine]

Eh, I don't mind contrary opinions. At least Vycid's arguments are rational.

Thanks... honestly and truly, I am not trying to FUD people into selling. These are my real opinions at this price level; I hope it's clear there's actual logic behind them. If you disagree, that's fine, but the response has seemed a little groupthink-y to me.

I think you are doing well to inject a little pessimism into the thread.  But I don't think those that are disagreeing with you seem a little "groupthink-y".  Seems to me you are getting just as well-reasoned responses as you are providing.

But yeah...  you can't deny it.  You are spreading FUD.  You have admitted to a vested interest in the price going down.  The real giveaway was that you say that AM is traded on unreliable exchanges.  Yet you bought puts on the same "unreliable" exchange.

[1714707394]

1714707394

[1714707394]

1714707394

[1714707394]

1714707394

[1714707394]

1714707394

[1714707394]

1714707394

[1714707394]

1714707394

[binaryFate]

Big buy walls at 4.85ish, probably trying to catch a little drop if dividends are low. Not sure it will succeed though

[TsuyokuNaritai]

Shares are quite cheap still on BitFunder. Wonder for how long...

[chkgk]

Almost 70 shares were sold on btct already - i highly doubt that wall holds if we really see surprisingly low dividends

[nubbins]

Shares have been low on Havelock all day, and it looks like the site is now down.

[101111]

But I'm not basing my evaluation on AM financial structure. I'm basing my analysis on what must happen to the AM dividend (which seems to be the justification for the current valuation) as a result of

- increased hardware competition
- shrinking marginal profit due to higher hardware cost and higher electricity cost per % network hashrate
- decreased hardware sales prices reflecting lower % network hashrate per unit

and from your earlier message:

"This is a bubble.

Anyone saying otherwise has ulterior motives (they probably still own a lot of stock).

It's clear as day. Look at the parabolic trajectory. Consider the lack of short selling. Have you guys already forgotten Bitcoin in March?"

Vycid I appreciate hearing your pov, I don't agree it's a bubble top here and now, can you put some numbers on, say 80% fall in a week? That seems to be what you're implying.

[kleeck]

My point is that it doesn't. A month or two ago, a couple of AM blades might have been 1% of the network, yeah? Now you'd need many, many blades to get 1% of the network.

Do you think that the manufacturing cost is the same? (It isn't). Do you think that the electricity cost is the same? (It isn't.)

As competition ramps up - i.e., the hashrate - the marginal profit per % hashrate will drop precipitously. AM will feel that, both in terms of mining profit and hardware profit (people will simply pay less per TH, which is how manufacturing cost is determined).

You seem to be ignoring the biggest factor: AM also develops their own mining equipment. Your argument works for regular mining bonds but for companies with engineers and R&D teams the whole paradigm shifts. Yes, cost per TH decreases but they release a device that can hash a higher volume of TH. on top of this the whole market knows that AM can deliver! The logistical side of orders, shipping and receiving is already operational.

The only question is will AM continue to outpace the competition in the hardware war and what many of us are thinking is, "Yes." Mainly due to not seeing any formidable competition at the moment, ( though there are some forming on the horizon). The smart bet in regards to mining companies is with AM, I see not compelling evidence otherwise.

In light of this, your position is actually the more risky bet. You are betting that a company will appear that has the hardware, personnel, and infrastructure to do in three months what AM has already been doing and doing well.

[Vycid]

Eh, I don't mind contrary opinions. At least Vycid's arguments are rational.

Thanks... honestly and truly, I am not trying to FUD people into selling. These are my real opinions at this price level; I hope it's clear there's actual logic behind them. If you disagree, that's fine, but the response has seemed a little groupthink-y to me.

I think you are doing well to inject a little pessimism into the thread.  But I don't think those that are disagreeing with you seem a little "groupthink-y".  Seems to me you are getting just as well-reasoned responses as you are providing.

But yeah...  you can't deny it.  You are spreading FUD.  You have admitted to a vested interest in the price going down.  The real giveaway was that you say that AM is traded on unreliable exchanges.  Yet you bought puts on the same "unreliable" exchange.

When I say "groupthink-y" I'm referring to the two pages of responses generated by a single contrarian post.

As for the unreliable exchange bit: I absolutely think they're unreliable! Seriously, is GLBSE not proof enough?

But I DID NOT say that means you should not do business on those exchanges. It's just yet another factor that should be duly considered; for me, the counterparty risk was worth it.

[Vycid]

My point is that it doesn't. A month or two ago, a couple of AM blades might have been 1% of the network, yeah? Now you'd need many, many blades to get 1% of the network.

Do you think that the manufacturing cost is the same? (It isn't). Do you think that the electricity cost is the same? (It isn't.)

As competition ramps up - i.e., the hashrate - the marginal profit per % hashrate will drop precipitously. AM will feel that, both in terms of mining profit and hardware profit (people will simply pay less per TH, which is how manufacturing cost is determined).

You seem to be ignoring the biggest factor: AM also develops their own mining equipment. Your argument works for regular mining bonds but for companies with engineers and R&D teams the whole paradigm shifts. Yes, cost per TH decreases but they release a device that can hash a higher volume of TH. on top of this the whole market knows that AM can deliver! The logistical side of orders, shipping and receiving is already operational.

The only question is will AM continue to outpace the competition in the hardware war and what many of us are thinking is, "Yes." Mainly due to not seeing any formidable competition at the moment, ( though there are some forming on the horizon). The smart bet in regards to mining companies is with AM, I see not compelling evidence otherwise.

In light of this, your position is actually the more risky bet. You are betting that a company will appear that has the hardware, personnel, and infrastructure to do in three months what AM has already been doing and doing well.

I agree I hold the more risky position indeed. That is why I pay about 10% of the strike for my options. I do not think my position is THAT much riskier.

Long-term I have little doubt things will play out as I describe... I am in fact an engineer in the semiconductor industry, and it is my strong opinion the performance increase from ASIC gen 2 will pale in comparison to the performance increase coming off GPUs.


Disclaimer: I'm wrong lots.

[empoweoqwj]

My point is that it doesn't. A month or two ago, a couple of AM blades might have been 1% of the network, yeah? Now you'd need many, many blades to get 1% of the network.

Do you think that the manufacturing cost is the same? (It isn't). Do you think that the electricity cost is the same? (It isn't.)

As competition ramps up - i.e., the hashrate - the marginal profit per % hashrate will drop precipitously. AM will feel that, both in terms of mining profit and hardware profit (people will simply pay less per TH, which is how manufacturing cost is determined).

You seem to be ignoring the biggest factor: AM also develops their own mining equipment. Your argument works for regular mining bonds but for companies with engineers and R&D teams the whole paradigm shifts. Yes, cost per TH decreases but they release a device that can hash a higher volume of TH. on top of this the whole market knows that AM can deliver! The logistical side of orders, shipping and receiving is already operational.

The only question is will AM continue to outpace the competition in the hardware war and what many of us are thinking is, "Yes." Mainly due to not seeing any formidable competition at the moment, ( though there are some forming on the horizon). The smart bet in regards to mining companies is with AM, I see not compelling evidence otherwise.

In light of this, your position is actually the more risky bet. You are betting that a company will appear that has the hardware, personnel, and infrastructure to do in three months what AM has already been doing and doing well.

I agree I hold the more risky position indeed. That is why I pay about 10% of the strike for my options. I do not think my position is THAT much riskier.

Long-term I have little doubt things will play out as I describe... I am in fact an engineer in the semiconductor industry, and it is my strong opinion the performance increase from ASIC gen 2 will pale in comparison to the performance increase coming off GPUs.


Disclaimer: I'm wrong lots.

.

[chanson]

I think a valid question is whether AM is structured to have sufficient capital to invest in next generation devices without raising funds. For now, I assume they do, but there really isn't much information available to us to verify that.

Also, mining dividends are quite unlikely to *suddenly* disappear except for loss of the farm (catastrophe, natural disaster, sabotage, seizure). Otherwise, if AM are unable to maintain their percentage of the total hash rate, I would expect it would be evident in a gradual decline over a few months. To me at least, that's a little different from the BTC run-up, because BTC don't pay dividends. Hardware sales revenue is subject to much faster winds than hash rate, but AM has some structural and scale advantages from playing both sides.

[bitzox]

Disclaimer: I'm wrong lots.

This could replace the several pages of disclaimer that go at the back of every piece of financial literature...so elegant

[ft73]

Disclaimer: I'm wrong lots.

This could replace the several pages of disclaimer that go at the back of every piece of financial literature...so elegant

Yes, but i think "I'm wrong" would suffice.

[deltanine]

Eh, I don't mind contrary opinions. At least Vycid's arguments are rational.

Thanks... honestly and truly, I am not trying to FUD people into selling. These are my real opinions at this price level; I hope it's clear there's actual logic behind them. If you disagree, that's fine, but the response has seemed a little groupthink-y to me.

I think you are doing well to inject a little pessimism into the thread.  But I don't think those that are disagreeing with you seem a little "groupthink-y".  Seems to me you are getting just as well-reasoned responses as you are providing.

But yeah...  you can't deny it.  You are spreading FUD.  You have admitted to a vested interest in the price going down.  The real giveaway was that you say that AM is traded on unreliable exchanges.  Yet you bought puts on the same "unreliable" exchange.

When I say "groupthink-y" I'm referring to the two pages of responses generated by a single contrarian post.

C'mon!  This is why it is obvious that you are spreading FUD.  First off...  there are several contrarian posts on this thread.  You are no loan voice in the wilderness.

Secondly, what sort of responses did you expect to get?  You are posting to a thread that is populated with investors.  Most of these investors are ones that have done their homework on AM and conclude differently from you that it remains a good investment.  You are getting well-reasoned responses so overstating the facts and calling the responses groupthinky proves to me your main goal is to spread FUD so that the price goes down and you make coin. 

As for the unreliable exchange bit: I absolutely think they're unreliable! Seriously, is GLBSE not proof enough?

But I DID NOT say that means you should not do business on those exchanges. It's just yet another factor that should be duly considered; for me, the counterparty risk was worth it.

Well certainly in hindsight GLBSE was an unreliable exchange.

But the idea that the current crop of exchanges are unreliable yet reliable enough to do business with?  Nope.  Still doesn't make sense.

[TsuyokuNaritai]

0.02297

https://blockchain.info/address/115tTroRo3B9ZDQ6ATJGDCHcNEVbjJoZnF

[ThickAsThieves]

I get 0.02297025

[chkgk]

I think this is a great dividend! It is a little less than expected but still very healthy and leaves us with roughly 25% dividend yield when looking at the supporting bids at 4,85btc/share.

It is great because it is no reason at all to freak out, neither upward nor downward. Maybe we can get the stock price to stay roughly steady for the coming days

[TsuyokuNaritai]

Funny, I got: 0.02297025

I get 0.02297025

lol, you guys are fanatics

For sake of speed I thought accurate to 6 decimal places would be enough, I'll know better next time. 

[velacreations]

wow!  look at the cheap shares!  nice!

thanks, guys!

[TsuyokuNaritai]

wow!  look at the cheap shares!  nice!

thanks, guys!

Yeah, looks like a repeat of 2 weeks ago.