Block Erupter USB owners won't make ROI???

[desert_beagle]

Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't block erupter usb sticks completely pointless considering the fact that diff is rising at an alarming rate???

I want to know why people even bother paying over 2BTC for a device that most likely won't meet ROI, EVER!

Current difficulty at 19Million these sticks make about $27 a MONTH.  It would take 7 - 8 MONTHS to brake even and that is if diff remains at 19Million, which it won't.

For that matter, erupter blades will also have hard time making ROI.

So best thing to do for now is to get into the DIY avalon stuff.

[1714981458]

1714981458

[1714981458]

1714981458

[1714981458]

1714981458

[1714981458]

1714981458

[wasted]

I am with you,  I can see 3 month RIO on hardware but not 7-9 months.

[r3animation]

Everyone agreed that it will never back ROI when its price/auction was announced. (erupter blades/ usb sticks)

[AFox]

I'm sure people who buy them don't even know what ROI means

[Ozymandias]

Everyone agreed that it will never back ROI when its price/auction was announced. (erupter blades/ usb sticks)

And continued to agree and pat themselves on the back for being wise enough not to purchase any as thousands of the erupters were sold in a couple of weeks

[Yecchi]

thousands of the erupters were sold in a couple of weeks

a fool and his bitcoin are soon parted

[k9quaint]

thousands of the erupters were sold in a couple of weeks

a fool and his bitcoin are soon parted

Truer words have never been spoken.
Except for Kate Upton has nice boobs.  Very nice.

[Rampion]

Everyone agreed that it will never back ROI when its price/auction was announced. (erupter blades/ usb sticks)

This. Everybody knew that those blades were hugely overpriced and there was no return in buying them.

Let's be clear. They just sold some dozens of them. Mostly to newcomers. If they were priced reasonably, you would have seen single persons buying hundreds of them and building big set ups based on those units. That didn't happen, because the blades never made any sense from a business point of view except for ASIC miner and their shareholders. Those units were just a very unprofitable toy for the customer.

[conv3rsion]

Everyone agreed that it will never back ROI when its price/auction was announced. (erupter blades/ usb sticks)

This. Everybody knew that those blades were hugely overpriced and there was no return in buying them.

Let's be clear. They just sold some dozens of them. Mostly to newcomers. If they were priced reasonably, you would have seen single persons buying hundreds of them and building big set ups based on those units. That didn't happen, because the blades never made any sense from a business point of view except for ASIC miner and their shareholders. Those units were just a very unprofitable toy for the customer.

The blades, post auction (so at 50 btc) were very reasonably priced. The were literally the only thing you could buy that would ship, and the ROI wasn't terrible (3-4 months).  They also sold hundreds of blades, not dozens of them.

The USB devices, were initially around 6 months ROI and were not looking as good with difficulty increases. That said, they were going for 2.5x their BTC price on ebay, so a lot of people bought them to resell.

Bitching about "the market rate" is ridiculous. ASICMiner had a set inventory, and they sold out, at a rate that maximized profits.

[Rampion]

Everyone agreed that it will never back ROI when its price/auction was announced. (erupter blades/ usb sticks)

This. Everybody knew that those blades were hugely overpriced and there was no return in buying them.

Let's be clear. They just sold some dozens of them. Mostly to newcomers. If they were priced reasonably, you would have seen single persons buying hundreds of them and building big set ups based on those units. That didn't happen, because the blades never made any sense from a business point of view except for ASIC miner and their shareholders. Those units were just a very unprofitable toy for the customer.

The blades, post auction (so at 50 btc) were very reasonably priced. The were literally the only thing you could buy that would ship, and the ROI wasn't terrible (3-4 months).  They also sold hundreds of blades, not dozens of them.

The USB devices, were initially around 6 months ROI and were not looking as good with difficulty increases. That said, they were going for 2.5x their BTC price on ebay, so a lot of people bought them to resell.

Bitching about "the market rate" is ridiculous. ASICMiner had a set inventory, and they sold out, at a rate that maximized profits.

Reasonably priced? Nobody ever got back what they spent on them, and probably never will.

3-4 months ROI? How retarded has someone to be to believe that? How do you calculated that ROI timeframe? Considering constant difficulty with no increase whatsoever? That's impossible and one of the dumbest things you can ever consider, and you have the irrefutable proof in the fact that they will not ROI on that timeframe, in fact most of us thought from the beginning that they will mot ROI at all. Only time will tell, but I stand up correct until now.

The units sold out just because there where only a few hundred on stock. Excellent strategy for ASICMiner and their shareholders, they took the maximum profit possible milking:

A) those willing to mine at a loss
B) those willing to resell the units at an even higher price
C) those that know nothing of basic math

Congrats to friedcat, he did it very well considering he had a limited supply and there was a shortage of supply in the market, but saying that those prices are reasonable (meaning they will allow ROI for customers) is plainly and simply retarded.

[Bitweasil]

Congrats to friedcat, he did it very well considering he had a limited supply and there was a shortage of supply in the market, but saying that those prices are reasonable (meaning they will allow ROI for customers) is plainly and simply retarded.

Why is it the responsibility of a seller to sell for any less than the market will pay him for his goods?

I would consider a seller who wasn't selling for the maximum they could get for low quantity items to be somewhat mentally defective.  There is very strong demand and very limited supply, therefore the prices will be quite high.

[lazydna]

Congrats to friedcat, he did it very well considering he had a limited supply and there was a shortage of supply in the market, but saying that those prices are reasonable (meaning they will allow ROI for customers) is plainly and simply retarded.

Why is it the responsibility of a seller to sell for any less than the market will pay him for his goods?

I would consider a seller who wasn't selling for the maximum they could get for low quantity items to be somewhat mentally defective.  There is very strong demand and very limited supply, therefore the prices will be quite high.

Because it's shortsighted. When people realize they get ripped off, they tend not to make the same mistake twice. If this was a fly by night model, it would work. But if they are here for the long term, this is a mistake.

[Bitweasil]

Because it's shortsighted. When people realize they get ripped off, they tend not to make the same mistake twice. If this was a fly by night model, it would work. But if they are here for the long term, this is a mistake.

I entirely disagree.  What is there to gain by selling a limited quantity item well below what the market will bear, eliminating one's supply quickly, and then having nothing to sell while waiting for more items to be manufactured?

I swear, some of you act like you think the hardware makers are charity organizations instead of businesses.

A business that delivers what they promise, when they promise, at the agreed on price (or market-negotiated price in the case of an auction model) is a good thing.  I agree that many of the hardware vendors don't fit this, but it's absurd to argue that someone is "ripping buyers off" when they deliver an item exactly as advertised for a price that is higher than you think is sane for it.

"Ripping someone off" would be selling a 20GH miner that only performs at 10GH.  Not selling it at an auction for as much as the market will pay.

[lazydna]

Because it's shortsighted. When people realize they get ripped off, they tend not to make the same mistake twice. If this was a fly by night model, it would work. But if they are here for the long term, this is a mistake.

I entirely disagree.  What is there to gain by selling a limited quantity item well below what the market will bear, eliminating one's supply quickly, and then having nothing to sell while waiting for more items to be manufactured?

I swear, some of you act like you think the hardware makers are charity organizations instead of businesses.

Likewise I disagree with your assessment, if you want to build a long term business model based on repeat customers, you have to make them feel as if they received value for their purchases, nickel and diming them for the sake of profit will yield poor results in the long term. Customers will not return if you give poor value for their money which the USB erupters do.

[mb300sd]

To be fair, ASICMiner's prices were set at auction. What reasonable seller would end an auction just because the item became overpriced? I, as a shareholder, would be very upset if they did, and a business's primary responsibility is to its shareholders.

[lazydna]

To be fair, ASICMiner's prices were set at auction. What reasonable seller would end an auction just because the item became overpriced? I, as a shareholder, would be very upset if they did, and a business's primary responsibility is to its shareholders.

If it was an auction, then the consumers can blame themselves but if the base price was set so high as to never return a profit, I'd be pretty pissed at myself for making that mistake and pissed at the company for exploiting it.

[Rampion]

Congrats to friedcat, he did it very well considering he had a limited supply and there was a shortage of supply in the market, but saying that those prices are reasonable (meaning they will allow ROI for customers) is plainly and simply retarded.

Why is it the responsibility of a seller to sell for any less than the market will pay him for his goods?

I would consider a seller who wasn't selling for the maximum they could get for low quantity items to be somewhat mentally defective.  There is very strong demand and very limited supply, therefore the prices will be quite high.

I think you got me wrong. I did not intend to be ironic. I really congratulate Friedcat, he did an epic job, not only for him but for all ASICMiner shareholders. Kudos for him. In fact, I assume that he hasn't got the capacity to quickly produce and ship thousands of units, he has a limited production capacity, and he squeezed the maximum profit from this limited production capacity.

This is how the market works. If he suddenly sees that he is able to produce thousands of units and sell them with a mark-up than allows him to have a bigger profit than mining himself, he will probably do it because he is acting as a clever manager. I think he achieved an optimum equilibrium, his mining op works wonders and each one of his limited units on sale is being sold at a huge mark-up. The truth is that every businesses priority is to maximize profits. If you have money printing machines, you have to squeeze the maximum you can from them, full stop. I don't see how all this changes the fact that the customers of those units will probably lose money. They are willing to pay for it because of either greed or ignorance, so be it. There's no ethics here, just capitalism at work.

[Bitweasil]

Likewise I disagree with your assessment, if you want to build a long term business model based on repeat customers, you have to make them feel as if they received value for their purchases, nickel and diming them for the sake of profit will yield poor results in the long term. Customers will not return if you give poor value for their money which the USB erupters do.

Have you actually talked to any buyers of the USB erupters who were coerced into paying more than they wanted to for the devices?

Or are you just assuming that since someone paid more than you would pay that they are being "ripped off"?

It's pretty easy to "not pay more than you want to pay" for an item - you don't bid beyond that point, or you simply don't purchase it.  An auction is as pure a market transaction as you can create.  The supply is specified, the demand is allowed to price it as they wish, and you complete the transaction.

"Nickel and diming" would refer to adding additional fees, extra shipping fees, a handling fee, etc.  Selling an item for a negotiated price with no extra fees tacked on doesn't qualify here.  

You seem to find that a business selling items for more than you would personally pay to be a dishonest business practice, somehow.  If this is the case, then you can clearly fill the gap by selling comparable items for what you feel is a fair price and undercutting them.

To be fair, ASICMiner's prices were set at auction. What reasonable seller would end an auction just because the item became overpriced? I, as a shareholder, would be very upset if they did, and a business's primary responsibility is to its shareholders.

I agree.  I would be very upset if a business were selling items for far less than it knew it could get for them.  That's a charity, not a business.

[Bitweasil]

If it was an auction, then the consumers can blame themselves but if the base price was set so high as to never return a profit, I'd be pretty pissed at myself for making that mistake and pissed at the company for exploiting it.

Why is it a businesses obligation to ensure you can return a profit on items you purchase from them?

The business is obligated to provide to you what they have advertised, at the agreed on price.  No more, no less.

[Rampion]

Congrats to friedcat, he did it very well considering he had a limited supply and there was a shortage of supply in the market, but saying that those prices are reasonable (meaning they will allow ROI for customers) is plainly and simply retarded.

Why is it the responsibility of a seller to sell for any less than the market will pay him for his goods?

I would consider a seller who wasn't selling for the maximum they could get for low quantity items to be somewhat mentally defective.  There is very strong demand and very limited supply, therefore the prices will be quite high.

Because it's shortsighted. When people realize they get ripped off, they tend not to make the same mistake twice. If this was a fly by night model, it would work. But if they are here for the long term, this is a mistake.

Well, mining is sort of a "complicate" business, so I agree that there are many customers that did not realize that their blade would never ROI because they do not understand the math behind it. But, I'm sorry - it's their fault. At least ASICMiner didn't make misleading statements about dreamlike ROI. They auctioned their first units stating hashrate and power consumption, without promising any kind of return, as many auctioneers do at least in a subtle way. Friedcat set up a fixed price for the following units that was good enough to have them sold out, again without subtle promises. If people is dumb enough to invest without understanding what they are investing in, it's their problem.

For the long term, better hope that open source alternatives spread. Because a private company offering money machines for less money than they will print will never exist, we better get used to that.