Network Protection statement from KNCMiner

[joeventura]

Received 8:30AM EDT on 7/18

KnCMiner Network Protection Statement


At KnCMiner we are aware of the service we are providing to our customers. We are also aware that we need our customers to have a return on their devices in order to purchase form us again. With the scale of the supply chains, agreements and factories we have access to, we need to be cautious we don’t ship too many devices and therefore reduce the return to our customers.  So with that in mind our plan is to do as follows:
 
We will ship no devices in December 2013, January 2014 or  February 2014. Meaning that once we have taken the difficulty up at the end of November we will not release any more hashing power for 3 months. We will then release our new generation of devices, which will begin shipping in March 2014. These devices will also have a much higher GH/$ rating than any of our current offerings.
 
We would like to state that If any of our competitors continues to add large amounts of hashing power to the network during December, January or February. We will continue to release our devices as competitively priced as we can to protect our customers share of the network.

Thanks
KnCMiner Team

[qwk]

We will ship no devices in December 2013, January 2014 or  February 2014.
[...]
We would like to state that If any of our competitors continues to add large amounts of hashing power to the network during December, January or February. We will continue to release our devices as competitively priced as we can to protect our customers share of the network.

In other words:
We promise not to ship devices in Dec, Jan & Feb.
But we will break that promise if we feel like it.

[Bitcoinorama]

We will ship no devices in December 2013, January 2014 or  February 2014.
[...]
We would like to state that If any of our competitors continues to add large amounts of hashing power to the network during December, January or February. We will continue to release our devices as competitively priced as we can to protect our customers share of the network.

In other words:
We promise not to ship devices in Dec, Jan & Feb.
But we will break that promise if we feel like it.

No. That's not at all what I read. It states we have integrity and want our customers to achieve ROI, but should we require the need to counter unforseen circumstances and remain competitive we're not stupid.

They above all want repeat custom, that doesn't happen by screwing over your customers. Screwing over your customers seems to be the current competitor's desire, out of reckless greed and carelessness.

Similarly they are not about to throw away what they've been working so hard on. So the latter part is a standard cover their ass protection any forward thinking company would disclose.

You're not a glass half full person are you??

I've met these guys and I consider myself a good judge of charachter, they mean well. I went to sniff them out. Butterfly Labs evidently don't have the same air about them. That much is blatantly obvious.

If you flood the market you destroy any return for your customers. Why would anyone want to do that aside those own personal greed and a one time shot at get rich quick? (which won't happen anyway).

KnC want to develop and build a long standing Bitcoin mining company and encourage Bitcoins usage, believe it or not such a company apparently does exist...! Shock, surprise!!

[dogie]

money>>character

[felente]

how i have read this:

we are aware ... that we need our customers ... in order to purchase form us again.
therefore ... our plan is to do as follows:
With the scale of the supply chains ... we will not ship ... [as well as] ... any of our competitors ... [or We will (try to) ship again]...

wtf the arrogance.
is this an agreement between (at least some) competitors? or is this what?

[Loredo]

how i have read this:

we are aware ... that we need our customers ... in order to purchase form us again.
therefore ... our plan is to do as follows:
With the scale of the supply chains ... we will not ship ... [as well as] ... any of our competitors ... [or We will (try to) ship again]...

wtf the arrogance.
is this an agreement between (at least some) competitors? or is this what?

After equilibrium is reached, oligopolists don't conspire; they don't need to.  They respond to each others' statements of intention and signals. 

Before equilibrium is reached, they fight over their shares of the pie, and no agreement is possible. 

This is signaling, as much to the competition as to the customers, and it likely won't have any effect on any vendor's behavior.

[androz]

After equilibrium is reached, oligopolists don't conspire; they don't need to.  They respond to each others' statements of intention and signals. 

Before equilibrium is reached, they fight over their shares of the pie, and no agreement is possible. 

This is signaling, as much to the competition as to the customers, and it likely won't have any effect on any vendor's behavior.

seems that knc want play fare with their customers, but now the times are not mature for statements

maybe in the near future we 'll see if the vendors play a cartel agreement for squeeze pragmatically more money from the costumers

[felente]

This is signaling, as much to the competition as to the customers, and it likely won't have any effect on any vendor's behavior.

of course )

seems that knc want play fare with their customers, but now the times are not mature for statements

sure ))

not that im against knc - considering by myself an order there.
but. have one more mailing conversation (short) with them, again about "all that fairness" regarding "all their customers"... (not need to quote here).
now to be honest i'm suspecting a knc-megalomania-case, well, in light form

ok. nobody is perfect.
counts only that they do their primary job as promised. i will be happy then 

[Elokane]

This is hilarious.

"We would like to state that If any of our competitors continues to add large amounts of hashing power to the network during December, January or February. We will continue to release our devices as competitively priced as we can to protect our customers share of the network."

How will reacting with the release of MORE mining devices protect their customers?

If they want to take a breather to design and manufacture their next gen they can just say so.

[Bitcoinorama]

I swear people in this forum are quite simply dense.

No where does this display any innate arrogance.

They want to play fair and protect customer ROI, but they aren't going to be walked over like little bitches by greedy competitors hellbent on making a quick buck and killing the hashrate in the process, therefore their response can only ever be to remain competitive.

How the f**k can you genuinely misconstrue their words to mean anything different?!?

If you're not a KnC customer, you should, by all accounts be breathing a heavy sigh of relief. Likewise if you are a KnC customer...

[af_newbie]

First, let's see if they ship in September.

Why they even send this out is beyond me.  Who cares what your intentions are?
Who are you trying to convince that you care?

Unless it is a scam and they want to milk more suckers before this thing goes belly up.

If I was doing H/W, I would want to get it out of my door as soon as possible because it COULD become obsolete
in weeks if not months.  But then again, they pre-sold stuff months in advance so they don't care when they are going to ship.

Look what happened to Avalon.  I don't think there will be many people ordering batch 4.

[tlr]

TLDR: "We won't ship any devices in Dec, Jan, or Feb (unless our competitors do (which they are likely to do))"11

[RoadStress]

Bitcoinorama people are strange and usually understand things the way they want to, not objectively.

qwk understood that they will ship more devices "if they feel like it" although they said that they will ship more devices ONLY if their competitors continue to add large amounts of hashing powers.

dogie the same. He is saying that money>> character even if they are proving exactly the opposite thing with their statement. I mean if money >> character they wouldn't release such kind of statement and they would continue to ship units as they please.

Logic fail big time for both of them.

[Paladin69]

Seems like they are trying to create a panic rush of buyers before an undisclosed window is closed this year.

[Raize]

Look what happened to Avalon.  I don't think there will be many people ordering batch 4.

I'm pretty sure that if there's anything Avalon has taught us, it's that from now on no legitimate company will be doing preorders. Avalon was better off selling the chips to others that would make their own ASICS, and that's exactly the route they eventually pursued, albeit a bit too late.

Yifu did say it was a huge undertaking that they weren't entirely prepared for, especially when a big player could have come out of nowhere, and I am glad they've succeeded in having an almost completely successful Batch 1, almost successful Batch 2 (lack of communication on the SMT was a huge faux paus), not very successful trade-in (most of us have lost about 3 BTC per Icarus over the last three months and still haven't gotten a trade-in email yet), and successful only-because-they-allowed-a-refund Batch 3. Of course, this pales in comparison to the disappointment from BFL, but there's still room for a mining manufacturer that can provide troll-resilient customer service.

[minternj]

This is getting very late night telemaketing-ish.

Buy now while supplies last! But wait theres more - Gen2 + better hash/$.

how about getting gen 1 chips made first before this shit.

[af_newbie]

how about getting gen 1 chips made first before this shit.

+1

Talk is cheap.  Maybe they've jumped a tiny shark with this one.

[dogie]

This also smells like limited supply troubles.

[Bitcoinorama]

Look what happened to Avalon.  I don't think there will be many people ordering batch 4.

I'm pretty sure that if there's anything Avalon has taught us, it's that from now on no legitimate company will be doing preorders. Avalon was better off selling the chips to others that would make their own ASICS, and that's exactly the route they eventually pursued, albeit a bit too late.

Yifu did say it was a huge undertaking that they weren't entirely prepared for, especially when a big player could have come out of nowhere, and I am glad they've succeeded in having an almost completely successful Batch 1, almost successful Batch 2 (lack of communication on the SMT was a huge faux paus), not very successful trade-in (most of us have lost about 3 BTC per Icarus over the last three months and still haven't gotten a trade-in email yet), and successful only-because-they-allowed-a-refund Batch 3. Of course, this pales in comparison to the disappointment from BFL, but there's still room for a mining manufacturer that can provide troll-resilient customer service.

Legitimate companies that don't take preorders need serious funding, or equity on tap to cover NRE from the hundreds of thousands to the millions. For such a niche product, unfortunately it's had to happen this way w.r.t. pre-orders...

[SirWizz]

This also smells like limited supply troubles.

^ This also smells like dog poo... the supply should be limited because you can't crank out gazilions of chips all competing for the same daily 3,600 pool of bitcoins, it makes no sense. It also would make sense to take a wait and see approach and release Gen 2 when the buyers of Gen 1 actually have the funds to buy Gen 2 hardware.

I have to agree with Bitcoionorama, density is at an all time high around here, it seems.