@Yifu/Bitsyncom please dont hold back the chip shipment because of b3 miners...

[SebastianJu]

The batch 3 miners are delayed and thats a problem. But one reason i chose to buy chips was that i was sure nothing can go wrong timewise. The chips are proven to work, they were successfully created already. So creating more ASIC's and shipping them can be done without any technical problems like batch 3 miners now seem to have.

I bought one batch 3 miner too and asked for a refund when it was allowedfor my batch 3 miner. I feel sorry for those that wait for their miners but one product that is delayed should not lead to spread the problem to the next independent product. That only makes things worse for even more customers. And holding the chips back for protecting the miner investments is only a small effect since other asic-provider still sell. Clearly to see in the difficulty.

Im not sure how many have the same opinion but i dont want to see to turn the next product inefficient only because another product has problems.

PLEASE work up the tickets before shipping chips.
THANKS!

[iikun]

I find that Bitsyncom hasn't logged in here for 2 weeks+ mildly concerning.  Are they still replying to tickets at all? I noticed that only one of the B3 refunds has actually been processed.

[Wayne_Chang]

The batch 3 miners are delayed and thats a problem. But one reason i chose to buy chips was that i was sure nothing can go wrong timewise. The chips are proven to work, they were successfully created already. So creating more ASIC's and shipping them can be done without any technical problems like batch 3 miners now seem to have.

I bought one batch 3 miner too and asked for a refund when it was allowedfor my batch 3 miner. I feel sorry for those that wait for their miners but one product that is delayed should not lead to spread the problem to the next independent product. That only makes things worse for even more customers. And holding the chips back for protecting the miner investments is only a small effect since other asic-provider still sell. Clearly to see in the difficulty.

Im not sure how many have the same opinion but i dont want to see to turn the next product inefficient only because another product has problems.

PLEASE work up the tickets before shipping chips.
THANKS!

In your logic, Bitsyncom should ignore your chip orders, give you refund option and focus on 2nd generation chips. Because your chip order already delayed too just as batch#3 miners.

[SebastianJu]

iikun... if you call him you can see that he occassionally clicks away a call. He reads ticket headers but getting an answer is nearly impossible.

Wayne_Chang... i think that is your logic and i dont understand it. I asked for a miner refund because the long delay for batch 3 is so big that i dont believe anymore to get the buying price back. Thats not the case with the chips. I didnt ask for a refund for the chips. I ordered chips because not much can go wrong. Now having the chips delayed because of an independent product isnt ok. It doesnt help the b3- buyers anyway when you see the difficulty. So why should the next group of customers get problems?

[Wayne_Chang]

iikun... if you call him you can see that he occassionally clicks away a call. He reads ticket headers but getting an answer is nearly impossible.

Wayne_Chang... i think that is your logic and i dont understand it. I asked for a miner refund because the long delay for batch 3 is so big that i dont believe anymore to get the buying price back. Thats not the case with the chips. I didnt ask for a refund for the chips. I ordered chips because not much can go wrong. Now having the chips delayed because of an independent product isnt ok. It doesnt help the b3- buyers anyway when you see the difficulty. So why should the next group of customers get problems?

Think about it just like we took train from same place to same destination. Your ticket was 1 hour earlier than mine. But the train delayed 1 hour. When the train arrived staition, the conductor let me go first just because you was already delayed but I didn't. Do you think this logic is right or wrong?

[jspielberg]

Separate trains... neither of which have yet left the station.

My personal feeling is that they will ship chips first, as that would be easier... but refunds are even easier than chips, and we haven't seen any progress there either.

[Foofighter]

The batch 3 miners are delayed and thats a problem. But one reason i chose to buy chips was that i was sure nothing can go wrong timewise. The chips are proven to work, they were successfully created already. So creating more ASIC's and shipping them can be done without any technical problems like batch 3 miners now seem to have.

I bought one batch 3 miner too and asked for a refund when it was allowedfor my batch 3 miner. I feel sorry for those that wait for their miners but one product that is delayed should not lead to spread the problem to the next independent product. That only makes things worse for even more customers. And holding the chips back for protecting the miner investments is only a small effect since other asic-provider still sell. Clearly to see in the difficulty.

Im not sure how many have the same opinion but i dont want to see to turn the next product inefficient only because another product has problems.

PLEASE work up the tickets before shipping chips.
THANKS!

+1

[candoo]

Yo aint gettin chips until ya gettin our batch three and 4 avalon.
ya all aint no winners!

[ftping]

@SebastianJu, you should spam call Yifu until he finally answers. You seem to have had luck in the past.

[AMD FTW]

iikun... if you call him you can see that he occassionally clicks away a call. He reads ticket headers but getting an answer is nearly impossible.

Wayne_Chang... i think that is your logic and i dont understand it. I asked for a miner refund because the long delay for batch 3 is so big that i dont believe anymore to get the buying price back. Thats not the case with the chips. I didnt ask for a refund for the chips. I ordered chips because not much can go wrong. Now having the chips delayed because of an independent product isnt ok. It doesnt help the b3- buyers anyway when you see the difficulty. So why should the next group of customers get problems?

Think about it just like we took train from same place to same destination. Your ticket was 1 hour earlier than mine. But the train delayed 1 hour. When the train arrived staition, the conductor let me go first just because you was already delayed but I didn't. Do you think this logic is right or wrong?

The comparison with the trains doesn't work because the comparison is wrong. A better comparison would be if one person arrives via train and the other arrives by plane. The airport misplaces the luggage the passenger had brought along the plane. Is it fair for the airport hub to hold the train arrivals until they find or unload the passengers luggage that was misplaced on the flight. Of course not, the person that traveled by train shouldn't be delayed or penalized.

If the Avalon chips came in for Avalon B3 order and also the Avalon chips for only chip orders, then those should go out ASAP. It's not ethically fair to hold up chips for one group when the chips are ready for both the Avalon units and DIY boards. Whether its a hold up on pcbs, other parts or assembly its not fair for the DIY avalon chip projects out there. This will also have a negative effect on them since the next generation chips will be coming out down the road which also cuts into them as well.

Maybe a good practice would be to return some of the premined Avalon asic income that was generated from testing the units and use those to partially credit B3 people's purchase.

[Bitcoinorama]

iikun... if you call him you can see that he occassionally clicks away a call. He reads ticket headers but getting an answer is nearly impossible.

Wayne_Chang... i think that is your logic and i dont understand it. I asked for a miner refund because the long delay for batch 3 is so big that i dont believe anymore to get the buying price back. Thats not the case with the chips. I didnt ask for a refund for the chips. I ordered chips because not much can go wrong. Now having the chips delayed because of an independent product isnt ok. It doesnt help the b3- buyers anyway when you see the difficulty. So why should the next group of customers get problems?

Think about it just like we took train from same place to same destination. Your ticket was 1 hour earlier than mine. But the train delayed 1 hour. When the train arrived staition, the conductor let me go first just because you was already delayed but I didn't. Do you think this logic is right or wrong?

The comparison with the trains doesn't work because the comparison is wrong. A better comparison would be if one person arrives via train and the other arrives by plane. The airport misplaces the luggage the passenger had brought along the plane. Is it fair for the airport hub to hold the train arrivals until they find or unload the passengers luggage that was misplaced on the flight. Of course not, the person that traveled by train shouldn't be delayed or penalized.

If the Avalon chips came in for Avalon B3 order and also the Avalon chips for only chip orders, then those should go out ASAP. It's not ethically fair to hold up chips for one group when the chips are ready for both the Avalon units and DIY boards. Whether its a hold up on pcbs, other parts or assembly its not fair for the DIY avalon chip projects out there. This will also have a negative effect on them since the next generation chips will be coming out down the road which also cuts into them as well.

Maybe a good practice would be to return some of the premined Avalon asic income that was generated from testing the units and use those to partially credit B3 people's purchase.

By that metaphor, one assumes that the Batch #3 chips were in fact always intended by Bitsyncom to have been manufactured as part of the mass chip order for the cumulative ordering of all the bulk chips, or that subsequently Bitsyncom has decided it would be prudent to save money in waiting to place one huge chip order to cover all sales, as opposed to a required smaller run specifically for Batch #3. Which at Batch #3's significantly increased price point, priced to meet promised returns from proposed difficulty at a guaranteed delivery date, wayy ahead of the bulk chip delivery, would be a gross misappropriation of Batch #3 buyers' funds.

In essence it looks like Batch #3's chips were manufactured at the exact same time as all the bulk orders, so any proposed price point based on return on investment due to their assumed future difficulty, which at the time never included such massive quantities of bulk chips, was totally false...

[jspielberg]

And that is why so many of us B3 folk opted for a refund.  The reasons which made the deal sensible went out the window with the chip sales following right on their heels/ahead in shipping.

[pikeadz]

It's not ethically fair to hold up chips for one group when the chips are ready for both the Avalon units and DIY boards.

This assumes the chips are ready and waiting to be shipped, of which there is no evidence of.  Just be patient and wait for your chips as we wait for our Avalons.  What will be will be.

[Wayne_Chang]

iikun... if you call him you can see that he occassionally clicks away a call. He reads ticket headers but getting an answer is nearly impossible.

Wayne_Chang... i think that is your logic and i dont understand it. I asked for a miner refund because the long delay for batch 3 is so big that i dont believe anymore to get the buying price back. Thats not the case with the chips. I didnt ask for a refund for the chips. I ordered chips because not much can go wrong. Now having the chips delayed because of an independent product isnt ok. It doesnt help the b3- buyers anyway when you see the difficulty. So why should the next group of customers get problems?

Think about it just like we took train from same place to same destination. Your ticket was 1 hour earlier than mine. But the train delayed 1 hour. When the train arrived staition, the conductor let me go first just because you was already delayed but I didn't. Do you think this logic is right or wrong?

The comparison with the trains doesn't work because the comparison is wrong. A better comparison would be if one person arrives via train and the other arrives by plane. The airport misplaces the luggage the passenger had brought along the plane. Is it fair for the airport hub to hold the train arrivals until they find or unload the passengers luggage that was misplaced on the flight. Of course not, the person that traveled by train shouldn't be delayed or penalized.

If the Avalon chips came in for Avalon B3 order and also the Avalon chips for only chip orders, then those should go out ASAP. It's not ethically fair to hold up chips for one group when the chips are ready for both the Avalon units and DIY boards. Whether its a hold up on pcbs, other parts or assembly its not fair for the DIY avalon chip projects out there. This will also have a negative effect on them since the next generation chips will be coming out down the road which also cuts into them as well.

Maybe a good practice would be to return some of the premined Avalon asic income that was generated from testing the units and use those to partially credit B3 people's purchase.

If you guys insist on your logic, how about this.
Bitsyncom comes out 2nd generation wafer, and sold out immediately. Because wafer do not need to do assembly and test, so they ship wafer before your guys' chips or at least paralleled.
How do you think in this way?
Guys, first in first out is the basic rule. Especially for goods come from same company and will affect each other no matter which is shipped first.

[AMD FTW]

iikun... if you call him you can see that he occassionally clicks away a call. He reads ticket headers but getting an answer is nearly impossible.

Wayne_Chang... i think that is your logic and i dont understand it. I asked for a miner refund because the long delay for batch 3 is so big that i dont believe anymore to get the buying price back. Thats not the case with the chips. I didnt ask for a refund for the chips. I ordered chips because not much can go wrong. Now having the chips delayed because of an independent product isnt ok. It doesnt help the b3- buyers anyway when you see the difficulty. So why should the next group of customers get problems?

Think about it just like we took train from same place to same destination. Your ticket was 1 hour earlier than mine. But the train delayed 1 hour. When the train arrived staition, the conductor let me go first just because you was already delayed but I didn't. Do you think this logic is right or wrong?

The comparison with the trains doesn't work because the comparison is wrong. A better comparison would be if one person arrives via train and the other arrives by plane. The airport misplaces the luggage the passenger had brought along the plane. Is it fair for the airport hub to hold the train arrivals until they find or unload the passengers luggage that was misplaced on the flight. Of course not, the person that traveled by train shouldn't be delayed or penalized.

If the Avalon chips came in for Avalon B3 order and also the Avalon chips for only chip orders, then those should go out ASAP. It's not ethically fair to hold up chips for one group when the chips are ready for both the Avalon units and DIY boards. Whether its a hold up on pcbs, other parts or assembly its not fair for the DIY avalon chip projects out there. This will also have a negative effect on them since the next generation chips will be coming out down the road which also cuts into them as well.

Maybe a good practice would be to return some of the premined Avalon asic income that was generated from testing the units and use those to partially credit B3 people's purchase.

By that metaphor, one assumes that the Batch #3 chips were in fact always intended by Bitsyncom to have been manufactured as part of the mass chip order for the cumulative ordering of all the bulk chips, or that subsequently Bitsyncom has decided it would be prudent to save money in waiting to place one huge chip order to cover all sales, as opposed to a required smaller run specifically for Batch #3. Which at Batch #3's significantly increased price point, priced to meet promised returns from proposed difficulty at a guaranteed delivery date, wayy ahead of the bulk chip delivery, would be a gross misappropriation of Batch #3 buyers' funds.

In essence it looks like Batch #3's chips were manufactured at the exact same time as all the bulk orders, so any proposed price point based on return on investment due to their assumed future difficulty, which at the time never included such massive quantities of bulk chips, was totally false...

Was there a promise that stated in writing that stated Avalon batch 3 units investment would be paid off and if so, in what time frame. That's part of the risk with investing in hardware and supporting the network. It might now always be in ones best interest and ones rate of return might not be as fast as one thought.

[Bitcoinorama]

iikun... if you call him you can see that he occassionally clicks away a call. He reads ticket headers but getting an answer is nearly impossible.

Wayne_Chang... i think that is your logic and i dont understand it. I asked for a miner refund because the long delay for batch 3 is so big that i dont believe anymore to get the buying price back. Thats not the case with the chips. I didnt ask for a refund for the chips. I ordered chips because not much can go wrong. Now having the chips delayed because of an independent product isnt ok. It doesnt help the b3- buyers anyway when you see the difficulty. So why should the next group of customers get problems?

Think about it just like we took train from same place to same destination. Your ticket was 1 hour earlier than mine. But the train delayed 1 hour. When the train arrived staition, the conductor let me go first just because you was already delayed but I didn't. Do you think this logic is right or wrong?

The comparison with the trains doesn't work because the comparison is wrong. A better comparison would be if one person arrives via train and the other arrives by plane. The airport misplaces the luggage the passenger had brought along the plane. Is it fair for the airport hub to hold the train arrivals until they find or unload the passengers luggage that was misplaced on the flight. Of course not, the person that traveled by train shouldn't be delayed or penalized.

If the Avalon chips came in for Avalon B3 order and also the Avalon chips for only chip orders, then those should go out ASAP. It's not ethically fair to hold up chips for one group when the chips are ready for both the Avalon units and DIY boards. Whether its a hold up on pcbs, other parts or assembly its not fair for the DIY avalon chip projects out there. This will also have a negative effect on them since the next generation chips will be coming out down the road which also cuts into them as well.

Maybe a good practice would be to return some of the premined Avalon asic income that was generated from testing the units and use those to partially credit B3 people's purchase.

By that metaphor, one assumes that the Batch #3 chips were in fact always intended by Bitsyncom to have been manufactured as part of the mass chip order for the cumulative ordering of all the bulk chips, or that subsequently Bitsyncom has decided it would be prudent to save money in waiting to place one huge chip order to cover all sales, as opposed to a required smaller run specifically for Batch #3. Which at Batch #3's significantly increased price point, priced to meet promised returns from proposed difficulty at a guaranteed delivery date, wayy ahead of the bulk chip delivery, would be a gross misappropriation of Batch #3 buyers' funds.

In essence it looks like Batch #3's chips were manufactured at the exact same time as all the bulk orders, so any proposed price point based on return on investment due to their assumed future difficulty, which at the time never included such massive quantities of bulk chips, was totally false...

Was there a promise that stated in writing that stated Avalon batch 3 units investment would be paid off and if so, in what time frame. That's part of the risk with investing in hardware and supporting the network. It might now always be in ones best interest and ones rate of return might not be as fast as one thought.

Wasn't their entire price point explained by Bitsyncom at the time of order to be based on; a calculated future difficulty, at the time of a guaranteed delivery, so ROI could be met in a proposed timeframe preceding any profit from thereon after...?

[AMD FTW]

iikun... if you call him you can see that he occassionally clicks away a call. He reads ticket headers but getting an answer is nearly impossible.

Wayne_Chang... i think that is your logic and i dont understand it. I asked for a miner refund because the long delay for batch 3 is so big that i dont believe anymore to get the buying price back. Thats not the case with the chips. I didnt ask for a refund for the chips. I ordered chips because not much can go wrong. Now having the chips delayed because of an independent product isnt ok. It doesnt help the b3- buyers anyway when you see the difficulty. So why should the next group of customers get problems?

Think about it just like we took train from same place to same destination. Your ticket was 1 hour earlier than mine. But the train delayed 1 hour. When the train arrived staition, the conductor let me go first just because you was already delayed but I didn't. Do you think this logic is right or wrong?

The comparison with the trains doesn't work because the comparison is wrong. A better comparison would be if one person arrives via train and the other arrives by plane. The airport misplaces the luggage the passenger had brought along the plane. Is it fair for the airport hub to hold the train arrivals until they find or unload the passengers luggage that was misplaced on the flight. Of course not, the person that traveled by train shouldn't be delayed or penalized.

If the Avalon chips came in for Avalon B3 order and also the Avalon chips for only chip orders, then those should go out ASAP. It's not ethically fair to hold up chips for one group when the chips are ready for both the Avalon units and DIY boards. Whether its a hold up on pcbs, other parts or assembly its not fair for the DIY avalon chip projects out there. This will also have a negative effect on them since the next generation chips will be coming out down the road which also cuts into them as well.

Maybe a good practice would be to return some of the premined Avalon asic income that was generated from testing the units and use those to partially credit B3 people's purchase.

If you guys insist on your logic, how about this.
Bitsyncom comes out 2nd generation wafer, and sold out immediately. Because wafer do not need to do assembly and test, so they ship wafer before your guys' chips or at least paralleled.
How do you think in this way?
Guys, first in first out is the basic rule. Especially for goods come from same company and will affect each other no matter which is shipped first.

As long as all avalon 1st generation chips were shipped and say the next day generation 2 chips came out that were 10 times faster, I'd be ok with that. That's the risk one takes with mining. No where is there a guarantee on paying off ones hardware. If bitcoins ever become worth $1000 each, then all of us have nothing to complain about as long as one holds onto a percentage of there earnings.

[AMD FTW]

iikun... if you call him you can see that he occassionally clicks away a call. He reads ticket headers but getting an answer is nearly impossible.

Wayne_Chang... i think that is your logic and i dont understand it. I asked for a miner refund because the long delay for batch 3 is so big that i dont believe anymore to get the buying price back. Thats not the case with the chips. I didnt ask for a refund for the chips. I ordered chips because not much can go wrong. Now having the chips delayed because of an independent product isnt ok. It doesnt help the b3- buyers anyway when you see the difficulty. So why should the next group of customers get problems?

Think about it just like we took train from same place to same destination. Your ticket was 1 hour earlier than mine. But the train delayed 1 hour. When the train arrived staition, the conductor let me go first just because you was already delayed but I didn't. Do you think this logic is right or wrong?

The comparison with the trains doesn't work because the comparison is wrong. A better comparison would be if one person arrives via train and the other arrives by plane. The airport misplaces the luggage the passenger had brought along the plane. Is it fair for the airport hub to hold the train arrivals until they find or unload the passengers luggage that was misplaced on the flight. Of course not, the person that traveled by train shouldn't be delayed or penalized.

If the Avalon chips came in for Avalon B3 order and also the Avalon chips for only chip orders, then those should go out ASAP. It's not ethically fair to hold up chips for one group when the chips are ready for both the Avalon units and DIY boards. Whether its a hold up on pcbs, other parts or assembly its not fair for the DIY avalon chip projects out there. This will also have a negative effect on them since the next generation chips will be coming out down the road which also cuts into them as well.

Maybe a good practice would be to return some of the premined Avalon asic income that was generated from testing the units and use those to partially credit B3 people's purchase.

By that metaphor, one assumes that the Batch #3 chips were in fact always intended by Bitsyncom to have been manufactured as part of the mass chip order for the cumulative ordering of all the bulk chips, or that subsequently Bitsyncom has decided it would be prudent to save money in waiting to place one huge chip order to cover all sales, as opposed to a required smaller run specifically for Batch #3. Which at Batch #3's significantly increased price point, priced to meet promised returns from proposed difficulty at a guaranteed delivery date, wayy ahead of the bulk chip delivery, would be a gross misappropriation of Batch #3 buyers' funds.

In essence it looks like Batch #3's chips were manufactured at the exact same time as all the bulk orders, so any proposed price point based on return on investment due to their assumed future difficulty, which at the time never included such massive quantities of bulk chips, was totally false...

Was there a promise that stated in writing that stated Avalon batch 3 units investment would be paid off and if so, in what time frame. That's part of the risk with investing in hardware and supporting the network. It might now always be in ones best interest and ones rate of return might not be as fast as one thought.

Wasn't their entire price point explained by Bitsyncom at the time of order to be based on future difficulty at the time of a guaranteed delivery so ROI could be met in a proposed timeframe preceding any profit from there on after...?

Not sure, but that would be pretty gutsy or irresponsible for a company to promise how long it'd take to pay off their hardware especially because of bitcoins price fluctuation and they had no idea how far BFL was behind and how many they could actually assemble and ship on a daily basis.

If you know of a statement, you should link it as I'd be interested in that.

Either way, I'm way more invested in Bitfury's design than my avalon investment.

[AdamKD]

The concern is that for the Chips people were given a 9-10 week *definitive* timeline.

Chips cannot be refunded - which is clear and most people seem to agree with this that they shouldn't.

Batch 3 is delayed and, incidentally, a refund has been offered.  Any excuse to delay chips beyond batch 3 is absurd and unjustifiable.

You absolutely cannot use a Batch 3 as an excuse to make a 9-10 week lead time something that has a almost 15 week delay - at the minimum.  No one in their right mind will continue doing business on a larger scale with a company that acts so unprofessionally.  Over a 50% delay and not an update - not sure which is worse here.

[Bitcoinorama]

iikun... if you call him you can see that he occassionally clicks away a call. He reads ticket headers but getting an answer is nearly impossible.

Wayne_Chang... i think that is your logic and i dont understand it. I asked for a miner refund because the long delay for batch 3 is so big that i dont believe anymore to get the buying price back. Thats not the case with the chips. I didnt ask for a refund for the chips. I ordered chips because not much can go wrong. Now having the chips delayed because of an independent product isnt ok. It doesnt help the b3- buyers anyway when you see the difficulty. So why should the next group of customers get problems?

Think about it just like we took train from same place to same destination. Your ticket was 1 hour earlier than mine. But the train delayed 1 hour. When the train arrived staition, the conductor let me go first just because you was already delayed but I didn't. Do you think this logic is right or wrong?

The comparison with the trains doesn't work because the comparison is wrong. A better comparison would be if one person arrives via train and the other arrives by plane. The airport misplaces the luggage the passenger had brought along the plane. Is it fair for the airport hub to hold the train arrivals until they find or unload the passengers luggage that was misplaced on the flight. Of course not, the person that traveled by train shouldn't be delayed or penalized.

If the Avalon chips came in for Avalon B3 order and also the Avalon chips for only chip orders, then those should go out ASAP. It's not ethically fair to hold up chips for one group when the chips are ready for both the Avalon units and DIY boards. Whether its a hold up on pcbs, other parts or assembly its not fair for the DIY avalon chip projects out there. This will also have a negative effect on them since the next generation chips will be coming out down the road which also cuts into them as well.

Maybe a good practice would be to return some of the premined Avalon asic income that was generated from testing the units and use those to partially credit B3 people's purchase.

By that metaphor, one assumes that the Batch #3 chips were in fact always intended by Bitsyncom to have been manufactured as part of the mass chip order for the cumulative ordering of all the bulk chips, or that subsequently Bitsyncom has decided it would be prudent to save money in waiting to place one huge chip order to cover all sales, as opposed to a required smaller run specifically for Batch #3. Which at Batch #3's significantly increased price point, priced to meet promised returns from proposed difficulty at a guaranteed delivery date, wayy ahead of the bulk chip delivery, would be a gross misappropriation of Batch #3 buyers' funds.

In essence it looks like Batch #3's chips were manufactured at the exact same time as all the bulk orders, so any proposed price point based on return on investment due to their assumed future difficulty, which at the time never included such massive quantities of bulk chips, was totally false...

Was there a promise that stated in writing that stated Avalon batch 3 units investment would be paid off and if so, in what time frame. That's part of the risk with investing in hardware and supporting the network. It might now always be in ones best interest and ones rate of return might not be as fast as one thought.

Wasn't their entire price point explained by Bitsyncom at the time of order to be based on future difficulty at the time of a guaranteed delivery so ROI could be met in a proposed timeframe preceding any profit from there on after...?

Not sure, but that would be pretty gutsy or irresponsible for a company to promise how long it'd take to pay off their hardware especially because of bitcoins price fluctuation and they had no idea how far BFL was behind and how many they could actually assemble and ship on a daily basis.

If you know of a statement, you should link it as I'd be interested in that.

Either way, I'm way more invested in Bitfury's design than my avalon investment.

Have to admit, I'm not 100% I've seen Biysyncom detail the reasoning behind their pricepoint, it may well have been forum users speculating their reasoning for such pricing, I'll have to dig around, so far from googling 'Avalon Batch 3 pricing', and going through some old emails from being a subscriber to their newsletter at the time, there's this from them w.r.t. B#3 price:

On to batch three, we at Avalon did not even wish to sell another batch. If you recall, our original plan was to produce only one batch, sell chips to thwart the centralization of mining, but due to the lackluster performance of our competitors we are here today as the exact centralization we tried to decouple.

Bwahahaha, this the exact reason why I don't respect some of my potential customers, I don't even want money from these people. In afterthought, raising the price it must stopped a lot people were purchasing because how brainless the profit was, now there is some math and faith involved.

The irony being a lacklustre performance in shipping a product they took money for...