[BitFunder] IceDrill.ASIC IPO (235 Thash Mining Operation powered by HashFast)

[Deprived]

Best as I can tell, this investment will only make money for the issuers, their hardware suppliers, and perhaps a few flippers

How do you square this with the fact that these shares pay out .0016 btc before the issuers get any money from the mine? All of the profits are front loaded to the public investors.

I already explained one way that could be the case earlier - if some of the funds raised in IPO were just pocketed by issuers rather than being used to maximise amount of mining capacity purchased.  Another means would be if the issuers were linked to the hardware vendors and so received profit either from investment in there or from kick-backs.

The first one can be easily denied - and would be demonstrably not the case if accounts were produced later.  The latter has to be taken more on trust.  But first a denial that the first is the case would be appropriate - as rather obviously if issuers keep some of the IPO funds they'd be making profit before investors had broken even.

The reason I've raised the first possibility is simply that the tone of the contract is that investors are buying into a mining company - but the letter of the contract reads more like it's a PMB with an undisclosed markup potentially being raked off immediately.

Would suggest you get DT or someone to confirm that issuers don't keep (or receive as 'management fees') any IPO funds (they're all used to grow the mine) before repeating again that they don't receive anything until investors have recouped their investment.  As the issuers have never claimed or committed to that - so don't see how you can be in a position to give assurances that they've refused to.

[1715290012]

1715290012

[1715290012]

1715290012

[1715290012]

1715290012

[iCEBREAKER]

(...)
Activemining, however, is a different story.  They are completely dependant on Avalon/steamboat to meet their stated growth projections and maintain dividends until their own 28nm chips begin hashing.

From your buddies at BTCT:

https://btct.co/security/ACTIVEMINING

An order of Avalon chips from steamboat's batch #1, for 68 Klondike-16 boards, rated at 68*16*282 = 307 GH/s;
An order of 20,000 Avalon chips (end of May and beginging of June orders), for a combined hashrate of 20,000*282 = 5,640 GH/s.

In total, around 6,377 GH/s, [WAS] expected to be fully operational in the middle of August.
 

Vbs is going to have to bring his increasingly inaccurate spreadsheet up to date eventually, because it's rapidly slipping from 'slightly off' to 'pipe dream that will never materialize.'   
(...)

1) This is the IceDrill thread, so try to respect that.

2) Increasingly inaccurate? My estimation for August global hashrate (478TH/s) is still above the current mark, so it's still very valid. Months are unimportant, the only thing that matters for estimating profits is the global hashrate at the time when the hardware is put online.

Yes Vbs, "increasingly inaccurate" is increasingly accurate.  The lapsing "middle of August" assumption is particularly untenable in light of Avalon's protracted delays/fiascos/implosion/intrigues and spiking difficulty.

It's only fair to dividend-oriented investors to correct inaccurate assumptions and stop misrepresenting ACTM's short-to-medium term hashpower.

I also notice your silent de facto consent as Goody Stuart/VE trashed ice.drill on the ACTM thread, and bragged about enjoying "shitting all over" this one, has suddenly reversed, now that your baby is in a similar situation here. 

Turnabout is fair play!   

[CanOpener]

wow! I like your logical thinking Jimbo. You might be right or you might be wrong but the fact that you actually back up your thinking with some valid logical deduction with facts is great. Your logic seems to make sense the most to me as well given what I asked earlier and none of the skeptics were able to answer. (ie. my line of questioning matches with yours except I wasn't as smart as you to deduce from the BabyJet price. I didn't even know they have one)


Wouldn't the hardware supplier be smart enough to squeeze every last cent out of the selling price of chips to maximize profit from the middle man? (ie. do a quick discounted cashflow of possible BTC mined via some mumbo-jumbo simulations) Unless you are assuming that the hardware providers are naive enough to sell chips at cost + profit margin as if they are any other hardware makers...

Best as I can tell, this investment will only make money for the issuers, their hardware suppliers, and perhaps a few flippers

How do you square this with the fact that these shares pay out .0016 btc before the issuers get any money from the mine? All of the profits are front loaded to the public investors.

evoorhees, I've actually been thinking about this for a long time and have been trying to figure it out.  It seems to me the hardware suppliers are controlling the share price.  The share price works out to be $14/GH.  The BabyJet works out to be $14/GH.  This, I believe, is not coincidence.  HashFast wants both the BabyJet and the IceDrill hardware to sell in number equally so they maximimze profits.    I belive they have contractually negotiated the IceDrill IPO share price to be equal in $/GH to the BabyJet $/GH.  No company wants to compete with themselves which is just stupid.  So HashFast is only the true winner in this game and not IceDrill.  HashFast is pricing their hardware as close as possible to their nearest competitor while still remaining competitive and making a tidy profit.

However, I still believe in HashFast and I believe in them.  As long as they have superior hardware, which they do, they will continue to be relevant.

[will]

Would suggest you get DT or someone to confirm that issuers don't keep (or receive as 'management fees') any IPO funds (they're all used to grow the mine)

Confirmed (see FAQ 2, Q4).

before repeating again that they don't receive anything until investors have recouped their investment.  

See IPO wording @ bottom:
Clause added in benefit of public shareholders
No dividends will be paid to the holders of private shares until holders of public shares have received an accumulated dividend of 0.0016 BitCoin per share.

As the issuers have never claimed or committed to that...

This statement is factually incorrect.

[Vbs]

Yes Vbs, "increasingly inaccurate" is increasingly accurate.  The lapsing "middle of August" assumption is particularly untenable in light of Avalon's protracted delays/fiascos/implosion/intrigues and spiking difficulty.

It's only fair to dividend-oriented investors to correct inaccurate assumptions and stop misrepresenting ACTM's short-to-medium term hashpower.

I also notice your silent de facto consent as Goody Stuart/VE trashed ice.drill on the ACTM thread, and bragged about enjoying "shitting all over" this one, has suddenly reversed, now that your baby is in a similar situation here. 

Turnabout is fair play!   

Moving the assumption to "middle of September" doesn't change the outcome, as long as the estimated global hashrate is not crossed. I've already explained why it's still valid. Understand the math or don't, your choice.

[Deprived]

Would suggest you get DT or someone to confirm that issuers don't keep (or receive as 'management fees') any IPO funds (they're all used to grow the mine)

Confirmed (see FAQ 2, Q4).

before repeating again that they don't receive anything until investors have recouped their investment.  

See IPO wording @ bottom:
Clause added in benefit of public shareholders
No dividends will be paid to the holders of private shares until holders of public shares have received an accumulated dividend of 0.0016 BitCoin per share.

As the issuers have never claimed or committed to that...

This statement is factually incorrect.

Think we're talking at cross-purposes.

You're talking about what happens with mining revenue - and payments to shareholders from profits.  I'm talking about what happens with funds raised from IPO.

It has nothing at all to do with dividends.  What happens with funds raised from IPO varies (especially around here):

Sometimes the shares are sold directly by the company - and funds raised become the property of the company (and thus used to the benefit of teh company).
Sometimes the shares are treated as being sold by a previous owner - and so go the that owner (the issuer).
Other times it's a mix of the two.

My concern was (and remains) that the last is the case - that investors don't actually get the benefit of all funds raised from IPO.  I asked a few questions about this pages back but received no reply.  There's more to it than just whether immediate cash benefit is taken - such as whether other revenue from secondary usage of facilities is also treated as profit for investors.

One of the reason I had the concern was because no disclosure was being made of how much was raised from sale of private shares.  That lack of disclosure made no sense IF all funds raised were being used for the company - as the amount raised from sale of private shares would HAVE to end up being made public whenever first accounts were produced (even if not disclosed as a liine item it could be worked out by subtracting the value of public sales from the total listed IPO revenue).

Another reason is simply that other IPOs have gone that route - raising $X then giving investors $X/Y (Y being >1) worth of assets in return.

A final reason was the repeated reference to fixed number of hashes per share - which makes no sense when the final performance of the hardware isn't known.

But I asked my questions before so don't really want to keep repeating them if they aren't going to be answered - there were other issues I raised such as the degree of care that had been taken when agreeing contracts for delivery of hardware.

[iCEBREAKER]

Moving the assumption to "middle of September" doesn't change the outcome, as long as the estimated global hashrate is not crossed. I've already explained why it's still valid. Understand the math or don't, your choice.

We may understand your admirably competent math, yet still object to the misleading, demonstrably false verbiage which you mysteriously strain to resist updating, even in face of an Avalon scandal which has ripped off Y-I-F-U's previously respected face and reduced him to a laughingstock.

Brother Vbs, there is no (good) reason for you to continue splitting incorrect hairs on behalf of Avalon/ACTM's unfortunate mishaps and follow Y-I-F-U's descent into ignomy.   

[evoorhees]

So HashFast is only the true winner in this game and not IceDrill.  

People need to stop thinking of business as if one person wins, and everyone else loses. I see it all the time on this forum. With that mindset, observers try to figure out "who profits the most" and then label everyone else a loser or victim of a scam. In reality, there can be multiple winners, and in any good business deal, there is.

HashFast is the firm inventing the new chips. So yes, they probably will make the most money from sale of chips, as everything else is derivative and not as value-adding as the creation of those chips. But that doesn't mean other steps in the supply chain don't also profit. And it doesn't mean that other steps in the supply chain aren't valid business propositions (such as IceDrill).

Carve away all the puffery that's gone on in this thread, and look at the numbers. Investors are paying about $14-$15 for ghs to be delivered in late oct/early nov. Estimate the difficulty at that point, and then decide if it's a reasonable risk/return ratio. Consider then that the entire mine is going to pay .0016 per public share before the subsequent revenue is split equitably, meaning the mine will pay off for public holders before it pays of for the operators. This makes it additionally attractive... in reality the investors are, at launch, getting more than a ghs for their $14 (they're also getting the operators' share of the mine proceeds until 0.0016 btc per share in dividends is paid!).

Further, whether the operators are getting some of the IPO money is absolutely irrelevant. Let's assume they are getting 99% of the IPO money and will spend it on hookers and blow, does that make the deal worse? No, because the promise is to deliver X ghs per $ invested by Y time. Unless they break that promise, it matters not at all where the IPO money goes. Maybe IceDrill got the entire mine from HashFast for $100... and thus they'll keep all the IPO money for themselves. So what? Or, maybe IceDrill is paying $14 per ghs from HashFash, and thus not earning a penny from the IPO money. So what?

All that matters is the ghs delivered to shareholders, by what date, and at what price.

How much hashfast and the operators of icedrill make, and whether one gets kickbacks from another, or whether they're the same person, and what kind of clothes they're wearing or car they're driving is completely irrelevant. They are offering a price, for a product. If you trust them to deliver, then buy shares, otherwise ignore.

[Deprived]

So HashFast is only the true winner in this game and not IceDrill.  

People need to stop thinking of business as if one person wins, and everyone else loses. I see it all the time on this forum. With that mindset, observers try to figure out "who profits the most" and then label everyone else a loser or victim of a scam. In reality, there can be multiple winners, and in any good business deal, there is.

HashFast is the firm inventing the new chips. So yes, they probably will make the most money from sale of chips, as everything else is derivative and not as value-adding as the creation of those chips. But that doesn't mean other steps in the supply chain don't also profit. And it doesn't mean that other steps in the supply chain aren't valid business propositions (such as IceDrill).

Carve away all the puffery that's gone on in this thread, and look at the numbers. Investors are paying about $14-$15 for ghs to be delivered in late oct/early nov. Estimate the difficulty at that point, and then decide if it's a reasonable risk/return ratio. Consider then that the entire mine is going to pay .0016 per public share before the subsequent revenue is split equitably, meaning the mine will pay off for public holders before it pays of for the operators. This makes it additionally attractive... in reality the investors are, at launch, getting more than a ghs for their $14 (they're also getting the operators' share of the mine proceeds until 0.0016 btc per share in dividends is paid!).

Further, whether the operators are getting some of the IPO money is absolutely irrelevant. Let's assume they are getting 99% of the IPO money and will spend it on hookers and blow, does that make the deal worse? No, because the promise is to deliver X ghs per $ invested by Y time. Unless they break that promise, it matters not at all where the IPO money goes. Maybe IceDrill got the entire mine from HashFast for $100... and thus they'll keep all the IPO money for themselves. So what? Or, maybe IceDrill is paying $14 per ghs from HashFash, and thus not earning a penny from the IPO money. So what?

All that matters is the ghs delivered to shareholders, by what date, and at what price.

How much hashfast and the operators of icedrill make, and whether one gets kickbacks from another, or whether they're the same person, and what kind of clothes they're wearing or car they're driving is completely irrelevant. They are offering a price, for a product. If you trust them to deliver, then buy shares, otherwise ignore.

You're right in theory but horribly wrong in practice.  I'll ignore the issue of principle - that issuers should honestly represent what they're doing and clearly disclose what happens with funds and focus on the practical points.

Firstly, you're correct that what investors receive intially isn't impacted by the price paid for it by the issuers.  But remember that a chunk of what is mined is reinvested.  If that reinvested portion also suffers from being used to purchase at inflated prices then that directly reduces potential to investors.

Secondly, if the relationship between Ice-Drill and the suppliers isn't a simple buyer/seller one then it's hard for investors to rely on management having interests totally aligned with theirs.  That's why I asked questions about the terms of the supply deal - what guarantees had been obtained and what due diligence conducted to ensure the suppliers would and could refund if they failed to meet defined delivery dates.  And this has a double-whammy impact - as if the relationship isn't a straight-forward one then not only is there increased risk (that proper commitments in respect of delivery dates and refunds/penalties in the case of failure have not been obtained) but of course there's then the problem that a refund of what was on the contract may not return the funds the investors actually committed.

In an ideal world where everyone delivers on time always #2 wouldn't matter - but #1 STILL would remain an issue if prices used for reinvestment may not reflect the best price an unconflicted negotiator with the same purchasing power could achieve.  Note that is NOT the case if it's simply a matter of some of IPO funds just being moved into various back-pockets - but IS the case if the relationship between IPO and supplier is closer than it should be for investors to rely on issuer having no conflict of interest when negotiating with supplier on behalf of investors.

[evoorhees]

Great advice from the master of: I win, everyone else is lucky to get out with their skin intact.

I wasn't sure about this mess, but seeing you pimp for it makes it obvious it's a ripoff.

I think some day you'll learn that you have that first sentence backwards. Nice refutation of my points, though 

[evoorhees]

You're right in theory but horribly wrong in practice.  I'll ignore the issue of principle - that issuers should honestly represent what they're doing and clearly disclose what happens with funds and focus on the practical points.

Absolutely agree that issuers should honestly represent what they're doing. My point was more, as a selfish investor, I don't really care what they're doing so long as they deliver the promised ghs by the promised time.

Firstly, you're correct that what investors receive intially isn't impacted by the price paid for it by the issuers.  But remember that a chunk of what is mined is reinvested.  If that reinvested portion also suffers from being used to purchase at inflated prices then that directly reduces potential to investors.

Excellent point. I hadn't considered that.

Secondly, if the relationship between Ice-Drill and the suppliers isn't a simple buyer/seller one then it's hard for investors to rely on management having interests totally aligned with theirs.  That's why I asked questions about the terms of the supply deal - what guarantees had been obtained and what due diligence conducted to ensure the suppliers would and could refund if they failed to meet defined delivery dates. 

Good point again.

I see your concern now. I know DT well enough to trust him, but if I didn't then I'd share the same concern.

[4_skin]

Very well articulated... your points are well taken.  we need more rationality as it helps those of us new and less experienced.  Anything emotionally driven feels less focused and more derived...

So HashFast is only the true winner in this game and not IceDrill.  

People need to stop thinking of business as if one person wins, and everyone else loses. I see it all the time on this forum. With that mindset, observers try to figure out "who profits the most" and then label everyone else a loser or victim of a scam. In reality, there can be multiple winners, and in any good business deal, there is.

HashFast is the firm inventing the new chips. So yes, they probably will make the most money from sale of chips, as everything else is derivative and not as value-adding as the creation of those chips. But that doesn't mean other steps in the supply chain don't also profit. And it doesn't mean that other steps in the supply chain aren't valid business propositions (such as IceDrill).

Carve away all the puffery that's gone on in this thread, and look at the numbers. Investors are paying about $14-$15 for ghs to be delivered in late oct/early nov. Estimate the difficulty at that point, and then decide if it's a reasonable risk/return ratio. Consider then that the entire mine is going to pay .0016 per public share before the subsequent revenue is split equitably, meaning the mine will pay off for public holders before it pays of for the operators. This makes it additionally attractive... in reality the investors are, at launch, getting more than a ghs for their $14 (they're also getting the operators' share of the mine proceeds until 0.0016 btc per share in dividends is paid!).

Further, whether the operators are getting some of the IPO money is absolutely irrelevant. Let's assume they are getting 99% of the IPO money and will spend it on hookers and blow, does that make the deal worse? No, because the promise is to deliver X ghs per $ invested by Y time. Unless they break that promise, it matters not at all where the IPO money goes. Maybe IceDrill got the entire mine from HashFast for $100... and thus they'll keep all the IPO money for themselves. So what? Or, maybe IceDrill is paying $14 per ghs from HashFash, and thus not earning a penny from the IPO money. So what?

All that matters is the ghs delivered to shareholders, by what date, and at what price.

How much hashfast and the operators of icedrill make, and whether one gets kickbacks from another, or whether they're the same person, and what kind of clothes they're wearing or car they're driving is completely irrelevant. They are offering a price, for a product. If you trust them to deliver, then buy shares, otherwise ignore.

You're right in theory but horribly wrong in practice.  I'll ignore the issue of principle - that issuers should honestly represent what they're doing and clearly disclose what happens with funds and focus on the practical points.

Firstly, you're correct that what investors receive intially isn't impacted by the price paid for it by the issuers.  But remember that a chunk of what is mined is reinvested.  If that reinvested portion also suffers from being used to purchase at inflated prices then that directly reduces potential to investors.

Secondly, if the relationship between Ice-Drill and the suppliers isn't a simple buyer/seller one then it's hard for investors to rely on management having interests totally aligned with theirs.  That's why I asked questions about the terms of the supply deal - what guarantees had been obtained and what due diligence conducted to ensure the suppliers would and could refund if they failed to meet defined delivery dates.  And this has a double-whammy impact - as if the relationship isn't a straight-forward one then not only is there increased risk (that proper commitments in respect of delivery dates and refunds/penalties in the case of failure have not been obtained) but of course there's then the problem that a refund of what was on the contract may not return the funds the investors actually committed.

In an ideal world where everyone delivers on time always #2 wouldn't matter - but #1 STILL would remain an issue if prices used for reinvestment may not reflect the best price an unconflicted negotiator with the same purchasing power could achieve.  Note that is NOT the case if it's simply a matter of some of IPO funds just being moved into various back-pockets - but IS the case if the relationship between IPO and supplier is closer than it should be for investors to rely on issuer having no conflict of interest when negotiating with supplier on behalf of investors.

[Entropy-uc]

Great advice from the master of: I win, everyone else is lucky to get out with their skin intact.

I wasn't sure about this mess, but seeing you pimp for it makes it obvious it's a ripoff.

I think some day you'll learn that you have that first sentence backwards. Nice refutation of my points, though  

What exactly is there to refute?

You have an IPO by an operator of a pass through who is too busy to account for who actually owns shares, being supported by a serial scammer entrepreneur.  How are things working out for the investors of Feed ze birds these days?

Both me and Ukyo have very little amount spare time at the moment same with Friedcat.
We will do our best to hurry up the transit.
Sorry about these delays.
//DeaDTerra

You ought to address the very valid concerns many Satoshi dice investors have before taking up a new career as a stock shill.

[DeaDTerra]

The option to sell back your shares will be closed within 12 hours.
If you wish to use that option please do so now.
//DeaDTerra

[kingcrimson]

It looks like not a single shareholder took advantage of the buyback. As shady as IceDrill seems to be, people know what they got into and are sticking with it. Godspeed.

[will]

You're talking about what happens with mining revenue - and payments to shareholders from profits.  I'm talking about what happens with funds raised from IPO.

Your intended meaning must have been lost in the walls of text. Confirmed. All funds raised during IPO will go directly toward hardware purchases and economy of scale execution of mine setup.

Just a note: If you want your questions to be answered quickly, please state the context in a quote, remove all the irrelevant text and ask the question directly. My justification for this request is that some entities involved with providing answers here are necessarily spending time away from activities that directly benefit investors (e.g. mine execution) to do so. We're not saying you shouldn't ask questions, just imploring you to shorten the posts and get to the punchline. Please?

[Deprived]

You're talking about what happens with mining revenue - and payments to shareholders from profits.  I'm talking about what happens with funds raised from IPO.

Your intended meaning must have been lost in the walls of text. Confirmed. All funds raised during IPO will go directly toward hardware purchases and economy of scale execution of mine setup.

Just a note: If you want your questions to be answered quickly, please state the context in a quote, remove all the irrelevant text and ask the question directly. My justification for this request is that some entities involved with providing answers here are necessarily spending time away from activities that directly benefit investors (e.g. mine execution) to do so. We're not saying you shouldn't ask questions, just imploring you to shorten the posts and get to the punchline. Please?

I tried that originally - here's the post where I asked a series of pretty simple questions.  Your above response already answers the first of them.  The walls of text were only necessary because when I asked the questions directly there was no answer - so I ended up having to explain why the questions were actually important.

I think some people are too concerned with who the private investors and why some shares were sold off the exchange - there's entirely valid reasons for the latter.  But there ARE legitimate questions that should be addressed, especially if the deal is going to be somehow changed mid-flight.

1.  Are all funds raised from IPO going to the company and being used to the benefit of investors?  i.e. if there's surplus after purchasing the hardware etc does that extra get used to expand the hashing power or disappear into someone's back pocket?

2.  Whilst the number of shares and timing of each batch can be changed there's no entitlement to change the TOTAL shares that will be sold to the public (or the private shares would end up not just owning a disproportionate amount of initial hashing power - but also of reinvested capital).  Can reassurance be given that:
a) All shares stated to be sold to the public WILL be sold - even if the exact dates/batches on which they're sold changes.
b) No shares will be sold at below the initial price for the shares already sold.

3.  Can reassurance be given that no management fees, consultancy fees or similar will be paid to the managers, private investors or their friends/family to dilute earnings.

4.  Some of the documentation reads as though a new data centre is being constructed for this project.  If this is the case can assurances be provided that any other income from a data-centre/infrastructure funded by investors in this IPO will also be treated as revenue to be distributed after costs to investors.  We wouldn't want other people's mining gear free-loading off investors there without benefit to investors.

5.  Whilst transparency of costs has been promised, no comment has been made about transparency of handling of IPO funds.  Is it the intention to provide accounts properly documenting the use of funds raised in IPO and from private investors?

6.  Is the initial hashing power per share a minimum, an estimate or a maximum?  i.e. what happens if actual hashing pwoer received varies due to circumstances beyond the issuer's control?

7.  What guarantees have been provided by the hardware supplier in terms of delivery date?  We may not know exactly WHAT the date is, but there's a date after which a refund would be preferable to delivery (as the hardware would never pay for itself from mining).  At what date is a full refund of all funds paid to them allowed to be requested?  Have they provided sufficient financial disclosure that issuer is confident such a refund could and would be honoured in the event they were unable to deliver the hardware by such a deadline?  Estimates of delivery are fine for planning purposes - but a hard deadline beyond which they are in default and must refund (and/or pay penalties) is essential when signing a contract.

I didn't bother asking questions whilst this was only on Bitfunder - as contracts can be edited by issuers there at will.  But now it's showing for approval on BTC-TC some due diligence is appropriate as contracts there are intended to be final and certainly can't just be arbitrarily changed by an issuer.

#1 you already answered.
#2 has since been addressed by DT so can be ignored.
Answers to 3-6 may seem obvious given your answer to #1 - but I always hesitate to conclude something is the case just because it's obvious.
#7 is a critical one.

If you need an explanation of why any of them matter let me know.

[will]

If you need an explanation of why any of them matter let me know.

I don't, they all matter immensely and I thank you for your input and due-diligence here.

3.  Can reassurance be given that no management fees, consultancy fees or similar will be paid to the managers, private investors or their friends/family to dilute earnings.

Even though the managers and/or private investors may act as consultants, they will not be paid consultation fees. IPO management fees are nil.

4.  Some of the documentation reads as though a new data centre is being constructed for this project.  If this is the case can assurances be provided that any other income from a data-centre/infrastructure funded by investors in this IPO will also be treated as revenue to be distributed after costs to investors.  We wouldn't want other people's mining gear free-loading off investors there without benefit to investors.

Ah, ok, I understand. You want to ensure that we don't provide free hosting to other miners and have our investors foot the bill for the hosting costs? The answer is "No, definitely not". Even though the economy of scale deployment lends itself to it being a perfect place to "hide?" such a thing, what you're describing is fraud. Fraud is illegal, and not a concept we subscribe to. Please assume henceforth that our answer to the question of "will you defraud investors by doing XYZ?" will be: "no, we will not defraud investors by doing XYZ". That said, feel free to ask anything, we'll do our best to answer.

5.  Whilst transparency of costs has been promised, no comment has been made about transparency of handling of IPO funds.  Is it the intention to provide accounts properly documenting the use of funds raised in IPO and from private investors?

Yes, a breakdown of deployment costs will be posted when the mine goes live.

6.  Is the initial hashing power per share a minimum, an estimate or a maximum?  i.e. what happens if actual hashing pwoer received varies due to circumstances beyond the issuer's control?

Yes. The hashing power we buy is a guaranteed minimum. If the nominal hashing power received is lower than that which was guaranteed, Hashfast will send us more to make up the difference.

7.  What guarantees have been provided by the hardware supplier in terms of delivery date?  We may not know exactly WHAT the date is, but there's a date after which a refund would be preferable to delivery (as the hardware would never pay for itself from mining).  At what date is a full refund of all funds paid to them allowed to be requested?  Have they provided sufficient financial disclosure that issuer is confident such a refund could and would be honoured in the event they were unable to deliver the hardware by such a deadline?  Estimates of delivery are fine for planning purposes - but a hard deadline beyond which they are in default and must refund (and/or pay penalties) is essential when signing a contract.

From the sales contract:
Estimated delivery date: October 25, 2013.  Hashfast will have no liability for early or late delivery; provided, however,  if
Hashfast does not deliver by December 31, 2013, Buyer may cancel its order for a full refund of amounts paid to Hashfast.
Rather than cancel its order, Buyer may agree with Hashfast to an accommodation.

We have confirmation from Hashfast that they will refund the amount in BTC (i.e. not USD).

[cryptojoe]

The shares are moving fast!  About 17million have been sold. At this speed, the third and final batch will be for sale at 0.0016 within the next 24hours.  If you buy 1million now, and sell it again in 24 yours, you'll make 100BTC.  That's serious coin, and its basically guaranteed (just as long as weExchange and BitFunder don't get raided or hit by a meteorite in the next 24 hours).  

[Deprived]

SNIP

Thanks - pretty much exactly the answers I'd hoped to receive.