[HAVELOCK] PETAMINE - 1,150 TH/S HASH RATE (1GH/S per Unit)

[Anonymousg64]

PETA is meant to be a mining operation that continues to function indefinitely

How can petamine function indefinitely when they are charging themselves $0.25/kwh vs the competition at less than $0.05/kwh?

how are the others making any profit? they might be charging differently
PETA's margin is in that amount, and 20% profit is pretty good, i expect they will reduce that as the operation grows

[MrSike]

Best case scenario 33k shares sold during IPO 0 weeks to pay back debt after IPO is finished.
Difficulty         Network Hash   Peta hashrate   Estimated BTC   Hosting Fee   Peta BTC   Reinvestment   Dividends
10092894592   72248.856       1500.000          523.192           130.798        392.394      353.155         39.2394
11606828781   83086.185       1500.000          454.949           113.737        341.212      296.854         44.3575
11606828781   83086.185       1595.000          483.77             119.064        364.706      302.706         62.000
13347853098   95549.112       1674.000          441.505           107.561        333.944      263.816         70.128
13347853098   95549.112       1755.000          462.869           111.778        351.091      263.318         87.773
15350031063   109881.479     1825.000          418.548           100.510        318.38        226.050         92.330
17652535722   126363.701     1895.000          377.915            90.393         287.522      195.515         92.007
17652535722   126363.701     1955.000          389.880            93.084         296.796      192.918         103.879
20300416080   145318.256     2007.000          348.044            83.048         264.996      161.648         103.349
20300416080   145318.256     2058.000          356.888            85.215         271.673      157.570         114.103



and i expect it will go even better as btc value goes up and hardware cost/Gh goes down, which is not factored in here

So this is your prediction? Okay it looks like you copy pasted mine but changed a few numbers around. But something you cannot deny is the fact that the estimated BTC keeps on decreasing the longer the mine runs. By your own numbers posted you will see the estimated BTC approach 0 and once reinvestment falls too far behind difficulty increase dividends will suffer shortly after. In this case you have a 10 week projection with less than a 50% apy.

By your own prediction the average decrease in Estimated BTC is 16.7 every week the mine operates. After just over 21 weeks of this the estimated BTC will be near 0. Again these are your numbers that you posted in this thread.

[jimmothy]

PETA is meant to be a mining operation that continues to function indefinitely

How can petamine function indefinitely when they are charging themselves $0.25/kwh vs the competition at less than $0.05/kwh?

how are the others making any profit? they might be charging differently

I'm confused is petamine paying $0.25/kwh or is that a service by petamine which customers pay that rate?

[Anonymousg64]

Best case scenario 33k shares sold during IPO 0 weeks to pay back debt after IPO is finished.
Difficulty         Network Hash   Peta hashrate   Estimated BTC   Hosting Fee   Peta BTC   Reinvestment   Dividends
10092894592   72248.856       1500.000          523.192           130.798        392.394      353.155         39.2394
11606828781   83086.185       1500.000          454.949           113.737        341.212      296.854         44.3575
11606828781   83086.185       1595.000          483.77             119.064        364.706      302.706         62.000
13347853098   95549.112       1674.000          441.505           107.561        333.944      263.816         70.128
13347853098   95549.112       1755.000          462.869           111.778        351.091      263.318         87.773
15350031063   109881.479     1825.000          418.548           100.510        318.38        226.050         92.330
17652535722   126363.701     1895.000          377.915            90.393         287.522      195.515         92.007
17652535722   126363.701     1955.000          389.880            93.084         296.796      192.918         103.879
20300416080   145318.256     2007.000          348.044            83.048         264.996      161.648         103.349
20300416080   145318.256     2058.000          356.888            85.215         271.673      157.570         114.103



and i expect it will go even better as btc value goes up and hardware cost/Gh goes down, which is not factored in here

So this is your prediction? Okay it looks like you copy pasted mine but changed a few numbers around. But something you cannot deny is the fact that the estimated BTC keeps on decreasing the longer the mine runs. By your own numbers posted you will see the estimated BTC approach 0 and once reinvestment falls too far behind difficulty increase dividends will suffer shortly after. In this case you have a 10 week projection with less than a 50% apy.

By your own prediction the average decrease in Estimated BTC is 16.7 every week the mine operates. After just over 21 weeks of this the estimated BTC will be near 0. Again these are your numbers that you posted in this thread.

these are not "my own" projections
my own projections would include cost/Gh/s, BTC value, diff velocity
alas i dont have the time to go through all the data and make 100 potential projections

[MrSike]

PETA is meant to be a mining operation that continues to function indefinitely

How can petamine function indefinitely when they are charging themselves $0.25/kwh vs the competition at less than $0.05/kwh?

how are the others making any profit? they might be charging differently

I'm confused is petamine paying $0.25/kwh or is that a service by petamine which customers pay that rate?

CrytpX takes out $0.25/kwh out from the total BTC mined by Petamine for the week. This is taken out and after that the dividends and reinvestment is calculated from what is left over. I'm not sure how much CryptX pays per kwh and it might be posted in this thread or the prospectus, but that fee also includes warehouse space and maintenance cost.

[Anotheranonlol]

PETA is meant to be a mining operation that continues to function indefinitely

How can petamine function indefinitely when they are charging themselves $0.25/kwh vs the competition at less than $0.05/kwh?

how are the others making any profit? they might be charging differently

I'm confused is petamine paying $0.25/kwh or is that a service by petamine which customers pay that rate?

So in the end PETA is just a scheme to build as big of a farm as possible while charging outrageous hosting fees payed to themselves of course.

Yes, it is. is it surprising-? it's their clear profit margin for convenience of large scale, continuously expanding hosted mining operation

How will peta compete with operations like megabigpower at less than $0.05/kwh?

0.25/kwh is what they charge 'all in one' . presumably not what they pay with renewable energy links, despite being located in belgium. Unless megabigpower, knc et al offers up % stakes in their farms I don't see how that's a question investors would need to worry about, They are competition but so's the guy sitting at home with a few antmers and free electricity on the lease- everyone is competition. crypx has clearly outlined the total costs.

[jimmothy]

PETA is meant to be a mining operation that continues to function indefinitely

How can petamine function indefinitely when they are charging themselves $0.25/kwh vs the competition at less than $0.05/kwh?

how are the others making any profit? they might be charging differently

I'm confused is petamine paying $0.25/kwh or is that a service by petamine which customers pay that rate?

CrytpX takes out $0.25/kwh out from the total BTC mined by Petamine for the week. This is taken out and after that the dividends and reinvestment is calculated from what is left over. I'm not sure how much CryptX pays per kwh and it might be posted in this thread or the prospectus, but that fee also includes warehouse space and maintenance cost.

Do we know if petamine is selling themselves electricity?

If so it should be less than $0.05 × 1.5 (PUE + hosting costs)

Even if they are buying electricity for $0.1/kwh they shouldn't be charging more than $0.15/kwh.

$0.45/kwh is ludicrous. How do we know $0.25 is anywhere near their costs when they managed to simply cut the price in half as soon as hosting costed ~50% of what they mined.

I bet they can go as low as $0.1/kwh and still profit. Especially if they are selling electricity to themselves.

[jimmothy]

Unless megabigpower, knc et al offers up % stakes in their farms I don't see how that's a question investors would need to worry about, They are competition but so's the guy sitting at home with a few antmers and free electricity on the lease- everyone is competition

Investors should worry because their miners are 1/5th as efficient as the competition. PETA will be simply pushed out of the game when hosting cost more than they mine.

[MrSike]

PETA is meant to be a mining operation that continues to function indefinitely

How can petamine function indefinitely when they are charging themselves $0.25/kwh vs the competition at less than $0.05/kwh?

how are the others making any profit? they might be charging differently

I'm confused is petamine paying $0.25/kwh or is that a service by petamine which customers pay that rate?

CrytpX takes out $0.25/kwh out from the total BTC mined by Petamine for the week. This is taken out and after that the dividends and reinvestment is calculated from what is left over. I'm not sure how much CryptX pays per kwh and it might be posted in this thread or the prospectus, but that fee also includes warehouse space and maintenance cost.

Do we know if petamine is selling themselves electricity?

If so it should be less than $0.05 × 1.5 (PUE + hosting costs)

Even if they are buying electricity for $0.1/kwh they shouldn't be charging more than $0.15/kwh.

$0.45/kwh is ludicrous. How do we know $0.25 is anywhere near their costs when they managed to simply cut the price in half as soon as hosting costed ~50% of what they mined.

I bet they can go as low as $0.1/kwh and still profit. Especially if they are selling electricity to themselves.

I do not know if petamine is selling electricity to itself, but the linkedin page can be found as mentioned by another user in the other thread which could potentially hold some answers.

[Anonymousg64]

I have. A million times.

The reinvestment strategy is only going to lose investors money. This is undebatable. It is set in stone.

It is set out to prolong the project for as long as it can and get as big as it can.
This is great if the hashrate is stable but it's not.
Because of that, the value of the assets decreases over time, meaning less value can be generated, and it does this allot quicker than new value can be added through reinvestment.

So, why have a company that's going to leak value?

Well, if your a hosting provider and you collect all the fees. The above situation is absolutely ideal for you to make money. It screws all investors, but it's absolutely ideal for the fees.

its not set in stone, it is debatable, do you have any intel i do not?
its YOUR OPINION that their strategy will lose investor money

like any intelligent mining operation, ofcourse its trying to be as big and operate as long as it can
i would not have invested otherwise, its great regardless of hashrate climate (as for everyone else anywhere in the world mining BTC, as such the network adjusts)
wrong, you can add more new value faster then it decreases overtime.

and if i was a hosting provider i would aim to operate indefinitely and therefore maintain a network share that would be in investors favor
i would also adjust the fee as the operation grows, just like PETA is doing

[Anonymousg64]

PETA is meant to be a mining operation that continues to function indefinitely

How can petamine function indefinitely when they are charging themselves $0.25/kwh vs the competition at less than $0.05/kwh?

how are the others making any profit? they might be charging differently

I'm confused is petamine paying $0.25/kwh or is that a service by petamine which customers pay that rate?

CrytpX takes out $0.25/kwh out from the total BTC mined by Petamine for the week. This is taken out and after that the dividends and reinvestment is calculated from what is left over. I'm not sure how much CryptX pays per kwh and it might be posted in this thread or the prospectus, but that fee also includes warehouse space and maintenance cost.

Do we know if petamine is selling themselves electricity?

If so it should be less than $0.05 × 1.5 (PUE + hosting costs)

Even if they are buying electricity for $0.1/kwh they shouldn't be charging more than $0.15/kwh.

$0.45/kwh is ludicrous. How do we know $0.25 is anywhere near their costs when they managed to simply cut the price in half as soon as hosting costed ~50% of what they mined.

I bet they can go as low as $0.1/kwh and still profit. Especially if they are selling electricity to themselves.

there is allot of cost inefficiency called profit in everything on the market, you would be surprised at the kind of markup they can pull off on certain things

PETA will continue to reduce the cost as their operation grows, economies of scale
i think 20% margin is fair at its current size (calculated based on 0.25$/kwh assuming 0.05$/kwh actual electricity cost)

[Anotheranonlol]

Because of that, the value of the assets decreases over time, meaning less value can be generated, and it does this allot quicker than new value can be added through reinvestment.

Agree with you there.

Unless megabigpower, knc et al offers up % stakes in their farms I don't see how that's a question investors would need to worry about, They are competition but so's the guy sitting at home with a few antmers and free electricity on the lease- everyone is competition

Investors should worry because their miners are 1/5th as efficient as the competition. PETA will be simply pushed out of the game when hosting cost more than they mine.

Peta-mines next miners are same architecture as in megabigpowers washington farm, in fact as far as i know cryptxs are rev 2 whilst mbp was still using rev 1 -- so peta equipment 25% *more* efficient, not 1/5th

unless you are talking about electricity. Belgium is not a competitive place for electricity. it's well known. However who said cryptx is paying 0.25 for electricity? If this was the case where would you propose they are earning profits from, not holding shares?

Their farm working with renewable sources via their subsidiaries as pointed out above. last was mentioned 350kw solar installation. Hence the 0.25 is the 'all in' fee you get for the convenience of the hosted mining . Last mining fee was ~23% of btc mined with BTC at $450, if $/BTC rate goes up this amount would decline

[jimmothy]

It was a poor decision to give petas profits through hosting fees that they determine.

I think it would have been better if they held a portion of petamine shares so at least their interests would align with their investors.

[Anonymousg64]

cost$/Gh/s is on an inverse trend to Difficulty
there is currently not enough asic manufacturing capacity in the world to maintain the current doubling rate of the difficulty, as indicated by http://bitcoin.sipa.be/speed-ever.png
$/BTC has historically kept going up, this impacts how much Gh/s each BTC buys
combining these factors, PETA is setting itself up to become the most profitable investment option available
with PETA current strategy, each share will continue to grow in corresponding Gh/s, giving you the most secure mining investment
PETA's current profit margin is 20% of mined revenue, they have shown that they are willing to adjust their hosting fee as their operations grow, altho some who only seek short term profits may think they have acted in self-interest when they decided to grow the operation by releasing more ipo and halting dividends the case is that their action will actually benefit all investors with greater returns and better odds of successfully operating indefinitely.

It was a poor decision to give petas profits through hosting fees that they determine.

I think it would have been better if they held a portion of petamine shares so at least their interests would align with their investors.

interests do align, they need to maintain and grow the hashrate network share to continue being profitable
this will always benefit investors in the long run

[cryptx]

Do we know if petamine is selling themselves electricity?

If so it should be less than $0.05 × 1.5 (PUE + hosting costs)

Even if they are buying electricity for $0.1/kwh they shouldn't be charging more than $0.15/kwh.

$0.45/kwh is ludicrous. How do we know $0.25 is anywhere near their costs when they managed to simply cut the price in half as soon as hosting costed ~50% of what they mined.

I bet they can go as low as $0.1/kwh and still profit. Especially if they are selling electricity to themselves.

We have a 350,000 Watt solar facility at site, which is owned by another company of us. To give you all an idea what this means:

In Belgium a 350kW installation has a yearly revenue of about 300,000 Kwh. The PetaMine consumes about 500 kw or 1285 kw after IPO (500*1 + 1000*0.785), this means between 4,380,000kwh and 11,256,600kwh each year. This is without any growth!

So our own electricity is only between 6.8% and ?? 1,1% of all electricity needed. What do you think such an installation costs?

[jimmothy]

Do we know if petamine is selling themselves electricity?

If so it should be less than $0.05 × 1.5 (PUE + hosting costs)

Even if they are buying electricity for $0.1/kwh they shouldn't be charging more than $0.15/kwh.

$0.45/kwh is ludicrous. How do we know $0.25 is anywhere near their costs when they managed to simply cut the price in half as soon as hosting costed ~50% of what they mined.

I bet they can go as low as $0.1/kwh and still profit. Especially if they are selling electricity to themselves.

We have a 350,000 Watt solar facility at site, which is owned by another company of us. To give you all an idea what this means:

In Belgium a 350kW installation has a yearly revenue of about 300,000 Kwh. The PetaMine consumes about 500 kw or 1285 kw after IPO (500*1 + 1000*0.785), this means between 4,380,000kwh and 11,256,600kwh each year. This is without any growth!

So our own electricity is only between 6.8% and ?? 1,1% of all electricity needed. What do you think such an installation costs?

So basically no, you are not selling electricity to yourself (or at least not a significant amount).

How much do you pay for electricity per kwh?

[chkgk]

I've been reading along for quite some time now and seeing how strongly some people push their views, projections and guesstimates, I can't shake the feeling they do this to influence the share price to their own good.

The argument has been brought forward, that "investors" were screwed over by releasing scryptx, then, as soon as "everyone" moved their funds over to it and away from PETA, cryptx "inflated" the share price of PETA, leaving former PETA investors out in the cold.

This, my friends, is bullshit.

Look at the PETA share price: it was on a slight uptick right before and shortly after the announcement of scryptx. There is no sign whatsoever that PETA holders sold significant numbers of shares to free capital for investing in scryptx. Also, scryptx ipo was not sold-out, reaffirming the observation that demand was not excessive and especially not driven by former PETA holders switching over.

Apart from this observation, people moving over from one project to the other on words notice can hardly be called investors. They are short term speculators. The difference is important:
long term investors care about long-term dividend yield, that is company profits. Long-term some and multiple years, although in the bitcoin business I am willing to accept a single year as long-term already. Investors do not care much about the share price, as long as they are confident that overall they will make a profit. Note that there is always two sources of profit for shareholders: dividend yield (often misleadingly called ROI around here) plus profits from selling at a higher share price after the long-term holding period.
speculators, on the other hand, care about short-term profits, mainly from jumps in the share price. Speculators always quickly move their funds where they believe the next market price swings will be strongest, they are often the spearhead when it comes to ipos. Normally, they don't care about dividends at all, as they typically hold shares for too little time for them to be relevant. In the bitcoin business, with weekly dividends, large dividend yields and little trading volume, however, they have come to care about these as well.

Now, here we seem to have the case of small time speculators, who simply made a bad choice: they jumped at the scryptx ipo, selling their small holdings of PETA. When the new ipo with a baseline price of 0.9 was announced for PETA and market share price adjusted, they cried foul for missing out on the opportunity.

Now, to remedy their own bad decision, they try to frame cryptx' behavior as bad for investors, while really only speculators like themselves are negatively affected by a short term reinvestment if all profits and a long-term value increase by increases in the total hashrate. Clearly, they try to get people to sell their PETA shares, thereby lowering the price and giving speculators the chance to put their funds back into PETA at lowered share prices. Remember: speculators mainly care about share price changes! With a market this thin, they can easily affect the price and will want to do so, if they feel they missed out on something by making a bad decision.

Sadly, it seems to be working and the speculators seem to be getting away with their method: first, scryptx share price went down, indicating people sold to get free capital to move back into PETA. Now, PETA's share price is also down, indicating that investors are actually fooled by the guesstimates and statements around here and selling their shares. I believe, the shares are happily picked up by speculators who move back into PETA shortly before the ipo.

One last thing (edit): if you are unhappy, you are free to sell your shares on the market. No need to complain and try to influence others. They will see the sentiment just by looking at the share price.

[Anotheranonlol]

Wow wtf???

I have bought shares  based on assumption that I will bet 65% of mined bitcoins - fee as divident weekly!!!!!
I bought 8,68 GHs per share which was never provided.  
Now You are changing it and taking off my dividents to pay some debt I don't have wtf? Maybe firstly You should give us what was promised so 8,68 per share than launch an new IPO?
According to calculation posted on this forum there will be around 13 weeks in realistic scenarion without dividents - so based on last didvidents 0,02 per share - it is my lost but in realty it is even more becouse we are not hashing at 8,68 now. After this 13 weeks becouse of mining dofficulty increased it may occur that we are getting the same level of dividents as they are now so it will be completly loss for us (13 weeks without any money to get the same situation as it is now).

Havelock did You ok with such changing condition without voting/buing back?

why would there be 13 weeks without dividend?. previous week 150+btc mined. the farm will be increased up to 3x in capacity beginning next week..I'm sure you can extrapolate payback period from that.

I do agree a significant change without vote should not be happening, if these are supposed to be voting shares   Shame that havelock doesn't have voting system in place.

[webbrowser]

I really don't see why the argument.

Estimates that dividends could repay cryptx's loan by X date are woefully short, because of the huge reinvestment % . Dividends don't resume when sum(dividend+reinvestment)=loan.  Dividends resume when sum(dividend)=loan.

Make a copy of cryptx's spreadsheet at https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjI5bgsiFJAidHgwa0UyTHNEVG1lbDdvN2FMTExvOHc&usp=drive_web#gid=32 and change Col B to add 10PH per interval.  If the first IPO batch sells out, shareholders will only see dividends in Sep.  If the IPO does not sell at all, dividends will be seen in Dec.  All while the mine is steadily growing in hashrate, but absolutely not keeping up with the network.

Using cryptx's own spreadsheet so that nobody argues about the hosting fees, reinvestment calculations, BTC exchange rate, etc etc..  All I'm changing is the rate of growth of network hashrate to 10PH per interval, from cryptx's 6PH projection.  Yes, it's linear, so the rate of increase may easily be far, far greater.  At least this choice should appease people who point out that hashrate cannot rise exponentially forever.



- If the IPO doesn't sell at all, the loan amount could potentially be 3760 - 150 - 300 = 3310 BTC. 

- if a 1000BTC "loan" is taken from cryptx, it will only be fully repaid from dividends in Aug '14, and shareholders finally start getting lean and fast-declining dividends in Sep '14.  I don't know how cryptx calculates it, or how the loan amount is merely 1009 BTC if 10000 shares (950BTC) are sold at IPO.

- I don't see why the IPO will be bought up if the dividends quickly trend towards zero before reaching ROI, and since shares on the market are cheaper.

- Note how % network still drops during the first few periods of heavy reinvestment.  This shows that the reinvestment strategy is still futile at this rate of network growth.

We should now agree on how horrible the outcome is even with a linear 10PH increase.  Perhaps certain anonymous people will claim that 10PH is way too much.  ASICMINER has indicated expected delivery of 109PH of chips shortly.  That's just one manufacturer.  How about the rest?

So the question really is what you think the network hashrate / difficulty growth will be.

I don't think we should argue about other possible factors such as BTC exchange rates because these are the same figures as in cryptx's projections.

I also don't know whether other cloud mining operations can be sustainably profitable, but that isn't the point we're discussing.

[cryptx]

Breakdown of hosting fee of $0.25/kwh:

- We pay $0.155/kwh for electricity (retail in Belgium is $0.25/kwh)
- this leaves $0.095/kwh for hosting, maintenance, repair, labor

Compare this with cex.io ($0.26/gh per month which translates to $0.36/kwh) or cloudhashing ($0.70/kwh).
We are looking for the most power efficient miners, with new Bitfury's, consuming about 0.78W/GH, this means a hosting cost of $0.14/gh per month.