https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=99497.msg10772603#msg10772603Q) I think a price "explosion" is imminent, not to ATH territory, but $400 or so is definitely in the cards.
A) 400 will likely not be enough. A reasonable risk/reward ratio starts at > 1000 USD.
Q) What kind of dollars are we talking would be required from such an investor?
A) > $10M for a packaged deal to make sense.
Q) Does AM have possession of the IP related to BE300?
A) Yes. AM management also has a direct account with TSMC.
Q) You say the funding situation is Dire, is this due to FC being in sole possession of the keys?
A) The funding situation is very opaque. David Fan cannot provide information on current accounting. He is currently paying bills from some of the remaining company funds, surplus cash flow and personal funds. The accounting was managed by friedcat, and the last financial statement was delivered 4 months late and incomplete. He was asked to make it complete, clean it up and publish it - which never happened. Given the current circumstance I may as well show the incomplete statement, which covers the time May/2014-Oct/2014:
https://mega.co.nz/#!YUtUwa4K!o9VTJYkv0-eO0V6UU3vPwXZshItuBwq-z146p0pBH6E
Q) Do you think FC is safe?
A) I have insufficient information for such a conjecture. I certainly hope he is safe.
Q) Is there a plan yet to compensate shareholders for Amhash1 shares held on Havelock?A) On the side of AM any compensation would likely have to be financed either through operating revenue (which currently is going to 0 due to bitcoin price staying low and required funding to restock chip inventory) or the personal funds of volunteering shareholders. Unfortunately the morale among shareholders is rock bottom so everyone is looking at David Fan, especially since he also has an official company function. The question which is not so easy to answer is whether there would be a moral or legal obligation for such "volunteering". That said, he expressed his desire to develop a compensation plan for contract holders, conditional on the premise that everybody in the delivery chain carries a fair share.
Q) Hi, I don't get it, David should be as rich as FC! Why doesn't he invest into his company? Or rent coins to AM?
A) Why invest in a company which is loaded with liability when you don't feel responsible for the current situation? Also, wouldn't it be smarter to use the funds to restock the company with the latest chips in order to generate a profit from which these liabilities can be served? At the end this is a structural problem, that's why a reorganization of the company may be unavoidable.
Q) In the situation where the BTC price rises and free's up additional capital or VC money comes in to support the production of BE300, could shareholders reasonably expect to see some type of return later this year?
A) I cannot give investment advise. There are two types of returns. Revenue through increased market price and dividends. It would be very unlikely to see a company in the current state paying any dividends in the immediate future. Funds are better used to solve structural problems. The only exception to this would be a liquidation event of an unknown amount.
Q) Is the only other option the company goes under due to lack of funds and the legal process begins for those who wish to pursue it?
A) Provided that the core team stays intact and true to the mission the company would likely co-exist with bigger corps in the market place. How that would be structured is unknown. Any legal proceedings would of course hamper the ability of the company to operate, unless the situation is very asymmetric (i.e. legal defense costs are dramatically lower than legal offense costs).
Q) Anything else you can share with me would be appreciated. I would like your candid thoughts on the likelihood of VC coming in to play the role of white knight in the next 30-60 days window BE300 competitively has to get out to market. The other scenario is bound to happen, however we do not know if the price rise will take place in time for the chip to be profitable to product en masse.
A) The only way to make this work with an outside investor within 30-60 days is to do a clear cut reorg with a new Manager who has some experience in the industry.
Q) Why did ASICMiner wait weeks to provide concrete answers on the situation?
A) The board was officially fully informed of the "FC missing" problem at the end of February. Since then there has been a struggle for information, especially since FC apparently made himself a single point of failure on all kind of things. It was always assumed that David Fan was fully briefed on all aspects of the business - however that seems to be not the case.
Q) Are customers/investors threatening legal action at this time?
A) Yes.
Q) Is there a dispute between ROCKMINER and ASICMINER, and if so, can you share what is happening?
A) There is a dispute. The problem is that the underlying agreement is cluttered throughout write-ups, emails and verbal hearsay. And now FC is missing and cannot make a statement.
Q) Is ASICMiner solvent? Has ASICMiner taken steps to secure additional funding for core projects, chip development, etc.?
A) AM management seems to have failed to secure funding for core activities and the funding situation seems to have degenerated dramatically since Nov/2014. The problem is that there are no proper records to validate those claims quickly. An accountant would have to do a complete transactional rerun, using one of the valid financial statements as a checkpoint. According to David Fan the company bank accounts are low on funds and any remaining company funds may reside in accounts only FC has access to.
Q) What's next for ASICMiner?
A) There is increasing evidence that AM seems to be a one trick pony. I have no other way of putting it. As such, provided the bitcoin price rises, you can expect bitcoin mining devices to be produced which - should the profit margin be sustainable - should create shareholders value.
Q) With regards to the AM situation, could you elaborate on the what HashLord is and the role it played in AMHash?
A) I am sorry for the potential confusion. Hashlord was coined in reference to Landlord as the entity who is in control of the hashing power. At the current time it is not clear WHO that entity really was (Operator/AM/RM/FC/Third party). Obviously the operator can alway become the Hashlord by replugging the mining devices. That may have been the case - but there is no data to confirm that.
I hope I covered all the questions. If I missed one please state it again.
Regards
