ASICMINER: Entering the Future of ASIC Mining by Inventing It

[Lohoris]

What if we already have a whole bunch of chips ordered and paid for by these umbrella operations we are working with at a higher than fair market price. wont that be good for us?

Let me see if I understand, you mean that if the buyer pre-paid those chips and then difficulty rose more than expected, well he has already paid so that's good for AM, right?

[minerpumpkin]

What are you implying? i.e., how does this affect the price at which we are able to sell chips after this month / in the general future? The price is simply determined by the difficulty, BTC/$ price, and competitors. And 2 of them won't stop working "against" AM. The BTC price may make the chips more desirable, yet will slash dividends which are priced in BTC.
Long story short: Things aren't getting better with time. Chip manufacturers need to work as fast as possible. Promises of $0.5-$1.0/GH/s won't become reality anymore, things took too long.

What if we already have a whole bunch of chips ordered and paid for by these umbrella operations we are working with at a higher than fair market price. wont that be good for us?

Assuming projected batch sizes (May April: 8.5 PH/s, June May 33.5 PH/s) and assuming that the reported chip sales ($3,691,731) are the May batch and the Hardware in stock ($1,420,233+ $6,104,800=$7,525,033) is the June batch, we can conclude that AM achieved a price of: $0.43 for April and $0.22 for May. I know, at least the June numbers suggest that something doesn't add up and we may still expect payments for them. But it doesn't seem that AM is achieving the prices it has hoped for. And they won't increase. Even accepting a delayed payment won't do the trick. And that's the reason why the financial report seems worrysome.

[El Cabron]

What if we already have a whole bunch of chips ordered and paid for by these umbrella operations we are working with at a higher than fair market price. wont that be good for us?

Let me see if I understand, you mean that if the buyer pre-paid those chips and then difficulty rose more than expected, well he has already paid so that's good for AM, right?

Well, it means we wont take the loss, the other company will. Right now I don't know who is absorbing the loss. Does anyone know? Is this info even public?

[vortex1878]

What are you implying? i.e., how does this affect the price at which we are able to sell chips after this month / in the general future? The price is simply determined by the difficulty, BTC/$ price, and competitors. And 2 of them won't stop working "against" AM. The BTC price may make the chips more desirable, yet will slash dividends which are priced in BTC.
Long story short: Things aren't getting better with time. Chip manufacturers need to work as fast as possible. Promises of $0.5-$1.0/GH/s won't become reality anymore, things took too long.

What if we already have a whole bunch of chips ordered and paid for by these umbrella operations we are working with at a higher than fair market price. wont that be good for us?

Assuming projected batch sizes (May: 8.5 PH/s, June 33.5 PH/s) and assuming that the reported chip sales ($3,691,731) are the May batch and the Hardware in stock ($1,420,233+ $6,104,800=$7,525,033) is the June batch, we can conclude that AM achieved a price of: $0.43 for May and $0.22 for June. I know, at least the June numbers suggest that something doesn't add up and we may still expect payments for them. But it doesn't seem that AM is achieving the prices it has hoped for. And they won't increase. Even accepting a delayed payment won't do the trick. And that's the reason why the financial report seems worrysome.

Inventory is listed as production cost, NOT sales price.

[minerpumpkin]

What are you implying? i.e., how does this affect the price at which we are able to sell chips after this month / in the general future? The price is simply determined by the difficulty, BTC/$ price, and competitors. And 2 of them won't stop working "against" AM. The BTC price may make the chips more desirable, yet will slash dividends which are priced in BTC.
Long story short: Things aren't getting better with time. Chip manufacturers need to work as fast as possible. Promises of $0.5-$1.0/GH/s won't become reality anymore, things took too long.

What if we already have a whole bunch of chips ordered and paid for by these umbrella operations we are working with at a higher than fair market price. wont that be good for us?

Assuming projected batch sizes (May: 8.5 PH/s, June 33.5 PH/s) and assuming that the reported chip sales ($3,691,731) are the May batch and the Hardware in stock ($1,420,233+ $6,104,800=$7,525,033) is the June batch, we can conclude that AM achieved a price of: $0.43 for May and $0.22 for June. I know, at least the June numbers suggest that something doesn't add up and we may still expect payments for them. But it doesn't seem that AM is achieving the prices it has hoped for. And they won't increase. Even accepting a delayed payment won't do the trick. And that's the reason why the financial report seems worrysome.

Inventory is listed as production cost, NOT sales price.

Which would perfectly foster the claim of a wafer cost of $0.2/GH/s for batches after the first one.
Chip sales are sales, though. And achieving 0.43 for the first batch in May isn't exactly good and definitely below expectations. How is the price supposed to up from there?

[KS]

Given the time sensitivity of this market, FC might have chosen to sell at a lower price to bring in the cash sooner in order to ramp up production faster.

Speculation is like religion. You either believe or you don't. If you don't, get out.

Or maybe FC is trying to suffocate the comp with underpriced ghs

I'm not sure which competition you're referring to. There is the one that is already shipping (and took your money already) and the one that has taken pre-orders (and also took your money already).

I think everyone has enough money for the next round (possibly two) and some are building or have built their own mining operation (and are thus less likely to suffer from AM's pricing in the short term). Besides, you don't win by selling at, or under cost unless you have bigger cash reserves than the competition and I doubt AM's in the best position there.

They must also preserve their profit margin as the move to 28nm and lower will be tricky. It will be costly and will require experienced professionals (Gen3 is child's play in comparison).

[NotLambchop]

...
OK, jimmothy:

You own stock in company A, which makes widgets.
I own company A, and want to make your shares worthless.
I form company B, and form a contract to sell it my widgets at laughably low prices.
This bleeds out company A, while I get to keep all muh munyz through company B profits.

So now you know

Well, What if "I", the owner of company A, himself possesses more than 50% shares of company A? And "I" take a risk by collude with all the board members, who possess another 30% shares, only to bleed the rest 20% of the company out...

The TL;DR answer is you don't own 50% of company A, or any company.

What you do own is a few ASICMINER sharez, worth ~50% less than they used to be just a couple of days ago.  That's also bragworthy, in its own way.

Why start with outlandish hypotheticals when equally lulzy personal examples are at hand?

*Now that we're on the same page, what exactly did you wish to know?

Sorry, I'm not English native speaker, maybe I failed to express myself clear.
What I really want to mean is: FC himself already possesses more than 50% shares of AM through BitFountain. I don't find any good reason for him to take a risk by collude with all the board members, who possess another 30% shares, only to bleed the rest 20% of the AM out.

Hi, not a native speaker either, though I don't think we have a language problem.  
Since we're dealing purely with hypotheticals (you don't own 50% of company A), i'll offer a few of my own:

As I have mentioned before, the board members, along with FC, could have unloaded their shares, used those shares to back additional funding, or funding for starting new companies--any number of things.  So assuming that 80% of ASICMINER shares are in the hands of those in control of the company, whose interests are aligned with yours, is simply unreasonable.

Then there's the risk you referred to, begging the question "WTF are you talking about?"  In countries with draconian securities regulations, bleedouts of the type I've described happens all the time.
What of a Hong Kong firm with an anonymous CEO, trading on an unlicenced Panamanian exchange, funded by selling its stock to non-qualified investors?  What, exactly, is the risk?  This thread gets a few angry posts and FC's Bitcointalk trust rating turns red?  The horror!

Finally, if your reasoning is sound, it surely must apply to other touchstones of Bitcoin finance, like NeoBee?  Local finance enthusiasts tripped over each other to mock me and fling invectives when I suggested that Mr. Brewster was anything less than capable and sincere.

Finally, consider that remaining 20%--the reward side of teh risk equation.  That's millions of dollars.  Many in this thread would do more than cook the virtual, unaudited books of a virtual company to lay their hands on such sums

[aahzmundus]

The idea that friedcat somehow unloaded his shares is absurd.  Anyone who noticed him unloading his shares would realize that in him unloading his shares, the value of those shares is near nill... with the liquidity on havelock, the thought of being able to sell a few thousand shares is absurd.  Being able to unload 200,000 shares?  Impossible...  And we would notice 200,000 shares moving. 

[Chris_Sabian]

The idea that friedcat somehow unloaded his shares is absurd.  Anyone who noticed him unloading his shares would realize that in him unloading his shares, the value of those shares is near nill... with the liquidity on havelock, the thought of being able to sell a few thousand shares is absurd.  Being able to unload 200,000 shares?  Impossible...  And we would notice 200,000 shares moving. 

If it was a direct sale, then how would you notice since the shareholder list is based off of dividends and there were 0 since March?

[Groc]

How is the price so low  Time to load up on shares 

[El Cabron]

How is the price so low  Time to load up on shares 

i have been doing the same

[KarmaShark]

How is the price so low  Time to load up on shares 

i have been doing the same

Ditto.

[Mabsark]

Assuming projected batch sizes (May: 8.5 PH/s, June 33.5 PH/s) and assuming that the reported chip sales ($3,691,731) are the May batch and the Hardware in stock ($1,420,233+ $6,104,800=$7,525,033) is the June batch, we can conclude that AM achieved a price of: $0.43 for May and $0.22 for June.

The May batch was around 30 Ph/s given the value of 5,727,500 USD spent on wafers in the cash flow report. At 0.2 USD/Gh (friedcat said less than 0.2 though) you'd get a hashrate of 28,637,500 Gh/s (28.64 Ph/s).

Each wafer gives around 40 TH/s [url-https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=99497.msg5025133#msg5025133]according to Jutarul[/url]. If we assume a 30 Ph/s total hashrate then that gives 750 wafers. Some nice round numbers to work with:

750 wafers,
40 Th/s per wafer,
30 Ph/s total hashrate.

Given that we know 5,727,500 USD was spent on wafers and assuming the hashrate of those wafers to be 30 Ph/s, the cost per G would be 0.19092 USD/Gh. The price for chips in that batch is 0.49-0.99 USD/Gh depending on the size of the order. That's a total of between 14,700,000 and 29,7000,000 USD in chip sales for the May batch.

[minerpumpkin]

Assuming projected batch sizes (May: 8.5 PH/s, June 33.5 PH/s) and assuming that the reported chip sales ($3,691,731) are the May batch and the Hardware in stock ($1,420,233+ $6,104,800=$7,525,033) is the June batch, we can conclude that AM achieved a price of: $0.43 for May and $0.22 for June.

The May batch was around 30 Ph/s given the value of 5,727,500 USD spent on wafers in the cash flow report. At 0.2 USD/Gh (friedcat said less than 0.2 though) you'd get a hashrate of 28,637,500 Gh/s (28.64 Ph/s).

Each wafer gives around 40 TH/s [url-https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=99497.msg5025133#msg5025133]according to Jutarul[/url]. If we assume a 30 Ph/s total hashrate then that gives 750 wafers. Some nice round numbers to work with:

750 wafers,
40 Th/s per wafer,
30 Ph/s total hashrate.

Given that we know 5,727,500 USD was spent on wafers and assuming the hashrate of those wafers to be 30 Ph/s, the cost per G would be 0.19092 USD/Gh. The price for chips in that batch is 0.49-0.99 USD/Gh depending on the size of the order. That's a total of between 14,700,000 and 29,7000,000 USD in chip sales for the May batch.

I'm sorry, please change May to April and June to May.
Okay, please explain the following issue at hand: The April (not May as I erroneously stated) batch had 8.5 PH/s. Why do we only have $3,691,731 in chip sales? This would translate (as mentioned earlier) to a price of $0.43/GH/s for May. We should have yielded more revenue.
- What makes you think we achieved a price of $0.50-$1.00/GH/s (we all know this used to be the target)
- How can we achieve a price exceeding $0.40 for June+ batches, when the market price (although preorder) is supposedly at $0.35 and we probably haven't even achieved that price for the earliest (April) batch?

[Anotheranonlol]

when the market price (although preorder) is supposedly at $0.35 and we probably haven't even achieved that price for the earliest (April) batch?

One supplier order 3PH AM chips, he mention that market price for late june is actually less than that (for bulk order)
so somethings don't add up.

[minerpumpkin]

when the market price (although preorder) is supposedly at $0.35 and we probably haven't even achieved that price for the earliest (April) batch?

One supplier order 3PH AM chips, he mention that market price for late june is actually less than that (for bulk order)
so somethings don't add up.

Do you've got sources or anything? A price below $0.35 sounds quite worrying.

[willBTC]

when the market price (although preorder) is supposedly at $0.35 and we probably haven't even achieved that price for the earliest (April) batch?

One supplier order 3PH AM chips, he mention that market price for late june is actually less than that (for bulk order)
so somethings don't add up.

source?

[Anotheranonlol]

when the market price (although preorder) is supposedly at $0.35 and we probably haven't even achieved that price for the earliest (April) batch?

One supplier order 3PH AM chips, he mention that market price for late june is actually less than that (for bulk order)
so somethings don't add up.

Do you've got sources or anything? A price below $0.35 sounds quite worrying.

I can only show screenshot from QQ, perhaps it's not enough for you.

and by the way, Bitfury new datacentre (on kimito island, finland) also uses Oil-immersion, they have 20mw plant and next gen chip in works.

Antminer S3 (28nm) out shortly- they are very popular with those that don't like preorder so for small customer am have no edge, Spoondoolies is coming out of shadows, even Avalon is apparently kicking into gear with tape-out of a next chip.

the delusions of AM dominating the market like the golden days will have to have a splash of cold water, for too long AM investors demonstrate irrational exuberance, holding this stock up to crazy levels when it stuck paying less than a high street bank in divs.

[Mabsark]

Okay, please explain the following issue at hand: The April (not May as I erroneously stated) batch had 8.5 PH/s. Why do we only have $3,691,731 in chip sales? This would translate (as mentioned earlier) to a price of $0.43/GH/s for May. We should have yielded more revenue.

Actually, assuming a value of 500 USD/BTC and the current price of RMB/USD, there was about 4.41 million USD in chip sales. Why is there only that much? Perhaps payment hadn't been received for all the chips sold? Perhaps AM didn't sell all the chips? There's numerous reasons.

- What makes you think we achieved a price of $0.50-$1.00/GH/s (we all know this used to be the target)

Simply because that's the price that was told us.

- How can we achieve a price exceeding $0.40 for June+ batches, when the market price (although preorder) is supposedly at $0.35 and we probably haven't even achieved that price for the earliest (April) batch?

Is there any evidence for that price though? I haven't seen it, have you? Friedcat did say the price would be lower for the later batches but he didn't say what price they would be.

[KarmaShark]

Until FC comes here and tells us or answers these vital questions from the shareholders inquiry going out, we will speculate for pages upon pages with no traction. Meanwhile, trolls will show up and attempt to pray on the nerves of investors while they can. As soon as FC shows the numbers and they are not a total train wreck, the share price will sky rocket from it's current position.


You're going to have to wait this out until answers come AND ignore the individuals who have a material benefit from seeing this company fail or the share price fall in the short term. Until we have solid numbers, get use to this.