Quantum Block Share Chat (QBT)

Of all the stocks, in all the world, why buy QBT?

Is it its track record of big returns for shareholders?

Is it its strong balance sheet?

Is it its strong institutional endorsement?

Is it its past record of success in a multiplicity of different sectors?

Is it the strong broker and press recommendations?

Is it heavy insider buying, by directors and key employees well placed to know that it is about to go stratospheric?

Surely it can't just be faith in one elderly Italian, who draws a third of a million quid from it annually in consultancy fees?

Just asking for a friend.

“I haven’t lied about you Hexam, show me where I have lied please”

You said I hadn’t I listed the problems. I had. The proof is in my posts, especially the details I gave yesterday evening.

You say I called the errors grisly. I didn’t. I said the accounts as a whole were grisly and that my main concerns were the cash position and the going concern statement. Again in my posts.

You said I wasn’t worried about the cash position before I sold. I was and there are plenty of posts by me to prove that.

You said that I clearly want others to sell. I don’t and have said this before. I’d rather they bought and still do.

That’s four and that’s just this evening - I’d go back further but it would bore me as much as would everybody else.

Don’t worry, I’m not expecting you to be big enough to apologise.

I haven’t lied about you Hexam, show me where I have lied please, I have no problem apologising if I have something wrong, that you can PROVE.

As for accounts, the errors you talk about are nothing yet that’s apparently Grisly, come off, that’s buzz words, same as red flags, etc

“Hexam , it’s only you and the other 2 that’s see a problem with accounts, yet you can’t even list what is wrong.”

I listed three of the errors and gave a lot of detail - isn’t that enough?

Why do you keep lying about me (and everything else come to that)?

Hexam, it’s only you and the other 2 that’s see a problem with accounts, yet you can’t even list what is wrong.

Today you have used the trader who has sold buzz words, Grisly, red flags, other posters who call you out are telling lies apparently.

As I said, if you believe QBT is a problem then that’s your prerogative, but to keep ramming “your” thoughts down the throats of this board stinks of an agenda imho.

So a quick tally over the last week or so and it’s around 32.5m buys vs 15.5m sells

I believe that method C oracle update is due anytime now. Strange time to try and trade or whatever is going on, each to their own kicks.

Awl007 said "Steve. Was the €700k not being held in an escrow?"

I don't know. I checked the 4 June 2024 where they announced "with respect to the First Sipiem Settlement, the payment of €700,000 has now been completed." No mention of escrow for the 700k

Further down is says "...the Receiver has released the €30,000 which was held in an escrow account as part of the initial claim purchase agreement...", but that seems to not be for something else, not the €700k.

Confusing!

I don't pay too much attention to the litigation stuff because it is not part of the core business and is a one-off. I think if the success or failure of QBT relies on the litigation outcome, then QBT are in very dire financial straits. Warren Buffet has also advised to keep away from companies that are in constant litigation.

It's hard not to disagree with Herdie. Btw, your post was funny! If QBT are trying to generate momentum with another major milestone narrative, the market may shrug and go back to pricing in the next funding step. On that basis, all systems go for Blockepper. Our eyes are on whether the next news actually delivers something new beyond the usual QBT language of finally generate the quality data and we are now finally in a position to train… generate… perform live testing. LMFAO 🤣 you've to laugh at the rampers and I include myself over the wasted time I've spent here. All of us have our dollar signed goggles on LOL

QBT’s updates have the rhythm of a well-rehearsed magic show, pull the audience in with big words, promise a grand reveal as early as a certain date, then whisk the actual deliverable offstage before anyone can measure it. First the MDK is fully operational, then the data is quality suitable for training, then training commences, and somehow the next AI Oracle is always one refinement away from materialising! As I said yesterday, my expectations are so low that anything comes from this.

Hex. Just one flaw in your logic. I may well be FG trying to entertain both sides while buying more shares in my own company as cheap as possible. Far fetched but ya never know. Hehe.

Steve. Was the €700k not being held in an escrow? If so qbt should not have to pay it back. It was ages ago so brain fog and lumps could be causing my confusion.

This share has and has had for years more red flags than a communist rally, Its complete and utter pie in the sky, They are trying to make you believe they are going to disrupt a trillion dollar asset with two beans and a string of rope in their coffers, FGs managed somehow to kick the can so far down the road that hes now sat on a bench over looking lands end sampling the local fish and chips. Pretty sure he will try and get one last spike away before another placing, But not so sure the market will buy it this time in which case all systems go on the good ship Blockepper. Eyes down the next RNS could be quite the spectacle.

Thanks AWL, I still have a little left here should the miracle happen.

I’m starting to think we might be the only two posters here not affiliated to either a shorter or to QBT 😂

That’s obviously an exaggeration - but perhaps not so much of one!

Anyway I think there is very big news coming here soon - but we’ll just have to wait to see which way it falls…

Was you Steve? How curious are your posts: the first was at 08:00am for £5k, and now it's £19.25k.

Have you noticed only you or your team always focuses on large sales trades?

Last week we had many significant buys, and you & the team were quiet... 

I think you & your team are playing with fire, be careful.

If you want to answer, be honest, the biggest liar here is your friend PHInnocchioMIX 

Another large sell, 5.5m shares worth £19.25k at 0.35p.

The trade was at 16:37, so it looks like another individual investor held out until close of play to give QBT the chance to announce the things they said they would achieve by 30 June, and no PRN came, so they decided to bail out.

30-Jun-26 16:37:43 0.35 5,500,000 Sell* 0.35 0.37 19.25k

UslessSteve, nobody cares what you post, it’s your agenda to drive away interested parties, you post misleading rubbish, give up, me and others see right through your posts.

Perhaps you or someone on your team made the £5k sale, and then, obviously, you posted the same rubbish as usual.

Change your vinyl side, nobody listen to you anymore.

A new low for the share price has been set today of

0.3448p.

30-Jun-26 08:00:25 0.3448 1,362,578 Sell 4,698

It looks like a Sell of just under £5,000.

Today is the 30 June. QBT had told the market to expect progress on several things by this date, in more than one RNS, and in interviews. It appears this latest example in a long history of failure to meet expectation and aelf-imposed targets may have caused another individual investor to bail out.

Below $60k and still dropping.......not going to help qbt to secure funding for blockeeper which will be reliant on the price of btc......to secure deals

Hexam said "...sloppiness in the accounts..."

Winnifrith also pointed out another error in the accounts in his article yesterday. I cannot share the details here because they are coveted by copyright.

Steve, the other £5k was from your Team and then you start to scare people here? Why? If you have no interest in QBT, why have you been here since 2024, bashing it every single day, even on the weekend? A little odd, don't you think? Personally, I don't post in companies I'm not interested in; why do you post every day? Try to be honest at least once please. Thank you

“If you believe funds are an issue you would sell.”

You absolute muppet, I just did exactly that - read my post. I even gave the amount in advance - proof that it is mine. And don’t worry there is no chance I’ll be buying back as the meagre 204,000 I still have left is enough for me.

I look forward to you posting an example of a misleading post from me. Shouldn’t be too hard to find as there have been so ‘many’ according to you.

Of course you won’t because there aren’t any. There are plenty I could choose from yours though including the one I’m now replying to and, if the account hadn’t been deleted, the one where you set up a fake, second ID pretending to be a novice investor just to push your own agenda. Shameful.

I just couldn’t live with myself if I displayed just half the hypocrisy that you regularly do.

Obelix said "Hexam, you are another agenda-driven poster. If you believe funds are an issue you would sell."

Hexam did indeed sell 296,000 shares this morning, supporting Hexam's 08:47 post pre-announcing the trade.

Hexam, you are another agenda-driven poster. If you believe funds are an issue you would sell. It's then in your interest to bash and mislead to get back in. I've seen it too many times across boards: you post misleading rubbish to make investors worry in the hope they sell. I believe the opposite can happen here soon. 

Don't forget :-

QBT aims to list BlocKeeper on the AQSE Stock Exchange Growth Market (“Aquis”) following the completion a proposed fundraising as announced on 18 June 2026.

Sorry, put a lot more simply:

The finance costs on page 36 (the income statement) are correct for both years and are non-cash figures so should be reversed out in the cash flow statement on page 41.

This is done correctly for 2024 (positive becomes negative) but is seemingly incorrect for 2025 (negative remains negative).

The table on page 54 is simply a breakdown of these finance costs but for 2024 the total has the wrong sign but is not actually used anywhere else so no big deal.

You’ve picked up on a separate error in the 2024 accounts.

The 124 on page 54 is incorrect as overall it is actually a credit/income (so positive) and is shown correctly as such in the income statement on page 36.

It therefore needs to be deducted in the cash flow statement on page 41 and it is.

So the error for 2024 is only a presentational one on the table on page 54.

For 2025 the table is correct as it shows the total finance item as a charge/cost of 105 (i.e. negative) which it is and is more normal.

It is also correctly show as a cost on page 36.

It should therefore be added back as a positive in the cash flow statement on page 41 but it isn’t - it is deducted.

So the error appears this time only on page 41 which if so is more serious as it’s not just presentational (unless there is an offset elsewhere).

I think both problems may stem from the overall finance item being positive in 2024 which is very unusual (and caused by a large one-off item of credit for that year).

Hexam said "if someone could check my understanding of the (incorrect) treatment of the finance charge in the cash flow statement that would be great"

What do you mean exactly about the 105k finance charge?

2024 accounts page 37 shows "Finance costs 124", a positive value.

Page 55 shows the breakdown of the 124 as: Gain on derivatives 141; Interest on convertible bonds (246); Interest credit on modification of convertible bonds 177; Interest received 52. This totals 124, a positive value. But the table shows the total as (124), a negative value.

2025 accounts page 36 shows "Finance costs (105)", a negative value.

Page 54 shows the breakdown of the (105) as: Gain on derivatives 184; Interest on convertible bonds (257); Bank revaluations (83); Interest received 55; Bank fees (4). This totals (105), a negative value. But the table shows the total as (124), a negative value.

So I think the problem is that the 2024 accounts on page 54 incorrectly shows the total as 124 when it should be (124).

Nothing surprising in the figures. Exactly what one expects from a hobby company where the hobbyist is CEO and employs himself as a consultant to manage his hobby and keep himself in the style to which he has become accustomed.

“So what about money due or received as per the last couple of updates on cash from court cases etc, I can’t see where you have added those in, does that not help with the agenda guys.”

It hasn’t been received though else it would be in the update as such but yes, any court case money or Forcrowd receipts would help but they would only give a month or two grace anyway.

“I see that The new user TheRevd has answered Hexam's question to oldsharedog.”

Otherwise known as ‘Doing an Obelix’ :-)

I see that The new user TheRevd has answered Hexam's question to oldsharedog.

It looks like TheRevd and oldsdharedog are the same account.

Hopefully one of these two accounts will be removed shortly.

Er…OSD/The Revd, you’ve actually gone to the trouble of setting up two IDs it seems AND across them have posted more than twice than I have on these forums in the last month.

Does that make your life half as busy as mine or twice as sad? Or both?

Priceless.

Yes, I have posted a lot today but you may have missed that the company released its final results and most of my posts have been related to this rather important news or at least QBT more widely.

As you admit, yours (albeit much fewer) have not.

So one of us is talking (largely) about QBT whilst the other (that’s you by the way) is just bickering.

I think perhaps that you need to look at your own life before advising others on theirs…

“50 posts”

Three of them yours. Perhaps take some of your own advice?

DaffyPicker, you drew attention to the phrase "Significantly closer" in today#s final results: "𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘋𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘘𝘉𝘛 𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘭𝘺 𝘤𝘭𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘰 𝘥𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘩𝘯𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭-𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥 𝘉𝘪𝘵𝘤𝘰𝘪𝘯 𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴."

I would ask: significantly closer to what? This use of an absolute comparative is typical in marketing, and its use in financial accounts is meaningless at best, and potentially misleading.

DaffyPicker said "I thought QBT HAD demonstrated the practical and commercial applicability of its technologies and that is why it had an NDA signed??"

Yes, I think a majority of investors probably believe that, and that all QBT needed to do was finalise some commercial deals. What I think the sentence means is that now they finally have both an S9 rig and a third party commercial mining rig, they are, for the first time, able to demonstrate to the ASIC manufacturer the actual performance of their methods, and not merely hypothetical/theoretical performance obtained via rose-tinted extrapolation from lab simulations.

I’m not bothered, though, by anyone who consistently deceives just to suit their negative agenda, or who isn't invested, but is instead connected to a shorting company and is pushing

propaganda to deceive shareholders.

There you go 👍

Hexam, it is noted again you only mention rampers.

Where is the statement of:

I’m not bothered, though, by anyone who consistently deceives just to suit their negative agenda, or who isn't invested, but is instead connected to a shorting company and is pushing propaganda to deceive shareholders.

“putting pressure on to keep investors away.”

Makes me sound more like a mob heavy than a cop!

Besides I want MORE investors - not fewer. How else am I going to get out with a profit on my latest investment?

No, it depends on the news, not the day. I don’t see everything as automatically good or automatically bad.

If I think something is good I will say so but the financials today are poor (but only as expected - though wasn’t expecting to find what I think is an error).

And I do genuinely hope that those who have invested and ramp enthusiastically because they simply believe in FG do get a decent reward. You’d have to be particularly hard-hearted to enjoy watching somebody else’s dream die and for them to lose money.

I’m not so bothered though about anybody who consistently deceives just to suit their ramping agenda and/or is not simply invested but instead is connected to the company in some way and so is just pushing propaganda.

No worries AWL. I think you may be a too optimistic but let’s hope you’re right and a PRN like that comes to pass before the AGM.

Though I am worried by the prominence MC strategies/Eufingest has been given in the going concern statement and the way it is phrased. My spidey sense is tingling so will probably sell some tomorrow and just leave a token amount in.

Okey dokey Hex. My bad.

Yes. A prn stating everything is rosey. Methods work. And revenue this year.

All confirmed by a third party.

I’m afraid there is a flaw in your survey AWL - who decides whether the PRN is positive?

If you go with the market as the arbitrator and rephrase it as will there be a PRN that raises the sp to 0.4p then I’d have to go with a 👎

Just for fun.

Post a 👍if you think a positive prn will land before agm.

Post a 👎 if not.

My bad.

Hexam said "Maybe there is hope after all????"

I don't think so. QBT said exactly the same thing in their 2024 accounts (page 70) !! 🤣

"𝘍𝘶𝘳𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦 𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘵 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘩𝘴, 𝘢𝘭𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩 𝘱𝘳𝘶𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺, 𝘯𝘰 𝘴𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘳𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯𝘶𝘦𝘴 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘭𝘶𝘥𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘳𝘵-𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘮 𝘧𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘫𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴. 𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘴 𝘢𝘯 𝘰𝘯𝘨𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘴, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘧𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘤𝘢𝘴𝘩 𝘧𝘭𝘰𝘸 𝘮𝘰𝘥𝘦𝘭𝘴."

It clearly DOESN’T have adequate cash balances at the reporting date to sustain operational existence over the next twelve months (without access to further resource) but the bit about expecting to be able to start commercial activity in the coming months is very interesting - even if ‘coming months’ is very vague and has an ‘end of summer’ vibe about it!

Maybe there is hope after all????

I find it baffling that QBT "𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦 𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘵 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘩" but will not allocate any significant revenue to their short-term financial projections.

Aha! Notice the phrase "𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦 𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘵𝘰". QBT are not saying they "𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘵 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘩". They are only saying that they expect to be able to start. Of course, once they are able to start, whether they decide to start or not is a different question.

Very strange wording.

From Liquidity risk management paragraph on page 69:

"𝘓𝘪𝘲𝘶𝘪𝘥𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘬 𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘢𝘨𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘜𝘭𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘭𝘪𝘲𝘶𝘪𝘥𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘬 𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘢𝘨𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘉𝘰𝘢𝘳𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘋𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘴, 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘎𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘱’𝘴 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘳𝘵, 𝘮𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘶𝘮 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘭𝘰𝘯𝘨-𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘮 𝘧𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘭𝘪𝘲𝘶𝘪𝘥𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘢𝘨𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘳𝘦𝘲𝘶𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘣𝘢𝘴𝘪𝘴. 𝙏𝙝𝙚 𝙂𝙧𝙤𝙪𝙥 𝙝𝙖𝙨 𝙖𝙙𝙚𝙦𝙪𝙖𝙩𝙚 𝙘𝙖𝙨𝙝 𝙗𝙖𝙡𝙖𝙣𝙘𝙚𝙨 𝙖𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙧𝙚𝙥𝙤𝙧𝙩𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙙𝙖𝙩𝙚 [31/12/2025]... 𝙩𝙤 𝙨𝙪𝙨𝙩𝙖𝙞𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙤𝙥𝙚𝙧𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙖𝙡 𝙚𝙭𝙞𝙨𝙩𝙚𝙣𝙘𝙚 𝙤𝙫𝙚𝙧 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙣𝙚𝙭𝙩 𝙩𝙬𝙚𝙡𝙫𝙚 𝙢𝙤𝙣𝙩𝙝𝙨. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘎𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘱 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘶𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘶𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘦𝘴 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘢𝘭𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 “𝘓𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘤𝘺 𝘈𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘵𝘴”. 𝘍𝘶𝘳𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦, 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝘾𝙤𝙢𝙥𝙖𝙣𝙮 𝙚𝙭𝙥𝙚𝙘𝙩𝙨 𝙩𝙤 𝙗𝙚 𝙖𝙗𝙡𝙚 𝙩𝙤 𝙨𝙩𝙖𝙧𝙩 𝙞𝙩𝙨 𝙘𝙤𝙢𝙢𝙚𝙧𝙘𝙞𝙖𝙡 𝙖𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙫𝙞𝙩𝙮 𝙞𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙘𝙤𝙢𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙢𝙤𝙣𝙩𝙝𝙨, 𝙖𝙡𝙩𝙝𝙤𝙪𝙜𝙝 𝙥𝙧𝙪𝙙𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙞𝙖𝙡𝙡𝙮, 𝙣𝙤 𝙨𝙞𝙜𝙣𝙞𝙛𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙣𝙩 𝙧𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙣𝙪𝙚𝙨 𝙝𝙖𝙫𝙚 𝙗𝙚𝙚𝙣 𝙞𝙣𝙘𝙡𝙪𝙙𝙚𝙙 𝙞𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙨𝙝𝙤𝙧𝙩-𝙩𝙚𝙧𝙢 𝙛𝙞𝙣𝙖𝙣𝙘𝙞𝙖𝙡 𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙟𝙚𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙨. 𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘴 𝘢𝘯 𝘰𝘯𝘨𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘴, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘧𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘤𝘢𝘴𝘩 𝘧𝘭𝘰𝘸 𝘮𝘰𝘥𝘦𝘭𝘴."

I had a small investment from the days of clear leisure until April this year & then jumped off at a massive loss.

Computing technology moves on so quick & if the tech is that good than why isn't the company mining ⛏️ coins themselves?

No investment here & will keep looking to jump 🦘 back on if it ever moves north in a positive direction ⬆️.

Made more recently from BP & Barclays in the last 6 months than in over 6 years on this one.

GLA

The Company’s Annual General Meeting (“AGM”) will be held at Company’s registered address; 1st Floor, 1 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1LF at 12.00 pm on 27 July 2026.

Inforapennyortwo said "The accounts posted TODAY are 6 months OUTDATED. They do NOT take into account company position TODAY"

You are wrong. The accounts posted today include a "post-balance sheet events" section. The definition of "post-balance sheet events" is:

"𝘈 ‘𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘣𝘢𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘴𝘩𝘦𝘦𝘵 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯𝘵’ 𝘪𝘴 𝘥𝘦𝘧𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘚𝘚𝘈𝘗 17 — 𝘈𝘤𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘣𝘢𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘴𝘩𝘦𝘦𝘵 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 — 𝘢𝘴 ‘𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴, 𝘣𝘰𝘵𝘩 𝘧𝘢𝘷𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘶𝘯𝘧𝘢𝘷𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦, 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘰𝘤𝘤𝘶𝘳 𝘣𝘦𝘵𝘸𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘢𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘴𝘩𝘦𝘦𝘵 𝘥𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘰𝘯 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘰𝘢𝘳𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘥𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘴’"

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-349-12998-0_21

Oldsharedog said "Why do you keep posting these spurious financial accounts from years ago ??"

My facts and figures are from the company accounts that were posted 𝐭𝐨𝐝𝐚𝐲.

It seems both oldsharedog and inforapennyortwo think that the most recently published financial position of QBT should be disregarded as irrelevant 🤣

OSD, I think the same names are looking to spook investors.

31.5m buys vs 6m sells approximately, says to me investors are only worried about method C news which is good/as expected will have a significant affect on the SP.

If there is a short in play as Mikey posted about, then I think we will see buyers taking the opportunity of any dip.

Just my opinion, right or wrong.

Useless - I could go over any companies expenditure for the last 2 years - it would be an irrelevant exercise - what is relevant is TODAYS financial position.

Why do you keep posting these spurious financial accounts from years ago ??

Your first post this morning sums up your understanding of the situation - blinkered !!

Now try and come up to date and post something fresh and relevant to todays situation - which is, that there will be a further cash requirement, unless of course news drops and the whole thing goes into orbit - NEWS IS DUE !!

The thing is no one knows yet what the news will be and the market is stuck in this narrow trough without any sign it is going to shift.

I will wait patiently without the need to worry about what happened 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 years ago !!

OSD - looking forward to tomorrow :)

Useless Steve : Audited results for end of year.

Number of posts 33% higher than previous year

Number of recommendations 98% lower than previous year - 2 recorded in the last 6 months :)

Number of reported posts 50% higher than previous year

Number of LSE accounts 100% more than previous year

Number of factual posts - No data available :)

Interest in posts 100% lower than all previous years - data taken from 1908 onwards.

The Forum are considering a winding up order for the posting accounts attributed which will enhance readers experience by 100%

Good morning all - Have a good day.

TLDR;

Revenue - zero (as we all knew)

Loss for the year: 10% worse than prior year

Total equity: 13% worse than prior year

Net cash outflow from operating activities: 55% worse than prior year

Staff costs: 33% higher than prior year

Directors’ emoluments: 26% higher than prior year

R&D costs: 11% higher than prior year

Professional and legal fees: 60% higher than prior year

So the year end results based up to 31st December 2025, lots happened in 6 months, it’s the here and now I want to see, results on method C which should be due anytime

Steve, the Oracle will always collect data, it never finishes, how else do you think an Oracle stay on target?

In the Post-Balance Sheet Events section: "𝘘𝘉𝘛 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘮𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘢 𝘧𝘶𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘰𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘵𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘩𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝙙𝙖𝙩𝙖 𝙘𝙤𝙡𝙡𝙚𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙖𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙫𝙞𝙩𝙞𝙚𝙨 𝙝𝙖𝙙 𝙘𝙤𝙢𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙘𝙚𝙙 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘈𝘚𝘐𝘊-𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘤 𝘈𝘐 𝘮𝘰𝘥𝘦𝘭 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨, 𝘷𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘥𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘱𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯. "

There we have it. As of today, the data collection has not completed and the training has not begun, otherwise the Post-Balance Sheet Events section would have said so.

QBT are still collecting data.

Https://www.londonstockexchange.com/news-article/QBT/final-results/17661070

Mickydj:

You seem to be trying to turn a mundane discussion into another conspiracy claim.

Me, I'm waiting until Gardin pays me to buy these fantasy shares!

Mickeydj: You post

"Several of the board's most persistent critics were suddenly discussing trading strategies, short positions, securities lending and when shorts should close."

Mickey, on this board there are, and I'm guessing, perhaps 20 regular posters. Consisting of, yes you've guessed, pro and anti contributors. Why would anyone find it remotely surprising that the majority responding are anti?

I think the responses suggest even the pros have doubts and that doesn't surprise me in the slightest!

So you began a thread centred on the mechanics of profiting from a falling share price and you were then surprised the thread centred on the mechanics of profiting from a falling share price.

Easily surprised aren’t you?

Yes, I think everybody can decide for themselves.

Hexam,

Of course I introduced the topic.

That was never in dispute.

What interested me wasn't that people responded.

It was who responded, the depth of the discussion that followed, and how quickly it became centred on the mechanics of profiting from a falling share price.

Several of the board's most persistent critics were suddenly discussing trading strategies, short positions, securities lending and when shorts should close.

That observation remains true regardless of who started the thread.

Readers can decide for themselves whether that's simply coincidence or useful context.

“The point is that the discussion has become centred on trading mechanics

Maybe that’s because YOU started the thread by saying in your first post:

“To illustrate the mechanics, assume a trader holds a short position of 8 million shares.”

Odd that?

The RNS states that source code, technical documentation and engineering support were provided.

You respond with, "I doubt..."

That's not evidence.

That's your opinion.

As for "magic" and "fantasy", that's just the same language you've used for years regardless of what QBT announces.

The only magic and fantasy resides in your head

Mickeydj: You post

" What isn't fair is pretending the subsequent development work—ASIC engagement, source code, engineering support, AI Oracle development and testing—simply didn't exist because it doesn't support your conclusion"

You fail to acknowledge the entire principle of an MDK. It provides miners with an open source system to allow development of a bespoke miner. Engagement and support is part of the deal for everyone buying into the MDK.

I doubt QBT is getting anything more than any other MDK developer. Gardin's puffed up PRNs make it appear so.

Mickydj: You post

" One does not magically appear without the other."

I beg to differ. It would appear the Gardin's statement of revenue in 2024 was based on nothing else but magic.

Pure fantasy by Gardin and judging by all his other fantasy and failure one could presume the same will happen to all his current claims. Once a dreamer always a dreamer

Steve,

You're doing it again, with Phimx rattling on in the background

Let's try this slowly.

Commercial revenue is an outcome.

Technical progress is the process that gets you there.

One does not magically appear without the other.

You keep taking one sentence from June 2025, ignoring every subsequent RNS, and then acting as though nothing has happened for a year.

That's cherry-picking.

If you want to criticise management for using the word "immediate", that's a perfectly fair debate.

What isn't fair is pretending the subsequent development work—ASIC engagement, source code, engineering support, AI Oracle development and testing—simply didn't exist because it doesn't support your conclusion.

You've made the same mistake deliberately and repeatedly:

"No sales announced" does not mean "No progress."

They're different things, however many times you and phimx finger puppet B try to conflate them.

"immediate release and sale"

Just more of Gardin's wishful thinking. It fills out a PRN and impresses the suckers

Steve,

You've misread what I wrote.

I didn't say nobody criticised the Google summary.

In fact, I explicitly said in plain English:

"My observation wasn't that nobody criticised it."

My point was that an unsupported claim quickly became the basis of a detailed discussion before its source had been established.

Those are two very different arguments.

Hexam,

You're still arguing against something I didn't say.

I never claimed nobody criticised the Google summary.

I said an unsupported claim became the basis of the discussion before its source had been properly established.

As above, those are two different arguments.

As for repeatedly suggesting I have some undisclosed connection to QBT because I haven't answered your personal questions, that's not evidence—it's speculation.

Speculating about me doesn't change it.

Steve, I also criticised it immediately - and at length. Daffy also weighed in. I’m not sure anyone DIDN’T criticise it!

It’s just Mikey creating his own narrative to push his/QBT’s agenda of deflection.

Your argument today hasn’t been about QBT or BlockKeeper but how people ‘argue’ and making up what others have said to do that. So I’ll stick to what I said and ignore that other than to say that I have already explained why your argument is flawed - there was an IMMEDIATE agreement it wasn’t BlocKeeper’s model and not after a lengthy discussion (which incidentally you were largely responsible for by trying to make it about something else).

You still haven’t denied a connection with the company so I take it my assumption is correct.

Looking forward to whatever FG has to say next week and then we’ll really have something worthwhile to talk about!

Mikeydj said "My observation wasn't that nobody criticised it."

You are wrong. In my 14:43 post today, I criticised Forfaiter claim as "AI slop" and requested the "precise link and the full prompt(s) that [Forfaiter] used to generate" it.

In the world of Mikeydj, if some people do something then that is good enough for him/her to claim that all people do something.

Hexam,

We've debated QBT personally on this forum for years, so I'll give you the courtesy of a direct reply.

You're now discussing me rather than the argument.

My investment in QBT has been discussed openly between us on numerous occasions over the years, so trying to present it now as some great unknown while implying I have a connection to the company is scraping the barrel.

Whether I'm invested, not invested, bullish, bearish or somewhere in between doesn't change the logic of what I wrote.

An unsupported "$70k" claim appeared.

It became the basis of a lengthy discussion.

Only afterwards did there emerge broad agreement that it wasn't an accurate description of BlocKeeper's model.

That was my point.

You've now largely abandoned discussing that and instead chosen to speculate about my identity and motives.

If my reasoning is flawed, explain why.

If it's sound, then who I am doesn't alter it.

For someone who frequently criticises others for making assumptions and attacking straw men, it's ironic that you've responded by speculating about my identity rather than addressing the substance of the argument.

In answer to every buy there must be a sell, this isn’t quite as straight forward as made out to believe.

Market makers can sell stock they don’t have, they can also short using this tactic, sell shares and refusing to move up, in some cases they can walk the share price backwards on the ASK to the and force the price down.

This is from Ai

Selling Without Stock: If a retail investor places a buy order and the market maker does not have the corresponding shares in their inventory, they are legally permitted to sell the shares to the buyer anyway.

The "Locate" Exemption: Ordinarily, a broker must borrow or locate a stock before selling it. However, market-maker exemptions in the UK permit them to bypass this locate requirement to facilitate instant liquidity.

Managing the Risk: When a market maker sells short, they take on the risk of the price rising. To hedge their exposure, they will typically buy the shares back from the open market or borrow them soon after to settle the trade.

No worries Plutuq. Aye brutal atm. Same here. Stick and gas welding in th 80’s. Now mostly mig and tig for me. I’ve tried project management and supervision but hated both. Rather be on the floor beating stuff with hammers. More therapeutic.

Mikey. Thanks for your reply and detailed summary. Most helpful. A little bit more research on how the market actually works would probably help me out. But time and technology isn’t my friend atm. Anyway let’s see the next couple of weeks play out.

AWL,

Good question.

Every trade has both a buyer and a seller.

However, what gets reported is the completed transaction, not two separate trades.

The confusion comes from how websites classify the trade afterwards.

Most sites simply compare the execution price with the current bid and ask at the time the trade is reported.

If it's nearer the ask, it's often labelled a buy.

If it's nearer the bid, it's often labelled a sell.

That's why the colours aren't always reliable.

It doesn't mean there wasn't both a buyer and a seller.

It simply reflects who was considered to be the aggressor in the transaction.

A market maker or broker may also be on one side of the trade temporarily before offsetting their position later, which can make the published buy/sell data look misleading.

So when people say "every buy has a seller", they're absolutely right.

But when we talk about buying pressure, we're referring to which side is being more aggressive and whether buyers are repeatedly prepared to pay the offer rather than wait at the bid.

That's why you can sometimes see persistent buying pressure without an immediate move in the share price, particularly in smaller AIM stocks where market makers are managing inventory.

Awl, I was just confirming your thoughts. No apology needed 😂

I served my tine as a welder in the 80s. Was a pipe welder with asme9 qual. No idea if that exists anymore haha. It's not a job you want in the summer pal! Didn't have all this mig welding gear when I started, good old stocks and knocking the slag off. Fave it up and went into teaching, so much easier

“If the trade classifications are unreliable, you can't use the same data to make a definitive claim that buying pressure doesn't exist.”

That’s ok then as clearly I didn’t. Once again attacking people for what they haven’t actually said or done.

It has nothing to do with classifications - the volume is too small for there to be any pressure regardless of classification plus if there was any meaningful pressure then that would be reflected in the sp.

I think your bosses will be disappointed with that lame effort and it may be time for you (and fellow users of the Mikeydj name) to change tactics again?

Awl007 said "Do you think there will be an update on methods before the finals?"

If Gardin is true to his word, then the Method C Oracle training will be complete by 30 June, so there should be a corresponding PRN.

But I do not think there will be any PRN regarding Method C before the Final Results.

Hi Steve. Do you think there will be an update on methods before the finals?

Looking forward to examining the Final Results on Mon or Tue next week (unless they are delayed as well, which would not surprise me).

In particular, the post balance sheet events should explain exactly where the Method C testing plan has actually progressed to, whether they are still collecting data, or if the Oracle is in training, etc. And of course, any related party transactions, and any funds goung to Gardin.

RNS 12 November 2025

"Francesco Gardin, CEO and Executive Chairman of QBT, commented , "The last six months have been crucial for this major R&D achievement which has involved, among other things, the generation of a staggering amount of mining data for the training of the new AI model. "

They must be drowning in data !

Previously they had so much it broke their Peta machine.

Gardin, perhaps you could report another breakdown and string this out even longer. No no, how about the company was hacked and all the data was stolen and you have to start again!

No it’s not likely Steve, the delay was down to controlling the ASIC manufacturers miner, you have posted the transcript of this, QBT needed answers from the ASIC manufacturer on about 20 questions from different departments to gain full control, the ASIC manufacturer replied from all departments and actively helped QBT gain full control, to now dominate the machine, that’s what took the time.

Quality Data was said to be being produced, the Oracle is not a new thing for QBT so I don’t see a delay here, I believe QBT will have initial results, the ASIC manufacturer will be the 1st to find out.

If QBT was genuinely of no interest we wouldn’t have all the comments from those telling us QBT is no good 😉 same on most boards tbf, all a game.

No worries miker. Thanks for your thoughts.

Awl, it was not a Day Trader, there were 3 individuals buying imo.

I’m just hoping it wasn’t a day trader p&d experiment today. Should find out if any big sells in the next half hour.

Around 31m buys to 6m sells over the last 5days.

Market should tick up imho.

Maybe an afternoon RNS is expected.. give the buys are morning.

Anyways whenever it lands I'm sure it will be good.

My point was to not rule out the possibility of a positive leak.

GLA

I've been researching shares using AI and QBC looks very exciting now, if they ever get back to 4p when I first bought in, who knows, we could all be millionaires lol