Quantum Block Share Price (QBT)

Mikeydj

The issue isn’t whether work has occurred, it’s whether that work has produced verifiable commercial outcomes, which at present, once again it hasn't. That’s the gap in your argument, I'm afraid.

You list NDAs, mining rigs, MDK, source code access, manufacturer meetings, and live testing. None of those are the same thing as a signed deal or an agreed commercial deployment path with measurable performance,

or revenue, that can be evidenced in disclosed updates - this is what investors expected in May including myself based on the language of Francesco Gardin. Where is here? And why has there been no update(s)? It all seemed to be going so well, and then nothing again. You've to admit this is a similar pattern that seems to happen again and again.

Progress as you state is only meaningful if it can be shown to translate into outcomes that de-risk the commercial story. At this point, the disclosed record still doesn’t show the traction you’re implying, no partnership structure, no confirmed deployment outcomes, and no credible path supported by outcomes rather than activity. It's a very disappointing, sad state of affairs. My posts are not insulting, I want answers like any level headed investor. I want to know what's going on at QBT. Radio silence is not acceptable.

At present, I see more dilution risk and nothing concrete to show for it and this is after 4 years. As I say these are not insults Mikeydj, they're straightforward points being raised, of which I'm entitled to do.

Enough please, unless you can tell me anything positive, please don't bother replying.

KoolKat,

The irony is remarkable.

You accuse others of cherry-picking, yet your entire argument depends on ignoring every positive development because it hasn't yet become revenue.

NDAs.

Mining rigs.

MDK.

Source code access.

Manufacturer meetings.

Live testing.

None of these guarantee success.

But pretending they don't exist is foolish.

What is becoming increasingly obvious is that every time someone posts factual progress from company updates, the response is no longer a counter-argument but an insult.

"Embarrassing."

"Clowns."

"Talking nonsense."

That usually happens when the facts are becoming difficult to dismiss.

If nothing had happened, you wouldn't need the insults.

You could simply point to the absence of progress.

Mickeydj, you're cherry-picking to create the appearance of QBT's steady progress, even if the broader record doesn’t support the same conclusion.

The worst thing about you and Inforapennyortwo is both are treating milestone language (tests, trials, meetings, approvals, ongoing work) as if it already equals commercial traction or validated performance.

Absolute embarrassing individuals!

Usersteve,

The S9 wasn't created to prove Method C to ASIC manufacturers.

It was introduced because QBT said manufacturer-rig results may not be publicly disclosed.

The S9 became the route for public demonstration.

Different objective. Different timeline.

Steve,

what you should do is apply some logical thought here.

Q. Is it more important to concentrate on providing results to the ASIC manufacturer on their equipment to close a deal or to get results on S9 to market?

A. I would say providing results to ASIC manufacturer so a deal can be struck.

A deal would rerate QBT massively, S9 could then be concentrated on as validation to other interested parties due to the ASIC manufacturer not wishing to share results.

As for your other comment about S9 years ago, hasn’t method C software been a recent addition, and that’s only because of the ASIC manufacturer not wanting to share results, so why would you even look down that route before the caveat was added?

I do wonder sometimes if you actually read the updates, or whether you are deliberately being selective of information and thinking.