Member Info for Hexam

“Would there not be a TR1 if he sold shares? Is that not as much of a requirement as reporting over 3%?”

Ordinarily yes but this is QBT and they seem to think that the normal rules don’t apply to them - they are few and far between despite holdings changing. If he had 86m shares that would still be over 5% (let alone 3%) even with the dilutions and he would show up under the list of major shareholders.

It doesn’t matter. If he is the beneficial owner and holds over 3% then he has to declare, nominee account or not.

You insist he holds shares and yet you have no evidence beyond what is clearly an out of date list.

How do you know he has a holding if it is in a nominee account? It was you who made the claim that he held to support your argument so the burden of proof is with you. But rather fittingly, like QBT, you cannot provide any.

“The latest major shareholder data still shows him associated with approximately 86 million shares”

No it doesn’t - unless you are doubting QBT’s latest report and accounts. If you are then what else shouldn’t we believe? With 86 million shares he would appear on the list. He doesn’t.

Yes Steve, he has either sold out completely or sold out enough to reduce his holding to under 3%. Mikey is as usual telling porkies - the facts don’t lie.

No my point was that Marco’s investment doesn’t ‘challenge the relentless narrative that failure is obvious and inevitable’ because as far as the figures show Marco isn’t invested.

Nor am I saying that failure is guaranteed. That’s just yet another of your misleading statements and making arguments about what you say people say rather than what they actually do say.

I think failure is highly likely but I could well be wrong and the highly unlikely could indeed happen.

No, I’m questioning your assertion that Marco Coppini is invested. He no longer holds more than 3% and unless you have insider knowledge you don’t know if he is still invested at all and therefore the point you tried to make using him is invalid, or if you prefer, ‘undermined’.

My other point was it matters very little who is invested in QBT, or any other AIM company, as most fail despite wealthy and ‘informed’ backers. So to be fair, if (as the figures suggest) he has sold up then this doesn’t matter either.

“Similarly, Marco Coppini, whose background is in corporate finance, investment management and restructuring, has remained one of the company's largest shareholders”

Then why doesn’t his name appear on QBT’s list of significant shareholders?

In any event, most AIM companies have major backers and very few of these companies succeed.

Or, after nearly six years in the sector QBT may have identified that a more capital efficient route to Bitcoin exposure was…to buy bitcoin 🤦‍♂️

Costs the same as buying hash through BlocKeeper, as confirmed by FG in the interview, but that would be too simple wouldn’t it? (And would not justify the additional salaries.)

“Hexam, if they didn’t work then what’s the point of Blockeeper?”

Salaries.

What? I am agreeing with what FG says (and you) - that BlocKeeper is worthless unless the methods work. It’s just up to FG now to finally prove that they do.

“Hexam, it's an extra revenue stream”

I’d settle for one.

At least FG has confirmed, and you’ve just conceded, that BlocKeeper is worthless without the methods working. So it still boils down to the same thing as it has done for so long - successfully demonstrating to others that the methods work.

So nothing has changed except more cost as what deal could they get through BlocKeeper that they couldn’t get directly anyway?

Yes, if it works, but if it does then we’ll be quids in with or without BlocKeeper.

BlocKeeper just seems an expensive folly. It adds nothing QBT shareholders wouldn’t benefit from anyway and without QBT’s methods BlocKeeper would have no business case.

Just extra (directors’) mouths to feed.

Will, it just seems to me like an extra route to market IF the methods work and if they don’t then BlocKeeper don’t seem to have a business case.

What I can’t see though is why that extra route is needed. If the methods work then ASIC manufacturers and/or miners would be knocking on QBT’s door anyway and without all the costs of setting up and running BlocKeeper.

Thanks Obelix - that confirms what I’ve been saying. BlockKeeper only gets a discount on hashing IF it applies QBT methods to create an edge. On its own virtual mining makes no sense.

“Blockeeper buys cheap hashing”

Define ‘cheap hashing’ and explain how BlocKeeper manages to obtain it?

I agree if the methods work then there is benefit to be had by BK adding improvement and pocketing the difference but that would be got anyway by QBT just doing a deal with the miner. And it relies on the methods working which as always is the big ‘if’.

Do you agree then that without the benefits from the methods that virtual mining has no value?

And A and B aren’t ready for release and just waiting a patent - where on earth did you read that?

Phimx - I’m talking about just the virtual mining not leveraging which is the tag on and if the methods work then investors will be more than happy anyway without further boosting from any BlocKeeper arrangement.

What you describe about improving the profitability only applies if the methods work and the miner adopts the methods - and anyway they could get those benefits without the virtual mining by just doing a deal with QBT.

I have seen nothing that suggests A and B are just around the corner (or the one after that…) so I don’t think I am being misleading at all.

In any case the leveraging of the methods is just a tag on, the main thrust of the RNS is virtual mining and no one has yet answered the question of how this could benefit both QBT and the miner at the same time.

For it to be attractive to QBT they’ve got to pay less than what they could buy BTC for anyway.

For the miners they’ve got to receive more than they would get for mining it for themselves.

Can you or anybody else solve the conundrum?

“What about other QBT methods though, does it have to be method C?”

No, but they are all miles away.

And basically you are saying they don’t need cash as they will do a deal and generate lots of revenue in the next couple of months. Well, let’s see…

“QBT are executing a well structured plan, one which is now to be seen in full by the market.

Strange how the usual suspects will try and knock this down”

Then as you clearly understand it perhaps you can tell me what I’m missing and explain the business case behind BlocKeeper and how it can benefit both QBT AND the counterparties or how it adds anything regarding QBT’s methods?

They ARE in need of cash and that much will be even more obvious when the accounts are released soon.

If the methods work then they don’t need BlocKeeper to help sell them and BlocKeeper obviously would not help at all anyway with what is being discussed currently with the ASIC manufacturer(s).

Fair enough KK but I can’t see how more information can help as I think if I’m missing something then it is far more fundamental than something buried in the (unknown) detail.

Why pay more than something is worth (or in the case of the miner accept less than something is worth). Both sides can’t win at the same time unless, as I say, I’m missing something really obvious?