Member Info for Hexam

Page 24:

"The draft rules of the Incentive Plan will be available for inspection at 49/51 Dale Street, Manchester M1 2HF on any weekday (Saturdays, Sundays and public holidays excepted) from the date of sending this document until the close of the Annual General Meeting. The draft rules of the Incentive Plan will also be on display at the place of the Annual General Meeting for at least 15 minutes prior to and during the Annual General Meeting"

"on another note don't forget the whole quantum side to QBT for which they await the industry, FG said it's ready to roll once the industry catches up"

That'll be method Q then?

Yes, done himself like a kipper. But any behaviour is acceptable as far as the rampers go so long it is done by another ramper. Hypocrisy at its finest. One thing for sure though is that if Obelix dares to show his face again after his little faux pas and continues to spout any more of his sanctimonious, holier-than-thou nonsense about honesty and agendas he may well get the shortest of short shrift...

Assume you meant August? Otherwise agree.

Yep. And $32,800 is what I got for direct cost per coin.

Full breakdown for ongoing cash costs per coin mined:

Direct: $32,800

Overhead: $9,900

Interest: $7,300

Total Cash: $50,000 per BTC mined

Then there's an additional $21k of non-cash costs (depreciation and share awards).

However you look at it those figures were ok pre-halving but just don't add up post-halving where they all nearly double. They are likely losing about $30k cash for every coin mined at the moment. So six months left at best unless something changes (new funds, much higher BTC or significantly lower costs).

"Now we have passed the halving, this indicates direct costs could be 120%"

CLSK - that's not quite the case. The 62% was based on average BTC price of under $53k so all else being equal the direct costs are probably around 90% or so now. As I said earlier though this does mean that they are indeed close to the point where it is no longer economic to mine (unless those costs have come down - or BTC goes up).

There may be a short-term trader's case here - but there is no longer term investment case that I can see.

"Constancy, is the key for other to believe or not in you"

Obviously that 'constancy' doesn't stretch to having just the one ID. A truly brilliant own goal. Funniest thing on here in quite some time.

"think some change in the hosting agreement perhaps?"

That was my guess. The costs can obviously fluctuate significantly due to weather etc. but they have been sky high for six months now so it seems to be more than just that.

Total cash cost in Q1 was $50k per BTC mined and total all-in cost was $71k. That's before halving so can broadly double those figures now assuming all else being equal.

I did the calculation a slightly different way (using cash directly rather than the EBITDA proxy) but reached the same conclusion - the end of Q3 looks like when the money runs out.

They've done well to string it out this long with good control of indirect costs and running down debt (and interest). What has shocked me though is the rise in direct costs. In Q1 it cost them over $30k to mine each BTC from just direct costs alone - about double CLSK's figure for example. It looks like there was a step change in such costs in Q4 that has continued in Q1. With the halving this means the direct cost per coin mined alone will be nearing $60k so they are close to the point of being better off not mining at all!

It's really hard to see how they get out of the corner they are boxed into without a very sharp and sudden rise in BTC - or a fairy godmother.

“Strange you are unable to attempt to correct any troll nonsense here, ever.”

I am. Yours.

"Tries to come across as a reasoned and intelligent..."

Really not that hard on this board...

All I did was correct an obvious falsehood. Surely that should be welcomed?

I have plenty of other shares already thank you very much and am generally very happy - especially with those doing well like MKS and MAB today that both posted fantastic results. As I've said before though I very rarely comment on shares that are performing well as I don't see the point. It's only underperforming ones where the hard questions need to be asked.

Revenue is only up compared to pre-covid due to acquisitions and those have helped contribute to the rising debt and a loss-making business.

Make all the comparisons with M&S you like but the basic one is that they are doing extremely well in the current environment whilst BOO are doing extremely badly. So rather than a sign of better things to come for BOO I just see it as demonstrating just how badly BOO are underperforming at the moment. With good management and a good strategy that could all change but it is questionable whether BOO has either at the moment.

"No more appeals to come 👍 case closed"

That's simply not true - read the last PRN.

"Maybe when you mature"

Don't hold your breath. I think even news that method B works in the real world is more likely to happen before that.

Not sure why you still indulge him Brew. The board is much better with him filtered and seeing green boxes rather than reading the same old tosh for the ninety-ninth time or his childish attacks on anybody remotely critical of his beloved QBT.

That’s a fair point Drutor. I agree in general with Brew that others are doing (and succeeding in doing) what QBT are trying to do but also with you that this means that QBT should be capable of achieving the same. This to me though only applies to method A where others are already delivering the same kind of benefits that QBT are promising. Even if QBT do succeed here though I can’t see companies rushing to do deals for the sort of modest gains already being achieved by companies with their own solutions or available from others.

Method B is different as nobody is achieving anything like the huge benefits that QBT are claiming so in that sense nobody is doing this. It’s the sheer mind-blowing nature of these claims though that make many sceptical that they can deliver - along with the lack of any evidence of success so far and that nobody else seems to be aiming nearly so high (as far as we know).

As for the vague and mysterious method C who knows? I’m not sure even QBT are clear in what they are trying to achieve.

Careful Clerc, you used the phrase 'lead into gold' as I did so we'll probably be accused of being the same poster.

Otherwise a measured post that I agree with though you put it more mildly than I do - but no doubt you'll still be labelled a troll if you haven't been already (all I can see is seven green boxes so far this morning apart from your post).

As you say it all comes down to delivering a revenue producing product. They may well be getting closer to this every day as some insist. Either that or it will never come at all.

In the meantime everybody's patience has a limit and some are already well past theirs whilst clearly others still have plenty in the tank. Time will tell whether patience has been a virtue in this case but meanwhile the sp will continue to stagnate without hard news of definite progress towards that revenue goal.

"Another vague eternal project methinks, destined to end in tears"

Sadly that's the case with many companies on AIM. They promise to turn lead into gold (or some suchlike) and naive investors (or rather gamblers) pile in, hang on every word of the CEO, become ultimate fanboys and defend the company as if their lives depend upon it.

All rather bizarre as in the end nothing said here makes any difference. If indeed this turns out to be one of the rare AIM companies that has successfully mastered the art of alchemy then they will be quids in whatever anybody says here. If it just ends up being yet another pipedream then they will simply follow many other companies into oblivion.

I don't know why they get so touchy about being questioned. Any constructive challenge should be welcomed by any serios investor whilst any baseless challenge can just be ignored. If they have faith and believe in their investment they can simply laugh all the harder if the naysayers are eventually proved to be wrong - and do so whilst counting their huge piles of money.

I'm not sure when investing in a corporate entity became like supporting a football team but this board (like many others) suggests that quite a few are overinvested emotionally - if not financially.

@Phimx - I'd give up if I were you, you're not going to get any sensible answers. Instead they will just make up their own interpretations of the PRNs, state these as fact and then accuse anybody of challenging them of making things up (ironically) and/or having an agenda (like trying to get in cheaper - as if a penny isn't cheap enough and anything said here could possibly affect the sp).

As you say, there is no real evidence out there one way or the other so it's all speculation. We'll just have to wait for proper news and in the meantime the void will no doubt continue to be filled by ever more ridiculous claims about what is the 'truth'.

"As a GSA employee, however junior, may I suggest you peruse their ‘Health & Wellbeing’ policy, maybe ask for a day or two off?"

I think perhaps you'd be better off focusing more on your own well being as living in a fantasy world where you simply make stuff up about other people whilst trying (and failing miserably) to sound clever about it can't be great. And if you actually believe any of the drivel that you write then you have even more to worry about.

You are right about one thing though and that's life is too short for some things. So rather than waste any more of it responding to inconsequential, delusional, odious people like you I think it is time you joined the other idiots in the filter bin. After all, it's not as if I am likely to miss any insight into QBT as actually talking about the company you are invested in seems beyond you.

I am however sorry for your losses in COPL and that you seem determined to repeat the same pattern here (invest, ramp, abuse, lose). There's always next time though as even most hopeless gamblers eventually pick a winner.