Member Info for Hexam

"Moreover, we do have ASIC miners, both Company owned and on loan from the large North America miners, we are engaged with, for the tests of our Method A and B on their mining rigs: a precondition for any commercial agreement with each of them."

I haven't seen either of these things mentioned - certainly not the loaning of rigs by large North American miners? I can believe they have a few rigs of their own but not that many given the cost (and unlikely enough to actually mine BTC and see results).

And that's my 40p hit :-)

So either I'll be buying those back at 34p or enjoying the ride up on what I have left...

It could be any mix but signing up one medium-sized North American miner would do i.e. just one or two perhaps of those that they have 'said' that they are in talks with. Of course if it was someone like CLSK or MARA then would be looking at more than 1%.

Basically I share a lot of the doubts you do but one thing I am confident of is the enormous size of the prize IF what they claim is true. It's what made me gamble on this share despite my doubts including that if something sounds too good to be true then it normally is too good to be true.

Aim the figures are either fact (like the 900 coins mined a day - 450 post halving) and the current BTC value ($50k ish) or clearly stated assumptions which I believe are very conservative (are there any you think are not?).

The only real IF is the claim from QBT that their tech produces 2.6x BTC compared to normal mining. And that is a huge one on which I admit I'm much more dubious than many others on here.

I could have used less conservative assumptions that were still in my view plausible and come up with a £2 sp!

The numbers are all mine - I wouldn't go near a Telegram group as I suspect this board is positively sane compared to what that would be like (a happy clappy land of rainbows and unicorns where any dissenters are quickly exterminated).

I see your point Kachra but if you sell first at 39p then that's not an issue as you would just buy back at 33p what you sold rather than accumulate more. Of course that would mean crystallising a loss on whatever part you sell but my thinking is simply if I sell at 40p (which is my own target) I'll either buy back at 34p or watch it keep rising and get my money back that way instead. So similar to your reasoning but via a sell (and a potential opportunity lost) rather than a short (and a potential loss on the short). Comes to the same thing in the end but I suspect the fees on shorting are higher?

Cheers Kool and don't worry about getting my name wrong (most do) and besides I called you a chocolate bar!

I think my numbers are sound on the assumptions stated but if anybody spots anything wrong then happy to be corrected. It really feels to me like an all or nothing share which I suspect is why there is so much fighting on this board...

Agreed BNS. That's pretty much my approach. I don't short as it's too risky for me but on BOO there is a huge risk, not so much from the fundamentals improving soon (we know they are not forecasting this at all) but from a bid or some other similar market activity. If I shorted it you can bet your bottom dollar that Frasers would come in tomorrow with an 80p bid or something else like that would happen!

"'Qbt will hit double figures easy on news deal'

How will it?"

Actually AIM I think this is one of the few things the rampers say that holds water.

IF the deal is based on the 2.6x claim being correct then this will generate 1.6x additional revenue for a miner (though the 1.6x obviously reduces the more deals that are done). But suppose they only do a deal with 1% of miners i.e. 1% of the current mining capacity (around 600 EH so 6EH), then the 1.6x broadly holds. That's equivalent to one medium to large North American miner.

At $50k BTC, 1% of the global hash rate is worth 1% x 900 x 365 x 50k = $164m pa.

So if the QBT solution adds another 1.6x then this is over $250m additional revenue to the miners (assuming they are not in pools or it impacts all the miners in a pool).

Even if QBT only take 10% of this additional revenue this is worth $25m a year which, given the low cost base, could easily equate to $250m mcap i.e. around 20p per share.

Even though the halving is coming up which will halve the mining numbers the value of BTC may rise enough to compensate.

In any event IF the tech is as good as they claim then I'm sure they will sign up much more than 1% of the market and take a greater than 10% cut. Even if initial deals are smaller then the stock market will quickly see the potential for new deals once the tech is proven so it will be valued more on expected market penetration not just that of the first deal.

So if a deal is done on the basis of method B and that works as well as QBT claim then I think 20p is ultra conservative on it being announced.

The real question then obviously comes down to whether method B really does work and does it work anywhere near the 160% improvement claimed. That is what I am personally very sceptical about, not the value if the claim is in fact true. And it is why others are very excited!

It's all boils down to the validity of the 2.6x and how much you believe it.

"Why are you here then, make your money work on shares you believe in!"

I explained why I am here fully in my Tolstoy-like post. It was so long as I was trying to give context and not simply be accused of trolling (which I was anyway - so massive fail on my part). So if you are unsure of why I invested and am still here then read that post - or any of the numerous other ones where I have replied to exactly the same question from you and others.

*Koolkat - Oops, sorry for the inadvertent snack advertsing!

Thanks for the response KitKat. Must admit I had to unfilter you to see it as we haven't always seen eye to eye in the past! Your reply was well reasoned but didn't really answer the particular question I was asking. At least it was a balanced and informative though unlike some others and I think I'll replace you with Oneforthemoney in the green bin as his only contribution to the board seems to be to attack people. Jambone does a lot of that as well but at least he also posts about QBT (even though a lot of it is repeated ad nauseam and most of it I disagree with).

Thanks again, and as for the rest I'll just let them get on with their childish and fruitless bickering. I know I sometimes join in too with that but everybody's got their breaking point :-)

I'm afraid the video doesn't really help answer my question. Basically I am sceptical about QBT for three reasons:

1) How can they be sure, or even reasonably confident, that the technology works as claimed until they actually try to mine BTC at scale with it. They may of course be doing that now and we are awaiting the results but on what has been done already I don't see how they can be so confident

2) I have a natural suspicion of AIM companies and their CEOs so take what they say with a pinch of salt rather than as gospel. This is based on experience of other companies and their failure to deliver but that doesn't mean they are all bad and this may be one of the good ones

3) If the 2.6x claim is genuine then I struggle to see how interest has not been much quicker and much greater than it appears as the impact on miners and their financials is absolutely huge. Game-changing is a term used far too often but it would not be out of place here. Of course the development could really be taking this long and the NDAs could be very tight and (unusually) not have led to any leaks so far

The second two questions above have been done to death on this board and I'm sure all posters have taken their stance on these and it's not going to change whatever is said by the believers or the doubtful. So going round in circles on them is just wasted energy and bound to be confrontational (as we've seen every day)!

It's the first question I was seeking answers to though as it is the main reason I had doubts initially (the others just re-enforce it) but it is the one where an objective, factual answer may be out there - preferably one that I can understand!

I invested despite these doubts as I think the size of the prize is so enormous it was worth the substantial risk. Those doubts increased though with each (as I saw it) unconvincing video that seemed designed to string people along. Again just my view and I know others have found them encouraging and there is not much point going round in circles on this either.

If anybody can help me see the light on the first point though then that would be helpful. Otherwise I'll just stick with what I hold and cross my fingers for the big reveal on the results of live testing (or just take advantage of any pump in the meantime).

That might show it 'works' but unless they mine actual blocks I don't see how they can be sure it works in the sense of producing the results claimed. That would also need a lot of machines and I don't see how they could do that with respect to a mining pool as well since I would have thought it is applied to machines - not the 'pool' which is just a collection of machines?

Again Brew, that was a statement about the future and we know the 2.6x was not based on mining actual BTC. Only in the recent video have they actually suggested that they are now doing live testing.

No I said about it being 'previously' being tested live not 'anticipated'. If they are now doing testing on the live blockchain then great and I'm sure we're all excited to see the results. I gladly admit I'm not the most technically savvy but I struggle to understand how they can test it and be confident it works without live testing on the actual blockchain to mine actual BTC which is one reason why I am sceptical about the 'results' they've released so far.

However, if someone can explain how it might be possible in a way an ordinary person like me could understand that would give me much more confidence about their claims. Quite reasonable I would have thought?

"They have done previous test mining on the live blockchain though."

Have they? They may be doing this now (at scale or not) but previously I thought they were testing on 'lower difficulty' which surely means it wasn't the live blockchain? Not sure how they even replicate that but can't see how there was anything 'live' about it.

"Belief is thinking you know something and consider it a fact, on nothing more than story telling, hearsay or your own delusions."

Blimey, if that's what he's basing his belief on then we should all sell up now!

"@Hexam I'm amazed you still have the patience LOL"

It just ran out!

I don't think you've been coherent at all as there has been no substance, just general comments on ARB that are clearly inappropriate or flat-out wrong. For numbers I was thinking anything concrete that could show that the company will not run out of money within 12 months factoring in cash they current have, difficulty increases (including halving), BTC price projections, at best a level EH (as they can't expand at all), monthly outgoings, possible equity raises etc. and even if they did survive what would the business look like then? Sounds detailed but just rough musings would have done that might suggest where I (and other experienced posters on this board) may have got it so wrong.

As I said before this is a great trading share but it will take more than just your opinions - which I think are ludicrous - to change my view on a long-term future for ARB. You make even less sense than the '100p incoming' mob so I think it best to ignore you from now on and let others make their own mind up about you.

The machinery they sold was brand-new - as was Helios - and all was sold at vastly discounted prices. The capital they raised by doing this just paid off some debt and allowed them to keep the lights on. There is no positive other than they survived, the glass is nearly empty, not just half. They have ZERO capital to re-invest and any more raised (from selling even more machines or from capital raises) will also not be re-invested but used again to reduce debt or keep the lights on a little longer.

As for their experience they have nearly all left after the debacle of the last two years! Only Seb remains I think.

I really think you should do some research first before investing. I'm beginning to think though that you're just posting as a wind-up? If not I'm still interested to see a coherent business case if you can come up with one but I won't hold my breath.