Member Info for Hexam

Great - now the MM manipulation nonsense is in full swing. Always a go to excuse on any share when it's underperforming. Predictable as night follows day.

Chae - The debt repayment terms did affect Q3 profits for MARA but it as a one-off which has no bearing on profitability going forward so the report even mentioning this seems absurd. In any event the Q3 figure is $38k for MARA not $34k - looks like this report may also be including profit or loss from BTC sales which is again silly. Also MARA I think has 5 year depreciation which helps the numbers - not sure what CLSK has but others may have shorter periods.

Despite all these caveats MARA do look to be in a better place than most but even they need a decent rise in BTC post-halving to remain profitable on an ongoing basis without the help of one-offs or BTC sales (where impact could easily reverse).

I make CLSK $61k, still not great BUT this includes a one-off depreciation hit as they replaced some machines and the ones they replaced had their outstanding depreciation immediately written off:

"Additionally, in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2023, the Company purchased Antminer XPs (140 TH/s with 21.5 J/TH), and replaced certain less efficient miners with these newly acquired miners. As a result, the Company recognized an additional $32,721 [i.e. $32.721m] in accelerated depreciation expense on the replaced miners."

Adjusting for this then cost per BTC is I think $43k.

Must admit I'm getting annoyed at all these costs per BTC numbers flying around as they are usually wrong or at best misleading because they don't specify what they include (and this varies) or, as in this case, inappropriately include one-offs. At least this set appears to include depreciation which they don't usually do.

The big takeaway though is that ALL companies need BTC to rocket post-halving to be profitable.

“Aimhigher. 2 ticks up in under a minute, right ho😂🤡”

One of them was me if that helps solve the mystery (without the need for another idiotic conspiracy theory). Just loving the entertainment is all - better than Netflix!

I had to unfilter just to see for myself but was very disappointed. That was hardly a paragraph - and as usual no useful content whatsoever. Back on filter.

“How many machines and for how long? I dont know, though I'd suspect at a minimum, hundreds, and for at least a month.”

With 10,000 machines it would take at least a month. With just hundreds it would take years.

It depends on how many machines they are testing it on although Fleccy did suggest it may be possible to get results without actually mining any BTC. However, if they do need to see the actual impact on BTC mined then it is just a numbers game and 10,000 machines should give meaningful results in a month or so. If more than 100,000 then it should be just a matter of days. Surely on those sort of scales though it would require an RNS and even if the partner(s) couldn't be named under it they could still say there were doing it with an undisclosed miner? Besides if an NDA prevents them releasing any RNS about live testing it would certainly prevent them releasing anything via a video!

So it suggests to me that they are only mining on a very small scale (perhaps on their own machines) or not at all.

Or maybe it's better just to wait for an RNS rather than reading too much into the videos (which if what PIP was saying is true have now come to an end).

BTC may well rise to $100k but that would make the article (which only assumes $40k) utterly redundant even ignoring its flaws.

So I'm confused - you seem to be arguing against the very reason you bumped the article and gave it a thumbs up??

It's actually a lot bleaker for miners than that. The article is nonsense as the supposedly "all-in" costs do not include all the costs at all. It excludes the costs of buying the machines (which go through the profit line as depreciation) and of servicing debt among other things. It says only 2 miners will be profitable post-halving but I doubt that as many as two miners are even profitable now. If BTC stays at $40k (as the analysis assumes) then NO miner will be anywhere near profitable post-halving as it stands.

Hi Awl,

You won't find anything on LSE as this only covers UK companies be they main market, AIM etc. unless they are covered on a board for similar UK companies (in the same way that North American bitcoin miners are often discussed on the LSE ARB board).

Looking it up MDAI seems to be Spectral AI - is that right? If so then you can certainly see them being discussed on Stocktwits. You probably have to sign up though and from what others have said it's even more polarised and feral than LSE boards are! There are probably other places (ADVFN?) or private groups on Telegram etc. If it's just actual news on the company you want then there will be loads of places (Yahop Finance, Google Finance etc.).

Good luck finding a place to discuss it but just don't trust anything anybody says at face value especially extreme rampers or trolls and do your own research to validate any claims made by others.

“The United Kingdom-based miner Argo Blockchain (ARBK) and Florida-based Hut 8 mining were shown as the most potentially unprofitable after halving, (at the current price of Bitcoin), with an “all in” cost-per-coin rate of $62,276 and $60,360, respectively. "

All those numbers look well undercooked to me and are not too far away from the all-in mining costs now rather than post-halving. I suspect they’ve left out depreciation (the spread cost of the machines) and perhaps other things too. ARB will need BTC over $100k post-halving to be profitable.

Will - I made my position clear yesterday and I won't ram it down everybody's throat as that would just be trolling (or ramping if I was of a positive viewpoint) but look back if you are at all interested.

I also said I would only post now if there was official news or if anybody posted anything particularly silly which on this board is a pretty high bar - which I'm pleased to say you managed to meet :-)

Not when it's in the shape of a balloon. Btw my glass isn't half full, it's pretty much empty.

Bfd - I agree sector performance can help drive sp but I was speaking about BOO company performance not its share price. Could have made that clearer but unlike many I don't fret over day to day share price movement (unless I'm looking at a trading opportunity) but just take the view that it is the company's own fundamentals that matter and if they improve then the sp will sort itself out in time. Sector performance can also of course be a guide to company performance but in this case BOO have already told us what to expect.

"Gold! Do you know how heavy that is!"

Not as heavy as lead :-)

Fair point Buffalo. The detail will be interesting as it may well give pointers to the future and as you say it will be interesting in particular to see how the US is doing - and Debenhams for that matter.

My point was really it's no point getting hung up on other company data or industry stats generally as they won't affect the overall performance (growth-wise) as we already pretty well know that.

It makes little odds how badly Superdry or others are doing, equally how well Next or others are doing. It's BOO that matters here and the very terse TU effectively confirmed they were on track for a 12% to 17% decline in revenue with Christmas trading not impacting that range. So not great but we already know that. What will be interesting come the results will be the progress in cost savings and margin generally and what they say in their outlook - both in terms of future revenue expectations and profitability. Hopefully there will be some positives but in the meantime any other company figures are just noise as BOO have already told us what to expect for this year.

Pip - I wouldn't worry about getting into an argument or being accused of being a multi-ID (wear it as a badge of honour) as if you're telling the truth then this will be confirmed soon anyway by no more videos appearing - which will be a blessing. You are clearly level headed enough anyway not to get worked up about what anonymous posters say but sadly on this board that is not true of some who feel they have to respond to everything and make up agendas for anybody who doesn't toe the line.

"Primarily, these videos were created to spread the word of what QBT is doing to the wider global market-more with possible end-users in mind, rather than shareholders."

I thought they were meant to be in direct discussions/negotiations with miners - for months now! Instead it looks like they are just trying to hawk their wares via a little viewed X feed containing vague information. If you say this is a genuine response then fair enough - but it's an extremely disturbing one in my view if it is. This is getting beyond ridiculous.

"I could care less…"

I think he actually meant 'I couldn't care less'. Or perhaps he really does care - as it does seem so from his blanket posting today? I think one of Jambone or Suthy is going to implode soon. Just one more dodgy video should do it (assuming Pip's post was a wind-up).