Member Info for Hexam

"Even a stopped clock tells the right time twice a day."

True, but that particular clock has been right a lot more frequently than that. Has proven a far more reliable timepiece than the more zealot of the rampers: $100k+ BTC by Christmas (2021), £5 ARB, £10 ARB, £XXX ARB etc. etc.

I still have confidence in ARB but I'd rather read realistic posts than pie (or moon?) in the sky nonsense from rampers or the silly de-ramping without any basis from the naysayers.

Completely agree @shazabo and in fact the sp DID leap significantly (20%+) on Top Gun release and BO performance - proof perhaps that good ticket sales can move the sp. Unfortunately the sp has lost most of that gain since due to all the headwinds affecting not just CINE but most of the rest of the market too.

The appeal result is big but it is not the only thing and in my view not even the most important thing. For me it's Box Office. We can survive the court case - we won't survive for too long though if BO doesn't continue its recovery. It's looking increasingly likely though that BO is moving towards (or has even reached) at least where it needs to be - and then some hopefully.

I was being generous. Yes, we should be seeing a lot of the benefits by Sep/Oct and with the added kick from immersion we should at least be in the top 3 by Christmas one would hope.

All about the delivery now as others have said and for the numbers to do the talking not just the promise of what they might be and the excuses for what they haven’t been.

HGN - Yes we should expect ARB to mine approx 235 BTC with 1.9 EH, in fact more as ARB has zcash to generate extra BTC and increasingly will benefit from immersion (obviously small impact at the moment).

Despite the spike in global hashrate mentioned by AB it actually looks like average difficulty will be lower in June than May (the difficulty has fallen and has already been determined to around the 23rd of June). So 235 BTC for June is I think a reasonable expectation but ARB won't be anywhere near this.

Even if (as I think we can) we write May off as a horrendous one-off month (for all the reasons that were given) the coins mined per EH was already very poor before that. I still like to think this is simply due to the very old average age of ARB's machines compared to other miners. As we are more than tripling the EH over the rest of this year with shiny new machines plus swapping many old ones out for new ones this should be addressed.

But whatever the causes, if Texas is all it is cracked up to be and if Perry is the genius many think he is then come the end of the year there will be no excuses if ARB is not one of the leaders in the table in terms of coins per EH rather than propping it up as it has been since the start of the year (and by quite some distance).

We should be the Man City or Liverpool of miners, not the Norwich City or Watford.

No, the total cost was about £7.5m, so around $10m, compared to the original $17.5m it was meant to be, and all paid for by shares. The $12.5m was the second instalment and this figure, if Boatman quoted it, was correct at the time - the main reason it is so much lower is because the share price has fallen so much so the second payment (in the form of shares) is naturally worth much less.

The Boatman report was a very misleading hatchet job but the $12.5m figure was not one of the many issues with it.

Thanks Tegop but I'm really not sure what you are looking at. I've just gone onto Marketwatch and they show Profit Before Tax (what they call 'PreTax Income') as £143.45m which is consistent with my figure which was in dollars.

I took my numbers direct from CINE's accounts and they match the RNS figures at the time (see table under Key Financial Information):

https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/CINE/preliminary-results-2019-ksvo7iefmrdfx8i.html

It would be great if CINE made $3.6bn in profit in a normal year but I'm afraid it is just not the case (unless you are talking about revenue rather than profit in which case $3.6bn is a little low).

I agree Tegop that CINE's fate does not rest solely on the appeal and in fact personally I think it depends much more on continued box office recovery (which is now looking much more encouraging) but where do you get $3.6bn of profit and $550m dividends. I'm seeing nothing like these amounts. I can see PBT of $212m for 2019 and adjusted PBT of $355m which is pretty decent but nowhere near your numbers??

"I'll let you interpret it though as it's probably right up your street!"

Believe me - it's not!!

Thanks Jamesy and AB.

I think my analysis and interpretation is correct but if anyone spots anything wrong then it would be good to know.

As to what DPN comprises the following line in the account suggests it is just the land:

"The acquisition of DPN LLC, effectively comprising the land acquisition in West Texas, has been treated as an
asset acquisition in the financial statements."

The original deal was $17.5m paid in shares, $5m up-front and $12.5m later (or £8.659m).

At the end of 2021 this 'contingent consideration' as it is called had fallen to £8.071m - with the drop of about £600k being recognised as a positive in the profits.

Today it has been confirmed the actual outstanding consideration is 8,147,831 shares at 49.5p each or just over £4m.

Since it was held at a value in the liabilities of just over £8m there should therefore be an additional profit of around £4m in this year's accounts. The main reason for this has been the drop in share price (the payment was based on an sp of 104p originally but this has more than halved since). Note though that £2.7m of this was already recognised in the Q1 profit due to the then fall in share price.

In short there is no new news here other than the land is a lot cheaper effectively than originally intended - so if anything a bit of good news for once!

So points more perhaps to them mining in another pool in May (or someone else could have dropped out). Not sure which is more likely actually.

Apologies AB - I think we were just slightly at cross purposes. When you said the number mined was consistent with the Terrapool stats I thought you meant that you were happy that they were consistent and why. From your last response though I think I should have interpreted you as saying the 124 is possible from the stats but there are a variety of ways this could be the case - including that ARB are getting (virtually) all the coins OR they're not but ARB is mining already in another pool - we just don't know.

Whatever the reason though it is secondary to the main thing which is sorting out the pool issue (whatever it is) and everything else (whatever that is) and getting the mining numbers up to what they should be with the EH that ARB has.

Sorry AB - I'm confused by your response.

There are two things here. The RNS addresses the low BTC issue for May but being in line (or not) with Terrapool figures is a different issue. And I agree with FP - I can't see how 120.9 is in line with the 124 mined unless ARB is getting virtually all the BTC and DMG practically nothing. Is that the case do you think or am I (or we) missing something?

No worries - I just seem to remember there was a similar issue last month which is why I felt the stats might not be reliable.

The important thing for me though is that one way or another the BTC per EH does start to rise meaningfully as it's been far too poor for far too long. I hoped it was simply due to so many of the machines being well past their prime which would be addressed by all the new shiny machines, and then further boosted by immersion, but if there are other issues (like the pool performance) then that makes it more of a concern.

I certainly wasn't expecting it to get even worse! Hopefully it's a one month only thing though.

"i cant see how a 18% drop in 2 days is justified"

Nor can I - which is why I've just added some. Must admit I don't hold with all this manipulation etc. talk - just sounds like bad gamblers blaming all their losses on horse racing being fixed. Even if there are some dubious practices going on (and I suspect there are some though not nearly to the extent portrayed on these forums) doesn't this just present as many opportunities as it does problems? If a price is artificially low it presents additional value to buy, if it's artificially high then maybe worth taking some profit (or reducing a loss). Besides an sp can't be manipulated in one direction forever (or even for very long) so whilst it's not nice seeing the sp drop (whatever the reason) if you believe in the share just hang tight - assuming you don't need the money urgently of course.

FP - I assumed that's aimed at AB rather than me as I was just asking the question - but you're right, the numbers only seem to add up if ARB are basically getting virtually all the BTC mined. Possible but statistically unlikely - or should I say due to unusual probabilistic outcomes :)

I'm no expert at all here though - for example I don't get how a pool can mine 120.9 BTC when they are in blocks of 6.25? Transaction Fees??

Thanks both. Makes sense that zCash could be the difference but when you said you were expecting <100 that would have made the difference too big to be that. With 120.9 though it is much more plausible even though I would prefer FP's answer to be the right one i.e. that they're already mining elsewhere rather than still being stuck completely in Terrapool (for now).

AB - Must admit I'm not close to the Terrapool stats but I think, from what both you and FP are saying, that ARB mined more than the stats suggest (and not for the first time). Does this mean they are already mining in another pool (as I think FP is suggesting) or simply that the stats aren't complete/credible?

btw I also hope they can start moving up the BTC per EH tables - but then again they can't really move down!

Apologies FP - I forgot they now actually give the number of equivalents each month (I pay less attention to the monthly numbers than I used to since discovering most of them can't be trusted) and see better what you are getting at. I agree that some of that 48 btc equivalent drop is likely to be from loss of value rather than sales/other use but who knows how much?

"My feeling is hexam that they would sell any btc thats not borrowed against first before they would sell any btc that already been put into argo labs....."

Agree FP - all I'm saying is that whether they are selling BTC or the equivalents held in Argo Labs the drop in overall number held has to be more to do with sales. We know only about 10% is held in Argo Labs so it would have to be a serious fall in the value of such assets relative to BTC for it to significantly affect the overall number of BTC + equivalents.

For example assuming 250 or so equivalents are held in Argo Labs then even a fall of 20% in the value of these (more than the drop in BTC) would only result to the number of equivalents to drop by around 50.