Member Info for Hexam

UserSteve - I'm not sure a P/E Ratio of 30 is justifiable, especially for Method B. Multiples that high only go with high growth prospects and if they do a deal with MARA how many others deals would be realistic? MARA could even go for exclusivity especially as the more miners that take up Method B the less the benefit is. Even if only MARA has it the benefit reduces from 160% to around 135% (based on their current share of global hashrate).

One other minor point - I don't think you've applied tax to your figures? EPS is after tax.

As I said though, all this is for nought if the methods don't work.

Come off it, you are Jambone. You're not kidding anybody.

Anyway, I already explained why I didn't think Marathon would bother with Method A but obviously you still don't agree and are just repeating your argument which is fair enough if a bit pointless (as it would be if I just repeated mine).

But that's not the key thing with this share. It's simple. If Method B works the share price goes to the moon and beyond. If Method C works we should still see at least a ten-bagger from here. If Method A works then it should still do a few bags.

So the question is which, if any, of the methods work?

They are yet to convince the market (see the sp) or anybody significant in the industry yet (otherwise they would be forcing the pace on this not QBT and possibly even making an offer) that any of the methods are likely to work. And the trip to Florida has so far done nothing to change that. Maybe that will change if they do get as far as doing user testing or even before that if they share any of their evidence ('irrefutable' or otherwise). Until then everything is just opinion and either you believe or you don't). You clearly do and I clearly don't. One of us will be right. The other will have egg on their face - and I hope that is me!

“All about trying to put value on an investment and tech”

Even though your numbers were overcooked they will still give impressive figures when corrected. Remember when you were Jambone you kept copying and pasting my own calculations and valuation which gave a share price of over £1 for QBT if method B worked as claimed?

A lot has changed since (including the halving) but I still stand by that estimate. The big assumption though is that method B works but with the sp less than a penny there are clearly very few people who believe it does.

Until there is some real evidence that method B does work (or one of the others) then the sp won’t rocket, nor will any potential buyout value.

Steve - Yes, most of the people working for QBT do so as consultants so their pay will be shown under R&D and/or professional fees.

They did indeed say they ‘believed’ they didn’t need to fund raise before the middle of this year but the numbers told a different story (cash in bank and monthly burn) and unless they had cut back on expenses or received income from somewhere then a raise long before then was inevitable.

Several of us pointed this out but of course were shouted down by those who clearly just read the words and not the numbers. In other words research is key.

“The problem is that forums like these need professionals on it. People who truly make their living in the market are an invaluable resource. When they are offering up their time to give advice, it is a positive to the whole community.”

Er…all very well but finance professionals are not allowed to give advice on here. I know this…being one of them. Glad to know you need me though 🙂

“I guess that 10% is not worth the effort then?”

Of course it is if they prove it works already (in which case they would have already snapped it up) but I can’t see them doing large scale trials on the off chance it might give them 10% with no guarantee that the 10% will be future proofed and when they have other options available.

“other uplifts are brute force”

Not sure they all are? In any event I don’t think 10% will be enough to get the juices flowing unless they can prove it works without full scale testing (which they claim they can) - in which case you don’t need the trial anyway.

As to your final question mining a block with a single machine outside a pool does happen but rarely (hence it makes the news). To bring it to market though they would have to stump up the development cost and they still would not have proved it worked (as they might get lucky and mine one with a single machine, but two? And certainly not enough to prove it works.)

“So in response would the best way to prove method A’s worth to mine solo away from any pool. Or by some large miner doing trials on much bigger scale with method A only?”

As Steve has already said, solo mining is a non-starter. They would need tons of machines to prove anything - which they can’t afford. So your other suggestion is the way to go although not for Method A as miners can achieve that sort of uplift already and so there is no incentive to trial something on that scale for just 10% improvement. C possibly, B definitely - if something was available and they believed it might work.

"so what do you think was shown to influencers then."

Nothing much. If they did successful live demos to influencers then why haven't we heard anything yet? Not very good at influencing are they? And obviously they won't have signed NDAs - else what's the point of telling them anything if they can't pass anything on?

"meeting times, most business have schedules for meetings"

Yes, but it suggests they had meetings with dozens of different people (30+ meetings, 50+)? How long to do a live demo from start to finish including introductions, running the demo, questions, feedback? Do the maths.

AWL - I don't think they would have to report anything they have mined through a PRN as they are mining with very limited hash in a pool which means they would only mine tiny fractions of a bitcoin (satoshis) and in fact it is inevitable that they would have mined them unless the whole pooled mined nothing. So assuming they are live mining then they have earned already tiny fractions of bitcoins. The financial reports will may show how much but even then it may not be material enough to need to disclose.

However, this does not prove method A works in itself as it could have no impact and they would still mine fractions of bitcoin (just without the 10% or whatever uplift). If they did though have proof from live mining then I think that would need to be in a PRN but they are not mining anywhere near the scale they need to in order to give irrefutable proof.

Answer to 'unanswered' question:

In the first place we have no proof that anybody 'wants to engage' with QBT. The PRN actually says "The Company plans to follow up with a number of interested parties" - so a) it is QBT doing the next step not parties coming to QBT b) this could just mean them contacting the 'interested' parties and them saying 'no thanks' c) the statement they were 'interested' in the first place is subjective and could mean anything from those parties just being polite to being really keen

Secondly there is no certainty that anybody will want to sign up for third party testing just that (again from the PRN "it is expected to sign new NDAs in the coming weeks which will lead to data sharing and third-party systems testing NDA". Since I can't remember a single thing that was 'expected' to or 'could' happen actually happening with QBT in the way they said I personally have little belief that those things will happen.

Thirdly, even if they do get as far as systems testing then it needn't have been live demos that created the interest - after all they've said before that people have been interested and could have said, or shown other output, to encourage further involvement

Finally there is a lot of circumstantial and suggestive evidence that live demos weren't shown. It is really odd isn't it that after the big build up of doing live demos that they don't get a single mention in the review of the conference? Also, logistically it seems improbable that they gave live demos to so many different groups in 1:1 meetings - time alone would have been against them let alone the organisational headaches of arranging them all around each other and the official conference activities.

So my view (and it is just my view) is that no live demos took place. Instead they just spoke to various attendees in bars etc and whilst they may genuinely believe that those people were interested in what they had to say, QBT (and we) won't know just how much they were interested until they try to 'follow-up' and what, if anything that leads to.

"Operational testing on miners setups, that’s hell of a leap forwards."

It will be if they get that far. Let's wait and see if they do rather than pretend that they're already there.

My point Doogle is that most if not all of the placing shares have been churned and were churned within a few days - as is often the case. They were not held on to by those who took part in the placing as you incorrectly claimed because you clearly didn’t understand how placing shares get onto the market (not by trading).

Yes volumes have been low since but that just reflects the lack of interest and always tends to be the case with QBT unless there is big news - which at the moment there isn’t (including today’s PRN though that has had a small impact on volume).

Who were you responding to? You replied to me by name so I assumed you were talking to me. Silly me.

"Yes they have to go from those arranging the placing shares into the accounts of those investors"

No, those don't show up as trades - only what happens after the placing shows up as a trade and the spike in trading we saw was the selling on by those who take place in the placing. They are long gone now with they tidy profit and the low trading since reflects all those PI spiked when buying the shares and probably reluctant to sell at a loss.

"shares were cleared in around a day and half if I recall"

Yes, so it took around a day and half for the placing shares to be sold by those that bought into the placing. So you're agreeing with me then?

"Funny how all those that bought in at pacing are happy to hold"

They didn't and there is ample evidence to show that including the sky high volumes at the time of the placing that sent the sp plummeting.

You're typing so fast and furiously now that the typos are really creeping in and your grasp of reality is disappearing altogether.

I'm sorry Dooogle but surely you are Jambone? Nobody else posts like him or flogs a dead horse quite like him.

Give it up. There were clearly no live demos and the 'interest' you talk about is just more warm words from FG. They may lead to NDAs, data sharing and systems testing...but they may not. Everything is always 'just around the next corner' and whilst this may finally be the time that something tangible does materialise I rather doubt it. Who knows though, there's always a first time I suppose.

They are not though yet Dooogle and are by no means certain to - you’re jumping ahead again.