George Frangeskides, Chairman at ALBA, explains why the Pilbara Lithium option ‘was too good to miss’. Watch the video here.
Sorry - I think you’re simply wrong. If what you say is true then there is no point in what they are doing at all. Yes, I did invest on that basis and am happy with that part - not so happy now though on the chances of them actually increasing that probability (and hence the revenue). I thought it was a long shot before but would now be extremely, but very pleasantly, surprised if they have pulled it off.
“Hexam, it increases the probability, it isn't going to double anyone's revenues.”
Increasing the probability increases the revenue by the same proportion. If all your machines had double the chance of finding coins than they did before then your revenue would likely double as well (assuming BTC value stays the same) as you’re expected to ‘find’ twice as many. Exactly the same as if you double your hashrate normally by buying new machines as all that is doing is (nearly) doubling your probability too. In both cases you are effectively just buying more tickets in the same lottery which has 144 prizes a day.
Really don’t see why this is so difficult to understand.
AIM - If the machines have 160% more chance of finding BTC then that means revenue will increase by around 160% i.e. more than double.
The more machines that adopt it though that 160% more chance reduces and so then of course will the revenue but so long as not too many adopt it the revenue should still more than double.
I can’t see where the doubt is (apart of course about whether the 160% method B claim is proved true when applied to actual mining).
Brew - Must admit that's news to me. I'm not aware of any third party intervention increasing hash by 20% (note, even if it does that would increase electricity too by 20% as well)? Also although it is not brute force, QBT will increase the measured hashrate as that is simply a backward calculation based on how quick BTC are being mined.
Aim - I'm assuming we are talking method B which will more than double revenue if the claims are true and not too many adopt it. On your other question I don't see why buying or not buying new machines is necessarily affected by adopting method B as though it would make sense to go the QBT route, it makes even more sense to do both (again, if the claims are true).
Pain - I think the risk is huge so my stake is correspondingly small. So whilst it's never nice to lose an investment I will just put it down to another chancy one that didn't pay off (less than 10% of my portfolio is in AIM). If it succeeds though then it will pay-off big time and although my stake is small it will still give me a very welcome, but not life-changing, amount.
Yes - revenue will be increased by 160% (for the first machines) but this will reduce as more machines adopt the technology (if it works) - reducing to zero if of course if absolutely everybody adopts it.
Brew - Isn't the Braiins fee a percentage of total revenue? What are they offering that creates any additional revenue? I don't think the two models are comparable and I think QBT would be pretty poor negotiators if they more than doubled a company's revenue and only took 10% of the increase.
Jam keeps posting my analysis but the key thing is that it is predicated on the 160% improvement being true which I don't believe for one minute that it is. I was just trying to show how much it might be worth on the basis that I'm wrong and they do really have this miracle piece of technology.
"Does Art have a 'real world ' value Fleccy"
Sounds like you're actually agreeing with Fleccy? Like art, Bitcoin is an option as a store of value (and so far has proven to be a very good one if you don't mind the volatility) but, also like art, it's pretty useless as a currency and won't solve all the world's economic problems.
So many wannabe economists seem to be on these boards, most spouting their anti-establishment rhetoric but without giving a coherent argument about how exactly bitcoin solves all of fiat's undoubted problems and doesn't create many of its own in the process.
Yes GI, almost exactly doubled, which is pretty much what happens every year and why all miners need to run faster and faster just to stay still - and why the weakest (like ARB) are left hoping for BTC to do something extraordinary to keep in the race at all.
The halving just throws in an added obstacle (or leap!) every four years.
Definitely won’t be as high as $7m unless BTC rises by a lot more and very quickly. It’s much better to work out expected numbers starting from a company’s previous figures then allowing for changes in difficulty and BTC etc. rather than straight from industry averages - much more reliable as every company is so different.
Btw I think the error in your calculation is the assumption that they actually have 2.8EH working 100%. They don't, they typically operate at about 70% of this due to their ageing machines, typical levels of downtime and generally an inefficient set-up that they always seemed to have been dogged by.
"For Argo that means 105 x 2,800 x 31 = $9m revenue in March less a bit for downtime."
No it doesn't. On current level of difficulty, level of transaction fees and BTC price they are heading for about $6m revenue for March.
As for February this will be around $5m (so probably lower than Jan).
"The market makers seem to have forgotten that there job is to maintain liquidity not service Frasers"
Is anybody having a problem buying or selling stock then? I think the low volumes just reflect apathy - nothing more than that. Once there is meaningful news, good or bad, I expect volumes will pick up but there is nothing much to excite anybody at the moment (apart from speculating as to what MA is possibly up to). Their terse update on the results just confirmed their bleak outlook on growth for this year so its unlikely there will be much movement on volumes or sp until much later in 2024 (unless any bid speculation starts up in earnest).
"Tangible is they have software which is 2.6 x 160%more probable of mining a BTC, it’s being live tested now!"
It's not tangible until we can actually see proof of that in mining actual bitcoin. Until then it's just a theory, a promise, an ambition, a hope or whatever other intangible thing you would like to call it.
"If there is a bright side - Argo will have a good Feb month of mining revenues based on bitcoin price"
Actually growthinvestor I think they are heading for around $5m revenue for February, less than the $5.3m they earned in January so I doubt we will get earn any respite there. (This is caused by the reduced transaction fees, higher difficulty and fewer mining days offsetting the BTC price rise).
So long as BTC holds up March should be quite a bit better though - but then, as you say, the halving looms.
“How in anyone's world can BC be on 62.5k USD and ARB sit on just over 19p
It was about 3 pound last time in July BC was 65K”
We obviously live in different worlds as in mine I’m amazed it’s as much as 19p. What it was last time BTC was $65k is totally irrelevant as the company is a shadow of what it was then and the potential it then had has all disappeared in the Texas white elephant, rising debt, vanishing HODL, Pluto folly and ageing machines. You might be able to find it though at the bottom of an unfinished swimming pool.
Another one perhaps who should listen to the MARA call?
Yes, my hope is that FOMO trumps reality and common sense, with enough people jumping on (or staying on) the bandwagon. Will be interesting to see how the miners do today with BTC looking strong again but the signs weren’t good yesterday and I don’t think Mara’s results have helped much.
“This really should be in the mid 30s by now”.
Why? Certainly not fundamentals as it shouldn’t be even 10p on those. It can only get to the 30s purely on the back of BTC rising and creating FOMO and the illusion that ARB actually has a future.
Unfortunately though it looks like investors are finally waking up to just how rubbish the economics are for bitcoin miners and the dilution impact to shareholders that is on top of that.
However, sentiment could return and still take ARB much higher, especially if BTC really goes on a tear, but on any rational basis ARB is overvalued now, not undervalued.