Member Info for Mikeydj

Saying there is "no buying pressure" while acknowledging significantly more buying than selling is a strange use of language.

Hexam,

You're treating a nominee shareholder list as though it's a complete register of beneficial ownership.

It isn't.

Most of the names in the table are nominee accounts holding shares on behalf of underlying investors.

Hexam,

The fact that Marco Coppini doesn't appear on a recent ownership screen is not evidence that he has sold out.

The latest major shareholder data still shows him associated with approximately 86 million shares alongside Eufingest.

What we do know is that he was a major shareholder, a long-term supporter and closely associated with Eufingest throughout the company's evolution.

So while you're presenting his absence from a recent disclosure as evidence that he has disappeared from the story, the reality is that you're making an assumption and presenting it as fact.

That seems to be becoming a recurring theme.

KoolKat,

Fair enough. If QBT is merely a high-risk punt and £4.6k is not meaningful money to you, then perhaps we can stop pretending your daily commentary is driven by deep concern over shareholder outcomes.

As for Hexam's point, he's once again missing the purpose of the post.

The post was never "Marco Coppini guarantees success."

The post was that long-term stakeholders, bondholders and major backers have repeatedly supported the company through restructurings, extensions and strategic changes rather than walking away.

That doesn't prove success.

But it does challenge the relentless narrative that failure is obvious and inevitable.

The difference between us is that I was discussing probabilities.

You both seem determined to argue absolutes.

One side says success is guaranteed.

The other says failure is guaranteed.

I say neither.

But if failure were as obvious as the board pessimists claim, some very experienced stakeholders have spent an awfully long time and an awful lot of money failing to notice it.

Hexam,

You've managed to turn a post about stakeholder support into a discussion about disclosure thresholds.

Which rather proves the point.

Every positive indicator is immediately dissected, minimised or redirected.

The purpose of the post was not to prove success.

It was to counter the daily narrative that failure is obvious, inevitable and universally accepted.

The behaviour of major stakeholders suggests otherwise.

That's an inconvenient fact for the likes of you, not a conclusion.

KoolKat,

You've rather proved the point of the original post.

Nobody said bond extensions, major shareholders or stakeholder support prove success.

The point is they undermine the claim that failure is obvious or inevitable.

There is a world of difference between:

"Commercial success has not yet been demonstrated"

and

"This company is destined to fail."

The first is a fair observation.

The second becomes much harder to defend when major financial stakeholders continue to support the company with their own capital and repeatedly extend time rather than pull the plug.

What's interesting is that whenever a positive indicator is raised, your response is always the same:

"Yes, but it isn't revenue."

Of course it isn't revenue.

If it were revenue, the market cap would likely be very different.

And for someone who regularly reminds the board that he holds around 1.3 million shares, your position is an unusual one. You appear sufficiently convinced to maintain a seven-figure holding, yet spend much of your time reinforcing the arguments of people who appear convinced the company will never succeed.

That contradiction is far more interesting than anything you've written above.

More importantly, you've missed the purpose of the post entirely.

The board is subjected daily to an overwhelming stream of negativity, claims of failure, accusations of dishonesty, and assertions that collapse is inevitable.

My post was not claiming success has already arrived.

It was providing balance to the relentless one-sided narrative by highlighting a simple fact: some of the largest, most informed and most financially exposed stakeholders continue to support the company.

That doesn't guarantee success.

But it certainly doesn't support the fantasy that failure is somehow a foregone conclusion.

Reducing every discussion to "show me recurring revenue" is a bit like standing at the foundation stage of a building and repeatedly pointing out that nobody lives there yet.

Technically true.

Not especially insightful.

The "QBT is destined to fail" narrative becomes harder to sustain when you look at who continues to back the company.

The reality is that some of the company's largest and most informed stakeholders have repeatedly supported QBT through every major stage of its evolution.

Eufingest SA, a Swiss investment and wealth management group, is not only a major shareholder but also the principal holder of QBT's bond issue. On multiple occasions it has supported bond extensions and restructuring proposals, choosing to give the company additional time to execute its strategy rather than forcing a confrontation.

That is the action of a sophisticated financial stakeholder assessing risk and opportunity, not the action of an organisation that believes failure is inevitable.

Similarly, Marco Coppini, whose background is in corporate finance, investment management and restructuring, has remained one of the company's largest shareholders throughout the Clear Leisure years, the Sipiem litigation, the restructuring process and the transition into blockchain and AI-driven mining technologies.

These are individuals and institutions with direct access to management, detailed knowledge of the company and significant capital at risk.

No serious investor would claim that success is guaranteed. Technology still needs to be proven and commercialised.

However, the suggestion that failure is somehow obvious or inevitable is difficult to reconcile with the behaviour of the people who have the deepest understanding of the company and the most money committed to it.

While message boards focus on daily price movements, claiming the directors are crooks, major stakeholders continue to support the balance sheet, approve strategic initiatives and remain invested for the long term.

Those actions speak far louder than forum speculation.

Phimx,

Photoshopgate is still your greatest technical achievement.

It's been all downhill since.

Davemate,

That's a strange challenge.

If QBT publicly named all of its key industry contacts, partners, technical advisers and experts, there wouldn't be much point having NDAs.

We know there is an ASIC manufacturer.

We know source code was supplied.

We know technical documentation was supplied.

We know engineering support was supplied.

We know the company has repeatedly referred to external specialists and researchers.

What you're asking for is not evidence.

You're asking shareholders to identify confidential third parties by name.

No sensible company would do that before commercial agreements are in place.

The irony is that if QBT published a list of names tomorrow, the next question would simply be:

"Yes, but what have they achieved?"

Careful, someone may think you have an agenda

KoolKat,

To answer your question directly: commercially, very little has been shown to the public, but as we know testing is ongoing so far. That's why QBT is valued where it is and why the next testing phase matters so much.

The disagreement isn't over what has been commercialised today.

It's over whether the current testing leads to commercialisation tomorrow.

You call it a balanced approach.

Others might call it permanently reserving the right to move the objection to the next milestone.

Every milestone achieved becomes yesterday's news and tomorrow's proof requirement.

That's not balance.

Biglad,

A quick look through your posting history shows a remarkably consistent pattern.

Back in 2023 you were aligned with Bobcat and Brewhaha on QBT.

Different names, same arguments, same conclusions, same relentless negativity.

What's interesting is how the objections have evolved.

First it was whether anything real existed.

Then whether the collaboration existed.

Then whether the manufacturer existed.

Then whether the technology could be tested.

Now we're down to "there's no revenue yet."

That's quite a journey.

As for "Slippery Gardin", if the project were standing still you might have a point.

But the company has progressed from concepts and simulations to manufacturer engagement, rig delivery, source code access, documentation, engineering support and live testing.

You don't have to believe it will succeed.

But pretending nothing has changed over the years is simply rewriting history.

The irony is that the people who seem most emotionally invested in QBT are often the ones who claim to dislike it the most.

This RNS deserves more attention than it's likely to get.

Most people see "another subsidiary" and move on. I think the more interesting point is what BlocKeeper is actually trying to become.

Unlike traditional Bitcoin miners, BlocKeeper intends to be a capital-light virtual mining business.

In simple terms:

No mining farms

No expensive ASIC purchases

No energy infrastructure

No maintenance costs

Instead, BlocKeeper plans to acquire and manage hash rate through commercial agreements with miners, brokers and pools.

If successful, it could gain exposure to Bitcoin production without carrying the huge capital costs that burden most mining companies.

What also caught my attention was the calibre of people being linked to the project:

Former JP Morgan quantitative analysis leadership

Treasury expertise from a NYSE-listed multinational

Intel and Bitcoin mining experience

Cybersecurity specialists from major financial institutions

That's a much stronger board and advisory group than many expected.

The really interesting part, however, is this sentence:

"BlocKeeper also plans to leverage QBT's proprietary AI-driven technologies to optimise hash rate deployment and improve mining efficiency."

In other words:

If Method C proves successful commercially, BlocKeeper could potentially become an early real-world deployment channel for QBT technology.

For now it's still early stage:

Fundraising not completed

AQSE listing not guaranteed

Commercial agreements not yet signed

But today's RNS turns BlocKeeper from an idea into an actual corporate structure with a defined business model, management team and route to market.

For me, the significance isn't today's value.

It's what BlocKeeper could become if QBT's mining optimisation technology delivers as expected.

Phimx,

There you go again. The same tired argument spinning around like a scratched record stuck on repeat. For the umpteenth time you have brought this to the forum, and for the umpteenth time the answer is quite simple.

"20 world-class experts" somehow becomes "20 salaried employees on the QBT payroll."

Those are not the same thing.

Experts can be consultants, advisers, researchers, collaborators, contractors, academics or external specialists.

You ask questions as though you've already proven the answer.

Then present your assumption as the conclusion.

It's the same Phimx routine we've watched for years: start with a conclusion, fill in the evidence afterwards.

And let's be honest, you're hardly posting from a position of recognised expertise yourself. You're just another anonymous poster on a bulletin board, no more qualified than anyone else, yet somehow your assumptions are routinely presented as established fact.

UserSteve,

Most take Winnifrith about as seriously as a circus clown who occasionally guesses the winning lottery numbers. Would you like to add mystic meg to your line up of professionals too ?

UserSteve,

By that logic, every investor with a few good calls becomes infallible.

Unfortunately for Tom, his fund performance demonstrates rather clearly that this isn't how investing works.

UserSteve,

Even a stopped clock gets some things right.

Tom Winnifrith has also had fund performances that were described as painful, presided over losses of more than 40% in a year, backed companies that disappointed and made predictions that never materialised.

Yet whenever he's right, we're told it proves his genius.

Whenever he's wrong, we're told to move on.

Seems that you only count the outcomes that suit the narrative.

I'd rather judge QBT on what QBT delivers than outsource my thinking to Tom Winnifrith.

Left-hand puppet:

"The box was painted black!"

Right-hand puppet:

"Why was it painted black?"

Left-hand puppet:

"Because they were hiding something!"

Right-hand puppet:

"What were they hiding?"

Left-hand puppet:

"The fact the box was painted black!"

The puppeteer is still arguing with himself and somehow declaring victory.

Phimx,

I don't need to answer it.

You have a theory.

Gardin gave an explanation.

Readers can decide which they find more convincing.

The difference is that only you is treating your theory about a paint job as though it were conclusive evidence of everything that followed.

Meanwhile, the project kept moving..........

Invinity spent years burning cash, raising money, missing expectations and waiting for commercial adoption before meaningful contracts started arriving.

Yet when it comes to QBT, you've apparently decided that anything not fully commercialised today must be worthless tomorrow.

A remarkable display of selective judgement.

Phimx,

Your credibility suffers from the fact that every road seems to lead back to the black box and other conspiracy theories.

You're still presenting a personal theory about an edited photograph as though it were some kind of forensic breakthrough.

Meanwhile, the project has moved on to source code, documentation, engineering support, data generation and testing.

You're still arguing about the paint job.