Member Info for Phimx

Mickydj: You posted

"Not having a photo doesn’t prove Daddy didn’t go on holiday."

𝗕𝘂𝘁 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮 𝗽𝗵𝗼𝘁𝗼 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘃𝗲 𝗵𝗲 𝘄𝗲𝗻𝘁

Mickydj: You post

" No photo = suspicious.

That is an assumption, not evidence"

Of course it is Micky, who is claiming it is evidence.

You keep waffling on about evidence, framing, narratives and transparency etc.

Who cares ? This isn't the Old Bailey. I want verification that Gardin went to NEMS is too much to ask. If he doesn't provide it then on the balance of probability he never went. This whole story pivots on him telling the truth, not on you or I beating our gums.

If you are a genuine investor surely you want to know the truth of your investment ? I'd be demanding proof he was there and if he won't provide it, I'd have my money out like a shot.

Mickdj: You post

" So the question readers should quietly ask themselves is:

Why do the same small group consistently reappear together across threads, amplifying each other’s framing?

Coincidence?"

Could it be most are disgruntled share holders who don't believe the garbage Gardin has spouted over the years.

Again you try and frame shareholders concerns as a conspiracy, placing the blame on others. Gardin has made his claims, place the blame solely on his shoulders.

And show evidence of attendance at NEMS, come on Gardin the longer you leave the more suspicious it is!

Mickdj:

As I said roll it how you want but the simple and obvious truth is, Gardin didn't produce the goods, everyone here knows that including you.

Mickdj:

I think Gardin's ASIC story is well known by readers here. Gardin pushed home the tale of producing a hashing ASIC faster than any other, this was plainly not a sensible or plausible reality. So it has proved years later, more Gardin RNS fluff that failed the only plausible test .... time.

Roll it how you want Micky, It's resigned to the ever growing Gardin garbage pile.

Obelisk:

For true believers I never understood their objections to derampers. Your opportunity to buy low is my gift to you, after all Gardin will make you all rich very soon.

Https://www.granitefirm.com/blog/us/2023/04/29/cost-of-chip-foundry/#:~:text=In%20January%202023%2C%20it%20was,to%20charge%20a%20high%20fee.

Obelix: You post

" Don't forget about 22nd and 23rd of January at Bitcoin Park this happened.

These discussions were focused on the timing for the delivery of both hardware and software from these potential customers and commercial partner"

I'm not sure why Gardin writes about something so mundane and trivial as delivery of hardware and software. Surely this was discussed during the agreements and requirements of the installation and testing program. It looks like more 'filler material" as is the waffle about the 256 Foundation, simply to make up an update.

Of course there is still no verification that Gardin and his 'team' turned up Nashville. Still waiting for the happy snappies. Time this guy verified something of this story.

Has the attack on Iran affected the delivery of miners from the US NDA companies. Has the management team been sighted attending NEMS summit yet ?

Now 3 months since Gardin stated

"The process has reached the stage where these three companies will now be needing to make their mining rigs available to QBT's testing team at its laboratory in Milan,"

In that time, for his consultation talents, his company has collected over £48,000

Mickdj: You post

" But he did frame it as “sounds very familiar” off a 15–30% line, which is exactly how insinuation by association works."

Paranoid and desperate spring to mind !

Mickdj: You post

" No evidence is provided that:

• The mechanisms described are technically equivalent

• The paper constitutes prior art relevant to QBT’s patents

• The implementation approach matches QBT’s disclosures

The similarity referenced is numerical, not methodological.

Suggesting overlap without demonstrating technical equivalence risks misleading readers into assuming duplication or lack of novelty.

If such a claim is being made, it should be supported by direct technical comparison, not percentage association alone."

Usersteve made no claims other than he was going to read the paper to see if there was similarities with QBTs methods.

It is possible this paper could add plausibility to QBT's methods. I think you are cutting you own throat with the rubbish you've just posted. You must have done some serious averaging down to be so desperate to try and stem the tide of failure here

Mickydj: You post

" • Revenue was predicted and has not materialised."

Spot-on Micky, I'm glad you highlighted that plainly obvious truism.

Mickydj: You post

" Lack of update implies failure."

I don't recollect writing that, I think the implications of failure is your assumption not mine

Mickdj: You post

" Governance / Credibility Claims

• Family employment questions raised....𝗦𝗼 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁

• “Virtually everything written or spoken by Gardin cannot be corroborated.” 𝗦𝗼 𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗲

• The last RNS was “pitiful.” .... 𝗠𝘆 𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗸𝗲 𝗶𝘁 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝗱𝗶𝗿𝗲

• Investors should question whether “all is not as it should be.” ... 𝗧𝗼𝗼 𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝘀𝗵𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱

Thanks for the opportunity

Mickydj: You post

" Nashville / Attendance Claims

• There is no verification QBT attended NEMS2026.

• Lack of photos creates suspicion.

• Management has an obligation to substantiate attendance.

𝗔𝗡𝗗 ??????,

Show me the photos, no photos No verification equals suspicion no attendance

Mickydj: You post

" SaaS / Infrastructure Claims

• “The SaaS Cloud infrastructure does not exist.”

• “It never happened.”

• “It is dead.”

• “There has been no progress toward delivery.”

• “There were no actions taken to bring about delivery.”

• “The RNS information turned out to be false.”

𝗦𝗵𝗼𝘄 𝗺𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗴𝗼𝗼𝗱𝘀 𝗠𝗶𝗰𝗸𝘆

𝗦𝗵𝗼𝘄 𝗺𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗴𝗼𝗼𝗱𝘀

𝗬𝗼𝘂 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗹𝘆𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗺𝘆 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗳𝗮𝗹𝘀𝗲 𝗦𝗵𝗼𝘄 𝗺𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗦𝗮𝗮𝗦 𝗖𝗹𝗼𝘂𝗱 𝗜𝗻𝗳𝗿𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗚𝗮𝗿𝗱𝗶𝗻 𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘁𝘄𝗼 𝗠𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗼𝗻

Oldsharedog: You post

" ... you are a repetitive fool."

That may well be, thankfully I am not a gullible fool.

Oldsharedog:

You don't think clearly.

Let's say I rang QBT. Assuming they actually picked up the phone and deigned to give me an answer. Would people here believe what I reported back ?

If a photo of the management team, at NEMS2006 appeared on the web site. it would be more convincing. Of course we could ask the question who is the team ? There is only one executive director and Gaddin claims to be CRO even though Pizzi was appointed to that position a couple of years ago.

Why wouldn't Gardin present a photo he has done for other conferences.

Mickydj:

You banging on on about RNS statements and accounts to prove it doesn't exist. I can't prove it doesn't exist, that is a negative and it is well established it can't be proved.

But, based on the balance of probability I say it doesn't exist and there has been no revenue. And yes I infer from the total lack of evidence that supports your idea that it could exist. There has been nothing to support the existence of the project since the RNS statement was published.

Do you think there is a revenue generating SaaS Cloud infrastructure being run by QBT now ???

Hands up if you think so !

Mickydj: You post

"t said the placing provides the opportunity to set up infrastructure and that revenue was predicted via a model"

From the RNS 30 October 2024

" We predict revenue will be generated either by charging subscription fees for each mining rig served, or by sharing the extra mined bitcoins, as a result of the miner using QBT’s technology, or a combination of the two."

There is no model mentioned ????