Member Info for Phimx

Fleccy:

QBT is a paid client of Proactive, it's all stated at the end of each interview.

Mickydj:

Perhaps the NDAs are providing partial access to the hardware.

Mickydj:

Hexam nails it again.

Mrhanji:

The QBT team of world class experts seem to stumble over very simple things. This was another

RNS 5 December 2025

"Joint analysis of the hardware version of Method C AI Oracle had previously commenced with one of the three ASIC manufacturers, as announced on 8 April 2025. However, due to the need for the hardware version to be integrated into the ASIC architecture, a process which could take up to 18 months for the new chip to come to market, it has been mutually agreed to give operational priority to the new software version, as a commercial roll-out is expected to be achieved much faster with this approach.

9 months to realise the hardware version had to be integrated on to the ASIC.

Haha farcical

Mrhanji:

You need to inform Gardin that a simple Gantt chart may speed up his project roll-out.

Mrhanji: You post

" Goes back to the point i made earlier you have a very naïve view to the point where it seems you dont know how any of this works.."

What I do know mrhanji that forward planning is a very obvious and well trodden path to project execution. Gardin's execution appears to be a series of uncoordinated steps and in between a change of focus. Let's look at an example.

RNS: 5 December 2025

: However, due to the need for the hardware version to be integrated into the ASIC architecture, a process which could take up to 18 months for the new chip to come to market, it has been mutually agreed to give operational priority to the new software version, as a commercial roll-out is expected to be achieved much faster with this approach.

Fast forward to the latest interview, he is asked to describe the current stage of the relationships with the 3 NDAs.

He then launches into monologue about how they need to understand how the ASICs work because the training of the neural network is very ASIC specific.

He is not talking about the current state of play with the NDAs but method C hardware which was ditched 2 months previously.

Again another fine Oscar performance, the clarity and status of the project has left no doubt in investors minds.

Note the sarcasm, it's well deserved.

Mickydj:

Gosh are you back to claiming I have alternative user names because I messed up a copy and paste of your post.

Haha farcical

Mickydj: You post

"

RE: QBT Probability view (realistic not promotional)Today 12:39

Mickydj: You post

" Investors are fully capable of evaluating RNS updates, timelines and company communication without them being reduced to sarcasm about photographs, courier services or forced narrative spin"

Regarding courier services, as I posted previously, as of 5 December 2025, QBT claimed to be waiting delivery of miners so that software could be installed. Surely in a company as QBT someone had the foresight to prearrange delivery of the hardware !

It is now 13 Feb 2026 and apparently no progress has been made on delivery. The relevance of couriers delivery times is obvious, and not the bottleneck, so what is ?

Mickydj: You post

" Investors are fully capable of evaluating RNS updates, timelines and company communication without them being reduced to sarcasm about photographs, courier services or forced narrative spin"

I disagree. Photograps and presentations at these conferences provide evidence that the company is participating. For heavens sake The 2026 the Nashville Energy Mining & Sustainability (NEMS) conference was an ideal opportunity to showcase QBT's energy saving methods. To reach out to all audiences both upcoming and established but alas Gardin didn't.

Photos are not for anonymous BB poster. Photos give investors and potential investors confidence in the cls made by the company, this then supports the share price aiding further raises. failure by the CEO to support the share price also opens up the possibility of a hostile takeover to capture the remarkable technology the Company have claimed to have developed.

Failure of Gardin to present his energy saving methods at NEMS is strange to say the least. You may argue he was busy but then what of other members of the team making a presentation e.g. Rita Pizzi, after all she is supposed to be the Chief Research Officer even though Gardin also lays claim to that title ?

Mickydj: You post

" Demanding “team photos” or counting conference presentations is not meaningful analysis of technical progress."

It is very meaningful, if there is no team. !!!

There is virtually no verification that what QBT post is actually happening. No evidence that a team of world class experts exist. What is known, via the author of CGminer, is he was approached by QBT because they were unable to decipher the software, even though it was documented and available. The tends to suggest the 'tea.' Was not as expert as Gardin suggested.

What evidence exists for the laboratories in London, Munich and Milan. What is a laboratory, someone's spare bedroom with a computer desk ?

A team photo in Nashville is a very cheap and easy way to provide verification, of sorts, that what Gardin says and writes is true.

Mickydj:

Ask Gardin/AI how many public presentations Gardin has given of his amazing breakthroughs, at all the Bitcoin gatherings he has supposed to have attended, to promote the company.

Come on Gardin show investors a team photo at Nashville.

Team photo, not much to ask is it ????

Mickydj: RNS 5 December 2025

" 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, with access to their relevant source code."

Mickydj: Ask AI how long it takes DHL/UPS to ship a small computer/mining rig from the USA to Milan !

Mickeydj:

Another week of deadly silence from QBT, or it just my habit of presenting my personal opinion as objective reality. Please tell us your alternative AI opinion.

Mickdj: You post

" You keep repeating that your posts are “verifiable” because you quote snippets from RNS releases, but quoting selected lines is not the same as proving the conclusions you attach to them.

You seem to think you are in a court of law. This is a chat board, I don't have to prove my conclusions. I present 𝗺𝘆 conclusions using using selected lines from RNS to the board. Readers are free to read 𝗺𝘆 conclusions and any other conclusions posted and decide for themselves which version they prefer. Having bragged to the number of my posts you have had removed, suggests the only counter to my points are removal and not discussion.

Mickdj: You post

" Your repeated claim that Gardin has “delivered nothing” relies on redefining deliverables as only final commercial deployment, while dismissing documented technical milestones, testing stages and development progress that have been reported. That is a subjective definition, not an objective assessment."

What is this gobbledegook 'subjective definition' can AI not write in plain English. I'd say more of a subjective assessment based upon my opinion that Gardin's claims of progress are overinflated and unrealistic.

Gardin show photos of you and the 'team' at Nashville'

Mickydj: You post

" You also state discussions have been ongoing for two years as though duration automatically equals failure. In technology development, particularly in specialised computational or mining optimisation fields, extended testing, iteration and partner engagement are entirely normal. Length of process alone does not demonstrate lack of progress."

I think it it does Micky, and others can make up their own minds.

Mickydj: You post

"You claim the latest update shows “nothing more than progress of the 256 Foundation” and question who Gardin is working for, yet you provide no evidence that this is anything other than normal collaborative or development activity. Suggestion and insinuation are not proof."

So you say "... this is anything other than normal collaboration or development activity..."

As a man once said ' suggestion and insinuation are not proof'

Has Gardin suggested he's in a collaboration or development with the 256 Foundation ?

Mickdj:

Anyone reading my posts can easily verify what I say, I cite RNS and post excerpts to emphasise the points I make.

Investors can judge for themselves what the last update actual updated! Nothing more than the progress of the 256 Foundation, who is Gardin working for?

Discussions still ongoing for 2 years or more. Are you trying to imply that is incorrect ?

"Skeleton non-commercial project" yep that sums this up, I stand by that

Select historic RNS snippets are repeatedly recycled to suggest permanent failure or stagnation. Yep I've posted several examples as have others. Gardin hasn't delivered anything he's dangled in front of investors, it is continued failure after failure. Anyone can read the promises and then view the results with the benefit of the available hindsight.

Obviously you view my posts, pointing out the obvious flaws and failures of Gardin's RNS, as as too close to the truth.

A company going nowhere with all the evidence you need written in the RNS over the last 5 years, read and digest before you feed Gardin your money.

Mrhanji: You post

" Fleecy what's your take on epstein being founder of bitcoin..or possibly being satoshi abit off topic"

What an ridiculous question. You manage to project some immature traits occasionally. Stick to your attempts getting your investment back.