Member Info for Silversprings

Brew - he doesnt confirm live testing is happening now. He says its the next step that is happening to show clients the difference between a mining rig with their emperors vs one without

We cannot know for sure but it appears that the OS compatibility has been somewhat of a barrier to testing and has caused QBT issues. The recent PRN says these have now been overcome so we be hopeful that testing can now occur and we will see these results. Perhaps QBT are a bit later than they thought they’d be but that does not mean we have had 24/7 testing on live machines for 3 months.

Brew - re your question on 3 months of live testing. Its just my opinion but I don’t think there has been 3 months of live testing. The recent PRN stated that QBT has only just cracked the compatibility of the operating system CGminer to work with their methods. This has allowed live testing to commence 24/7 on a bitcoin mining device in a mining pool. So it’s my view we’ve only had truly live testing since the release of that PRN and definitely not 3 months worth yet.

We await the results of these live tests from the company as FG said in his video, the next update should simply be whether a machine with method B on it mines quicker than a machine without method B.

RBM - does the CAG still see any hope in the efforts going towards preventing a cheap sale of the assets? Or is the class action now the primary focus for the CAG? Appreciate all the work you have done for

Shareholders as always.

Thanks very much City for your honest insight (and of course your substantial support for the company we are all invested in)

I don’t know ME personally but when he has looked to engage with investors there’s been accusations on here of him talking too much or ‘ramping’, when he doesn’t do investor presentations or interviews he’s accused of not communicating, I can’t see how he can win there. Frankly my experience of shady AIM CEOs is you don’t often see them front and centre if it’s all going to pot. ME fronting up the interview for BET and TALK was reassuring enough for me, equally his participation in the December placing and also the reward options for the BOD show their commitment tied to low salaries and the company commitment to cut cost (which it has significantly) quite simply these are not the actions of a lifestyle company. You also can’t open the doors to Bitso, WA technology, Pumas, EFC, Necaxa, Mexican fed, Cadiz, Panmure if you are a lifestyle CEO.

All stocks at this level have risk attached so the continuous moaning from some wanting a sure thing doesn’t hold much sway. We all want the SP to be higher but if this works then quite simply it will be.

City - would be interested in your views on how you see the NFT side of the company playing out

My view is they were maybe too early to it and the scaling costs etc. would have outpaced the revenue received putting the company in a tough position. There would also have had to be a huge marketing push which would have been difficult for MOS by itself.

The pivot towards BET and TALK however opens up some interesting opportunities. The platform is still there complete with wallet integration and Apple Pay for fiat purchases. Now though MOS essentially will not only have revenue from the data services being billed to Estadio Bet, but also the share of betting revenues? This will allow the company to become profitable and stable and potentially revisit the NFT opportunity.

Could we potentially see punters going to place a bet on a Mexican league game and being offered heroes experiences ?

There certainly seems to be an awful lot of proprietary value in the platform MOS have built that surely won’t just go to waste.

There’s also the role Bitso will play in all of this. I’m not certain how this will unfold but companies that size don’t just take wild punts of partnering with failing lifestyle companies. Neither do the owners of Necaxa, Pumas, Atlante, Cadiz.

My view is a jigsaw is being built here and maybe BET is the cornerstone that provides the revenue to unlock the potential of some of the previous pieces the company has worked on.

I know the trolls don’t deserve it but I’m sure genuine holders would be interested in views and opinions on how all this plays out.

Results are upto 31st December. In the three months since then MOS will have been invoicing for services. The current picture may well be even more positive than what these results show and BET hasn’t even launched yet.

Quite simply there’s a huge value shift when a company becomes self sustaining through profitability. The reduction of the overheads means that any sort of revenue from BET and that’s not far away now.

The reduction in the cost figure is hugely significant. Thats a company absolutely tightening its belt. Profitability not far away.

Sorry but that article is laughable, a complete unprofessional embarrassment.

Bob socks - I don’t really understand your post. QBT have said nothing about customising the operating system. They need their method B to be compliant with it. It’s a bit like someone trying to develop a piece of software to run on windows, they announce that they’re going test it on windows, and then you accuse them of re-writing a custom version of windows? That is not what has occurred here.

Did we ever get an insight into why any deal between Anavio and Summit for Anavio to exit fell through? It sounded likely at one stage and then the next Kravitz is proceeding with creditor protection process and a sale.

Zolander - no idea unfortunately, I presume like most IT things you just test it until it works in the new environment and if it doesn’t you keep fixing and testing until it does

I think it’s a positive that FG mentioned documents and lawyers back and forth in the interview, but I’ve got no idea on timescales, these are only my interpretations of where the company may possible be from the RNS announcements. It could be a completely different picture. Here’s hoping for good news soon though for all the patient shareholders here.

Jambone your question re block scale chips or Chinese chips

I don’t think it’s any coincidence at all that the RNS mentioned NDAs with two rig manufacturers one in China and one in North America. For absolute clarity these are not miners but mining hardware manufacturers.

FG has been honest about the issues of porting the software onto the Chinese machines due to the rig and chip being undocumented

The North American manufacturer though? The rig will be documented and the chip will be fully available to QBT, perhaps even extremely similar to the intel chip.

The only remaining hurdle for QBT to live test on a North American mining rig with asic chip was the CGminer operating system. Hence what I consider the be the absolute key line in the last RNS, 1000s of lines of open source code needed to be worked through. A huge task but one that is now done according to FG.

In my view this now means that even though QBT can’t yet port onto a Chinese manufactured machine with a Chinese chip, there is now no obstacle to porting onto a US mining rig with an asic chip (e.g block scale?)

That’s a message that I believe was lost in the interpretation of the last RNS, it was all about the porting challenges on Chinese machines but in amongst it was lost the importance of live testing in a mining pool. For that live testing to occur the method B software has to be running on a US manufactured rig and chip - hence it has been ported.

The wording is key, most of the large miners (both US and Chinese) use the Chinese manufactured machines so QBT still have to crack this printing before a commercial deal with these miners can be struck

BUT…that doesn’t mean QBT couldn’t start pool mining with method B on US mining rigs and asic chips in the meantime, gain revenue, prove the tech works, then once the Chinese rig and chip have been reverse engineered the deals with miners can start.

The operating system compatibility was in my opinion the blocker to live testing as it prevented porting to any machines (US or China made).QBT cracking this means they have the rig, chip, and OS for US mining machines (hence live testing), they have the OS for Chinese machines but not the rig or chip (yet) hence the delay here to big commercial deals.

If method B works in the live testing though it’s a massive step forward as the CGminer operating system is run on both American and Chinese manufactured rigs.

Jambone - not sure if you read my earlier post or not

I think there may be some specifics in the definition of ‘porting’. Its the process of adapting software from the environment it was developed in for the purpose of execution in a different computing environment.

The fact that we are live testing on an asic based bitcoin mining machine in a mining pool means a porting of some sort has already been achieved.

My own opinion? Its just drawing possible conclusions from the RNS and the interviews but it seems as though when considering North American manufacturers and Chinese manufacturers, the blocker for QBT porting is the chip and rig architecture for the Chinese machines (undocumented requiring reverse engineering before porting possible) and it was the CGminer operating system on both American and Chinese rigs (which has now been cracked by QBT)

In my opinion I believe we could now be seeing QBT’s method B, compatible with CGminer OS, running on a North American mining rig powered by an intel based chip. The cracking of the OS compatibility in my opinion has made this possible. (US chip and rig no issue)

Running this test on Chinese machines with Chinese chips may not yet be possible because the chip and rig hardware is still a challenge (but crucially the CGminer operating system is the same so QBT must be close)

The majority of the large miners are running off the Bitmain Chinese rigs with Chinese chips since intel discontinued theirs, so FG is right to say that a commercial deal with these is still dependent on porting that is proving challenging.

QBT proving method B works on North American mining rig equipment with an intel based asic chip (I wonder who could be supplying these..) is in my view eminently possible however and if QBT can prove this works then revenue is possible not only through the proceeds of profit sharing from pool mining, but also through commercial deals with US rig manufacturers (or soon to be rig manufacturers).

The deals with large miners could then follow once the QBT team have cracked the porting challenge on the Chinese rigs and chips.

I think some people are seeing the porting as blocker to any progress after reading the RNS. My view is that QBT may have already ‘ported’ method B onto North American rigs, chips, and OS, and hence why it is in a position to live test. Unfortunately North American manufacturers do not supply the majority of the large miners the Chinese do.

Another prospect to consider though, if live mining on American rigs work, why would every large miner not want it running on their Chinese manufactured rigs and chips? The pressure on Chinese rig manufacturers and chip suppliers to then play ball with QBT could be huge from their own customers, otherwise they face US market insurgents (I wonder who that could be?) racing ahead of them as soon as they are able to make their own rigs and chips available (some companies were targeting early this yea

AimHigherStill - I’ve no idea what QBT costs are so wouldn’t want to comment on them or FG’s body language.

I’m not sure method C would be an alternative to Method A or B though. It says in the RNS the company is live testing, and in the interview with FG he says next news would be machine with method B vs a machine without method B. So it sounds as though Method B is the one subject to live testing.

Method C relates to the asic chip and will potentially rely on QBT developing its own prototype and also may combine with the two patents for enhanced and ultra boost. It feels from the information available this is earlier on in the process than method A and B but sounds an exciting avenue but as an addition to A and B not as an alternative.

Indeed looking at the composition of the R&D teams, although there will be synergy between them it could have been a completely different team that has been working on method C vs the team working on methods A and B. All in my opinion of course. We await the next piece of news.

(2/2) This is where I believe the importance of the N.America mining rig manufacturer comes in. They will have a fully documented rig and may have documented asic chips too perhaps even based on intel ones extremely familiar to FG.

So why hasn’t the software been ported onto these chips already? QBT hadn’t cracked the operating system, those 100s of lines of open code, except now they have and that OS is the one used across the majority of all mining rigs.

So now we potentially have a documented rig manufacturer with a documented chip, and a compliant OS, hence in my view this has now allowed live testing in two large mining pools.

A note of caution? FG specifically mentions the challenge around commercial rigs and getting to market, when discussing live testing however the RNS says ‘asic based bitcoin mining devices’. Perhaps the N. American rig manufacturer has not yet released commercial rigs for large miners to use, but it doesn’t mean they can’t supply a compliant rig, OS and chip for QBT to run live testing in a mining pool?

My own view? I think the cracking of the OS was the missing piece to allow live testing. There’s obviously been challenges unlocking the Chinese chips and mining rigs but if Method B works with the OS and then works in live testing it’s a massive step forward for QBT just in my opinion (which is just based on trying to get my head around the RNSs)

Don’t often comment on here but a long time holder in QBT (1/2)

It might be worth considering the different technologies in play here and that might help with some of the questions on here about the RNS(all in my honest opinion only)

- A mining rig is effectively a computer

- A mining chip (asic) is effectively the hardware processing component at the centre of the computer

- The operating system is the software that interacts with the computing chip and rest of the hardware

The majority of the commercial rig manufacturers are two Chinese companies, Bitmain and MicroBT.

Then we have Bitcoin mining companies who purchase and use these rigs, some of these are in N.America some in China.

Finally we have chip manufacturers who create the asic chips. Intel did use to be one of these but has since stopped and Block bought the remaining chips to help the company develop its own asic chips around which they would then further build their own mining hardware (mining rig) to challenge the dominance of Bitmain and MicroBT

Now let’s look at what FG says in the RNS ‘The Company has, over the past nine months, entered into early-stage exploratory discussions, under Non-Disclosure Agreements (“NDA”), with two large mining rig manufacturers in China and North America and with two of the largest US Bitcoin mining companies’ - this specifically references an American rig manufacturer (e.g not Bitmain or MicroBT)

The RNS specifically mentions the porting challenges on the Chinese machine based on BM13xx chip. FG has said in the past the architecture of these rigs and chips are completely undocumented. To add to that there’s also the operating system these rigs run on as mentioned.

Now this is the crucial section (again in my opinion only and this is just my interpretation of the public information). See this paragraph in the RNS:

‘In addition to the above, the development of Method B, as an extension to CGminer, a standard operating system used by almost all commercial mining rigs, has been particularly complex, given the intricacies of more than 50,000 lines of open-source C-code developed by the CGminer community. The key issues have been addressed and the Company is performing intensive live mining tests 24/7 using ASIC-based Bitcoin mining devices connected to two large mining pools.’

So if we think of the three parts of the mining computer: the rig, the chip, the operating system. QBT need its SaaS software to be compatible with the OS, the chip, and by definition the rest of the hardware (the rig)

The RNS says the QBT team has addressed the key issues of compatibility with the CG miner OS even though it has proven to be challenging. What is key here is that this OS is used across almost all commercial mining rigs.

So 1/3 of the puzzle is complete, but FG says we are live testing on asic based Bitcoin mining devices. How can that be if QBT has not been able to port the software to work with th

Stats - would tie up the two questions that have never been answered by anyone yet. Where is Art in all of this, and which party was going to buy the assets in a distressed sale after Anavio had shafted

It’s simple for me now. There’s either a rescue deal and this turns around, or it’s class action and they’re all going to court, maybe it even ends up being both.

You can’t just fraudulently steal millions of pounds of investor money through lying in regulatory news announcements and expect to just get away with it.

Multiple different directors have had multiple different opportunities to save the company and set it on a path that would benefit shareholders. All of them have chosen instead to run it into the ground in an attempt to steal the asset for themselves. All they had to do was inject the gas and sign the JV, that was it. Could have been done at any point but sheer greed has prevented that and now here we are.

The only only miniscule solace is that hopefully Anavio will get doubly shafted of losing out on their plan to steal Copl but also drained by the class action coming their way.

Feels odd that they extended the forbearance agreement by a week just to then go into creditor protection. Mind you they are dealing with the most morally bankrupt organisation possible so wouldn’t surprise me at all if Anavio and Richardson reneged on something at the last minute or made some attempt to keep their ill-gained position.

Hopefully there’s a way out of this for shareholders but unfortunately with John Howard’s shareholding that includes Anavio, there’s just no way to flush them.