Member Info for UserSteve

But still, the drop from 30,500 to 0.36 is a 100% drop, to nearest approximation.

(30,500 - 0.36) / 30,500 = 0.999988196

= 99.9988196% destruction in shareholder value (according to the historic share price from Google)

The 30,500 is GBX. One GBX is one pence - i.e. 1/100th of a pound (GBP).

https://simpleinvestmentguide.com/definition/gbx/

KoolKat15, you mean 30500p (£305.00), not £30,500

Today's RNS seemed very positive - it announced progress and that the major project is on-track. Yet almost zero interest from the market.

Wow. Just wow.

Mrhanji said "Any day now.we should get the update"

Ah yes, we definitely 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝. But will we, though? Or perhaps the Final Results will drop before any update.

And just so that investors are clear about what sort of deal they are aiming for, Gardin helpfully describes it as " 𝘳𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯𝘶𝘦 𝘦𝘹𝘵𝘳𝘢 𝘣𝘪𝘵𝘤𝘰𝘪𝘯 𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨". As usual, there is no such term in the industry - it is another one of Gardin's semi-literate attempts at tossing a word salad.

In the 18 June 2026 interview, Gardin is asked "𝘞𝘩𝘢𝘵'𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘬𝘦𝘺 𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘩𝘯𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘉𝘭𝘰𝘤𝘒𝘦𝘦𝘱𝘦𝘳 𝘢 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘦𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘦𝘥𝘨𝘦?" he replied

"𝘐𝘵'𝘴 𝘣𝘢𝘴𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘢 𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘳, 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘦𝘹𝘢𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘔𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘥 𝘉, 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘪𝘴 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘣𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘩𝘯𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘪𝘦𝘴, 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘣𝘦 𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘦 𝘣𝘺 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘥𝘷𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘨𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘣𝘢𝘴𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘮𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘮𝘶𝘤𝘩 𝘪𝘵 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘵, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘰 𝘸𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰 𝘢 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘳𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯𝘶𝘦 𝘦𝘹𝘵𝘳𝘢 𝘣𝘪𝘵𝘤𝘰𝘪𝘯 𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨, 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘣𝘦 𝘢 𝘸𝘪𝘯-𝘸𝘪𝘯 𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘣𝘰𝘵𝘩 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘦𝘴, 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘉𝘭𝘰𝘤𝘒𝘦𝘦𝘱𝘦𝘳, 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘳, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘭𝘴𝘰 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘘𝘉𝘛, 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘴𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘳𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯𝘶𝘦𝘴 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘢𝘭𝘴𝘰 𝘢𝘯 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘷𝘢𝘭𝘶𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘵 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘪𝘴 𝘉𝘭𝘰𝘤𝘒𝘦𝘦𝘱𝘦𝘳."

So Gardin acknowledges that in order to have an advantage, the mining rigs have to be running a QBT method. And there will only be an advantage if the Methods can be proven to work.

We still have not had any independent verification that any of QBT's Methods work.

Without independently verified real-world mining pool performance results, BlocKeeper have nothing at all to work with.

Inforapennyortwo said "26 years? Don’t you mean 6..."

No, I mean 26 years. When I follow the money, I follow the company accounts. For QBT, the company accounts go back 26 years and shows a long history of Placings, but no revenue to show for it, and a 100% drop in share price over all that time (as Google reports when you search for QBT share price and select All data).

Inforapennyortwo said "Blockeeper is a subsidiary, its raising its own funds..."

And where will the funds come from? From Placings i.e. shareholders.

I am not impressed with the pace of progress. On 27 Jan 2026 ECOB announced that they had started building the ground floor. Today they announce that the second floor "structure" (not the floor itself) is completed, and that building the third floor has started.

So it has taken five months to build two floors. The third floor will likely take another three months.

Construction at the site started in Sept 2025. So the whole block probably won't be finished until after Sept 2026. Over a year.

I thought the USP of ECOB was super-fast construction. This doesn't seem super-fast to me.

Inforapennyortwo said "The title of this thread is spot on..."

When I follow the money of QBT over its 26-year history, I see a lot of money coming in from individual investors via Placings, and that money being given to the many directors and employees. When BlocKeeper is up and running, with its five directors and two super-experts, even more money will be given to them.

[Part 2 of 2]

Host: So you said you're not going to be involved in the running, Francesco, what's going to be the relationship between QBT and BlocKeeper and how will QBT benefit from this?

Gardin: Sure. So, I'll be there just as a liaison element between the two companies. And the other thing about this business model is that QBT for all of it's three methods has constantly proved that it can beat brute force which is a miner not running with our methods. And that means that one way to take advantage of this technology is to mine. But this is not what QBT right now intends to do directly. Maybe indirectly with agreements with the various parties that QBT has been engaged for the last few years. But if QBT technology is available to BlocKeeper, then BlocKeeper can enter into more advantageous deals with the seller of the hash power, which are basically the miners who wants to have a different way to monitise their hash power, alternative to the pools, and if we can, if BlocKeeper can also offer access to QBT technology, probably we will get much better deals which will result in buying hash power at a discount, or what would be otherwise be the spot price of a bitcoin, or what would be the cost of mining a bitcoin.

Host: What's the key technology that will give BlocKeeper a competitive edge?

Gardin: It's basically the fact that a miner, which will use for example Method B, which is one of our best technologies, will be able to mine by having an advantage in basically in terms of how much it would mine without it, and so we will enter into a deal of revenue extra bitcoin mined sharing, which would be a win-win situation for both companies, for BlocKeeper, for the miner, and also for QBT, who will of course will get not only revenues from this arrangement but also an increased valuation of its asset which is BlocKeeper.

Host: Is there a timetable for the Aquis admission?

Gardin: Ummm yes. Although there are still some final elements to complete, such as the due diligence of the directors which is a must, and other formal steps like legal opinions on the company acting in this space. But basically we want to do it sooner than later. How sooner is sooner? Basically the presentation has been prepared with one of the leading Financial PR companies in the UK, the admission document has been already drafted, so we need to set up meetings, or they need better to set up meetings with potential investor for either pre-IPO funding or committing to funding at the IPO, which in the case of Aquis is at admission.

Host: Francesco, hope you'll keep us keep updated with developments. It sounds a very exciting project. Thank you for your time today.

Gardin: Indeed. Thank you very much, Stephen.

[ends]

Title: Quantum Blockchain's BlocKeeper targets Bitcoin treasury play via 'virtual mining' model

YouTube link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pi5F9uUaPYI

[Part 1 of 2]

Host: Hello, you're watching Proactive. I'm joined by Francesco Gardin, the CEO of Quantum Blockchain Technologies. Francesco, good to speak with you. Could you take us through the BlocKeeper business model, please?

Gardin: Sure. Good morning, Stephen. Um, yes, it's by now a long story, because it's a story which started in July last year. And the question was "Is there an alternative way to mine"? because we've been in this sector for nearly six years, and we have seen the evolution of the sector. And we asked ourselves whether there was a different way to mine which wouldn't involve all the risks that the miners face, which is basically a large capex because they have to buy the mining rigs, and the opex because they have to buy electricity, the maintenance of the machines. And we came up with this idea, which was virtual mining. So basically the product of mining is an hash rate, and depending on the hash rate you get rewards from the pools. But hash rate, given the underlying technology, has become a commodity. So basically there is already an initial market for this commodity. And we thought that this was a much more efficient way to mine and therefore generate bitcoins that you hold in the treasury, it was a much more efficient way to mine, and much more efficient than buying bitcoins on the exchange, as many of the data digital asset treasury do. And we thought that this was a viable model, and no reason why not to implement it.

Host: Who is going to be running BlocKeeper, Francesco, and do you have a team in place?

Gardin: Yeah, OK, so, the first question Stephen is not me. OK, I have enough to do with QBT to deliver and that's the last thing that I need to add to my schedule. So we have selected what I think is an excellent team. And we have Alex, a super experienced CEO, 15 years running one of the largest Milan stock exchange incubators. Then we have Andrea who is super background as a treasurer in one of the largest worldwide industrial groups. Then we have David who I call him as a nickname the King of Quantitative because his ability and experience in collecting data, analysing them, and make them usable to traders is a unique asset. And so I think that we have, as a Board, in place a very efficient and competent board. Of course, there is also the Malta director who is basically in a position of making sure that we are compliant with all the Malta jurisdiction regulations. And then we have two advisors. They are super experts in their sector that we've been working with for many years. One is Raul, and Raul is the author of two of our patent applications, and is super expert in cyber security, and cryptography. And Jose who was the head of the Intel ASIC chip for bitcoin mining and has been working with us, and his connections in the sector are unique.

[contin

Yes, this seems to be true. Around 2022, Marco Coppini's personal stake of 86m shares equated to 16.82% of QBT's shares. But today, his personal stake is so low as to be below the disclosable threshold.

Why would he reduce his stake if QBT were making progress towards commercialisation?

Mikeydj, if Marco Coppini was a major shareholder, but is not disclosed as such today, then that does imply he is no longer a major shareholder.

Why would he reduce hus holdings?

Hexam, I'm getting up to speed with this thread. Is it the case that Marco Coppini was previously a major shareholder, but no longer is today?

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

During discussions about the Methods with a potential customer, QBT most likely will reveal sensitive details about how the Methods work, in order to satisfy the customer's technical experts. And so it makes sense for an NDA to protect the customer from revealing these details to the public, or using the details for their own gain. But I cannot see any real reason for the name of the potential customer to be withheld. I think it would increase QBT's credibility enormously if they did so. For example, if this paragraph ap[peared in a PRN, it would be accepted very warmly by the market.

"QBT are pleased to announce that it has entered into detailed discussions about Method C with Bitdeer, with a view for Bitdeer's technical experts to determine whether Method C will work with their propriety bitcoin mining ASIC chips. If Method C is determined to be suitable then it is anticipated that this will lead to real-world testing of Method C on their ASIC, and following that, potentially commercial discussions. In order to protect the industry secrets and detailed methodology of Method C, an NDA has been signed with Bitdeer."

Mrhanji said "After nearly six years in the sector, QBT identified a more capital-efficient route to Bitcoin exposure"

And in those six years QBT have: failed with their mining facility; failed with their proprietary ASIC; failed to get any sales for its Methods; failed to get any independent verification of any of its Methods. Now they have performed a major pivot into a new company with a new structure and different business model.

Yet we are supposed to believe they will somehow succeed with BlocKeeper when they have failed at everything else.

Do people think that QBT will do another Placing to fund BlocKeeper BEFORE BlocKeeper does its IPO Placing? Or do they think any further funds for BlocKeeper will come only from its IPO (after it has published its Prospectus) and any of its own subsequenct Placings?

Hexam said "Just extra (directors’) mouths to feed."

Yes, indeed. Five board members, plus two specialist advisers, plus costs of being listed on AQUIS. The total costs for these things alone is likely to be £1m to £1.5m per year.