Member Info for UserSteve

The doubled RNS is a regular occurrence on the LSE platform. It has also affected today BRGE, BRAI, and Delta Gold Technologies.

Looks like they're busy sorting the problem because the RNS list is only showing RNSs from about 10 companies so far.

https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/

Obelix said "Buys outweighs sells again hugely on Buy to Sell volume"

Yet the share price has still barely moved from the Placing price of 0.35p. Does anyone know why that would be?

Inforapennyortwo quoted the 6 May RNS "𝘞𝘦 𝘭𝘰𝘰𝘬 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘸𝘢𝘳𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘴 𝙩𝙤 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙘𝙤𝙢𝙥𝙖𝙣𝙮 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘯𝘦𝘹𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘸𝘦𝘦𝘬𝘴.”

The results will only be given to the ASIC manufacturer. It will not be shared with the public i.e. we will not see the results.

Inforapennyortwo said "[the] ASIC company has given up IP, Source Code and industrial secrets..."

This is false. There is no RNS that states that the ASIC manufacturer's IP or industrial secrets have been shared; only that some source code has been made available. No RNS has said that the full source code of the mining rig and/or ASIC has been shared. In all likelihood they would only share enough source code to enable QBT to interface with the rig and to control the MDK.

Many of the believers here seem convinced that if QBT announce a deal then that would mean the share price would 'go to the moon'. I think the reality is far more nuanced.

It should be obvious that any share price increase would be proportional to the revenue it will generate for QBT. And that will all depend on the real-world increase in revenue achieved by the third party miners when using Method C when mining 'for real'.

If Method C doubles the 'for real' mining revenue, then sure, the share price will do extremely well. But if its only a 0.1% increase, then the share price won't move much. And anything in between will be proportional.

And these 'for real' mining results will not be known until the third party takes back their mining rig and conducts their own tests. And this won't happen until after QBT complete their performance tests. And QBT's performance tests won't start until after they complete the training and data collection of the AI Oracle, which is still in progress (according to the recent RNS).

So still a long way to go - hence the share price still has not moved.

Mixed results here. Fantastic increase in profit and earnings per share; but huge fall in Orders received and Closing order book.

Both major shareholders PEEL HUNT PARTNERSHIP LIMITED and GLOBAL PRIME PARTNERS LTD crossed the 5% threshold. Shouldn't there be an RNS to advise of this? I think its a TR-1 or Holdings in Company RNS that usually comes out.

Does anyone know why there hasn't been any RNSs? Are they not required in QBT's situation?

https://www.fca.org.uk/publications/newsletters/primary-market-bulletin-33

The 7 May RNS said "The Company's US attorneys have now submitted a set of amended claims for the US Patent Examiner to consider in more detail. The Company expects to receive the Examiner ' s feedback on the amended claims within the next 1-2 weeks."

The document is not showing yet. We should see the amended claims document appear in the document list here: https://globaldossier.uspto.gov/details/US/18696073/A/129692

And, according to the RNS, the Examiner's feedback will appear in that document list by 22nd May, and an RNS shortly thereafter.

Another possibility is that another Placing has already taken place (yet to be announced), and the trades we see are the placing shares being traded into the market. Seeing as Gardin is on record explaining the need for money, and warning that the virtual mining venture with BlocKeeper is opex- and capex-heavy, they might have already needed additional funds.

I've seen a few users suggest that the third party miner and MDK received at the Milan lab are just cardboard boxes or shells with nothing inside.

This reminds me about the famous Nikola Motors hydrogen trucks several years ago. They even released a promotional video to the public (link below) which was supposedly the hydrogen truck driving down a road.

Turns out the truck was just a shell. There was no power system, and the frame simply rolled down a hill. Very bold!

Does anyone else remember this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNefr2DF2X8

KoolKat15, you started before 7am, and eight posts (so far) on a Saturday. Do you need a cuddle?

Looking back thru the archive for the holdings of EUFINGEST and MC STRATEGIES, it would appear that EUFINGEST held ~86m shares until June 2024, and then MC STRATEGIES has held ~155m shares since.

Most times the page has the percentages to 1 decimal place. But the pages for 3 Nov 2023 and 10 Jan 2024 were to 2 decimal places; and the 4 Feb 2026 page was to zero decimal places; and the current page 5 May 2026 has the percentages in European notation (comma instead of a period).

--- Sources ---

Wayback machine for AIM Rule 26 pages for these dates when the page was updated:

21 Dec 2022 https://web.archive.org/web/20230406011700/https://www.quantumblockchaintechnologies.co.uk/investor-relations/aim-rule-26

3 Nov 2023 https://web.archive.org/web/20231118130109/https://www.quantumblockchaintechnologies.co.uk/investor-relations/aim-rule-26

10 Jan 2024 https://web.archive.org/web/20240424121750/https://www.quantumblockchaintechnologies.co.uk/investor-relations/aim-rule-26

21 Jun 2024 https://web.archive.org/web/20240628163720/https://www.quantumblockchaintechnologies.co.uk/investor-relations/aim-rule-26

20 Jan 2025 https://web.archive.org/web/20250120172034/https://www.quantumblockchaintechnologies.co.uk/investor-relations/aim-rule-26

29 Jan 2025 https://web.archive.org/web/20250217200511/https://www.quantumblockchaintechnologies.co.uk/investor-relations/aim-rule-26

23 Jul 2025 https://web.archive.org/web/20250724083549/https://www.quantumblockchaintechnologies.co.uk/investor-relations/aim-rule-26

4 Feb 2026 https://web.archive.org/web/20260306153656/https://www.quantumblockchaintechnologies.co.uk/investor-relations/aim-rule-26

5 May 2026 https://web.archive.org/web/20260508111541/https://www.quantumblockchaintechnologies.co.uk/investor-relations/aim-rule-26

KoolKat15 said "...have you included the recent Placing - the total share count rose from 1,465 million to 1,608 million..."

Yes, I did. As you can see from my post at 21:42: "....𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘥𝘳𝘰𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘨𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 11% 𝘵𝘰 9.6%. 11% 𝘰𝘧 𝟏,𝟒𝟔𝟓𝐦 𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘴 𝘪𝘴 161.2𝘮 𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘴. 9.6% 𝘰𝘧 𝟏,𝟔𝟎𝟖𝐦 𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘴 𝘪𝘴 154.4𝘮 𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘦s...". But I did not need to do anything to make that adjustment as those total share counts were in the AIM Rule 26 links already (did you actually read the links to the archived pages?).

KoolKat15 said " Your calculation is clearly flawed...". No, my calculation is correctly using the numbers that appear on QBT's AIM Rule 26 pages. The problem is that the percentages given in the 4 Feb page are not of the same level of accuracy as the 5 May page. In my 21:42 post I explicitly point this out and that this will cause a problem when trying to calculate share movements: "𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘨𝘦 𝘧𝘪𝘨𝘶𝘳𝘦𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 4 𝘍𝘦𝘣 𝘈𝘐𝘔 𝘵𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘯𝘰 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘭 𝘱𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘴. 𝘐𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘴𝘦, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝙚𝙭𝙩𝙧𝙖𝙥𝙤𝙡𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙢𝙤𝙫𝙚𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩 𝙬𝙞𝙡𝙡 𝙗𝙚 𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙗𝙡𝙚𝙢𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙘..".

Looking at MC STRATEGIES AG, they dropped their percentage position from 11% to 9.6%. 11% of 1,465m shares is 161.2m shares. 9.6% of 1,608m shares is 154.4m shares. These figures indicate that MC STRATEGIES have sold 6.8m shares.

However, notice that all the percentage figures in the 4 Feb AIM table have no decimal points. If this is the case, then extrapolating the movement will be problematic.

Mrhanji said "...seems like the market is not what it was a couple of years ago.. the RNS today and yesterday would have smashed us to all time highs.. but its not having the impact.."

I agree with you. This strongly suggests that the investors are not longer buying Gardin's endless waffle, hopes, and beliefs, and the only thing that will generate a significant share price increase is the publication of real, tangible results.

mrhanji said "So its really method C that everyone is watching closely"

Method C's maximum performance was 30%. Method C has now been changed to run on software. But Method B has a performance of 160% and also runs on software (no ASIC needed). So why don't QBT progress Method B?

mrhanji said "...they give us real world results in a couple of weeks..."

Unfortunately a recent RNS said that QBT will not release of the rig testing (due to NDA). So I am not sure how QBT will RNS the outcome. I assume they will say nothing more than "the results are positive and exciting" or suchlike.

But the test results of Method C running on the Bitmain S9 and the Bitaxe has no NDA restriction, so QBT should be able to release a set of detailed results. I'm looking forward to seeing those results.

Inforapennyortwo saod "Thts some buying volume right there ... Vol. Sold 1,579,023 ... Vol. Bought 22,016,834"

On the face of it, it does look like Buys outnumbered Sells by many factors. But there is no movement in the share price.

I note that the trade price for the large trades are all very close to the mid-price, so this means that it is difficult for the algorithm to matk them accurately as a Buy or Sell. Given that there was no movement in share price, in all liklihood the number of Buys and Sells were about equal.

So the big shift seems to be PEEL HUNT sold all of it's 5% (about £400k), and GLOBAL PRIME bought a 5.9% stake (about £300k). Unless Peel Hunt changed heir name to Global Prime?

Interestingly, the FCA website has this page about Global Prime Partners LLP, which says:

"No longer authorised Since 01/04/2011. This firm can no longer provide regulated activities and products, but previously was authorised by the FCA and/or PRA."

https://register.fca.org.uk/s/firm?id=001b000000Mg8n2AAB

Does anyone know what that is all about?

It changed on 5 May 2026 (thanks to anddownitgoes for pointing this out). Here is the side-by-side comparison with the values from the previous update on 4 Feb 2-26.

Major Shareholders

SHAREHOLDER % at 4 Feb 2026 / % at 5 May 2026

HARGREAVES LANSDOWN (NOMINEES) LIMITED 27% / 24.8%

INTERACTIVE INVESTOR SERVICES NOMINEES LIMITED 17% / 17.5%

MC STRATEGIES AG* 11% / 9.6%

LYNCHWOOD NOMINEES LIMITED 10% / 9.3%

PEEL HUNT PARTNERSHIP LIMITED 5% / (NA)

GLOBAL PRIME PARTNERS LTD (NA) / 5.9%

HSDL NOMINEES LIMITED 10% / 10.1%

LAWSHARE NOMINEES LIMITED 6% / 5.7%

BARCLAYS DIRECT INVESTING NOMINEES LIMITED 4% / 4.2%

VIDACOS NOMINEES LIMITED 4% / 3.3%

Shares not in public hands

SHAREHOLDER % at 4 Feb 2026 / % at 5 May 2026

MC STRATEGIES AG* 10.6% / 9.6%

FRANCESCO GARDIN* 2.0% / 1.8%

*Disclosed as a beneficiary interest

--- Sources ---

AIM Rule 26 as at 4 Feb 2026: https://web.archive.org/web/20260306153656/https://www.quantumblockchaintechnologies.co.uk/investor-relations/aim-rule-26

AIM Rule 26 as at 5 May 2026: https://web.archive.org/web/20260508111541/https://www.quantumblockchaintechnologies.co.uk/investor-relations/aim-rule-26

Inforapennyortwo, yes it looks like about £18k net Buys today. Definitely no institutional investors interested, and no movement in share price.

Inforapennyortwo, you are right, someone seems to have chucked £10k into this. I wish them luck.

I am very mindful that the share price is dropping dangerously close to the nominal value of 0.25p. If this happens, my understanding is that QBT will need to perform a capital reorganisation in order to continue trading.

I will add another prediction to my list from 2 March: That a capital reorganisation will occur before any significant commercial deal is achieved, or before any patent is granted.

Chipofftheblock said "If QBT truly has proprietary quantum SHA-256 implementations..."

That is highly unlikely. According to the article below, SHA256 is impervious to quantum computing:

"𝘘𝘶𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘶𝘮 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘴 𝘢 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘰𝘳𝘦𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘬 𝘵𝘰 𝘤𝘳𝘺𝘱𝘵𝘰𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘱𝘩𝘺. 𝘈𝘭𝘨𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘮𝘴 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘚𝘩𝘰𝘳’𝘴 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘰𝘳 𝘭𝘢𝘳𝘨𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘦𝘴 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘧𝘢𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘤𝘭𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘶𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘴, 𝘫𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘥𝘪𝘻𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘙𝘚𝘈 𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘳𝘺𝘱𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯. 𝘏𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳, 𝘚𝘏𝘈-256’𝘴 𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘶𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘪𝘴𝘯’𝘵 𝘣𝘢𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘰𝘯 𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘦𝘴 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘰𝘯 𝘤𝘰𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦. 𝘎𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳’𝘴 𝘢𝘭𝘨𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘮, 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘴𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘤𝘩 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦𝘴, 𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘷𝘦𝘴 𝘚𝘏𝘈-256’𝘴 256-𝘣𝘪𝘵 𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘶𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘮𝘢𝘳𝘨𝘪𝘯 𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘮𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦.

"𝘕𝘐𝘚𝘛 𝘪𝘴 𝘢𝘭𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘺 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘵-𝘲𝘶𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘶𝘮 𝘤𝘳𝘺𝘱𝘵𝘰𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘱𝘩𝘺, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘚𝘏𝘈-256 𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴 𝘢 𝘤𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘥𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘭𝘰𝘯𝘨-𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘮 𝘶𝘴𝘦. 𝘐𝘵𝘴 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘨𝘯 𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘸𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘸𝘢𝘳𝘥 𝘢𝘥𝘢𝘱𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘴𝘶𝘤𝘩 𝘢𝘴 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘩𝘢𝘴𝘩 𝘭𝘦𝘯𝘨𝘵𝘩𝘴, 𝘵𝘰 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘲𝘶𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘶𝘮 𝘢𝘥𝘷𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴. "𝘚𝘏𝘈-256 𝘪𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘥 𝘶𝘯𝘣𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘬𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦𝘹 𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘨𝘯, 𝘢𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘯𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘯𝘶𝘮𝘣𝘦𝘳 𝘰𝘧 𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘰𝘶𝘵𝘱𝘶𝘵𝘴 (1.1×10⁷⁷), 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘤𝘳𝘺𝘱𝘵𝘰𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘱𝘩𝘪𝘤 𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘢𝘤𝘬𝘴, 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘳𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘳 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘨𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘩𝘢𝘴𝘩𝘦𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘶𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘪𝘯𝘧𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦, 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘲𝘶𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘶𝘮 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘶𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘴, 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘤𝘶𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘩𝘯𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘰𝘳𝘦𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘴."

--- Source ---

Unbreakable SHA-256: Why Even Quantum Computers Cannot Do It

https://www.nervos.org/knowledge-base/Unbreakable_SHA256_Why_Even_Quantum_Computers_Cannot_Do_It_(explainCKBot)