Member Info for UserSteve

KoolKat15, I had already predicted that there would be no news or results by end of April, and gave my reasons as to why.

The point of my post was to highlight the many users who were adamant that there would be results by now, and that they were mistaken.

There has also been no RNS to advise the market about the outcome of the interview with the USPTO Examiner, scheduled to take place on 20 April 2026, regarding the Final Rejection received for patent ASIC Ultra Boost” (US Patent Application No. 18/696,073).

Well, it is the end of the month. This is when many users here said the testing results would be released.

On the 23 April there was also the a new response from the patent examiner. But we have not been notified about this.

Yet in the month leading up to the Placing, there were over 10 RNSs and almost as many interviews. In hindsight, it does now look more and more like this was simply an attempt to scratch together some form of Placing, and that after they achieved a small one, they had no need to keep investors updated.

Unless users here can give other reasons for no news?

" First apartment block now completed to ground floor and sub-ground level"

I think the more important milestones are: when the entire 18-apartment block is completed; and when the E2.2m is received for the entire apartment block.

In the 23 April 2026 response from the Examining Division, they make this point:

"4. Independent claim 1 refers to method for performing a mathematical computation (i.e. hashing) which does not involve any 𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘩𝘯𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 features [their emphasis]. Indeed, it would be possible to perform the whole method with only a pen and paper. Independent claim 1 thus appears to refer to a purely mathematical method and/or a mere mental act, which is not patentable subject-matter according to Article 52(2)(a) and (c) EPC."

Methods A, B, and C-software-version are purely mathematical methods, and are thus clearly not eligible for European Patent.

Perhaps this explains the initial drive to insist that Method C has to be run on hardware? They were trying to side-step Article 52 by trying to claim the method is hardware i.e. technical?

---

Article 52 - Patentable inventions

(1) European patents shall be granted for any inventions, in all fields of technology, provided that they are new, involve an inventive step and are susceptible of industrial application.

(2) The following in particular shall not be regarded as inventions within the meaning of paragraph 1:

(a) discoveries, scientific theories and mathematical methods;

(b) aesthetic creations;

(c) schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts, playing games or doing business, and programs for computers;

(d) presentations of information.

(3) Paragraph 2 shall exclude the patentability of the subject-matter or activities referred to therein only to the extent to which a European patent application or European patent relates to such subject-matter or activities as such.

https://www.epo.org/en/legal/epc/2020/a52.html

A year ago the share price was 8p. Today 1.8p. That's almost 80% loss.

That is a catastrophic loss of value.

Why has this loss occurred?

KoolKat15 said "I honestly don't think this is a big deal - they can resubmit their application with amendments - it's as simple as that..."

Yes, it is simple to file an amended application. The tricky part is having the application actually show a patentable, novel invention.

Elipses has noticed that on 23 April there has been an update on the ASIC Ultra Boost European patent application (thanks Elipses).

"The examination of the above-identified application has revealed that it does not meet the requirements of the European Patent Convention for the reasons enclosed herewith. If the deficiencies indicated are not rectified the application may be refused pursuant to Article 97(2) EPC.

"You are invited to file your observations and in sofar as the deficiencies are such as to be rectifiable, correct the indicated deficiencies within a period of 4 months..."

https://register.epo.org/application?documentId=MO6WTA09NUW0KAG&number=EP22793447

I am unsure how this new problem with the European patent affects the US patent.

But it is yet another example of more problems and delays. They can drag the hope of a patent out until August now.

Also - why wasn't there an RNS about this on 24th or today?

Inforapennyortwo said "I think as little as 3% is game changer territory..."

It depends what you mean by 3%. If you mean that a commerically competitive mining rig running Method C returns 3% more rewards from a pool, when mining on the live bitcoin blockchain, compared to an identical rig without Method C, then this would be promising. But QBT have not claimed that any of the percentages claimed represent this sort of metric - they all refer to theoretical results obtained in a lab. In any case, while 3% is still something, it is nothing like the 160% that the company and the rampers bandied about. And hence would result in far less value deals.

Inforapennyortwo said "I take it there would be an industry standard testing procedure for all miners and alike to test to?"

Yes, the two most well known ones are hash rate (TH/s), and joules per terahash (J/TH). Unfortunately, because QBT's Methods change the industry standard way of hashing (by discarding hashes), then these standard testing procedures cannot be used; or is used, would be meaningless. Which is why the only safe way to measure the performance is to look at the actual pool rewards received when live mining. It is possible that the ASIC manufacturer might agree on a different way of measuring the performance that they are happy with, and which does not involve many months of live mining, but it is difficult to see what that alternative could be; and we would most likely not be told about this alternative testing (as the recent RNS advised).

KoolKat15 said "If the AI Oracle works on a new miner, that's massive right?"

Not necessarily. It depends on what you mean by "works".

If the AI Oracle runs on the ASIC manufacturer's rig, then that is one thing. You could say that it "works". But it is the performance that determines if it is "massive" or not.

And the only performance metric that matters is the real-time live performance percentage when mining bitcoin in a live pool as compared to the same machine without the QBT method. Anything else is academic.

If this metric shows a zero or negative performance, then the AI Oracle is worthless, and there will be no deal, obviously.

If the metric is between 0% and 1%, then the value of any deal would be substantially less than if the metric was between 10% and 15%. Obviously.

QBT has already said they won't release the test results of of the ASIC manufacturer's rig, so the only way we will have an idea of the value of a deal is to wait and see for an RNS that tells us the value.

In the recent past, too many things go wrong before any tangible results materialise - which is why I have been advocating to wait until a deal has been announced before counting your chickens.

Inforapennyortwo said "thoughts on it being Intel"

Almost zero possibility. Intel cancelled their bitcoin mining rig and mining ASIC project (Blockscale) a few years ago, and have not announced that they are restarting it.

Does this mean they've only just received the MDK and assembled it?

The X tweet was posted 24 April 2026 15:33 UTC:

"Images of the MDK from the ASIC manufacturer’s Bitcoin mining rig, assembled by QBT in the Milan University lab for testing the AI Oracle, ahead of the conference in Las Vegas next week."

Note that the tweet has the label "Made with AI!" which means:

"The new disclosure feature allows users to mark AI-generated or manipulated content on posts, as platforms face growing regulatory pressure over synthetic media"

https://www.buzzincontent.com/news/x-introduces-made-with-ai-label-for-creator-posts-11171030

The adjusted profit in FY2025 wad 272m, and FY2026 is forecast to be 291m, 7% increase.

So the 14% rise today is likely to be pricing in the strong outlook beyond 2026

KoolKat15 said "FG did say he hoped to have the results by the end of April, which he obviously will because he wants to take them to Vegas and present them in person to the ASIC manufacturer."

The conference starts on Monday, so we can assume that this weekend will be taken up with travelling to the event.

So whatever results they plan to present, they would have to have them finalised by earlier this week, or finalised by today at the latest.

Anyone who has prepared presentations to clients knows you never make any changes in the days leading up to the meeting - it eould be finalised and locked down with a change freeze days or even weeks before the meeting. Noone wants a Windows-95-BSOD-style disaster during a conference!

Seeing as we have not had an RNS saying the results have been obtained, we can assume that either they don't have the results; or they will not RNS them.

The interview with the USPTO Examiner was five days ago, on the 20th. Still no update, which I thought should have dropped by now.

In the 6 weeks leading up to the Placing there was an RNS or interview about every 3 working days! Perhaps now that the Placing has happened, they don't feel the need to update investors?

After the 30th Oct 2023 Placing, it was over four months before the next business update (13 Mar 2024).

After the 23rd Jan 2025, it was two months before the next business update (2nd Mar 2025).

A very good update and extremely positive outlook.

"Looking to 2026, we now expect to deliver a much stronger performance in the first half of the year than previously anticipated. ... we now anticipate delivering full-year results comfortably ahead of market expectations"

Llywelyn said "Really? UselessSteve waffling on about an 2 year old interview. That's really poor that. Laughable 😂"

After that interview and the 13 Mar 2024 RNS many users here thought that commercial deals were just around the corner. The share price was 1.6p. They did not expect that there would be two placings (so far) before any deal materialised.

Looking back it previous claims, the cold hard reality is that the facts support the hypothesis that QBT's claims are not as credible or as likely to be achieved as Gardin or the rampers would have you believe.

But I am sure than there are people who actually do believe in Gardin's magic b̶e̶a̶n̶s̶ formula.

Points I find interesting in this interview from two years ago, and my interpretation:

- "𝘐𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘦 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘢 𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘦" Speaks for itself.

- "𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘔𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘥𝘴 𝘈&𝘉 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘣𝘦 𝘣𝘺 𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘴, 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘴𝘦". And also still not the case two years later. Methods A&B appear to have been dropped and Method C is flavour of the month.

- "𝘪𝘵'𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘮𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘣𝘢𝘴𝘬𝘦𝘵" Paraphrase of 'another feather in our cap'

- "𝘪𝘵'𝘴 𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦 𝘢 𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘵𝘭𝘦 𝘣𝘪𝘵 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦𝘹 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘥" As with everything they attempt.

- "𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘴 𝘸𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘭𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘺 𝘥𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘨, 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘪𝘵 𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘰𝘵𝘺𝘱𝘦 𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘱" Of course, that prototype chip never happened.

- the point of QBT's ASIC was "𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘱𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘴", not to actually produce anything.

- When asked about the discussions with two large mining rig manufacturers Gardin said "𝘸𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘤𝘶𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘩𝘴 𝘢𝘨𝘰 [𝘑𝘶𝘭𝘺 2023], 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘸𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘢𝘥𝘷𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘥 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘤𝘶𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴." and referred to lawyers exchanging documents and terms. Needless to say, nothing has come from this after almost three years.

- "𝘸𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘮𝘢𝘨𝘪𝘤 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘴 𝘰𝘣𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘢𝘣" Magic beans. How wonderful!

- "𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘧𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘳𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘦 𝘦𝘯𝘨𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘢 𝘮𝘢𝘫𝘰𝘳 𝘦𝘧𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘵" Look how hard we're working! We're trying out best!

- "𝘸𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘸𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘥" But, evidently, they had not completed the reverse engineering.

- "𝘪𝘵 𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦. 𝘔𝘢𝘺𝘣𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘸𝘦 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘥" As with everything they attempt.

- "but we are on track." If they were not on track, then they have since been dis-railed.

- "𝘯𝘦𝘹𝘵 𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘴 ... 𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘸𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘺 𝘔𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘥 𝘉 𝘪𝘴 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨" This has not happened. So milestone missed.

Maybe what happened (or didn't happen) two years ago has no bearing on what happens today. Or maybe it shows that QBT have been doing the same thing over and over, and will continue to do so in the "now".

[Part 3 of 3]

Host: You also mentioned that discussions with two large mining rig manufacturers. How are those progressing, those discussions, Francesco?

Gardin: Yeah, I mean, we started these discussions more than nine months ago, and we are very advanced with these discussions. But in order to proceed, and so it's months and months of discussions, lawyer exchanging documents, terms. But the ultimate element to move on with these discussions is to show live, real mining performance, the real mining performance of our methods compared to a machine with doesn't run our methods. So that's the ultimate check and test that these, quite rightly, that these partners want to have.

Host: And Francesco, you also give an update on the porting of Method A and Method B onto commercial mining rigs. Can you tell us more about that, please?

Gardin: Yeah, it's as I pointed out before. I mean, we have these magic formulas obtained in the lab, and we have to transfer this formula into a working product. And a working product is an existing mining rig with existing ASICs, manufacture, most of them, by Chinese companies, and these chips are totally, totally undocumented. So the effort of reverse engineering them has been a major effort, which we think we have completed, but it takes time. Maybe more than we expected, but we are on track.

Host: Francesco, what's the next milestones that investors should be looking out for?

Gardin: Oh, just an announcement where we say Method B is working, and we have two machines, one running with Method B the other without Method C, and see live that we mine faster and better than the other machine.

Host: I look forward to having that discussion with you in the future, Francesco. Thank you very much for the update today.

Gardin: OK, thank you, Stephen. Have a great day.

Host: You too. Francesco Gardin, Chairman and CEO of Quantum Blockchain Technologies.

[Part 2 of 3]

Host: [unclear] the current average predictive performance of Method C is nearly thirty percent [30%]. Can you improve on that, Francesco?

Gardin: Yeah, I mean we have been before releasing this announcement and we had this data since like November last year. But before releasing the announcement we've been testing and testing again this data from all different perspectives with different devices, GPUs, ASICs, and when we got the confidence, then we released the announcement.

Host: So you also say it results in a reduction of SHA256 computations. Does this make it cheaper for the end user at the end of the day?

Gardin: Yes. Because basically with the same hardware you save 30% of computations which would be, according to the Oracle, not essential. So basically you focus only on the computation which stand a chance to be successful.

Host: OK, but it may result in slightly higher energy usage, though, but that's, I suppose, offset by the more effective nature of the Method C.

Gardin: Sure, you have to look at each input, which has a cost, but you save 30%, so the whole point is that by looking at them 100% of the time, and not processing them 30% of the time, and the final balance is a positive balance.

Host: What's the next steps then for Method C, Francesco?

Gardin: It's to combine with the second patent application. And as we are already doing, implement it on our prototype chip, which we are working on, so that we can implement Method C also for CPUs, and also as a hard-wired ASIC element of a bitcoin mining ASIC.

Host: So Francesco, that prototype chip was also covered in the business update. Can you tell us a little bit more about that, please?

Gardin: Yeah. In order to have more credibility with our potential partners, we not only have to show them the, describe the architecture of the chip, but we want also to show them that the actual chip, this architecture, works. So in order to come up with a prototype chip of 5 nanometers, the investment is in the region of two million (£2m). If we choose a bigger scale, like 55 nanometers (55nm), 22 nanometers (22nm), 130 nanometers (130nm), then the investment is one tenth of that. And we can sit at the table negotiation with potential partners say here is the chip, yes it's not 5 nanometers (5nm), 3 nanometers (3nm), but it's just a matter of investment to scale it down, but the chip works. So that's very important for us.

[continues...]