Selling the fleet — where does the money go?
The machines are being sold. That decision is made, and this page does not argue with it. The only question left is what happens to the money — and that question has nothing to do with mining. It is arithmetic on a fixed pot.
Nothing here forecasts a bitcoin price. A distribution is a transfer, and hashpower bought on a marketplace is settled in the same unit it earns. Every loss on this page happens on the day of the sale, at today's order book, before bitcoin moves at all.
The sale
Whatever figure is on the table goes in here — there is no resale model and no
depreciation curve, because what a used machine fetches is a quote, not a
calculation. The comparison below holds at any price, since both
routes divide the same pot.
What happens to the proceeds
The rest is absorbed by the operator. It never enters the structure, so no
market outcome can recover it.
Both splits are the project's own published figures, taken at face value and read the way most favourable to it — holders are treated as receiving the 75% holder slice and the 5% S1 airdrop on top.
Both splits are the project's own published figures, taken at face value and read the way most favourable to it — holders are treated as receiving the 75% holder slice and the 5% S1 airdrop on top.
What one Common is worth, either way
Paid straight out to holders, per Common (one weighted unit)
That is
Spent on hashpower instead, the same holder receives
Spent on hashpower instead, the same holder receives
Two paths for the same $
Both start from the same pot —
Path B takes two cuts, not one, and both go to the same place.
Neither cut is recoverable by trading well. The first never enters the structure; the second is charged on output regardless of how that output went. (Where the money lands is as described in the plan — that part is not something this page verifies on chain.)
Neither cut is recoverable by trading well. The first never enters the structure; the second is charged on output regardless of how that output went. (Where the money lands is as described in the plan — that part is not something this page verifies on chain.)
And the market itself is not the problem. Buying at the best
ask on the book —
So the argument here is not "Braiins is a bad trade". It is that
So the argument here is not "Braiins is a bad trade". It is that
Discount to hashvalue every Braiins order would need, forever, for path B to
merely draw level with path A
The cheapest ask on the entire order book right now is
This is not a forecast that mining will go badly. It is the price the plan would have to be executed at to break even against doing nothing, and that price is not on the board.
This is not a forecast that mining will go badly. It is the price the plan would have to be executed at to break even against doing nothing, and that price is not on the board.
Where every dollar of the sale ends up
Same
Bars left of zero are money the market added rather than took — that
happens whenever hashpower is bought below hashvalue, and the chart shows it
rather than hiding it.
The 15% reinvested into more hashpower does not appear here, and that is not an omission. It buys hashrate whose output is split again on the same terms, so across the life of the structure it all resolves into rewards or fees. It changes when holders are paid, not how much — which is why moving the dial between rewards and reinvestment cannot fix the outcome, and why the fee is the thing that can.
The 15% reinvested into more hashpower does not appear here, and that is not an omission. It buys hashrate whose output is split again on the same terms, so across the life of the structure it all resolves into rewards or fees. It changes when holders are paid, not how much — which is why moving the dial between rewards and reinvestment cannot fix the outcome, and why the fee is the thing that can.
These are not the same kind of thing, and the difference is the whole argument.
What the market does —
The
The
Weighted units, or one payout per NFT?
A distribution has to divide by something, and the two defensible denominators give different answers.
Which one a return of capital should use is a governance question, not
a mathematical one. The ladder is the precedent; the flat split is the argument
that principal is principal. Both are here so the choice gets made deliberately
rather than by default — and note that the gap between paths A and B is
proportionally identical either way, so it does not depend on settling this.
Per tier
The last column is the one to read if the question is "is this material?"
— a distribution worth
The sale price does not change the argument
Nobody outside the sale knows what the machines really fetch. It turns out not to matter: the routing decision costs holders the same proportion at every price, because both legs divide the same pot.
Every pair of bars sits in the same ratio —
So the two arguments are independent and can be made separately: sell the machines for what they are worth, and send the proceeds to the people who own them. Losing the first does not lose the second.
So the two arguments are independent and can be made separately: sell the machines for what they are worth, and send the proceeds to the people who own them. Losing the first does not lose the second.
Why buying hashpower cannot bridge the gap
Hashvalue
sat per EH/s per day the network actually pays
Bought at
Returned per sat deployed
ceiling at this price, no fee:
A hashpower marketplace prices hashrate at roughly what hashrate is worth —
that is what a market is. So a round trip through it is close to a
wash either way, which is exactly why it cannot rescue the plan. This is not a
claim that Braiins is bad; it is that
a near-breakeven trade cannot manufacture back the
Assumptions
Hashvalue