Miner One email from the 4th of April 2018

Miner One (MIO) sold their ICO on being based inside an empty industrial building in Luleå where costs would be minimal and even went to the lengths of criticising other mining ICOs for their locations and use of shipping containers. However it wasn’t long before Pranas Slusnys made a decision to move to shipping containers for the Miner One deployment.

In a medium article titled “7 Questions to Ask” Miner One wrote the following on the 5th of April 2018.

“Location matters. Miner One is not in an abandoned bunker in Kazakhstan, which just announced it may ban cryptocurrency mining altogether. Miner One is not monkeying with containers or employing any other gimmicks that distract from the basic things that need to be
done. Miner One is quite simply building the world’s most efficient mining facility. And it has found the ideal location: the lovely town of Luleå in crypto-friendly Sweden — one of the most politically, legally, and economically stable countries in the world. This Northern Swedish Town has an excellent infrastructure and a technical university with a large talent pool and data centre technology research base to drawn on.
It is already home to Facebook.”

“When your miners are in an underground bunker, or inside shipping containers scattered around the world, maintenance can be costly.

While the motto “think outside the box” can foster innovation in some fields, when it comes to mining, simpler is better…and more profitable. Miner One’s decision to concentrate operations in one scalable location, using the already tried and tested data centre model, is a simple and efficient decision that guarantees low maintenance costs and maximum profit.”

Seven weeks later on the 31st of May 2018 Miner One sends out an email saying that Pranas Slusnys has made the decision to move to a container model with Miner One, saying it was the best way forward and enabled the relocation of the operation in the event of power price changes. This created a lot of concern in the Miner One community not least of which was the cost of the containers which it later became apparent was even higher then expected due to the bizarre construction technique that Pranas and his team decided to use.

Newsletter except from 31st of May 2018

Blueprints for the containers were released showed a rather ordinary looking container setup similiar to that used by other mining operations.

On the 6th of June 2018 Pranas Slusnys agreed to hold a Q&A on Telegram due to all the concerns being raised by investors over the change to shipping containers.

Jonas Udris on the 27th of June 2018 posted photos of the containers under construction. As you can see from the numbers on the photos at least 58 photos had been taken between the first and last one supplied. This is in stark contrast to later claims that they took no photos during the building of the other ten containers and the installation of the miners.

The newsletter on the 6th of July 2018 titled “CEO’s Update, More Photos of Work in Progress” had five more photos, mostly low resolution of the containers being delivered or moved after being painted. Both containers had damage to their roof, the painting was not intended to last as they started rusting soon after and the reasons for the acquisition of poor quality containers and painting would soon become apparent.

On the 1st of August 2018 Pranas Slusnys was on Telegram for a Q&A.

The Author immediately asked the question regarding the container configuration as this was a huge added expense.
“I have a question regarding the configuration of the containers.

The containers appear to be setup with holes being cut for the Antminer S9’s exhaust, what happens when the S9’s are replaced by a new miner in the future with a different design/layout?

Wouldn’t it make more sense to build the containers so they have a hot aisle/cold aisle so you can mine with any equipment and have large intakes on one side and exhaust fans on the other side thus reducing cost and complexity plus allowing any equipment to be housed in there without expensive reconfiguration?

The response from Pranas Slusnys made little sense especially when we discovered later that these containers are costing over USD $50,000 to build. This question was raised and the answer raised more questions.

“But why not use a cheaper design which is faster to build and can be changed to accommodate a mix of technology types as the need arises in the future. It seems wasteful to spend so much money refitting out a container when you can reuse the same ones.”

For someone who claims to be have been heavily engaged in data centre design and building I still cannot understand how you could remove the wiring, the racks and the switchboards from one container to another without having to start again from scratch. You may be able to re-use components but it will be a very costly exercise.

The response from Pranas was that it was for each container, no breakdown was provided. Further information was provided on standard designs for container layouts.

Other investors start asking questions about complex container design and are given answers that just make no sense.

The question regarding the cost of cutting 385 holes into containers had to be asked.

And the response? $3000 for 385 plasma cut holes which does seem very cheap but even if this wasdthe case the cost of fitting 385 vents, sealing them, connecting 385 aluminium ducts and finally connecting these one by one to the 385 miners? Surely dropping a miner on a shelf, connecting power and network and moving onto the next one is a lot quicker and allows for both faster container builds and a miner deployment 2-4-6 times quicker.

Containergate part II – the Miner One (MIO) Shipping Container Conundrum

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.