[Proposal] Whitelist $HUT Mining Company

Hello I would like to propose to list $HUT, known as HUT8 mining, as one of the largest crypto mining company in North America. There are tons of YouTube videos regarding their LEGIT operations. As you know there has been talks in /r wallstreetbets regarding $RIOT $MARA being shell companies whom used to be different companies like health that pivoted to mining. HUT8 mining has always been a mining company that recently got listed on NASDAQ and has gone public in TSX in April 2019.

Operations: Operations – Hut 8 Mining
94 Data centers
109 MW
1074 PH/s

Revenue:
Mining about 1% of the Bitcoin hash rate raking in over 39 millions of dollars in profit per quarter.
Q1 2021 Financial statements - https://hut8mining.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Hut-8-FS-Q1-2021-v8-2021-05-12-FINAL.pdf

YouTube:
Covered by Red Panda Mining

Hut8 also has 10 year electricity supply agreement and land lease. Positive working relationship with government and community.

I have a proposal listed here on mirror.
https://terra.mirror.finance/gov/poll/134

1 Like

Thanks for posting
Considering that this passed : Mirror
Do you believe there’s a need for a similar asset to be listed ?

There are quite a few out there that can be listed with due diligence.

NASDAQ:MARA - Mining
NASDAQ:RIOT - Mining
NASDAQ:CAN - Makes miners and software
OTCMTKS:HVBTF - Mining
OTCMKTS:BFARF - Mining
OTCMKTS:ARBKF - Mining
NASDAQ:BTBT - Planned bitcoin mining - I wouldn’t list this one.
NASDAQ:BITF - Mining
TSX:DMGI - Sells containers, fans, mining tools.

Reference:

Sorry, rephrasing my question

Do you believe it’s worth whitelisting any of these assets if one of the competitors in the same sector is already about to get listed ? IMO, none of the stocks you mentioned gives you price exposure to a different industry than Riot (the already whitelisted asset) - it’s like listing Pepsi, when Coca Cola is already there.

Also, all these stocks are highly correlated to bitcoin performance and we might want to to focus on listing assets that are contra-cyclical : we already have loads of US tech assets, loads of crypto related assets, stonks - what should we list that would perform well in case of a US tech stock crash , or a crypto winter ?

happy to hear your opinion

5 Likes

I’m for passing this. Investors should have a choice as to which companies they buy. While diversifying companies types is a positive, I think we really just need more assets whitelisted period.

Lot of people saying “we should list something else” but then never putting forward an actual proposal. Put your MIR where your mouth is or don’t degrade other proposals for not being different enough.

2 Likes

In short yes. I believe we should add stocks that are highly correlated to bitcoin performance. The added benefit of holding a high growth company helps users hold onto their fake shares long term and generate mir. I would think its necessary to list companies with high potential growth even if they are correlated to BTC market.

Mirror simplifies the concept of owning a fake share in the company. The ease of transfer of money from the crypto space without having to remove liquidity, and owning divisible shares of the company. Now more than ever, it is possible to capture the growth of a high tech company without having to buy the entire share.

This is a forum where we discuss opinions, not sure where you see any “degrading” ?

Sure but that would be a valid argument for any other asset listed on Mirror no ?
At the end of the day governance will decide, I personally think this is less of a priority vs a non-US / non-tech / non-crypto related asset (which would help to retain TVL if the market trend reverses) , but your point about focusing on growth stands.

2 Likes

I appreciate this observation and agree that making a balanced portfolio available on Mirror will enhance the value of Mirror; however, unless I’m missing some sort of key detail regarding how many mAssets can be proposed and created within a given time period, I don’t see how whitelisting assets in the same asset class prevents anyone else in the community from proposing other mAssets to add to the diversification of available assets on Mirror?

In other words, the two actions are mutually exclusive. IMHO voting “No” because it isn’t diverse is applying false logic because whitelisting an asset doesn’t have a correlative impact on someone proposing more divers assets.

If I’ve missed something, thank you in advance for helping me understand.

I voted yes.

It doesn’t, as I said governance ultimately decides and Mirror will be shaped according to the will of the majority, which I’m not representative of.

I had expanded a bit here on the framework I apply for my voting decisions

Thank you for the validation and sharing your thoughts in your linked post. Very informative and thoughtful.

Cannibalizing existing markets on Mirror by proposing mAssets in the same asset class stuck out to me and I appreciate that point.

It seems that the greater point to this is that whether someone votes yes or no on passing $HUT, we are in need of creating more draw to Mirror by proposing mAssets that allow investors in other markets to find use here in Mirror.

I voted YES on this proposal. Just because $mRIOT may be on its way didn’t stop me from wanting to see $mHUT. When I was a kid, I drank Coke, but wouldn’t touch Pepsi. Just because two mASSETS are in the same industry, doesn’t mean they are the same. Not saying I dislike RIOT, but I do like HUT.

I vote on a case by case basis rather than whether there is already a similar asset listed, e.g. I wouldn’t dream of voting for a mirrored tobacco company listing even if that industry isn’t represented on Mirror.

Your rationale makes sense to me. I just disagree with the conclusion.

1 Like