I’m sorry but I have to say that it’s not my math that’s bad, but you didn’t understand what I wanted to say. Which, of course, is partly my fault.
What I have described was intended to demonstrate that in 1 month - albeit very fuzzy and subtracting many factors from the calculation - one who chooses a more aggressive expansion rather than “slow” construction will be favored.
A fundamental mistake in what you calculate is that you average the annual sales you calculate and compare that to the one-year rent. I never said that my strategy is continuous hiring. it is natural that in the long run the device “purchase” is a better solution but
- the mining diff and all revenues “change” along an exponential curve, that is, who “weights forward” - I mean: fast large storage space and can do a lot of space, gaining a significant advantage over “slow” builders.
- that is, if in 1-2 months you are able to fill the amount I have described with the rented equipment from the incoming income of 2 months, you will be able to buy more storage space than the one who chose the “slow” building model.
- Because it has more storage space, it earns more in the long run and after two months you can get out of the investment without any loss. Even if you let go of the storage area to farm.
When 1 full node “990 TB” 1 month income: 4820 usd, 3 months: 7510 usd, 6 months: 10 630 usd, annual: 17020 usd.
There you can easily see that you need to generate a large amount of plots as soon as possible and then move from the “revenue” accumulated in the expansion phase to the slower construction phase, where you can expand your revenue nicely step by step with the network expansion .