Image: rebcenter-moscow (Pixabay)

The Supreme People’s Court of China has awarded a bitcoin mining operation its equipment back in a surprise ruling, ordering nearly a half million (485,681) MSI RX470 8 GB graphics cards returned to Genesis Mining. The dispute stems from a partnership between Genesis Mining and hosting provider Chuangshiji Technology Limited. CTL suspended its side of the deal in 2018 after accusing GM of failing to pay its share of the electrical costs.

GM filed a lawsuit in 2019, asking for the return of 560,000 GPUs and 60,580 AntMiner S9 Bitcoin ASIC miners. It accused CTL of embezzlement and began selling off the equipment. After an appeal, a ruling in 2020 ordered the remaining equipment returned to GM, which was now operating in multiple new locations. CTL tried presenting new evidence, but the court maintained its decision, citing that CTL failed to prove the partnership being something more than a contractual business arrangement.

The equipment has an estimated 14 TH/s hash rate on the Ethash algorithm, which could generate $1 million in revenue per day based on current Ethereum prices. But due to the recent bitcoin crackdown in China, GM may need to seek compensation from the equipment or relocate it. The GPUs still have a substantial resale value as high as $200 million, should GM decide to cash out of the mining business.

Image: EPA

The Supreme Court said Chuangshiji failed to provide any new evidence that could support a claim that the relationship between it and Genesis Mining was an equity- and profit-sharing joint venture. Rather, the court believed it was clearly a contractual business relationship.

Therefore, the court said both Genesis Mining and Chuangshiji should have the right to terminate the relationship at any time. After the termination, Genesis Mining had the right to demand the return of its equipment, which are still operating and are in a good physical condition for the return, according to the decision.

Source: The Block (via Tom’s Hardware)

Don’t Miss Out on More FPS Review Content!

Our weekly newsletter includes a recap of our reviews and a run down of the most popular tech news that we published.

Peter Brosdahl

As a child of the 70’s I was part of the many who became enthralled by the video arcade invasion of the 1980’s. Saving money from various odd jobs I purchased my first computer from a friend of my...

Join the Conversation

7 Comments

  1. Misleading headline is misleading. So this has nothing to do with the crackdown on mining in china, but a dispute between two companies that goes back to 2018.

  2. [QUOTE=”MadMummy76, post: 40530, member: 1298″]
    Misleading headline is misleading.
    [/QUOTE]
    What’s misleading about it? It’s accurate in every respect. Apart from whatever context you infer to be there without reading into the entire article.

  3. [QUOTE=”Brian_B, post: 40551, member: 96″]
    What’s misleading about it? It’s accurate in every respect. Apart from whatever context you infer to be there without reading into the entire article.
    [/QUOTE]
    Lie by omission is still a lie. The problem with headlines is very serious. I just recently read an article talking about misleading headlines and their dangers. If the conclusion you can draw from the headline is different to what the article is about then that headline is misleading. And a lot of people only read headlines. Now I know that it is misleading because I read the article, but not everyone will and can run with a completely false conclusion.
    Publications know this, yet they keep peddling the misleading sensationalist headlines. I think that violates journalistic integrity.

    Being just a copy paste news site is no excuse. When I was working as a news editor at an IT site, I researched every news article before publishing it and made sure I’m not just copy pasting.

  4. I have to agree with Mad Mummy here. The title was basically click bait with people looking to see if China backed down on its miner Crack down or not.

  5. I understand the concerns over the title. The bottom line is it could’ve been changed a half dozen ways to Sunday and had issues or complaints still.

    “Court Orders Nearly Half Million GPUs Returned to Mining Operator over ongoing legal battle with its previous partner”-accurate but convoluted.

    “Mining operator wins back its GPUs after China Supreme Court rules in its favor in a dispute with former partner”-same

    I could go on and on and if I had put Crypto-mining anywhere in the title I pretty much could’ve guaranteed someone would’ve misread it and spoke up about it. Clickbait-perhaps but not intentional. Truthful-yes. The deliberate omission of truth-not at all and in fact was trying to avoid confusion while keeping SEO somewhat happy. At some point, people need to rely on more than just a headline for their estimation of the entirety of the context for a story. There’s a lot going on in Asia regarding new laws and some don’t have anything to do with crypto mining at all. Crypto is still on a lot of people’s minds so I get how some would assume but give it some time and there will be many who don’t make the same assumption. Sure China is at the forefront for that particular detail but there’s more than that going on. Take for instance South Korea. Today I’ve got a story about them getting ready to pass a bill about alternative payment systems with Apple and Google. The title pretty much says it all but on a search, most engines will barely show half of it. When it comes to how SEO works it’s a tricky thing. Too short and it gets grumpy. Too long and it says to shorten it or else most gets dropped on people’s searches. We often try to find a middle ground with it but that does affect title lengths and no matter what not everyone will be happy.

  6. Nobody is forcing you to click on the title. Clicks generate revenue that pays for the labor and systems to provide the content to you.

    I suppose people reading only headlines is the problem for smaller publishers – I’m guessing you’ve noticed that very few hardware review sites operate a news section like ours and if you took a peak at the P&L, you’d see why.

    Would appreciate comments being about the content as opposed to the editorial decisions – seems like that would be more interesting.

  7. David that is more than a fair point to make. I would offer that… a simple statement of.. “It is yet to be seen if this will do the Chia Crypto Mining company any good due to the governmental lock down on Crypto Mining.”

    You know what… never mind. You’re right here. If it happens to generate a few more page views/clicks keep it. There is only so much that can be done about a title, and really spit-balling and worrying about the title is a waste of time for getting good content out the door. Some work needs to be done but there is no chance of pleasing everyone all the time.

Leave a comment