MEA CULPA! - Checked my numbers, now correcting.
Back at BTC=$7K, I did some exploring with mining profit calculators. Back then, it seemed like an S9 would pay for itself in about 9 months. So, with BTC at $19k, I figured (in my head) that the repayment period would have been reduced to about 2 months.
I just revisited the mining calculators, and it looks like mining difficulty has increased, and the repayment period is currently about 4.5 months. So, one S9 can "compound itself" into about 6 machines after 12 months, and 12 machines can compound themselves into about 72 machines after one year.
That's a far cry from the "568 in a year" which I claimed before. It is still exponential growth, and it still assumes zero increase in BTC price over 12 months (making it a conservative estimate). Since I am confident (that's opinion..) that Bitcoin prices will increase faster than Antminer hardware prices (by a little bit anyway..), I think 100 machines is achievable from mining revenues in about a year. Possibly 600 more machines two years from now.
Of course, the growth rate will be the same whether one starts with 12 and has 96 (8 to 1, allows for some $BTC price growth) after a year (a.k.a., SANP), or starts with 100 and has 800 after a year (INTV, though they've mentioned 1,500), or starts with 800 and has 6,400 after a year (MGTI - but they've only promised 5,000). In every case, the companies' relative market caps should be proportional to the size of their mining operations. If a company has a lower market cap to mining cap, then a given dollar investment there buys more exposure to the mining revenues. It doesn't matter if $1000 buys 250 shares of this, or 660 of that, or 1000000 of SANP, what matters is that you've bought $1000/[market cap] of that company's mining capacity, and the bigger "your" mining capacity ("your fraction" times "their mining capacity"), the more you can expect your shares to increase in value.
The most current numbers on my spreadsheet show:
(using current (as of next Wednesday) mining capacities and Friday's closing price):
$1000 invested in:
SANP, buys 0.148% of 1 S9's capacity (with 12 running "now")
MGTI, buys 0.421% of 1 S9's capacity (with 860 running now)
INTV, buys 0.799% of 1 S9's capacity (with 100 running);
(using announced plans for future deployments (timetables uncertain)):
$1000 invested (at Friday's closing price) in:
SANP, buys 1.236% of 1 S9's capacity (when 100 operating)
SANP, buys 24.739% of 1 S9's capacity (when 2000 operating)
MGTI, buys 2.449% of 1 S9's capacity (when 5000 operating)
INTV, buys 11.985% of 1 S9's capacity (when 1500 running).
Please understand that all this is sort of like trying to use a tape measure to measure the distance between race horses at any given moment while they're all running down the track, in order to extrapolate where they might finish. But, if we trust the announcements each company has made, then SANP is the best value based on future capacity plans, having "20 bagger" headroom vs. MGTI (evaluated on the same basis). But, if we evaluate based on where they stand right now - giving no value to promises until they come true - it looks like INTV is the best value right now, with "present operations value" headroom to about $8.20/sh vs. MGTI.
Also understand that at ALL TIMES (unless you've gotten shares for free), spending $1000 (with 5.5 of your best friends forming a "club" with you and chipping in $1000 each) to buy your own S9, is a much better investment than any of these, because you'll always own 15.38% of your club's S9, and you can expect your club to generate revenues sufficient to buy 5 more S9's in just over a year (at which point you all disband, and each takes 1 S9 for themselves (and your half-a-friend gets bought out for $3250)), and you never have to worry about executive salaries, or corporate reporting honesty, or stock market fluctuations or P&D manipulations...
Finally, the other side of all this is the "flipping game". Over Thursday and Friday, I went from a starting position of 500,000 shares at $200 invested, to 100,000 shares on house money with $450 profit in hand. Overall, right now, that $450 will buy me "free" positions in all three of these stocks, and ANY share of mining revenues or share price appreciation will be an infinite return. (ANY money, divided by "zero out of pocket" = "infinity" percentage return). Since "what I have" is on house money, I can hold it indefinitely and see where it goes! Of course, I want to grow my share counts, so I'll be selling on runs and buying on dips... but I won't be spending the rent money or the grocery budget here.
On a more philosophical note: Cryptocurrency will be EXTREMELY disruptive to the status quo of the world economy.. and is therefore a major threat to those who benefit from running it. I think one reason Canoe wants to come to the US, is because China (the govt) has a huge - roughly $8 TRILLION - reason to protect the value of the U.S. Dollar, and China (the place) could become a very hostile place to operate mining equipment if Bitcoin etc begins to look like a major threat to China's currency or the U.S. Treasury notes (redeemed in USD) it holds as U.S. Govt debt. It is very easy to imagine Chinese soldiers bashing in Chinese doors on mining rooms, packing up the mining rigs and trucking them away (or just seizing the whole facility and hanging a "People's Transaction Verification Service #456" sign on the door). I've been scratching my head, trying to think of steps the U.S. govt might take to cripple Crypto - three possibilities I've come up with are:
(1) convert the USD into a blockchain currency to compete with our "wild" cryptos; and/or
(2) Governments use our tax money to buy millions of mining rigs, earn and hold all the new coin, and accumulate the circulating coin through transaction fees, squeezing us out.. (expect a huge BTC run before the crash..) or
(3) Uncle Sam engineers a "test case" opportunity for the US Supreme Court to declare that "contracts based on Bitcoin payments are unenforceable in US courts - the value of USD derives largely from the value of having a government backed court system to enforce contracts, and we will not burden our courts with an obligation to provide this enforcement based value to rogue, unofficial 'currencies' created outside of government authority."
I don't think either of those will "kill" cryptos, but I think they'll slow down and limit acceptance of Bitcoin etc.., which means we'll have to wait a bit longer to become gazillionaires here.
@Djdjdj - my messages are limited, so I must piggyback. Thank you for the proof of "no December dilution", it does help, a lot!
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
