Client Stories
Testimonials and project notes from Korean moderate-scale mining operators who used our 0.05+ PH/s equipment assessments.
Testimonials
The comparison brief spelled out why a 0.07 PH/s quote would trip our sub-panel in August. We shifted to a slightly lower nameplate unit and stayed within lease terms. Report arrived on day six as promised.
Yoon Hee-jin — Comparison brief, Pohang light industrial unit
Assessors photographed every intake louver. Our contractor used those images during duct rework. Hash rate climbed without adding units. Documentation was thorough; scheduling the follow-up call took an extra week because Han was on another site.
Kang Woo-sik — Layout review + assessment, Gyeongsan warehouse
I appreciated that they noted our older 0.04 PH/s legacy row separately instead of folding it into the new rack numbers. Clear boundaries in the write-up.
Andrea Lim — On-site assessment, Incheon conversion
Spec check caught a warranty clause excluding continuous operation above 35°C ambient. Supplier amended the quote. Fee felt fair though I wish the memo had included Korean translation of the clause—they offered to add it later at no charge.
Thomas Berg — Pre-purchase spec check, Seoul procurement desk
Extended story: Daegu row expansion
A operator adding twelve units at roughly 0.06 PH/s each faced a landlord cap on total kilowatts. Our half-day layout review mapped breaker headroom and identified recirculation from a misplaced exhaust duct.
Constraints: Fixed lease, no sub-panel upgrade budget that quarter, summer intake already averaging 32°C.
Our work: Annotated plan, thermal photos at rack mid-span, logged draw during peak afternoon hour.
Outcome: Client repositioned two racks and deferred four unit purchases until autumn intake improved. Measured aggregate hash rose 11% without new hardware—documented in a follow-up visit three months later.
Client note: “Numbers matched what we saw on our own meters; the value was the layout narrative for the landlord meeting.”