RE:RE:RE:RE:Other licensed producers using cloneshipperDo you really think that 1.5% will hold up, considering that the previous number of patients with production licenses grew 1000% from the previous quarter? Also, there's the selling to LPs factor. All they need is a few LPs who see THC Biomed as a necessary convenience in providing them ready to grow clones and they could see a huge increase in profit margins.
| | April 1, 2016 to June 30, 2016 (Q1) | July 1, 2016 to September 30, 2016 (Q2) | October 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016 (Q3) | January 1, 2017 to March 31, 2017 (Q4) |
Number of Active Registrations
(as of the last day of the reporting period) |
| Total | N/A | 192 | 2,007 | - |
| Production for Own Medical Purposes | N/A | 189 | 1,899 | - |
| Production by Designated Person | N/A | 3 | 108 | - |
DiligentSon wrote: Unless someone can provide proof that cloneshipper is the only federally accepted way to ship, there is no monopoly here my friend. However, I think it's great to see that other companies are using cloneshipper! That being said, I'd like to know what the profit margins are on cloneshipper for THC. 1.5% of medical users is not enough to sustain a clone business even if THC had 100% of the clients.