On the evening of November 6, Jaychun disclosed a major computing power contract. The Shenzhen-listed company, whose stock code is 301248, signed a Computing Power Technology Services Contract with “Company H1,” provisionally valued at 4.9152 billion yuan including tax and running for 60 months. That same evening, it also published a legal opinion from Beijing Grandway Law Offices.

The 4.9152 billion yuan figure is equivalent to 5.8 times Jaychun’s full-year revenue in 2025. Yet the announcement did not name the counterparty. Nine details were withheld: its company name, ownership type, registered address, legal representative, registered capital, unified social credit code, primary business and major shareholders. The stated reason was simply that “this computing power business involves trade secrets.”

The Contract Value Is Provisional and Pricing Will Fluctuate

A closer look at the terms reveals less certainty than the headline figure suggests. The 4.9152 billion yuan value is “estimated based on provisional pricing,” while the pricing mechanism is described as “market-based floating pricing.” The quantity and price of each batch must be set out in separate order agreements. The 60-month term applies both to the overall contract and to each batch order. Delivery, inspection and services will be carried out in batches and phases, with monthly settlement. The announcement explicitly states that these terms “do not constitute a performance commitment or earnings forecast.”

In other words, the contract locks in a framework for cooperation and penalties for breach, but not unit prices, total volumes or the delivery schedule. The enforceable provisions lie in the breach clauses: if Party A terminates early, it must pay damages equal to the total service fees for the remaining unfulfilled term; if Party B’s delivery is more than 90 days late, it must pay 10% of the value of the undelivered orders.

The Disclosure Exemption Is Compliant, but the Law Firm Only Verified That the Counterparty Exists

There is a regulatory basis for the disclosure exemption. The Shenzhen Stock Exchange has procedures allowing companies to withhold information involving trade secrets. Jaychun also said H1 is not listed as a judgment defaulter and has no affiliation with the company’s controlling shareholder, actual controller, directors, supervisors or senior executives, meaning the transaction does not constitute a related-party transaction. To bolster the contract’s credibility, Jaychun asked a law firm to conduct due diligence and issue a legal opinion. Its conclusion was that H1 “is a limited liability company duly established and validly existing as an independent legal entity, and that its basic information is authentic.”

But the legal opinion established that H1 exists and operates legally, not that it can afford the contract. Outsiders have no way to assess the cash flow of a company expected to pay more than 80 million yuan a month for five years. One line in the board’s opinion offers a more substantive clue: H1 “has extensive experience in data centers and other business areas.” It is the only description of the counterparty’s business profile in the entire disclosure.

Funding Is Not the Bottleneck; Asset Turnover Is

It would be a mistake to view this simply as a small company landing an oversized order. As of September 30, Jaychun had total assets of 7.667 billion yuan, up 135.10% from the start of the year, and cash holdings of 2.178 billion yuan. Net cash flow from operating activities reached 435 million yuan in the first three quarters, turning positive, with net inflows recorded in each of the past four quarters. The company said it had secured a combined 18.534 billion yuan in credit lines and indicative credit facilities from banks and non-bank financial institutions. Of that amount, about 11.491 billion yuan was backed by signed legal documents and had been formally obtained, while Agricultural Bank of China provided a separate indicative facility of 8 billion yuan. Against that funding base, a 4.915 billion yuan contract does not look out of place.

The pressure lies elsewhere. Jaychun’s 7.667 billion yuan in total assets generated only 620 million yuan in revenue during the first three quarters. Fixed assets transferred into operation had reached 2.580 billion yuan, while inventories stood at 693 million yuan and prepayments at 277 million yuan. Assets are built first and revenue is recognized later; that timing gap defines the operating rhythm of companies like this. The contract requires substantial upfront procurement spending. Jaychun said the money would come from its own funds and financing from financial institutions, while separately flagging debt pressure as a risk. It acknowledged that additional borrowing would raise interest-bearing liabilities, its debt-to-asset ratio and finance costs.

Another easily overlooked detail is that Jaychun changed the accounting treatment for purchases of computing power equipment from “asset purchases” to “purchases of raw materials for ordinary operations.” As a result, the equipment will no longer be recorded as fixed assets, but will instead flow through inventory and cost of revenue, shifting the visible footprint of capital spending from the balance sheet to the income statement.