David Goldsmith promotes Mearth Infinium’s mining-as-a-service model: deploying integrated robotic and autonomous mining systems to increase production, rather than simply selling equipment. Goldsmith's posts also explore how space development could shape governance and cooperation.
19.7K followersRoboticsBased on 18 posts · latest Sep 2026
David Goldsmith’s LinkedIn posts focus mainly on Mearth Infinium’s mining-as-a-service model: integrated robotic and semi-autonomous systems intended to produce material, rather than equipment sold on its own.
They argue that remote operations, production-based contracts and repeatable deployments could change mining’s economics.
A separate post applies their systems-thinking approach to lunar development, asking how life on the Moon might reshape governance and cooperation.
Readers interested in mining technology can follow their posts for business and operating claims—and questions those claims raise about support, deployment and returns.
Goldsmith connects mining technology to the operating and investment model around it.
They contrast component upgrades with an integrated extraction system, then link that system to remote command centers and a contract model in which payment depends on production.
In one post, they distinguish a 33% return they describe as proven from a 46% return they describe as calculated, giving readers a concrete claim to scrutinize rather than treating the figures as equivalent support.
Their case for funding a repeatable deployment platform instead of a single asset extends the same argument from mine operations to capital.
In a separate strand, they treat extreme conditions on the Moon as a prompt to reconsider governance and collective problem-solving.
David Goldsmith's public writing returns to one argument in different forms: mining companies do not want machines; they want material produced at lower cost and with better safety.
Read more
The industry, they argue, should be sold, financed, and operated around production outcomes rather than equipment.
Supporting ideas include a commercial model paid on material moved, remote command centers running several mines from one place, and an extraction system rebuilt from the ground up rather than robotic versions of existing machines—all deployed as a repeatable platform rather than one mine at a time.
A separate strand treats space development as a test of how people govern and cooperate, not a hardware problem.
Mining sells material, not machines
Goldsmith argues that equipment, software, and consulting are sold as ends in themselves, while buyers really want ore or metal moved at a workable cost.
Read more
They make the case as a category claim, repeated almost word for word: the category is not equipment, it is production.
The reasoning is buyer-side: leadership does not buy a truck to own a truck; it buys one to produce material.
They reduce the goal to four recurring outcomes: more material produced, lower operating costs, improved safety, and better extraction economics.
Those outcomes position their company against vendors.
The line "The category isn't equipment.
The category is production." appears in nearly every post.
In "No One Is Building This Category," they frame it directly: "Leadership and investors doesn't buy equipment to own equipment.
Get paid when material moves, not when equipment ships
Goldsmith's commercial argument is that the usual sequence—sell equipment or software, deliver a report, collect the invoice—ends the supplier's involvement just as the mine starts producing.
Read more
They propose the opposite structure under the label Mining-as-a-Service: deploy autonomous narrow vein systems into operating mines and share in what the mine produces, so both sides gain if output rises and neither gains if it does not.
They say that alignment changes how systems are designed and partnerships are structured.
The posts cite 75-man-years of operational data, more than 25 years of validation, NASA Technology Readiness Level 8, and over $300M invested.
Ask for independently verified contract and performance data.
In "We Only Get Paid If We Deliver," they write that the equipment supplier sells equipment, the software company sells software, and the consultant delivers a report, with the project considered complete once the invoice is paid.
They contrast that with: "Most suppliers get paid when equipment arrives.
Goldsmith argues that remote-controlled mining is proven and that the coming change is scale, not invention.
Read more
In their account, one surface operator controlling several machines has been routine on their team's work since the 1980s, across tele-robotic drills, scoop trams, longwall systems, and autonomous vehicles.
The newer idea is a single command center coordinating mines in different countries: the operator's physical location stops mattering, while the equipment and ore body change and the command architecture stays the same.
They attribute the gains to removing underground travel, ending shift changes that move people through shafts, reducing interruptions, improving telecommunications and robotics, and increasing equipment utilization.
They cite three rates of return and label them: conventional operations at minus 24%, local surface operations at 33%, described as proven, and centralized command operations at 46%, described as calculated.
The economics block in "The Future of Mining Is Not Underground.
It's in Command Centers." lists Canada, Australia, Brazil, and Mexico as sites one command center could run, alongside three rates of return.
The post notes that only the middle figure is proven.
The post presents autonomous mining as both established and newly urgent: decades of operating experience on one hand, and a step change in scale and capability on the other. The 46% figure is a projection, set against a claimed proven result.
Goldsmith argues that mining capital usually goes into one asset at a time—a mine, a machine, a processing facility—when the better target is a repeatable deployment model.
Read more
In their framing, the first mine matters less than what follows: one becomes five, five become twenty, and twenty become a hundred, while operational data, deployment experience, and network effects compound at each step.
From that follows their ask: they want the right first capital partner, not just any investor—someone who sees the goal as building a system to produce critical materials rather than owning a single asset.
The same logic drives an open recruitment pitch for mine operators, investors, strategic partners, and ecosystem builders.
In the platform post, they write that the objective "isn't owning a single mining asset.
It's helping build a system capable of transforming how critical materials are produced," and ask whether readers would rather be early or wait for the market to validate it.
The partner post opens with the warning "Today we're looking for partners.
Rebuild the extraction system instead of upgrading components
Goldsmith argues that most mining innovation improves individual components—a better truck, drill, loader, or communications system—and that startups described as automating mining mostly add robotic haulage and sensors to existing machines.
Read more
They call that old news, noting that their team members did haulage work in 1988.
Their alternative is a system designed from scratch, not conventional loaders and scoop trams converted into robotic versions: pod systems of 21 or more connected components covering robotics, communications, positioning, sensors, drilling, narrow vein targeting, operations, and command centers, integrated into a single extraction architecture.
They say the next generation is already being drafted.
"No One Is Building This Category" argues that adding robotic haulage with AI and sensor technology is not automating mining, then lists the rebuilt system's components and its 21-plus connected parts working as one.
The criticism is aimed at unnamed competitors and is not backed by named cases or comparisons in the posts, so it reads as a stated position in an argument rather than a documented assessment.
Space as a test of how people govern, not a hardware problem
A different strand of Goldsmith's writing asks what happens when humanity must rethink how it governs, collaborates, builds trust, and solves problems.
Read more
In this argument, the Moon is usually treated as a technology challenge or a waste of money, but it may be one of the few goals powerful enough to force that rethink because it removes baseline assumptions such as air, water, travel, gravity, security, and governance.
They conclude that the lessons worth learning concern people and shared survival, not rockets.
The post introduces the idea and links to a longer piece.
In "The Moon as a Catalyst: Reframing Governance," they write that the farther they go down the path, the more convinced they become that "many of the lessons we need for the future aren't about rockets or hardware," then invite readers to say where they agree or disagree.
This answers a newcomer’s first questions about Goldsmith: Is remote-controlled mining proven, and what does it change about mine economics?
Read more
They address both in one post.
Goldsmith writes that autonomous mining is not new.
Members of their team, they say, have operated tele-robotic drills, scoop trams, longwall systems and autonomous vehicles since the 1980s, with one operator controlling several machines from the surface.
What has changed, in their account, is scale: a single command center can run mines in Canada, Australia, Brazil and Mexico, making the operator’s location irrelevant while keeping the command architecture the same.
They put the returns at -24% for conventional operations, 33% for local surface operations, described as proven, and 46% for centralized command operations, described as calculated.
They attribute the gains to eliminating underground travel, moving people through shafts at shift change and general interruptions, alongside advances in telecommunications and robotics.
The post also cites more than 25 years of operational validation, NASA Technology Readiness Level 8 and over $300M invested in development, and links to a short explainer video.
The distinction between the proven 33% and calculated 46% is their wording and worth preserving.
For brands planning a campaign
For an investment or event brief, this is the piece to test the core economic claim against. The labeled-versus-projected split is the first point to press in a diligence conversation.
It explains how the business makes money, which is more useful than another description of the machines.
Read more
The post opens with misaligned incentives: the equipment supplier sells equipment, the software company sells software, the consultant delivers a report, and the project is deemed finished when the invoice is paid.
Goldsmith says Mearth Infinium deploys autonomous narrow vein mining systems into operating mines and gets paid when material moves, not when equipment arrives.
They frame the category as production rather than equipment and list the intended results: more material, lower operating costs, improved safety and better extraction economics.
The post repeats credentials that recur across their posts: 75-man-years of operational data, more than 25 years of autonomous and semi-autonomous validation, NASA TRL-8 and over $300M invested.
It closes with a link to a deck.
For brands planning a campaign
Quote this when a campaign focuses on risk-sharing, commercial structure or why a mining company should prefer a production-based contract to a capital purchase.
This is the clearest statement of what Goldsmith thinks competitors get wrong and how their system differs—the technical claim a partner would evaluate.
Read more
Goldsmith argues that most mining innovation focuses on individual components—a better truck, drill, loader or communications system—while buyers purchase equipment to produce material.
They say startups claiming to automate mining are adding robotic haulage with AI and sensor technology, and that members of their own team were doing haulage work in 1988.
Their alternative is an extraction system rebuilt from the ground up, rather than loaders and scoop trams converted into robotic versions.
It uses pod systems of 21 or more connected components, covering robotics, communications, positioning, sensors, drilling, narrow vein targeting and command centers, integrated into one architecture.
They say the next generation is already being drafted.
For brands planning a campaign
Useful for technical due diligence: the testable claim is architectural integration, not a single machine. Ask how the components were built to work together.
It explains why Goldsmith treats the first mine as a platform proof point, not a standalone asset—and why they want capital structured that way.
Read more
The post contrasts funding a single mine, piece of equipment, processing facility or asset with funding a repeatable deployment platform.
Goldsmith writes that one mine becomes five, five become twenty, and twenty become one hundred, with economics, operational data, deployment experience and network effects compounding with each deployment.
The ask is for the right first capital partner: someone who sees the goal as building a system for producing critical materials, not owning an asset.
The post repeats the same MaaS credentials block and deck link as the other commercial posts.
For brands planning a campaign
For an investment-firm audience, this post states the portfolio argument directly and is the natural place to test whether the compounding claim holds.
It states plainly what Goldsmith is asking for now—the practical question behind most searches for their name.
Read more
Goldsmith writes that disruption comes when economics change, not when new technology appears, citing shifts in production costs, labour roles, supply chains and business models.
They name what Mearth Infinium is looking for: mine operators, capital investors, strategic partners and ecosystem builders.
Goldsmith says the company is building a deployment platform, not selling equipment, and intends the first mine, pod and deployment to become repeatable.
They frame the choice as helping build a new category or adapting to one later, and say introductory conversations and meetings are being scheduled.
For brands planning a campaign
Open with this for a partnership or speaking campaign: it clearly states what Goldsmith wants and the competitive warning they use to get attention.
It shows the other half of Goldsmith’s public thinking, beyond mining.
Read more
Start here for an interest in space, governance or long-range strategy rather than extraction.
Goldsmith asks what happens when humanity must rethink how it governs, collaborates, builds trust and solves problems, and says the plans they see in the news are not working.
They argue that establishing a home on the Moon is less a technology challenge than a human one: the Moon removes baseline assumptions such as air, water, travel, gravity, security and governance, forcing the question of what is possible.
The useful lessons, they conclude, are about people and how to govern when survival is shared—not rockets or hardware.
Goldsmith invites readers to say where they agree or disagree and links to a longer piece, tagging the post with Mearth, Project Moon Hut and a broad space-industry hashtag set.
For brands planning a campaign
Open with this for an event or partnership focused on space, systems thinking or strategy. It offers no mining evidence, so don’t use it to support the mining claims.
Space development as a governance and humanity question1
The category isn't equipment — it's production
Across most posts, Goldsmith argues that mining buyers do not actually want machines; they want material produced at lower cost and with better safety.
Read more
They repeat the same four-outcome frame — more material produced, lower operating costs, improved safety, better extraction economics — and use it to position Mearth Infinium against equipment vendors, software suppliers, and consultants.
The line "The category isn't equipment.
The category is production" appears in nearly every post.
A short contradiction hook ("Most people think… It isn't."), followed by declarative lines, a bulleted list of buyer outcomes, and a repeated category line.
For brands planning a campaign
Useful for a brand running a repositioning or category-creation conversation: the argument is framed around buyer outcomes rather than product features. It also sells Goldsmith's own platform, so ask for independent market data before adopting the framing.
In "We Only Get Paid If We Deliver," Goldsmith criticises how mining technology is normally sold: the equipment company sells equipment, the software company sells software, the consultant delivers a report, and the project ends when the invoice is paid.
Read more
They propose the opposite: deploy autonomous narrow vein systems into operating mines and get paid when material moves, with shared outcomes and long-term partnerships. The post repeats the proof block used elsewhere: 75-man-years of operational data, more than 25 years of autonomous and semi-autonomous validation, NASA Technology Readiness Level 8, and over $300M invested.
The post asserts the commercial model but does not show a signed contract, customer, or production result. Ask for a documented deal before presenting it as proven.
For brands planning a campaign
The clearest material for a brand evaluating Goldsmith on commercial innovation: a panel or podcast on risk-sharing contracts, vendor incentives, and outcome-based pricing in industrial sectors. Ask for independent confirmation of the proof figures.
Repeatable deployment platform versus one-off mining assets
Goldsmith argues that most mining capital goes into one project at a time — a mine, a piece of equipment, a processing facility — and that the investment case should instead be a repeatable deployment platform: the first deployment leads to five, five to twenty, and twenty to a hundred, while operational data, experience, and network effects compound.
Read more
They say they are looking for the right first capital partner, not just any investor, and ask whether readers would rather be early or wait for the market to validate the platform. A separate post warns that today's partners may become tomorrow's competition.
A growth sequence (1 → 5 → 20 → 100) and a direct question that forces readers to choose between being early and waiting.
For brands planning a campaign
Relevant to venture, private equity, and family-office audiences looking for a platform narrative rather than a single-asset story. The argument can open an early-stage mining technology conversation, but ask how many mines or pods are actually deployed to assess the compounding thesis.
Goldsmith argues that the future of mining is in command centers, not underground.
Read more
They describe decades of tele-robotic drills, scoop trams, longwall systems, and autonomous vehicles, with one surface operator controlling multiple machines, and imagine a single command center managing mines across Canada, Australia, Brazil, and Mexico.
They give three economics lines: conventional operations at −24% rate of return, local surface operations at 33% (labelled proven), and centralized command operations at 46% (labelled calculated).
They cite removing underground travel and shift-change movement as productivity gains.
The post labels only the 33% figure as proven; it explicitly labels 46% as calculated. Ask for the model, assumptions, and mine behind both figures.
For brands planning a campaign
Gives a brand concrete, quotable economics to test with Goldsmith in a webinar, technical panel, or investment discussion about remote operations and workforce change. Ask for the underlying data before using the figures to inform a decision.
Integrated extraction systems versus component upgrades
Goldsmith argues that mining innovation is stuck on individual components — a better truck, drill, loader, or communications system — and that startups claiming to automate mining mostly add robotic haulage and sensors to existing machines.
Read more
They say team members did haulage work in 1988 and that Mearth Infinium rebuilt the extraction system from the ground up, with pod systems of 21 or more connected components spanning robotics, communications, positioning, sensor technology, drilling, narrow vein targeting, operations, and command centers.
The post criticises unnamed competitors without citing named cases or comparisons.
For brands planning a campaign
A brand evaluating Goldsmith's technical credibility can use this as debate material on build-from-scratch versus retrofit. Ask for specifics on the integrated-system claim; this suits a moderated disagreement format better than a straight endorsement.
Space development as a governance and humanity question
A different strand of Goldsmith's posting argues that the Moon is usually treated as a technology challenge or a waste of money, when it may be one of the few forcing functions powerful enough to make humanity rethink how it governs, collaborates, builds trust, and solves problems on Earth.
Read more
They write that removing baseline assumptions such as air, water, travel, gravity, and security forces the question of what is possible, and that the lessons needed are less about rockets than about people. The post links a longer piece and invites readers to agree, disagree, or extend the thinking.
Opens with questions Goldsmith says they have asked for years, reframes the Moon from a hardware challenge to a question of people and governance, and closes with an open invitation to debate.
For brands planning a campaign
Useful if a campaign touches space policy, long-horizon thinking, or cross-sector governance. It shows range beyond mining, but works as a discussion prompt with an outbound link rather than a detailed argument in the post itself.
Most posts follow the same format: a provocative one-line hook ("We Only Get Paid If We Deliver."), a contrast with what most people assume, short declarative lines, a bulleted list of benefits or components, a repeated category line, a proof block on operational data, validation years, technology readiness, and investment total, a link to a deck or explainer video, and a long hashtag set.
Read more
Several posts end by naming large investors, mining companies, and government bodies.
The named companies appear in text and hashtags, but the posts do not specify any relationships. Ask Goldsmith to clarify any affiliations.
For brands planning a campaign
The repeated structure lets a host or sponsor anticipate the format and supply the visual, demo, or data point the post calls for. The proof claims also recur across posts; ask for independent verification before reusing them in brand content.
Goldsmith’s posts center on Mearth Infinium, whose autonomous mining platform and mining-as-a-service model they describe in five of the six posts.
Read more
They write as part of the team (“At Mearth Infinium, we're building...”, “our team members did haulage in 1988”), but do not state whether they own or are employed by the company; they describe the relationship as a disclosed partnership.
The posts append lists of institutional names as hashtag-style tags: BlackRock, Brookfield, KKR, Apollo Global Management, the Defense Logistics Agency, U.S.
Department of Energy, MP Materials, Freeport-McMoRan, SoftBank, Hancock Prospecting, BHP, Harmony Gold and several U.S.
Department of War offices.
They disclose no relationship with those institutions; ask whether any represent sponsorship, investment or client work.
A separate post on Moon governance carries #Mearth and #ProjectMoonHut hashtags without explaining Goldsmith’s role.
Mearth Infinium
Disclosed partnership
Goldsmith writes repeatedly as part of Mearth Infinium, describing its semi-autonomous and autonomous narrow-vein mining pods, a command-center model for running several mines from one location, and a “Mining-as-a-Service” model in which the company is paid when material is produced rather than when equipment ships.
Read more
They cite the platform’s claimed operational record (25+ years of semi-autonomous validation, NASA TRL-8, over $300M invested, 75 man-years of data) and link to a company deck. Their exact role is unstated; ask whether they own or work for the business.
Original disclosure
At Mearth Infinium, we're building a different model. We deploy autonomous narrow vein mining systems into operating mines.
David Goldsmith makes one argument in several forms: mining buyers want material produced, not machines, so the business should be sold, financed and run around production outcomes.
Read more
Start with “We Only Get Paid If We Deliver” for the commercial model, then read the command-centre post for the operating picture and “No One Is Building This Category” for the case against fixing mining one component at a time.
Two posts set out the investment side; one argues for a repeatable deployment platform over single assets, and one turns to lunar development as a question of governance and cooperation.
The posts use a provocative hook, short declarative lines, bulleted benefits, a repeated claim that the category is production rather than equipment, a proof block citing operational data, validation years, technology readiness and investment total, links to a deck or explainer, and long hashtag sets.
The economics figures, readiness level and investment total are the author's own claims.
Ask for the assumptions behind them and a named customer result.
The comparison creators below cover critical-minerals policy, electronics recovery and mining workforce planning from different vantage points.
Autonomous miningMining technologyCritical mineralsMining-as-a-ServiceRoboticsSpace developmentRemote and command-centre operationsExtraction system designMining investment casesLinkedIn postsMine operatorsInstitutional investorsDefence and government
Both treat critical minerals as a national-security and supply-chain resilience problem, explaining their position to a professional audience through recaps of convenings, named participants and a clear point of view.
Read more
Rogers writes from the policy and security side, covering strategic stockpiles, illicit networks and grey-zone activity from Capitol Hill and conference panels, without discussing mining equipment or operations.
Goldsmith makes a technology and commercial pitch from inside a mining automation company.
Follow Rogers for the policy layer and Goldsmith for the operating layer.
Both analyse how capital and people reach a mine, arguing that slow-moving workforce pipelines and repeatable deployment are under-budgeted compared with equipment and construction.
Read more
Ed V.'s posts move between sectors: the same workforce-pipeline argument applies to mining and the defence industrial base, while another post brings a business-scaling lens to the WNBA.
Goldsmith stays focused on mining autonomy and positions their platform as the answer.
Follow Ed V. for general capital-allocation and workforce reasoning, and Goldsmith for autonomous extraction.
David Goldsmith's LinkedIn follower count was 19,705 on 10 October 2026.
Read more
Six posts reveal their focus, not who reads them.
Their arguments, named companies and agencies, and hashtags suggest they write for mining operators, capital investors, defence and industrial-base officials, and space-policy readers, but the posts do not measure actual audience composition.
Treat the figure as reach on one channel, not proof of seniority, employer, geography or job function.
For a mining technology investment firm considering Goldsmith as a partner or speaker, the key question is whether investment or mine-operations decision-makers see their posts.
Before committing to a placement based on reach into that buyer group, ask for LinkedIn audience demographics (geography, age, gender), per-post impressions and engagement for recent mining and robotics posts, and any audience survey recording job roles or seniority.
LinkedIn followers
19,705
Follower count on the LinkedIn account that published the reviewed posts · 2026-10-10
Goldsmith’s posts invite commercial partners for the mining venture they promote: mine operators willing to host its autonomous mining systems, capital investors, and strategic or ecosystem partners.
Read more
The company is not selling equipment and expects to be paid when material is produced, so a partnership conversation centers on production results rather than a media fee.
The posts invite readers to start an introductory conversation and point to a presentation link.
Ask Goldsmith for the appropriate inquiry link; no official partnership page or intake form is verified.
Mine-operator deployment (mining-as-a-service)
Buyer requirement
An operating mine willing to host the company’s autonomous narrow-vein mining pods. Goldsmith writes that the company is paid when material moves, not when equipment arrives, so operators should expect compensation tied to production, operating costs, safety, and extraction economics rather than an equipment purchase.
Capital partner for the first deployment
Buyer requirement
An investor who accepts that the goal is a repeatable deployment platform across many mines, not ownership of a single asset. Goldsmith says the company is looking for the right first capital partner and frames each deployment as building operational data, experience, and network effects for the next one.
Strategic or ecosystem partner
Buyer requirement
A company or individual able to contribute operational, ecosystem, or category-building support. Goldsmith lists strategic partners and ecosystem builders alongside mine operators and investors, and argues that early partners stand to benefit most from the category shift they expect in mining.
Fit. Goldsmith is a strong choice for a brief on production economics, remote operations, or commercial structure in mining technology.
Read more
Brief
An investment firm or industry conference wants a speaker or panelist on the economics of autonomous mining: how remote and semi-autonomous operations change mine returns, what it takes to fund a repeatable deployment platform, and how outcome-based contracts alter risk for operators and suppliers. Audience: mining analysts, fund managers, and mine operators.
Reasons
David Goldsmith answers the core question directly. They argue that remote-controlled mining is not new: their team members have run tele-robotic drills, scoop trams, longwall systems and autonomous vehicles since the 1980s. What has changed is scale: one command center running mines in several countries. They put numbers behind the argument, giving conventional operations at -24% rate of return, local surface operations at 33%, which they label proven, and centralized command operations at 46%, which they label calculated.
Goldsmith has a distinctive commercial argument worth putting on stage. They criticise the usual pattern: an equipment supplier sells equipment, a software company sells software, a consultant delivers a report, and the project ends when the invoice is paid. They say their company deploys autonomous narrow vein systems into operating mines and gets paid when material moves, not when equipment arrives.
Goldsmith speaks in the buyer's language. Across the posts, they repeat the same four outcomes a mine cares about: more material produced, lower operating costs, improved safety, and better extraction economics. For an analyst audience, that is a cleaner framing than a product description.
Goldsmith can carry an argument about capital structure. They contrast funding a single mine or asset with funding a repeatable deployment platform, describing one mine becoming five, five becoming twenty, and operational data, experience and network effects compounding across deployments. They say they are looking for a first capital partner who wants to build a system, not own a single asset.
Goldsmith creates useful debate. They argue competitors mostly add robotic haulage and sensors to existing machines, while their team rebuilt the extraction system from scratch, with pod systems of 21 or more connected components spanning robotics, communications, positioning, sensing, drilling, narrow vein targeting and command centers. That is a testable claim rather than a slogan, and gives a panel a real point of disagreement.
Watch out
The commercial proof is asserted, not demonstrated. The rate-of-return figures, NASA Technology Readiness Level 8 status, more than 25 years of validation and $300M invested all appear as statements in their posts; the posts show no signed customer, production result, model or assumptions. Goldsmith labels only the 33% as proven and the 46% as calculated. Ask what supports each number, including the model, assumptions and operating evidence.
When to choose a specialist
Poor fit on the information available, for two separate reasons.
Read more
Brief
A software or services vendor wants a paid sponsorship package in which Goldsmith publishes recurring branded posts to a defined target list. The vendor needs documented reach into named mining operators' procurement and operations leads, with engagement data to justify the spend.
Reasons
The sponsorship offer is not documented. Goldsmith's posts describe a standing invitation to commercial partners for the mining venture they promote: mine operators willing to host its systems, capital investors, and strategic or ecosystem partners. The posts include no rate card, media kit or terms for paid placements.
The audience evidence does not support a targeted reach promise. The material contains one measured figure, a LinkedIn follower count of 19,705 observed on 10 October 2026, alongside six posts that show subject matter and intended readership but no engagement, impression or demographic data. Ask for evidence that investment or mine-operations decision-makers—and the specific job functions or employers the vendor would name—are in that following.
Goldsmith's natural commercial ask is a partnership conversation, not a media buy. Their posts invite readers to discuss deploying systems or funding a platform and point to a presentation link. A vendor buying placement is seeking a different transaction from the one Goldsmith promotes.
Watch out
If the vendor can reframe its need as a joint technical or investment conversation rather than a reach-based sponsorship, Goldsmith's material may be useful. Before committing, ask for per-post impressions, engagement and any audience data.
A worked campaign example
Angle
Run the session as a contingency question rather than a technology showcase. Frame it this way: equipment gets sold once, production gets paid for every time it moves, so where does the risk land when a supplier's revenue depends on ore actually coming out? That keeps Goldsmith focused on their strongest argument and gives the firm a decision framework instead of a pitch.
Brief
A mining technology investment firm is running a 40-minute recorded session for limited partners and portfolio advisers on how production-linked contracts change the risk profile of mining technology. It wants one outside voice with operating experience, plus a short written follow-up for its own notes.
Plan
Open with Goldsmith's misalignment framing. Ask them to describe the ordinary pattern: the equipment supplier sells equipment, the software company sells software, the consultant delivers a report, and the project is considered finished when the invoice is paid. That gives the audience the problem the session exists to solve.
Test the claim underneath it. Put the command-center numbers on screen and ask Goldsmith, on the record, to distinguish the 33% they call proven from the 46% they call calculated. Ask whose mine, whose model and which assumptions sit behind each figure.
Move to contract design. Ask how a deployment into an operating mine is priced when the supplier is paid on material moved, who carries the shortfall if a pod underperforms, and what an operator gives up in exchange for the lower upfront cost.
Use Goldsmith's platform argument as the portfolio case. Ask them to explain the sequence they describe—one mine to five to twenty to a hundred—and what specifically is supposed to compound: operational data, deployment experience or network effects. Ask what information a fund should see after deployment one before funding deployment two.
Close on the technical disagreement. Ask Goldsmith to state plainly why they think adding robotic haulage and sensors to existing machines is not automation, and what a system rebuilt from the ground up, with pod systems of 21 or more connected components, does differently in practice. This segment is likely to produce a quotable, decision-relevant exchange.
Written follow-up: a one-page note listing the four outcomes Goldsmith repeats as the buyer's definition of success (more material produced, lower operating costs, improved safety, better extraction economics), the two return figures with their labels, and the open diligence questions raised on the call.
Questions to ask before booking
Ask for per-post impressions and engagement on the mining and robotics posts, and any audience data recording job function, seniority or employer. The posts provide only a follower count.
Ask which deployments are revenue-generating today and whether any operator will be named publicly. The posts describe the model but name no customer or production result.
Ask how much of the session Goldsmith is willing to spend on the unproven parts. A pitch that avoids the diligence questions will be less useful to this audience than one that addresses them.
Why it works
Every question draws on an argument David Goldsmith makes in their posts, letting them speak from their own material rather than generalise. The format suits an investment audience: it treats their strongest claims as propositions to test, and builds in the diligence questions the firm would need answered before acting.
Choose William "Hopper" Thomas when the decision is about where the material physically comes from, not how it is dug.
Read more
His two posts focus on the recovery end of the same critical-minerals problem: retired office electronics picked up in Kansas City, copper-bearing boards, heatsinks and wire sorted out, and that copper kept in a domestic supply chain.
He ties shop-floor practice to policies a fund can act on — the CHARM Act directing the EPA to write a national recovery strategy from e-waste, old mine sites and coal ash; the U.S.
Strategic Critical Minerals Reserve (Project Vault), with Glencore and Mercuria named as the first buyers of listed metals; and a $16.3 million DOE proving ground at Missouri S&T covering underground testing and the energy cost of crushing ore.
For an investor testing whether recycled feedstock can take real volume out of new mining, he is the most concrete voice of the three.
He also gives anyone holding retired equipment a clear next step.
The posts focus on supply and recovery, not extraction economics.
They do not address autonomous equipment, command centers, deployment platforms or returns, so Goldsmith cannot cover the technical or capital-structure side of a campaign evaluating mining investments.
They also end with sales approaches: a pickup offer for the Kansas City metro and a standing question about what is still on a shelf.
For a funding or partnership campaign, the firm should ask for separate supply-chain and commercial messages.
Choose Kristi Rogers when a campaign is about strategic risk rather than mine economics: what a mineral supply chain looks like when treated as a national-security problem.
Read more
Rogers writes about two convenings — a National Security Institute discussion on Capitol Hill about securing U.S. armament stockpiles, alongside speakers from the American Enterprise Institute, the Reagan Institute and NioCorp, and a panel on illicit networks and gray-zone activity at a critical minerals and rare earths conference.
The arguments pinpoint where the danger lies: downstream, not at the mine, as minerals are bought, aggregated, exported, processed and laundered into legitimate supply chains.
They also address modernising stockpiles across logistics, energy, storage, workforce and host-nation collaboration.
For a firm weighing sanctions exposure, corruption risk or the policy tailwind behind domestic production, Rogers frames the issue in the language of states and defence buyers.
Rogers supplies the strategic layer, but not the operational detail.
The posts offer no equipment, operating costs, deployment model or figures to test against a mine plan, so they cannot help judge whether a particular technology changes returns.
Both are panel recaps framed as thanks and invitations to watch, rather than arguments readers can interrogate.
For a campaign about how production-linked contracts shift risk between an operator and a supplier, ask Rogers for that perspective.
Choose Ed V. when the question turns on people: whether a mine or a defence plant can be staffed, and whether leadership can keep up with growth.
Read more
The workforce post makes a scheduling argument a fund can use: a new mine takes three to five years to build and about the same to develop the operators and maintainers, so the hiring pipeline should start at groundbreaking rather than near completion.
It names working programs rather than simply asserting a shortage: Colorado School of Mines expanding mining engineering enrollment through scholarships, Missouri S&T combining classroom work with an experimental mine, Freeport-McMoRan funding community college students from industrial automation to maintenance with paid internships, and Bevill State turning high school graduates into MSHA-certified miners on full-motion simulators.
It also sizes the gap — roughly 600 mining engineering students nationwide against more than 200,000 mining workers retiring by 2029 — and extends the same logic to the defence industrial base through the Build Freedom program.
The second post applies a scaling frame drawn from defence startups to a business outgrowing its leadership, a judgement investors make about a founder-run company.
Ed V. never discusses autonomous mining systems, remote operations or production-based contracts, so a campaign evaluating mining investments still needs Goldsmith for the technical and commercial core.
The workforce argument is a risk input to an investment case, not a mining technology thesis; it says nothing about equipment performance or returns.
The scaling post has a weaker footing: it builds a leadership critique on a single game attended as a new fan and maps onto mining only by analogy.
A firm should decide whether that analogy is strong enough to present to limited partners.
Six complete LinkedIn posts attributed to David Goldsmith cover autonomous mining and Mearth Infinium, and lunar development and governance.
The posts do not establish their publication dates.
Linked videos, a deck and a longer article are not covered here; figures and experience claims are presented as statements from the posts, not as independently verified facts.
The profile also draws on analysis of Goldsmith’s work, business relationship, topics and campaign fit.
The posts do not establish whether books, shows or other signature work are important to searches for Goldsmith’s name.
