 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »
|
I'm 100% fiat. What's next masterluc?
When you finished great or (especially) bad trade you should go rest/beer/friends/whores/family. Anything but not trade. Stay away from trade. When emotions will calm, start to think what next. Well I closed my longs in the 311-320 range. Considered buying back in at 305 but hesitated. Then missed the train. I'm not going to make any emotional decisions that's why I'm asking you your opinion to get a more logical approach. Thanks |
|
|
|
|
I'm 100% fiat. What's next masterluc?
|
|
|
|
|
so what do you think comes next masterluc? How far down?
|
|
|
|
Parabollic growth.
How do you figure? |
|
|
|
|
What about the coins that are supposed to be auctioned off and the gox coins? How do you think they will affect all of this?
|
|
|
|
Not sure if I did everything ok (I used a simple 200MA, 1w chart) but seems to me case is closed:  So what is the conclusion drawn from this chart? |
|
|
|
|
Does anybody have any news?
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks a lot for your work Klee
|
|
|
|
Jesus f@ckin Christ!
Just woke up.
Thank God I had cancelled my bid!
Holy shit....
Yeah unfortunately I got burned on the second rally to 315 scenario by going long again. Then I didn't go short once it started dropping hoping you would be wrong again but this time you were right :p fml some times hahahaha |
|
|
|
|
In all honesty I stopped trusting Zach a loooong time ago. It's been one scammy move after the other. From the moment he started using our dividends for hardware reinvestment indefinitely beyond the 2 week period it became clear to me at least, that his plan was to create the largest possible mine for himself in the long term regardless of if we investors ever made any profit or even get close to ROI. Since all the hardware would inevitably end up as his own personal property he would at some point declare the operation to be no longer profitable and go on to live a nice rich life mining away with all the hardware we paid for.
I'm really not surprised that he is using our money to pay for the legal problems he created all by himself by behaving like a complete scam artist on several occasions. His answer to every problem he has is to steal our dividends. "You don't like the breach of the original contract? How about I steal your dividends until you accept the new one!" Transparency? Yeah whatever. Communication? Yeah whatever. 2 week mining period? Yeah whatever. Original contract? Yeah whatever. Moving shares to an exchange where they can be traded? Yeah whatever.
To be honest I hope these guys manage to win in court and take every piece of hardware we paid for away from his possession. That is if he hasn't already hidden away a portion of the hardware in a private pool the moment it was purchased or already stolen a large portion of the dividends which don't seem to add up. It's not like there is anyway for us to know. Is it wise to blindly have faith in some guy over the internet? Sure I might make a tiny percentage of my investment back if he goes unpunished but I would rather lose that for the sake of justice. I would love to believe that all this was a result of honest mistakes on Zach's part but my logic doesn't permit that.
At this point there isn't a doubt in my mind that this is merely the result of greed. Results speak for themselves. We didn't get the hashing power we were supposedly going to get. We no longer have rights as shareholders. We aren't able to trade our shares on an exchange. We just started not receiving the "discretionary" bonus. We are completely in the dark about everything an investor would normally be aware of regarding his/her investment. BUT we are able to buy more contracts!!! Just give MORE money to Zach and expect nothing in return! It all adds up!
|
|
|
|
Zach claims he wants to show those that won't listen how its going to be. What condition exists that prevents him from holding on to the dividends of those that are not yet prepared to accept the new contracts based on faith? I can't think of any reason. Can you? It's not as if faith is a common way of doing business anyway. Logic tells me that if he really wanted to show us how it's going to be in good faith he wouldn't steal our dividends. He would simply demonstrate his point and go on to allow others to convert to the new contract WITHOUT stealing their dividends. How do you explain this?
I'm getting into deep water here... What follows is my opinion, based on what Lab_Rat has posted, and having seen at least one episode of "Law & Order". (ie: I'm not a lawyer, and may well be way off base, and this is in no way an "Official LRM Response".) Lab_Rat has posted in general terms that the issue was due to problems with bonds being "proportional", and that in order to avoid issues, they needed to represent a fixed hash rate. The solution to this problem is embodied in the new contract -- essentially a fixed hash rate, but with the option for LRM to issue at it's sole discretion "bonus hashrate". Speculation on my part: It may well be that if Lab_Rat makes any promises or representations about what this bonus is, or how it relates to hardware, or anything else then suddenly the contracts are (potentially) proportional again. It's quite possible his lawyer has told him to say nothing about the bonus, period, for this reason. End wild speculation. And as a contract holder, you have to be in one camp or the other, not half-way between the two. grnbrg. That's where my problem lies. There is no good reason for the 2 available camps to be defined the way they are. Are you familiar with the phrase "between a rock and a hard place"? Even if what you just wildly speculated is true it doesn't adequately answer the question. There is STILL no sufficient reason to steal the dividends of those that don't agree immediately. You are talking about the over all situation with the "bonus". I am specifically talking about the decision to not hold the bonus for an extra 2 weeks after May 10th (Besides, some investors may not be following this thread at the time. Why should they randomly lose their right to the bonus? I don't recall the original contract stating that you should be following this thread like a hawk if you don't want to lose your dividends). The bonds being proportional or not have nothing to do with this. Still can't think of a logical reason? |
|
|
|
@grnbrg
1) So what do you think (honestly) about the way Zach has been handling the situation? Are you comfortable with it?
2) Are you satisfied with the (lack of) answers we received at the AMA?
3) Do you think it's OK to steal the dividends of all the investors that don't have faith in the almighty lab_rat? Since when is skepticism supposed to be punished?
4) What do you plan on doing if Zach doesn't have your best interest in mind after all and decides to put his own interest before yours after you have lost all rights to your investment?
1) I think he has been doing his best to deal with the issues that were not foreseen in July last year in a way that A) Keeps him out of jail. B) Fairly benefits the investors. C) Keeps LRM operating. And in that order, although B & C are closely related. 2) Overall, about what I expected. I would have liked more detail on what hardware has been purchased, what has been delivered and what is yet undelivered (and when it is expected to arrive) but I didn't expect to hear that. I have no "business" experience, but do understand that there are things that businesses keep confidential. I also understand that he is limited in what he can comment on because "releasing information that is not mine to release would destroy relationships built with manufacturers". 3) In a perfect world, I would have preferred that a change in contract not have to occur. Since it appears to be needed, then the new contract needs a start date. Since (for better or worse) we now have all of the information we're going to get to make the choice, two weeks is not unreasonable. 4) I think if LRM fails it is far more likely going to be due to a lawsuit filed by investors who don't think they have been treated the way they thought they were going to be, than by Lab_Rat lining his pockets. And if it does fail, I will be annoyed that yet another Bitcoin-related investment that I've tried my hand at has bitten me, but only annoyed. I went into this with the attitude of "no more than I can afford to lose", and to date have seen at least some return on that investment. Admittedly less than "buy and hold", but I knew going in that this was going to be risky. So as long as Lab_Rat isn't sailing around on a yacht that we bought (which I find highly unlikely) I'll chalk it up as an entertaining couple of years. tl;dr In my opinion, I don't think Lab_Rat's intentions have changed since he started LRM, and I thought it was worth backing then. I see no reason to do anything but continue forward. And the above is backed by ~1750 contracts. I'd like to see some of the more negative posters volunteer how much skin they have in this game. I know some of loudest have significant holdings, but not all of them. grnbrg. I can see you have faith in Lab_Rat. I really wish I knew why. All sorts of scam alarms are going off in my mind because I can't find any rational explanation other than personal profit driven behavior for many of Zach's decisions. Lets take for example question number 3 which you answered(?) in a very diplomatic way and logically go through this together. Perhaps I'm missing something. Zach claims he wants to show those that won't listen how its going to be. What condition exists that prevents him from holding on to the dividends of those that are not yet prepared to accept the new contracts based on faith? I can't think of any reason. Can you? It's not as if faith is a common way of doing business anyway. Logic tells me that if he really wanted to show us how it's going to be in good faith he wouldn't steal our dividends. He would simply demonstrate his point and go on to allow others to convert to the new contract WITHOUT stealing their dividends. How do you explain this? PS: Don't get me wrong, I really want to believe. It's just that I have learned to only accept things in life based on logic and reason. Faith doesn't cut it for me especially when there are indications to the contrary. I'm not the religious type. |
|
|
|
|
@grnbrg
1) So what do you think (honestly) about the way Zach has been handling the situation? Are you comfortable with it?
2) Are you satisfied with the (lack of) answers we received at the AMA?
3) Do you think it's OK to steal the dividends of all the investors that don't have faith in the almighty lab_rat? Since when is skepticism supposed to be punished?
4) What do you plan on doing if Zach doesn't have your best interest in mind after all and decides to put his own interest before yours after you have lost all rights to your investment?
|
|
|
|
Wait and see. My $.02.  Are you by any chance here to promote your quickstopcoporationshop site? Following sparky999's comments I've also become curious as to why you are participating in this thread. |
|
|
|
From the past few days experience. 1) There is no way to answer questions on here reasonably as text becomes misconstrued and the individuals here are either looking to pick a fight or have been screwed over by too many people in the BTC community. If you would like to email me, feel free at labrat@labratmining.com and if you would like to request a call feel free to do so by the same means. It appears that the only way to attempt to gain the trust of those who will not listen is to just show people how it's going to be. Please note that the Bonus will be paid out to all people who have transferred to the New Contract on May 10th and 2) any and all Bonus that has accumulated or will be earned in the future will not be held for any individual. You will begin receiving the Bonus at that time (if you have already accepted) or the time of your acceptance (if later than May 10th) of the New Contract. I will be providing a link to the Old Contract exactly as it has existed since the beginning of the company via email, the website, and these forums as well as a transcript of the AMA and a link to the New Contract as soon as they are all prepared. 1) That's just not true. There has been a plethora of clear, concise questions which unfortunately for everyone you chose to ignore while actually responding to the people who are looking to pick a fight. It appears to my simple mind that you may very well be trying to create the misconception that there cannot be any rational discourse here by carefully choosing to reply to emotionally charged posts containing wild exaggerated accusations while ignoring the questions and posts that could clear everything right up. Is it really that hard to see how this leads to ever greater mistrust between you and the bond/shareholders? No it is not. Another reason why I no longer trust you. 2) Please clarify what exactly you mean when you say the bonus will not be held for any individual. Perhaps I misunderstood. Are you saying that whoever doesn't accept the contract change within the next 10 days will forfeit the accumulated bonus and then all subsequent bonuses until complying with your new rules? PLEASE tell me that you aren't trying to force people into accepting your new terms by way of coercion. What is your reasoning behind this? WHY in the world should their dividends not be held? And if so what do you plan on doing with the dividends you steal from them by employing this scare tactic? This is rather disconcerting considering the fact that these dividends are right after a large increase in hashrate and will be one of the rare valuable dividends since difficulty will continue to rise.... We are growing VERY tired of being presented with these UNNECESSARY horrible dilemmas. Just hold on to the dividends you owe people UNTIL this is resolved. How difficult is that? Being honest is just as easy as being dishonest. It's a choice. You can still demonstrate your plan without just taking skeptic bond/shareholders money! Just payout whoever still trusts you and decides to move to the new contract the precise amount that is analogous to their rightful share and quit playing games with us... |
|
|
|
And you base this on:
1) nothing
2) absolutely nothing
3) unsubstantiated assumptions
4) all of the above
Assholes? Seriously?
Not everyone can follow others in blind faith buddy. Especially after repeated breaches of trust. Scams happen all the time. How are you so certain you aren't being scammed? I'm rather curious as to if you have even read through this thread...
In your fantastic theory what exactly was stopping labrat from discussing these concerns you assume he had with bondholders? It's not like we have a thread on a forum where the company was started and discussion can occur. In fact the only person not willing to discuss much of anything at all was labrat himself.
I stated at the beginning of my post that this was my understanding of the situation, and I didn't ask for your input on it, or anyone else's for that matter. This is the thought process that led me to ask this direct question to LabRat and is required for him to understand the meaning of my question. I will no longer reply to anyone else about the content of my previous post. Thanks for your understanding.  Oh I understand alright... |
|
|
|
Here is my understanding of the situation.
Given that :
1. LabRat has realised that the company is doomed to fail soon with only a 25% reinvestment rate.
2. LabRat has become uneasy about the few people threatening to sue left and right.
The following happened :
3. LabRat needed to change the policy for a bigger reinvestment rate (to avoid the failure of the company).
4. LabRat needed to use a lawyer to craft a new contract which allow for the new reinvestment rate without being at risk of being sued by the few assholes in (2).
5. Everything LabRat has said since then in the new contract and AMA is his lawyer speaking through him, which is obviously going to protect him legally speaking.
I want to say I am from the silent majority/minority (who knows at this point) that have been supporting LabRat in every decision he made before this legal mumbo-jumbo.
LabRat has always been honest with us in his intentions from the beginning (until he lawyered up), even if he never told much detail about what is going on with LRM on a day to day basis.
He always said that he wanted the company to grow and our share to grow with it, and kept this word until now.
The new system allows the company to still be profitable and increase our payout while remaining legally protected.
_________________________________________
My question for LabRat is the following :
Do you intend to keep the same philosophy you always kept until now (for us to profit from the company's growth at your side) or has that changed in any way (since you might have lost respect for the people outlined in (2), for example)? The change could include but is not limited to diluting the shares, preventing us from profiting of the discretionary bonus hashrate.
If your philosophy is still the same, I will be one to go through with the change of contract, since this whole thing has always been trust-based, and I personally think that every decision you took before profited us as investors.
BTW, this question is in no way legal advice and is purely about your personal philosophy/ethics.
And you base this on: 1) nothing 2) absolutely nothing 3) unsubstantiated assumptions 4) all of the above Assholes? Seriously? Not everyone can follow others in blind faith buddy. Especially after repeated breaches of trust. Scams happen all the time. How are you so certain you aren't being scammed? I'm rather curious as to if you have even read through this thread... In your fantastic theory what exactly was stopping labrat from discussing these concerns you assume he had with bondholders? It's not like we have a thread on a forum where the company was started and discussion can occur. In fact the only person not willing to discuss much of anything at all was labrat himself. |
|
|
|
Hey Zach, how about instead of only responding to emotional, badly written posts you respond to this one instead. @Zach
1. Why was the original contract not posted at the same time as this new contract? You had plenty of time to ensure a copy of the file was on the appropriate computer.
2. Why when you changed the first contract to 100Mh/s fixed contracts from share of mining revenue contracts were we not given a new contract but when you change for a second time we are given a new contract?
3. Is it correct to assume that there was never a new contract for that change and that you decided at your own discretion to interpret the original contract as only needing to meet 100Mh/s to full fill your obligations? If so why should bondholders have any faith that you will act in a way commensurate with the original 'share of hashrate' contract manner going forward.
4. If you were in our position how would you feel about this change you are effectively forcing on people?
5. DO you believe that bondholders have a legitimate grievance?
6. Do you feel that you are currently acting in a manner consistent with the original goals of LRM as set out under the original 'share of hashrate' bonds?
7. Do you feel that refusing to disclose the legal issue surrounding this change is wise given that you only leave shareholders one line of recourse to find out the truth (legal discovery process)?
8. Do you feel that refusing to disclose the legal issues surrounding this change is wise considering that you told us you would disclose the legal issue as soon as you could?
9. Why should bondholders trust that you are going to act in good faith going forward and provide the bonus payments in line with the original 'share of hashrate' bonds that you sold us?
10. What date and time will you meet major shareholders for a conference call?
11. Why was it ok to split bonds from 300Mh/s to 3 x 100Mh/s but it would not be ok to do this again in the future? i.e. why can't the new 100Mh/s bonds increase to 300Mh/s and then be split again back to 100Mh/s and so on and so forth. I fit was legal to do this once surely the process is repeatable?
12. Can you see hwy it appears to most bondholders that you are trying to worm your way out of your obligations? What assurances can you give that this is not the case?
|
|
|
|
|
According to the Labrat-Merriam-Webster dictionary:
troll noun \ˈtrōl\
Definition of TROLL:
An annoying person who resists attempts to hustle him by using rational discourse. A troll will usually ask logical questions after having funded an operation without receiving what he/she was promised in return. Trolls react to getting ignored for months.
Example:
-BFL_Josh: I'm getting really tired of those damn trolls we sold pre-orders to, they are complaining about not having yet received the hardware we promised them 2 weeks™ 1 year ago!
Synonyms:
bondholder, prey, victim, benefactor
|
|
|
|
|
On a more serious note this situation is a false dichotomy.
Zach is creating the illusion that there are only 2 options for bondholders to chose between. He has named his recent contract change to capped bonds "the original contract" and is claiming that we must chose between the new contract where we have zero guarantees of any sort and the "original" contract which is NOT the original contract.
The refusal to justify any of his scammy behavior by claiming he does not provide legal advice is just comical.
As is already evident by his previous lack of accountability with the 2 week mining for hardware period being extended to pretty much whatever he pleased despite what was agreed upon, unnecessary complete lack of communication, affiliation with BFL, false claims of moving the asset to an exchange, not posting the new contract until the AMA had already started, complete lack of transparency and refusal to answer any meaningful questions it's becoming obvious to almost all of us that Zach cannot be trusted.
As time is progressing Zach is somehow finding him self in control of more and more of our money and we bondholders are finding ourselves in control of less and less of our original investment.
Do we really want to hand over absolute power to this thus far very flaky unreliable person with the knowledge that accepting this false dichotomy may very well be the last we ever see of our money and the beginning of a new very wealthy life for the person that has been deceiving us?
|
|
|
|
|
