I'm going to sign the new contract.
300 plus bonus will in all likelihood be better than 300 no bonus.

No, it's not ideal but if Zach's intent is good we can all continue to make money. Many here have chosen to punish Zach for the fact he's not obligated to pay a bonus. How about we reserve punishment for when/if he fails to pay a proper bonus or fails to supply us with adequate info after the new contract is in place?
  

From the past few days experience.  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 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.

My choice of word wasn't directed at anybody specifically, it is more of a general feeling that I (and I'm sure a few others) have about people spreading FUD since the beginning of the whole LRM project.
Oh and yeah, I read every since word of the thread since page 1, the day it all started. This might be pertinent background information.

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.

From the past few days experience.  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 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.

I should have been greedy too and didn't return the extra dividends and sold my "contracts" directly ...
Lab_rat can you give a a way to go out of this mess ? are you planning to buy back contracts something like IPO price - dividends ? (if you don't got the BTC refund your BFL crap)

I got BFLed, goxxed and now lab_rated...

Does anyone believe that LabRat will ever deliver this so called "bonus"??

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?

@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?

Clearly you've never been a BFL customer.