|
All I have requested is zach's lawyers contact info, I gave him 3 days to respond. I have been completely reasonable.
|
|
|
|
|
Zach please respond to my email request for your lawyers details. Any actions that are filed can be dropped the second you realise an equitable solution but your failure to disclose that information upon request from a shareholder is extremely suspect.
|
|
|
|
|
@labrat can you please just confirm that there is circa 150Th due to arrive imminently?
|
|
|
|
For what its worth, I get the impression LR is fully intending to "do right" by investors/customers - he is in a hard position and simply (in my mind) chose the wrong solution.
Compared to other companies LR has done very very well for us and after a brief personal exchange with him my genuine feeling is that it is his intention to continue doing so.
So he does respond to emails, just not the ones requesting his lawyers details. OK, got it. Thanks. |
|
|
|
There are issues with a percentage being considered shares and a contract being considered a sale. I will attempt to clarify more over the course of next week when I have more legal documentation to explain.
Also, I've done the math and liquidating the company's assets will turn out worse for the contract-holders as well as myself (rather than paying out "dividends").
Hardware just doesn't sell for what it did in may 2013......
There is no issue with a contract being called a sale in virtually any jurisdiction in the world Zach. Cell phones anyone? The only way this is going to end is with a lot of lawsuits for breach of contract. |
|
|
|
|
What about ending LRM and starting a new company when the new hardware arrives and selling bonds for 1 satoshi each .
|
|
|
|
How about answering about what are you planning to do with the hardware and the hundreds of thousands of dollars invested in new hardware.
I've stated I'm working on the specifics of this. Could existing bond holders buy more bonds at a proportional rate to their existing holding for say 1 satoshi. This would solve the problem, no? Would prob mean no new bondhders though. I have considered something like this and will be presenting more information as I determine the legality of certain methods I'd like to use to ease the transition. I can't see why this wouldn't work if no new bond holders are allowed to join. I'm not an expert on your local law though. I think I know the issue your having and as long as money changes hands for new bonds there shouldn't be an issue. Capping purchases at a proportional amount to ownership May be an issue but bond holders could hv a hand shake agreement to only purchase their fair share |
|
|
|
|
Re-sell the incoming hardware at as close to retail as possible and distribute divs is the only other reasonable solution I can think of
|
|
|
|
How about answering about what are you planning to do with the hardware and the hundreds of thousands of dollars invested in new hardware.
I've stated I'm working on the specifics of this. Could existing bond holders buy more bonds at a proportional rate to their existing holding for say 1 satoshi. This would solve the problem, no? Would prob mean no new bondhders though. |
|
|
|
|
Sigh, sad to be proved right.
|
|
|
|
Can Lab_rat make an appearance please , Please don't shy away from pissed of investors & lots of unanswered questions for quite some time now.  hahahahaha thanx for that always good to start the morning off with a laugh. |
|
|
|
Producing a financial at the end of the month does nothing for anyone since no-one has any shares in this "company" that they can do anything with.
Ken continues to respond with one line responses and ignores the questions being asked even by his own cheerleaders.
We continue to have zero evidence there is anything going on at all.
I am doubtful a U.S. company is going to be able to perform an audit on a company based in Belize. Even if it Ken himself is located in the U.S., the audit would not be on him but the company itself. You might as well find someone here that lives near Ken that isn't considered a fanboy and have them meet him and look at the books and see the evidence and report back. If that can't be done, there is no point to anything else going on here.
I think this is all just a waste of time. If there was evidence to suggest anything was happening, Ken would have posted it. The financials are just smoke and mirrors. You wait for nothing because you have nothing to get.
I am not talking about just a financial audit it would include looking through all the details of all the failed chips so far and assesing what went wrong and why and if it will happen again in the future, hence we need someone with expertise in ASIC's. Which is why I suggested contacting the bitcoin foundation to see if they could recommend someone. |
|
|
|
|
We need 3 options and a simple vote - if you want to vote then you pay your % of the cost of the audit. I think that is the fairest way to do it.
|
|
|
|
|
What about contacting the Bitcoin foundation and ask them to recommend someone?
|
|
|
|
|
I've been advised that the best first step we as shareholders could make is to have the company audited by an independent third party, if necessary funded by us as a group.
I can see no reason why Ken should not allow this unless he has something to hide - it would cost the company nothing, the information would only be provided to actual shareholders and not released into the public domain. IT would prove once and for all if our situation is a result of a scam or just simple mismanagement and incompetence and would provide us with physical evidence one way or the other. There are 3-4 members of staff that are just twiddling their thumbs at the moment and have been for the last 6 months at least, I'm sure they can find time to pull up whatever documents the auditor requires.
@Ken - will you allow an independent third party chosen by shareholders to do a full audit of the company? The shareholders will agree to collectively fund the audit and reimburse the company for any staff hours lost due to the audit.
I suggest we all continue to ask this question from Ken until we get a definitive response. If he refuses to allow this I think we have our answer as to whether or not this is an outright scam or not.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't care how low their post counts are, all of their points are perfectly valid and I agree with most of what they have said.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think this started out as a scam but has simply turned into one through Ken's incompetence and failure to be able to achieve what he thought he could at the start. When the price hiked late last year and Ken found out he had totally screwed up the eAsic chip design he realised he could refund all the orders and still have made a fiat profit. He is now just doing the same thing all over again hoping the bitcoin price will spike again so he can refund any of the orders for the 55nm chips that he had listed on the website. We will never see a chip but Ken will keep repeating the same scam every time the price hikes.
It's going to be hilarious when Ken turns round next week with Bitcoin back at $900 and be like oh yeah we are doing 55nm again but we missed our slot with UMC so chips won't be here till September.
|
|
|
|
|
Can anyone offer up a plausible reason for his behaviour?
|
|
|
|
|
I have never said I think the bonds are worth less than .03 which is what I could get if I sold now. That doesn't make any of lab rats behavior over the last month acceptable. If he had not logged into bitcoin talk in the last month I would be a lot more understanding but that is not the case he is choosing to ignore us for a reason and that is not ok with me and I am stunned you guys think its fine. If he had even continued to just post dividend details I would be a lot less frustrated but this wall of silence is deafening.
|
|
|
|
A statement that Zach doesnt care anymore is FUD..... no more FUD please - for your own sake more than mine based on your holdings.
that statement is as much FUD as the statement "LRM is sustainable" is FUD. There really is no data either way. The burden of proof is on LR, and proving the project is sustainable is what investors/customers are paying him to do. He's not just getting paid to install mining hardware. He's a CEO, but he acts more like someone that really likes mining hardware and not financial statements, projections, corporate accountability, and accounting. Nothing about the coinseed deal nor the secret ASIC project has been presented at all that shows if it is a good or bad deal for LRM. We know it's a great deal for LR (he got a job and he gets paid on hashrate regardless of whether the company fails), but no one knows if it's a good deal for LRM. Thank you |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
