Crypto may be the land of instant gratification... the real world still operates 9-5 M-F.
Thank you!!! To anyone dictating how fast my lawyers will work, that's just not going to happen. I don't even dictate how fast they work. Reading hundreds of pages of legal mumbo jumbo takes time. |
|
|
|
This is way too true. The only issue is that if I paid out all of Z, I would be in a lot of red....
The Z amount would, of course, be less the agreed percentage that LRM would have kept per the terms of the original contract. The original contract did not specify an amount that LRM is using to operate the company. I decided a 75/25 split sounded appropriate at the time, but that number can't last forever as LRM's costs are fixed and income is exponentially decreasing. At some point even with the previous payout plans it would have had to eventually change. Despite this fact, as I've stated countless times. This is an immediate fix with benefits going out to contract-holders undetermined at this time. So which is it? LRM is unsustainable at 75/25 or that "US laws" made your LLC change its terms? The 75/25 split would have been fine most of the way through 2014, not an immediate issue by any means. The legal issues requiring changes and clarification on the other hand is. More is coming on this.... |
|
|
|
This is way too true. The only issue is that if I paid out all of Z, I would be in a lot of red....
The Z amount would, of course, be less the agreed percentage that LRM would have kept per the terms of the original contract. The original contract did not specify an amount that LRM is using to operate the company. I decided a 75/25 split sounded appropriate at the time, but that number can't last forever as LRM's costs are fixed and income is exponentially decreasing. At some point even with the previous payout plans it would have had to eventually change. Despite this fact, as I've stated countless times. This is an immediate fix with benefits going out to contract-holders undetermined at this time. |
|
|
|
"this were tradable assets, so the payments are not relevant to the value of the asset but instead are a benefit of holding them." makes no legal sense whatsoever.
"Also please point me to the place where it's been stated since the beginning that these contracts are malleable." would have been up on bitfunder the entire time the "asset" was listed.
It made no sense that we could buy and sell these contracts and that value is separate from the dividends you paid? I buy a contract for .15 btc . . . receive payments for the duration then sell it to someone else for .15 (or whatever valuation is). claiming that the dividends were paying off the value of the contract is not even remotely close to how this works. There is no termination point of the contract and you have a lot of outstanding "bonds" that still haven't met fruition. Everything you sold since bitfunder's demise is not under those terms, but under the ones on these forums. It could be argued that these forums are the actual publicly identified terms, since they are were you perform your business and that sneaking things in other places is a deceptive practice. What you just stated contradicts your point. If the value of the contract is not associated with the payouts then you shouldn't have ever expected to get the amount of BTC in payouts as the contract cost you. |
|
|
|
The facts are that LRM (and just about every other mining company on earth), got steam rolled by
hardware manufacturers. This occurred because of late deliveries and prices that were too high per
gh/s. As unfortunate as that is, LRM cannot be blamed for that.
All we can really do is make sure that LRM took in X amount of BTC, converted it to Y amount of $,
and purchased Z amount of hash rate. We are entitled to Z amount of hash rate divided up 58,792
ways. That is it. If that "conversion engine" does not yield > 100% BTC out for each BTC in, then we
are S.O.L. If LRM does not give us X-->Y-->Z conversion fairly, then LRM needs to be held accountable
for that.
Please enlighten me if you feel this is overly simplistic.
This is way too true. The only issue is that if I paid out all of Z, I would be in a lot of red.... |
|
|
|
With the change to the original terms, If I do not agree, do I get my original 1 BTC investment back? Fair question, I think.
The very question implies a complete lack of understanding of the investment you have made. Your original 1 BTC investement, for accounting purposes, is converted to USD at the time it is was made. The tax system does not function under BTC - think of it as if you had bought Euros or Yen six months ago and then sold them today at a loss or a gain. Furthermore, the market is the place you go to sell your bonds (or whatever the hell they are actually supposed to be called) just like you would with any company where you wanted to sell your stake. There is no right of redemption in the "real world" of investments, nor should one be implied with any investment in the wild west of BTC land. I do not intend this reply as a defense of LRM or any other company in the world of BTC but rather as a comment on the seemingly basic and essential lack of understanding regarding accounting and business that seems to come through loud and clear when the shit hits the fan(s). Also, while I took a pretty hard stance towards LRM in my initial reaction to this situation, I await further guidance from Zach, particularly in regards to the disposition of the incoming hardware, before a decision that this is bad or good. In fact, this may turn out very, very well not only for us but also for the entire space that this kind of business is working within. Its the bleeding edge people, get your red blood cell count up because you might bleed a little more before its done. This is correct, your original investment could have been in the range of $80, so 0.12BTC in hand that LRM has paid you is equivalent in the eyes of the US. this were tradable assets, so the payments are not relevant to the value of the asset but instead are a benefit of holding them. Also please point me to the place where it's been stated since the beginning that these contracts are malleable. "this were tradable assets, so the payments are not relevant to the value of the asset but instead are a benefit of holding them." makes no legal sense whatsoever. "Also please point me to the place where it's been stated since the beginning that these contracts are malleable." would have been up on bitfunder the entire time the "asset" was listed. |
|
|
|
With the change to the original terms, If I do not agree, do I get my original 1 BTC investment back? Fair question, I think.
The very question implies a complete lack of understanding of the investment you have made. Your original 1 BTC investement, for accounting purposes, is converted to USD at the time it is was made. The tax system does not function under BTC - think of it as if you had bought Euros or Yen six months ago and then sold them today at a loss or a gain. Furthermore, the market is the place you go to sell your bonds (or whatever the hell they are actually supposed to be called) just like you would with any company where you wanted to sell your stake. There is no right of redemption in the "real world" of investments, nor should one be implied with any investment in the wild west of BTC land. I do not intend this reply as a defense of LRM or any other company in the world of BTC but rather as a comment on the seemingly basic and essential lack of understanding regarding accounting and business that seems to come through loud and clear when the shit hits the fan(s). Also, while I took a pretty hard stance towards LRM in my initial reaction to this situation, I await further guidance from Zach, particularly in regards to the disposition of the incoming hardware, before a decision that this is bad or good. In fact, this may turn out very, very well not only for us but also for the entire space that this kind of business is working within. Its the bleeding edge people, get your red blood cell count up because you might bleed a little more before its done. This is correct, your original investment could have been in the range of $80, so 0.12BTC in hand that LRM has paid you is equivalent in the eyes of the US. |
|
|
|
I am not averse to the risk associated with the purchase of the bonds and I am aware that the investment may lose value. I am simply averse to the new terms implemented by the management of LRM. My risk was, still is and should only be pinned to the bitcoin markets et. al, not the seeming whims of LRM to change the terms without my explicit consent.
So, if I do not agree with the new terms do I get my original investment back in kind? I still believe this to be a completely fair question.
Now it was worded with respect and reason as well as direction so I know how to respond. Please read my post above. I'm not looking to screw anyone over, but I'm going to do what I have to. Also notice that there are disclaimers allowing for the contract to be changed as necessary to maintain legality and that contract holders do not have voting rights. |
|
|
|
no we are expecting a complete picture when you drop a bombshell and for you to responsibly present information
I'm working on doing so and all I have done is provide an immediate fix that does fit into the original contract promises, with the intent to find a way to benefit early contract purchasers as more hardware comes in. |
|
|
|
Many questions were posted last night. Please allow time before my responses as I'm not going be sitting infront of the computer 24/7. If you want something to actually get done that is.
I'm sorry but it took me about 15 minutes to read all the posts last night, and about 10 minutes while working to catch up this morning. I am confused why this takes you 24/7 to accomplish, and what I think what we would all like to know is what the hell you are doing when you aren't posting here. But how many hours were in between? People are expecting a response within 5 minutes of their post. |
|
|
|
No new hardware is in yet.
To clarify the current change. If you had 1 contract @ ~280MH/s you now have 3 @ 100MH/s.
Hi Zach - does this mean that the 1 --> 3 conversion is done as of now? Also, will your consultations with legal today permit you to inform us of the disposition of the inbound hardware? Thx It has been done as an immediate fix, but the business world does not operate on same day basis unfortunately. I can beg and plead for information today and I'll get answers by the end of the week if I'm lucky. I've dealt with many lawyers - you direct and instruct them - never beg & plead  . They do, afterall, work for you. Unless, of course, they are working against you. I understand what you mean but you misunderstood the fact that I will "instruct and direct" and then beg for official documents and statutes... |
|
|
|
With the change to the original terms, If I do not agree, do I get my original 1 BTC investment back? Fair question, I think.
You have received part of this in weekly payments as long as you have held contracts with LRM. Also there are disclaimers in the contract stating I am not required to buy-back contracts and that all investments carry risk. I'm working on getting things going in a manner that everyone can agree on. Please just don't throw out ridiculous statements and end it with "fair question." That is equivalent to people who say "I don't mean to sound racist" and include the N word 5 times in one sentence. |
|
|
|
There are certain important connections that are still in place, but there are things changing in the BTC hardware manufacturing community that are not my place to comment on.
Actually you are the only one who can comment on them and how they pertain to LRM. No I can't as they are not my companies and releasing information that is not mine to release would destroy relationships built with manufacturers. |
|
|
|
No new hardware is in yet.
To clarify the current change. If you had 1 contract @ ~280MH/s you now have 3 @ 100MH/s.
Hi Zach - does this mean that the 1 --> 3 conversion is done as of now? Also, will your consultations with legal today permit you to inform us of the disposition of the inbound hardware? Thx It has been done as an immediate fix, but the business world does not operate on same day basis unfortunately. I can beg and plead for information today and I'll get answers by the end of the week if I'm lucky. |
|
|
|
|
There are certain important connections that are still in place, but there are things changing in the BTC hardware manufacturing community that are not my place to comment on.
|
|
|
|
lab_rat, do you forget your ipo terms, the share's original price is about 0.15B, drop to 0.05B bacause of lack of liquidity when the exchange is closed, so actually the bond is underestimated.
some day ago you annouce to us the company 's hashrate will rise to 250TH（he deletes contemptibly these announces in the office website）. Now you decide the bond just worth 300mh as the value as 0.005B, the whole hashrate is only(300mh*60000=18TH), even less than current hashrate 50TH.
Do you think the bondowners are so stupid to bully. I suggest all the bondowners to sue and arrest labrat, a infamous fraud, and put him into the blacklist of bitcointalk and the whole bitcoin world.
I don't know where you got 50TH from? |
|
|
|
|
No new hardware is in yet.
To clarify the current change. If you had 1 contract @ ~280MH/s you now have 3 @ 100MH/s.
|
|
|
|
|
Many questions were posted last night. Please allow time before my responses as I'm not going be sitting infront of the computer 24/7. If you want something to actually get done that is.
|
|
|
|
Granted, that is true. However, what I am suggesting is soliciting the help of community members, individuals who operate enterprises of a similar nature to LRM, or anyone who may have information that is helpful. I'm suggesting being open to help from them rather than writing them off as not being similar enough - someone may have something to contribute, if only you were to solicit the help. If LRM hasn't been operating illegally this whole time, then there is no harm in talking in the open about what challenges we face and how we can productively overcome them. If LRM has been operating illegally this whole time then I can understand your hesitance to ask for help and talk about specifics.
Bottom line: Ask the community for help regardless of how well versed you think they are.
The closest would be James Gibson's giga/teramining ventures as they are in the US and have handled issues in the past, but they are fixed hashrate payout schemes, not variable. |
|
|
|
Found an almost exact analogy... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Shared_AgricultureThe way those work here is you buy a "share" in the commodities produced by the farm and each week you get your share of production. The people who buy shares don't own the farm, just it's output. Find legal basis for those, structure LRM accordingly. This is interesting. What have you been doing with your spare time? If our investment is important to you, and LRM as a company is important to you, then I implore you to use the brains in this community to problem solve this and then make actual practical decisions and actions based on the bondholders input and guidance. This is our money after all. Make a post soliciting help, contact the bitcoin foundation, contact anyone with any experience in this who runs a legitimate buisness - talk to CEX.io, talk to ANYONE... rather than just stay silent as the ship sinks. 1) Solicit help. 2) Make informed descisions. 3) Take positive action. 4) Quell the masses with pitchforks and torches. CEX.io is on a different boat than LRM, although they are definitely breaching MSB issues within the US whether they operate in or out of the country. EDIT: also going to be flying out to meet with a well respected business lawyer rather soon who has also handled Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
