My guess is that Labrat is trying to avoid defining anything as actual bonds or shares. Doing so may require certain requirements be fulfilled. From the beginning, the term "bond" was only used for lack of better term. Even in some of my oldest posts I would put bonds in quotes. And there's probably a reason LR didn't call these shares. Anyway, if you noticed, LR isn't saying bonds anymore, he's calling them 'contracts'. There could easily be a good reason behind this... I simply don't think this is all that serious anymore, or at least if it is serious, I do think that a solution is probably somewhere to be found.

For example, why not rewrite the "contract" or simply redefine LRM as a hosting company of our hardware with Labrat acting as manager. Or find an asset protection specialist and see if moving everything into a trust could free up more options.

So, because I think a solution is achievable and I'm going to assume Labrat actually wants LRM to be successful, I now think the status of new hardware (and future hardware) is more important than this restructuring of the btc distribution schema.

Found an almost exact analogy...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Shared_Agriculture

The 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.

First of all, to get that, he should have reached us when this "legal" problems came, that way, we can work out a solution, as he claims he's been on this for weeks and we just got the "screw them" solution.

I've different definitions of his management in general, let alone a huge dissapointment on the "solution" he never tried to discuss, he just posted it.

Yes, now he knows. I think they will not be anymore best friends
And if he knew...well the word "rat" comes into my mind.

Does Grnbrg know?

What about ending LRM and starting a new company when the new hardware arrives and selling bonds for 1 satoshi each .

My point.

Also, Are divs on hold indefinately until this is resolved 'Two Weeks^TM'

With fixed Hashrate you would still pay variable payout... It will change each week..  

The 'original' IPO contract states 0.25 BTC for a 'minimum' of 100MH/s.

This works both ways, you refund all bonds held at 100MH/s at a price of 0.25 BTC for however long that takes with future hardware purchases bought with BTC invested.

Failing that refund all bonds at their original purchase price you can interrogate the blockchain - that is what it is there for.

Legally the IPO is not 'fit for purpose' so a refund 'at any time' of all investments means no one is out of pocket - a great idea crushed by 'the man'. Effectively unwinding all financial possitions held.

The honorable thing to do, no?

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

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'd like to know more on the specifics of the 'legal pressure'.  I'm really surprised that bitcoin is having such a tough time considering most politicians and lobbyists seem to LOVE suitcases full of cash... they should REALLY love bitcoin... anyway, I digress.  

Considering bondholders have just seen their bond values slashed by about 85% or so with this announcement, I'm in the mood for some beer I think.

Would liquidating the hardware and distributing the proceeds to bondholders to recoup a decent portion of the bitcoin we invested be an option as epoch suggested?  Whatever the cause, a significant amount of joy has been killed for bondholders and I am sure Lab_Rat as well.

I'm asking myself how Buzzdave from megabigpower can run the 100 th mine and build one of the biggest Mine in US and you...you don't...

How about answering about what are you planning to do with the hardware and the hundreds of thousands of dollars invested in new hardware.

You know we're standing at nearly 500mh per bond and with incoming hardware we were heading up to more than 1.5gh per bond?

Can we pick if you deserve to be paid managament , if you call this management?

thanks - I deleted my previous post when I realized investors did pay for the hardware that has not arrived yet but are only getting "credit" for the hardware in hand. That's a loose end that should get tied up.

I've been negative in the past, but I applaud this - this actually is great and is something that can make LRM sustainable. This move clears up nearly all of my concerns in the past and allows bond prices to stabilize and allows investors to properly value bonds. Basically turning LRM into a cex.io like operation.

Does the 100 MH/s include fees/expenses or are they taken out in addition to fees and expenses?

This was a really great move, I'm impressed (really, not sarcastic).

there's nothing wrong with constant deflation of bond value, it is natural and just means each investor gets to choose their reinvestment rate rather than being tied in at 25% like before.

I've attacked him for 1 year+, now I find myself defending him! All he is doing is changing from 25% reinvestment to 0%, giving you the extra 25% and allowing you to choose how to reinvest it. Fees now, most likely, are taken out prior to your 100 MH/s - so everything is very transparent and fair.


EDIT: it's going to mega-suck for current bond holders as the market adjusts to these new prices, but the new LRM is actually going to be a better investment than the previous.