"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. Careful Enlessa, your assertions of deception are completely unfounded. Kindly go back and read the materials. If anyone has a snapshot of the original LRM pages from Bitfunder it may be helpful to post it here again |
|
|
|
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 we are expecting a complete picture when you drop a bombshell and for you to responsibly present information when you reduce the value of our investment to 0.001% of your previous valuation of bonds. This too, whats currently on the website just pooped all over this investment. I put in 13 coins I expected 13 back, with the current proposition ill never see that happen. correction: 0.01% of original value (forgot the percent contains two decimals, don't want to exaggerate) Again, not defending LRM here but you have a paper loss until you dispose of your bonds. And, are you counting in BTC or USD? Counting in BTC losses and gains is a complete and utter fallacy when it comes to investing. It misses the point. Yes, you COULD have had more BTC IF you had done something different with it before. And BTC MIGHT have dropped to $1 in the meantime. Come one people...... get a grip and deal with the reality of the circumstances at hand and not what MIGHT have been IF I only just.......[fill in your regrets here] |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
Enjoy the coins whilst you still can! If WHEN the dev is able to open his shop it will never be this easy to mine again!
FTFY |
|
|
|
Why no love for hashfever, it is a good mid sized pool running now.
Why do you say that ? The big difference between hashfever and the others, they don't spam (but they have about 600Mhash/s) Something is wrong with Hashfevers pool rate, they can't have 700Mh/s and dedicated over 1000Mh/s with Net at only 1.9 mh/s. Dashboard has to be off. Don't know about hashfever backend, but net hashrate is about 1.9 Gh/s. Are you sure you're reading it right? So does Hashfever really have 1/3 of the net hash? Oh, I misunderstood what you were saying. Maybe... I haven't mined there, but people have been asking to spread the hashrate since some pool is getting a monopoly. There's been talk about it for the last 3-4 pages. I'm saying there is NO F#IN way that Hashfever's dashboard numbers are correct. Can HASHFEVER pool OP CHIME IN HERE? I agree and that is why I left for a p2p pool |
|
|
|
www.omargpools.ca:9404Come mine 1% Fee Canadian Hosted P2Pool!!! Spread the hash to prevent a fork and join a P2Pool! come on Canada! Lets show this coin what we've got - join this P2P pool to reduce hashrate concentration I am getting a bunch of work restart requests here... Completely normal with P2Pool See http://whatisp2pool.com/ to learn more about P2Pools All good for me - 2.14% reject rate - I'm not worried about it ATM - will reassess after we get settled Nice to see some more joining here |
|
|
|
www.omargpools.ca:9404Come mine 1% Fee Canadian Hosted P2Pool!!! Spread the hash to prevent a fork and join a P2Pool! come on Canada! Lets show this coin what we've got - join this P2P pool to reduce hashrate concentration |
|
|
|
2.1 Mh/s over to you - connecting well |
|
|
|
It's funny that DedicatedPool has 755MH/s of the network total of 975MH/s!!! That's only 77% of the coin's hashrate all from one pool!  Really - hashfever says it has about 51% of the hashrate - the numbers are not adding up |
|
|
|
@ MrE78
the things is if like all other coins once it hits the market it will be at a high value but after a couple of days that value will decrease and continue to dos so. just like every other coin. because there is another coin coming out every five minutes at the moment. specially now with the markets doing soo badly.
don't you get it? This coin can be different. Market will drop? Of course. But as long as everyone mines, and saves coins for a card/gpu, or other product from the store, the price will stabilize and find its place in the world. Not die, like all the new shitcoins coming out every day. Only one dumping coins in large quantities should be the CEO, to buy more stock for the store. This coins success could start a new trend that is the point of all cryptos, not a quick buck, but the ability to use the coin to barter for real world products and services. waltsmith Another very important point here is that the dev and CEO have not retained ANY of the premined coins unless they also bought into the IPO. All premines are going to IPO and bounties. |
|
|
|
Pretty slick site - it will be interesting to see where the volume ends up. Registered and send 1 GPU for test all OK |
|
|
|
I've read over the OP a few times now, and I just can't see what the issue is. 100 is specified as the bare minimum. It also says that the intent was to increase value of the bonds by adding hashrate.
We've exhausted the analysis of the known info and are venturing into speculation now, but it would seem for whatever reason, LR has assigned a fixed 100MH to each bond since that was the minimum promised, then provided a three for one split because that roughly represents the amount of hardware in hand and active now minus the 25% portion for cost of running the company.
It would stand to reason, one of two things happens now:
Hardware comes in, new 100 MH bonds are issued for sale, existing bondholders are stuffed and see their holdings decline in value every 2016 blocks.
or
Hardware comes in, additional splits occur to bring existing bondholders up to their fair share of 100MH bonds for the new hardware.
I'm really really hoping it is the latter. I would be okay with bond splits.
I appears that I may have misunderstood the intent of the OP as well. If it is the case that new 100 mh/s bonds will be issued for all new hardware that comes on line then I would be fine with that approach. Zach, please take a moment to clarify this point...... |
|
|
|
"The specifics of these statutes will be presented in a timely manner." Time is of the essence and as a result timelines are best defined clearly rather than being left open ended.
Again I would like to apologize for this seeming like I'm randomly dropping this out of thin air. I have had morality yanking on one arm and legality yanking on the other for the last 2-3 months. This is not a new development, it is just becoming a finalized one though.
A few months only for the next answer of him. Anyone knows the dox of the guy behind labrat? Yes, Zachary Dailey is well known and LRM is an incorporated LLC company in the USA - dox not an issue here |
|
|
|
CHANGE IN PAYOUT RATE STRUCTURE
Cryptocurrencies, which includes Bitcoin, are relatively new to the world economic communities and its governments. Worldwide there continues to be almost daily announcements from governments regarding crypto currencies. Lab Rat Data Processing, a Limited Liability Company in the state of New Jersey, continues to monitor those announcements and the ever-changing laws and economic environments and how those laws impact cryptocurrencies, including Bitcoin, and in particular Lab Rat Data Processing. Most important to Lab Rat Data Processing are the ever-changing laws and/or announcements from the United States and its governmental agencies and the state of New Jersey and its governmental agencies.
Based upon recent developments in US and local laws, Lab Rat Data Processing, and their legal representatives, have determined a potential current or future problem with its current rate structure, which was originally intended as a variable rate payout. Therefore, Lab Rat Data Processing is amending its variable rate payout with a set rate payout of 100 MH/s per contract. This rate payout shall be for all current contract-holders and all future contract-holders. Contemporaneous with the change from a varying rate payout to a set rate payout Lab_Rat will triple the amount of contracts held by all contract holders as of the date of March 8, 2014. Therefore, for all current contract holders on their current contracts, the effective rate will be permanently set at 300 MH/s per contract. All future contracts purchased will be at the new rate of 100MH/s.
Lab Rat Data Processing will continue to monitor developments for cryptocurrencies and Bitcoin in particular, seeking to maintain its current status as a leader in the Bitcoin community and to maintain compliance with US and New Jersey laws.
More information to come.
Here is why what you wrote is false. And why you need a new lawyer. Any supposed issue about "variable payouts" based on company performance is refuted by the fact that most companies ALREADY pay dividend based on their varying performance/growth. And each unit of ownership that receives dividends is based on a percentage of that unit per all units issued. That is exactly what each bond represents. Is paying dividends based on performance against federal or state laws? Clearly not. Nobody that paid a percentage into this expected a "bond" to stop at 100MH. That was NEVER the expectation, and if you claim it was then you need to read the original posts about LRM. We aren't that stupid. And if your lawyer wrote it up differently, then you need to ask him how you can avoid being sued for documenting on your website and these forums how hashrates would not stop at 100MH. The spirit of the matter(i.e the understood agreement) is this: The TRUE value of a bond was a fixed percentage of mining yields (not hashrate!), based on all issued bonds at any one time, and a fixed percentage is NOT VARIABLE. What ends up being mined may vary, but that is true if you fixed a bond at 100MH/bond instead of fixing it at ~1/50,000th of the 75% allotted for investors. Cutting people off from their due percentage is a setup for a lawsuit, and I'm pretty sure a majority here are willing to go all the way with a lawsuit. Especially, after all the anger built up from all the scamming going on. Your lawyer (who advised you from the beginning!) should have known exactly how this was going to work. And nobody signed a statement saying it was only going to be 100MH. If he's changing his story now, then all I can say is that this smells like a crap story that needs investigation. And you might need to seek better legal counsel, because this guy is going to get you sued big time. I hate to say it, but it seems like this is the first phases of allowing LRM to fail. And if so it would seem to have something to do with Coinseed and some new hardware opportunities. percentage. Well put ||bit. This is a very critical point. The rate of participation is fixed - earnings of the company are variable. Bonds are participatory at that fixed rate of 75%. As a result the bonds may come to be legally defined as being more akin to a share. LRM can call the bonds whatever it wants to - what matters is what the regulators and courts decide they actually are. Clearly the overwhelming sentiment of the bond holders is that we are entitled to 75% of the LRM's assets on dissolution. If this remains a question in LRM's mind it may be necessary to get this into court for preemptive clarification. I'm not stating that this is the preferred option but it may be one that needs to be forced by a few of the larger stakeholders to preserve some proportion of their investment. It is evident that the response in this forum indicates LRM's proposal is ENTIRELY unacceptable. There is still an opportunity to reconsider your proposed approach and engage the bondholders in constructive consultation on the best outcome. With this in mind Zach, kindly clarify what exactly is meant by "timely manner" in the statement "The specifics of these statutes will be presented in a timely manner." Time is of the essence and as a result timelines are best defined clearly rather than being left open ended. |
|
|
|
I would like to vote for sending HW to bondholders, who want it and then sell everything else. My bonds worth over 1TH by current HW orders have been made. There is no reason to sell just arrived HW. And as i believe, some of BF order should be in LR hand currently, and i mean new order for over 100TH he has told about.
This would also be an option if possible. But, not everyone will want to accept the hardware vs BTC. For example, if I bring hardware into Canada from the USA I will need to pay taxes on the value. This may be preferable for Zach because it is a relatively simple matter to divide up the gear and ship it as compared to selling it all. In any case, the only reasonable outcome from this situation is some form of liquidation of ALL HARDWARE whether in hand or inbound and distribution of the proceeds to the stakeholders. Make it clean and make it quick and move on...... for the better of all. |
|
|
|
LRM's real saving grace may be that they claim to be selling hardware derivatives. Your security is (in the eys of the SEC) worthless; LRM promises you no rights to assets nor facevalue. It will only generate derivative income off of bitcoin mining and is only worth what someone else is willing to pay you for it.
My main reason of structuring like this. Why does this still not hold  ? It may relate to Money Service Bureau issues as a mining consortium may fall under the MSB regulatory climate. If this is the case then all the assets of the company could be siezed and forfeit in which case we would be totally screwed. Better to shut down immediately and liquidate the company for asset value. With regard to accounting - it is very important for everyone to understand that the value of BTC when you purchased the bond to now has changed. Your input value would have been accounted for in USD and exit values will be the same. BTC is simply a mode of exchange and regarded as something like a foreign currency. Money in money out. BTC is not money. All accounting records must be kept in USD. We are not in a Bitcoin economy, yet. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
