Aligning myself completely behind H@shKraker's cooling philosophy, and having attended more than one Grateful Dead concert, I would like to approve of the expression "jerry-rig", provided it is understood, correctly, as a derivative of jury-rig.

As for Peppermining's business, well, let's hope it goes poof in a flash. Hyenas.

Please read further before replying.



Gloat about what?  Being an idiot?

Okay, then fire him, and let him play Donkey Kong until the folks with badges show up.

I assume he would have an interest in doing well, since, as you noted earlier, it's in his interest to stop screwing people and to start getting screwed himself.  What comes around goes around.  Simon would place himself in a position to get screwed a little less if he produced as CTO.  

As CEO?  No fucking way.  If as CTO he produced the magical 16nm chip or the 28nm chip that worked and burned a watt per 50 g/hashes, well, he might win some peoples' forgiveness, assuming that present creditors are dealt into Hashfast 2.0 in some meaningful (and fair) way.

Stick to core competencies.

Judge wants more specifics on Hashfast's plan.  He wants them in Chapter 11 now (he made that very clear), and he wants to keep a close eye on them since there is cause for concern.  

Hashfast gets more concrete about its filing, says it wants Simon in charge moving forward and to sell chips, and if the judge will wait a few days, they will present a plan (voluntary conversion).  

Creditors say they're not sure about that idea and expect to move for Simon to be replaced.  Creditors are internally divided about what to do with chips, this might or might not be discussed openly.

Creditors will hopefully obtain totally unambiguous affirmation that the Delaware entity(ies) will be placed into the California bankruptcy. (This was not 100% clear to me, listening.)

New hearing a few days later. Maybe Friday.  Or Monday.  Discuss content of Hashfast's plan.

Of course, somebody could pull a rabbit out of their hat (like a nice statement from a former employee?), but that's what's supposed to happen now.

----

Is there anyone out in bitcoinland that has credibility to take the reigns of this company, that everyone would trust?  Or at least trust enough?

Simon could stay as CTO.  In a technical role.  Until the law catches up with him.

I am sorry that you are experiencing that, because you did try to improve things, but I very much doubt that the people who are discussing Hashfast in this forum are the people harassing you.  I would block them if I was you.  I can't speak for anyone but myself with certainty, but I've never made any sort of post to any personal account of any Hashfast (former) employee.  It seems that you are the unfortunate recipient of anger that should be directed (appropriately) at others.

You don't have a solution, you have unrealistic expectations of the bankruptcy process.  Listen, I would love it if you were right, but Hashfast will not be able to make 40,000 complete boards overnight, not under Simon's leadership and not under a court appointed management.  Maybe the latter could do it eventually, but I doubt it.  Simon, well, he doesn't want to do that.  He wants to be the intel of bitcoin mining.  I don't think that you can leave him in the CEO chair and simultaneously dictate his actions through a creditor's committee, presuming that the majority of the creditors would even agree to Hashfast 2.0 making boards with Simon in charge.

I don't wanna fight. I'm just trying to think out loud about what kind of lemonade can be made with these lemons.

Who said that?  They are screaming out loud to the masses.  The intel of bitcoin mining.  Please, judge, don't restrict our ability to sell chips.  Come on, this is their plan.

Wait, and then you say he will do something else?  You're giving him the latitude to call the shots?  Last post you were hemming him in.

Look, I'm not at all against what you want, Cedivad, I think we want about the same thing, I'm just trying to be realistic.

Barber wants to sell chips.  You want to keep him in command, but not allow him to follow his Chapter 11 plan?  How is that going to work?  We kept you as CEO but your opinion doesn't matter?



Read carefully:  I want no part of any deal going forward that enables Simon and company to salvage a viable enterprise.  Eddie is already gone, if you haven't been following the news.  And Simon is about to start framing him as the fall guy.

Because there's no money in it for him.  And I'd rather see the chips dumped the Pacific Ocean than see that guy come out of this alive.  

And the judge seems more responsive to Liquidbits than anybody else.  And Liquidbits doesn't care about us.

Or, if they do, maybe they should make that known.

Okay, then Hashfast/VMC's contractor.  The point is not who makes them, the point is that the boards are made on a contract basis by somebody who is competent.  The board maker gets $ for supplies and a pedestrian profit.  Then the assembled boards are ours.  I'm not talking about turning everything over to them to sell.

Look, it's an imperfect world.  

If, in a few days, Simon is successfully dislodged and a court-appointed manager takes over, then I think your scenarios are okay, but you need to be realistic.  I don't think that a court-appointed manager is going to run Hashfast like an entrepreneur overdosed on caffeine.  That person is probably going to want to take a couple weeks to get their bearings, weeks during which s/he'll be trying to figure out where all the fucking money went and what assets beyond the chips that they have, and you'll start screaming at them for allowing value to dissipate, and during which (on our present course), there will be intense wrangling about who owns what proportion of the assets.  In this situation, can you expect a manager to walk into a company s/he doesn't know and immediately commit all its resources to some sort of Hashfast 2.0 to turn out 40,000 boards overnnight?  I don't think that's realistic.

But it's not clear that Simon will actually be deposed. He's planning on trying to lead the company in Chapter 11.  Just wait.  On Wednesday there will be more talk about how this business is incomprehensible except to insiders like Simon, and Eddie may start to get blame heaped on him.  We're a new Hashfast, the attorney will argue, and you don't have anybody with Simon's skills, and we've got a plan....

You and me and few other guys on this forum are not going to create a viable production line overnight.  It's going to have to be somebody with the capability to do it.  I hate VMC too, but if they are able...  I'd rather have liquidbits, if they are able, but the size of their illegitmate chip claim rules them out.  They'd have to come to Jesus and come to more reasonable terms with the other creditors.

But to be clear, the chip divvying scenario, in my head, is predicated upon the absolute and final death of Hashfast and stripping of the management of any proceeds.

If liquidbits steps forward to do this on reasonable terms, then that's possible too.

What I don't think is possible is for a bunch of guys on a forum to create a viable manufacturing process in no time flat.  We'll need to rely on somebody that can do it, and we'll probably need collective leverage.

I want Hashfast dead.  I want no part of any deal going forward that enables Simon and company to salvage a viable enterprise.  Right now they are angling to do that and will viciously resist a court-appointed trustee under Chapter 11.  With everyone in the courtroom professing no knowledge of how bitcoins work, Simon will say that only he understands the business well enough to salvage it, and the judge will be sympathetic.

I'm just wondering out loud if divvying the chips up isn't better.  If the creditors said, "screw Simon's reorganization plan, we want the chips divvied up fairly", then they'd have a hard time resisting that pressure.  The other assets, IP, etc, can be sold and proceeds divided.

No fan of VMC, but if they're real, well then, why not just form a small miners coop, take the chips, and collectively negotiate assembly by VMC (or other bidders, if any) onto boards?

Put them into Ch 11 with a trustee. Distribute chips:

Unpaid BJ MPP = 5 chips.
Unpaid Upgrade board = 1 chip.
Unpaid Sierra = 3 chips.
Etc.

If you agreed to kick money back to Hashfast, the chips you receive are discounted accordingly.

If there are chips left over, these are distributed on a curve according to who has been waiting the longest.

Yoli design, suppliers, etc is published, or available to any customer (really, available to any legit assembler).

HF ceases to exist.  Some of them hopefully go to jail.

Small guys band together and collectively negotiate assembly for all of their chips with VMC and any other offerors, which might include Liquidbits or its contractor, if it has really tooled up for the job.

If you erased all the debt off the books and screwed everybody here except those looking to profit from the carcass, then that plan would possibly allow Hashfast to go ahead as a viable business.  

The problem is that, well, it screws everybody here.  Except those looking to profit from the carcass (or who are already feeding on the dying beast).

I'm not against turning the chips into boards, I'm just against turning the chips into boards at the expense of the creditor, especially the small ones.  

And anybody that engaged in kickback deals with Hashfast must expect the size of their claim to be reduced by at least the amount of the kickback they agreed to provide Hashfast.

So, ah, say take your liquidbits kind of guy.  He bought 7500 chips (2500 sierras x 3 chips each).  He promised to give 25% of the income to Hashfast.  

So if we're divvying up the chips like this, in my estimation his legitimate claim is to around 5625 chips (7500x.75), less whatever he received.

Fredthe(anonymous)dog, you are asking me to offer "professional" respect to a torture porn marketer that sold vapor hardware to the tunes of tens of millions and silently walked away?  Tough shit, some professions don't deserve "professional" courtesy.   (And now you say the same guy lies on his resume?)

But, okay, with so many people "working their asses off" to make things right, as you repeatedly claim, and with a management with no ill intent, as you also repeatedly claim, and even a sales manager sympathetic to the customer, and you now claim, in your saintly scenario, just what did go wrong?  

Are you really saying that we should believe that it was just because Simon was too obsessive about a perfect output, and an overworked accountant who simply "lost" millions of dollars and/or private keys?

Pshaw!   (And by the way, I have a great new solar-powered 10 terahash machine to sell you for only 100 bitcoins.)

Maybe you are disappointed because there was naive commitment and optimism among some of the junior employees, a comraderie and enthusiasm that now seems to have been misplaced, so you are working to rationalize out a 'no fault' narrative for yourself and friends in your own head?  

I'm perfectly able to accept that there were people working at Hashfast that gave it an honest go and worked to try to "turn things around", as you said.  Unfortunately, I find it impossible to extend this cloak of naivete to the people who were making so many false promises and, yes, lies, to their customers - whose interests they actively undermined with liquidbits, VMC, and the like - and who made so much of their money go "poof" in a giant cloud of nothing.

I'll bite too.


If the boards were being built by a contract manufacturer for VMC, how did they come - and I've seen pictures of several this way - to have all the different rev stickers on them?



You seem to think that all the employees and management acted in good faith, except conceding that the liquidbits deal was "surprising", but those millions have to be somewhere.  A lost wallet is a little too convenient and, to me, implausible given how damn hard Eddie must have been looking for money in the last several months.  

Do you apply the same cheerful outlook on employees' intent to the porn crowd?  And what is the origin of the relationship, and nature of the relationship. with Scrotum and company?

And you, sir, by what name do you go in the real world?

On "bunkers" there seems to be a misunderstanding.  That's Cedivad's preferred expression for an llc or other corporate entity that might try to hold IP assets out of a BK proceeding.

 

You could still cast a voodoo spell on Eddie if he shows up on Wednesday.  Some things beyond our understanding might be helpful.


Somebody might be giving them money.  If their finances were such a wreck, and they have no resources to convert the chips into hashing machines, I don't see how they could present a credible Chapter 11 plan without an infusion of cash.

There's no way they're coming out of this alive.  I'm sure its a technical delay, maybe to allow additional claims to be presented, or some legal prerequisite to be satisfied, whatever.  Monday is a holiday here, so this is less than 1.5 working days' delay.

Maybe entropy will come by in a while and update us.

503(b)(9), if that's what was mentioned, is a section of the code apparently intended to protect suppliers of goods and services to firms that are going belly up.  Totally armchair here, I know as much about bankruptcy proceedings as I do about speaking Thai, but it suggests to me that there are unpaid suppliers of materials/services to Hashfast that are pressing claim.  That or the judge is creating a time window during which any such suppliers could present themselves.