Also many thanks for this.  I would also like to toss you a few mBTC for your trouble and time.  Please create a wallet we can donate to.

Labrat, could you please post your legal response here after you send it to the court and the plaintiff's counsel?

This sounds rather... peculiar.  Why would divs on already mined blocks require yet another block to be mined before the current divs can be sent out?

Grnbrg, while the reasons may be _reasonable_to_you_, the facts are:
   (1) It is now Wednesday (3+ days late).
   (2) We're still without div. payments.
   (3) You say the reasons for the delay are good, but for some bizarre reason, you "can't" tell us what they are.

None of these three items seem "reasonable" at all.  Not blaming you, just pointing out a disturbing/annoying lack of coherence.....

This is cute, but is not helping the situation.

We want Zach to start working WITH us.  Not for him to find more reasons to be alienated from us.

LR, very simply:
    (under performance)
 + (lack of explanation for under performance)
 = distrust

If LRM were delivering on the original planned schedule, hashrate would be steadily increasing, every bond holder would be receiving x20 higher (or more) dividends than what they are seeing, and their bonds would have a decent exchange value.  If that were the case, you wouldn't be seeing 99% of the fear in this thread and people would be MUCH more likely to accept contract changes without all the FUD.

Instead, hashrate (as far as WE can tell anyway) has been almost constant for many months.  Almost every dividend is significantly less than the previous dividend.  And we can't seem to get answers from you as to why this is happening and when the situation will improve.

Asking people to accept unilateral contract changes when LRM hasn't been delivering -and- then wondering why people are grouching about your lack of explanation for the situation doesn't show much understanding for the motivations of your investors.

LRM's lack of performance and YOUR lack of communication has built this situation.  ONLY by rectifying these factors can you earn back the trust of the people who invested in your dream.

I sincerely hope I'm wrong, but I see the "choice" LR has given us as a false choice.   

We either accept the change he forced upon us when he went from proportional bonds to fixed bonds (with no contract in the interim) -OR- we accept the new contract with the exact same fixed bonds & a nebulous promise of an optional "bonus".

I reject both options.  Nowhere in any of this were we given the choice of receiving anything like the original proportional bonds.  This is IMHO, an illegal unilateral contract change.  I am not a lawyer, but I do know that even unilateral modifications are not supposed to alter the "material or important terms of the original contract".  Going from the original proportional-shares model to either of the other two options DO constitute important changes in conflict with the original expressed intent of the company.

Give me a contract (and bonds) which honor the original promise of steadily increasing hashrate thru reinvestment.

The lawyer is working on it.   He'll have it ready in a couple of weeks. 

+1

I do like this idea.  You're right that there are very strong parallels between the structure of a CSA and the original promise of what LRM was supposed to be. I'm not sure if a good lawyer could stretch the agriculture to mining anology enough to make it work, but this would be a much simpler solution than what I suggested in my previous msg.

If the whole cause of this current mess is variable payout, the solution seems obvious.  Adopt a fixed mh/(bond, share, or whatever you want to call them) - AND - issue periodic bond splits distributed evenly among existing bond holders to cover increases in the production capabilities of LRM.  Yes, it's a bit of a song and dance, lo but bond splits are a normal part of running most profitable business.  I doubt the Sec would consider it a problem.  And it restores the original effect of investing for LRM investors.

Thanks for this clarification.  It helps us to know what your position is regarding you owning mining equipment.

FWIW, I agree with both parts of your assessment (regarding acquiring equipment on short notice when a good opportunity presents itself -and- using that equipment short-term to reimburse your expenses for acquiring said equipment if it can't be done directly from company assets).

+1

LabRat tells us about great news for CoinSeed, great news for himself, and then is out-of-touch for 4 days...  We all hope this means a major jump in LRM hashrate (and thus dividends), but NOTHING in the press release actually says anything about how this new arrangement is going to effect LRM.  Could we PLEASE get some clarification?

As Maxwellsdemon asked...  When will this substantial increase start hashing for us?   

Back on Dec. 21st, Labrat posted the following estimates:
    DEC/JAN (25+TH)
    JAN/FEB (50+TH)
    FEB/MAR (150-250TH)
    MAR+ (? PH ?)

(Now, to be totally fair, he didn't specify which year these estimates were for...  but... )

Now, some members are wondering just how realistic those estimates were.  (And are giving LR some grief in the process.)  Adding to the uncertainty is the online difficulty/hashrate data graph not being updated in months.  Bail, hold, or double-down...  The answer isn't clear given the limited info most of us have access to at the moment and uncertainty is NOT an investors friend.

To be clear on my own view...  I have no reason to doubt the good intentions of Labrat and grnbrg.  But all the good intentions in the world don't help us stay ahead of an exponential difficulty curve.  I hope that the rumored "good news" gets us well ahead of the curve.