I'd say pay back the $1k the same way you handle it in calculating the lawyer's fee. The costs come out of the recovery before anything else happens with it, so the costs that come back get distributed back to those who paid them. After that, the lawyer's fee is deducted, and the remaining recovery is split based on shareholder stake.

But that also means a potentially small group of investors bears all the risk of loss, as they may be out their portion of the $1k if we lose. I'd be willing to chip in a bit (and if Waldo is still reading this, and not simply pulling his hair out in frustration, I'd welcome him to message me about this), but I'm probably in the minority in that.


What's happening here isn't really legal proceedings. At least, not as most people think of them. The purchase agreement required arbitration to settle disputes, so arbitration is where we'd be going. That's significantly simpler and faster than full-blown in-court litigation.

As for the rest, the original purchase agreement was ambiguous on how refunds would be calculated, but there were representations by HashFast that BTC payments would receive an equal amount of BTC in refund. And that's generally the way refunds are understood. This group buy paid HashFast entirely in BTC.

Everyone seems to be freaking out about the $1k deposit to cover costs... so let me further explain the way contingency fee agreements usually work:

In any sort of contingency arrangement (where the lawyer's fee is a percentage of any recovery, paid out that recovery) defendants are still liable for costs associated with the case, whether they win or not. Those costs include things like filing fees, arbitration fees, expert witness fees, costs of hiring an investigator, photocopies, long distance calls, etc... all the things that actually represent costs paid out by the lawyer in pursuing the case. This does NOT include the lawyer's time, or the time of any associates or paralegals or secretaries under him.

With a contingency agreement, the lawyer is compensated for his time (and the time of those who work for him) only if he wins, and is then compensated in the form of a percentage of the recovery.

This $1k up front is not a $1k payment that is then gone and never coming back, it's $1k that's placed in the lawyer's trust account and not touched until an invoice is sent to and signed off on by the client for costs incurred so far. The possibility of "additional payments" is in the case where more than $1k is spent in costs, an additional deposit is made to the trust account and handled in the same way. If, when the case is over, there is money left from that initial $1k it is refunded to the client.

If we lose, the money spent on costs out of that $1k is gone and never coming back. That's the risk of litigation.

If we win, the money spent on costs is first subtracted out of the recovery, and then the lawyer's fee is calculated based on what's left, and the remainder goes to us. To illustrate with relatively easy round numbers:

Assume $750 are spent on costs, and we recover $2750. We are first returned the remaining $250 from the initial $1k deposit. The $750 spent on costs is then subtracted from the recovery, so our costs are reimbursed from the recovery first. The lawyers contingency is taken out of the remaining recovery (so 40% of $2k, or $800) and what remains, $1200 in this example, is sent to us along with the $750 of costs we already paid.

It's extremely common for lawyers to ask for money up front which they will use to cover costs in contingency cases, especially when dealing with an unknown group like this, because it's going to be extremely difficult if not impossible for the lawyer to get money out of us to pay for costs incurred in the event that we lose. He's already gambling his time on this by accepting it as a contingency, and he's not interested in gambling an out-of-pocket payment by fronting us the money for costs too.

...that said, it does seem like it would be difficult to get the group to put up the $1k deposit. I'd still like to see us do it, though, because it's the only way we're going to get anything even approaching a reasonable refund (and I want to shove a lawsuit so far up Hash Fast's ass they taste it for weeks).

If they file for bankruptcy, it's entirely possible that the bankruptcy trustee would be able to demand back every miner they've sent so far and any cash refunds they've issued. We face no greater risk from their potential bankruptcy filing than we would if we just took the miner, or the USD refund.

It may be possible to find other lawyers who would accept a lower contingency amount, or a lawyer who would take it on an hourly basis rather than contingency, but either way it's unlikely that we'd find as well thought of a lawyer willing to take just our case and even more unlikely that we'd find such a person willing to do so for a lower contingency fee.

Also, finding another lawyer would mean WH would have to take the time to search out other lawyers and spend time interviewing them to find one that's good/willing to take the case.

Honestly, our best bet from a lawyering up perspective is to go with the guy that has already been found. He seems like a good attorney, and we have enough people willing to go in together that he's willing to take the case. A 40% contingency fee is a little high, but not unreasonably so. I'd prefer lower too, but it represents our best chance of getting the most possible return out of HF.

Then feel free to vote as such in the poll up above. I'm not convinced by your argument, myself. Inability to collect on a judgement is always a risk in legal action, but I'd rather drive those assholes into bankruptcy and come out of it with half of what I could have made in their BS "refund" offer rather than knuckle under and let them continue to profit off the BTC community through their scummy tactics.

There's no way they would. We'd be lucky to get our MPP three months after we get the initial order, at which point it's even MORE worthless.

How long will the poll remain open? To put it another way, when will we act on the results?

All of them. The general rule of thumb when seeking to serve someone: Blanket every possible address you have for them, but do it delivery restricted to an officer of the corporation you know will be at the address (i.e. Eduardo). That way you can prove that he, or an authorized agent, actually got the letter. All certified mail does is provide you with proof that it was delivered somewhere, if you aren't absolutely sure that's the right address you add restricted delivery so you can prove that not only did it arrive, but it arrived in the hands of the right person.

A 40% contingency fee, which is what's under discussion, means he takes 40% of any recovery if we win and only filing fees if we lose.

So, for an easy illustration, say we win $10k and the filing fees and costs are $1k. First, you subtract the $1k fees/costs from the recovery, then you remove the lawyer's contingency percentage from the remaining $9k (so, remove $3.6k, this is what the lawyer gets paid), the lawyer then cuts us a check for $5.4k and that's what we get out of it.

If we win $20k, and the fees/costs are still $1k, the lawyer keeps $7.6k (40% of the $19k left after costs/fees) and we get a check for $11.4k. Hopefully that helps clear up the issue.

My vote: Fuck hashfast. Lawyer up and make them pay what they owe.

Depending on his contingency percentage, I'd be ok with the linked lawyer. Anything over 25% and I'd be hesitant, anything over 33% and I decline.

No, no it's not.

In this case, a private entity make a promise it knows it can't keep, fails to deliver on it, and is open to prosecution for what they did. The people it screwed over may never see their money back, and they may not ever get prosecuted, but it is possible.

In your completely unrelated example, and taking all of your allegations to be true and at face value, the president made a promise and failed to deliver on it. The president has absolute immunity for actions taken in carrying out his duties. It is legally impossible to sue him in your example.

The two situations are miles apart legally speaking. Now take your disinformation elsewhere you ignorant troll.

"I'm not a lawyer, but here's my legal conclusion anyway." Just stop. If you want answers, go see a lawyer. If you want to speculate, do so elsewhere, because at this point all you're doing is muddying the waters for other people without legal knowledge and making the situation worse.

*cough cough* sovereign immunity COMPLETELY DIFFERENT AND UNRELATED SITUATION *cough cough*


And this is called fraud, which carries both civil and criminal penalties. There's a reason only criminals do this...

Or they outright lied and fraudulently induced a lot of people into parting with their money. Fraud is an awfully adult crime, after all.

If they send back less than the full refund, we drag them to court, or we accept the arbitration clause of their contract and go into arbitration. In any event, anyone happy to receive a small portion of their original BTC back can then bow out and sign away any rights to the outstanding BTC refund amounts to the other members of the group buy who wish to push forward, and who will ante up whatever is required to hire a lawyer.


Do you really think you stand to make more mining, considering we're a good 30 days away from delivery at best, than you would in even a partial refund? Keep in mind, there is every chance that the MPP will be delivered in the same "too little too late" fashion that the miners we've already paid for seem to be coming in. And no, we would not be fucked doing what I suggested, even if they send a partial refund and scratch us off the list. We still have all kinds of legal options available to us to get the full BTC refund we're entitled to.


We give them documentation that we requested a refund, and a refund that they didn't provide (assuming they don't pay back the full amount of BTC). The only "stupid" option is to return their premade heavily one sided refund request form that signs away all of our rights and will only ever get us back a small portion of the BTC we originally paid. But sure, insult away.

One of the main HF threads contained a copy-pasted email from HF informing the poster that reliability issues with PCBs means mass production hasn't started and Batch 1 customers can either accept Rev. 0 hardware now (with reliability issues), Rev. 2 hardware in about a month, or ask for a refund as long as they do so within the next ten days.

It then links to a form they want you to use for the refund request which requires you to agree to accept the USD refund none of us want.

Others in that thread are suggesting sending back a request for a refund with your own form, acknowledging that per the original and still-in-effect Terms of Sale you'll be taking full refund of the original number of BTC you paid and that you request that refund. I would ask that Waldo do this, and do it very soon.

At least one person in the HF thread has claimed to get confirmation from HF that they'll honor the original ToS and pay back the full BTC amount, although this is the internet, so you can take that claim with a grain of salt.

Why would anyone "start arbitration long time ago [sic]"? Until there was a failure to deliver on Dec. 31 there was no claim to arbitrate.

...which they also won't win, that changes the venue and the cost somewhat, but nothing else.

Unless it showed up today, it doesn't make any difference. From HashFast's Terms of Sale:


So unless it showed up today, HashFast is bound by the ToS to give a refund. They're ALSO bound to refund the full BTC paid by the ToS in effect at the time Batch 1 was ordered as well as the representations of their agents, but getting that out of them is likely going to involve a court fight as they've made quite clear they don't intend to honor that part of the contract.

Since you're trying to play lawyer, Mr. Community Liason, which one is it? Libel or slander? They're not interchangeable terms.


See, if you want to play lawyer, it's important to actually know what you're talking about first. Extortion is trying to get money or property which you're not entitled to from someone by means of threats to their property or family, or by falsely claiming to be entitled to it. This situation in no way resembles extortion.