[ANN] Spondoolies-Tech - carrier grade, data center ready mining rigs [UNMOD]

[dogie]

Update: Assets are for sale to aid the employees, creditors and potentially investors.

Important Update

As you may be aware, a liquidator was appointed to protect creditors of SpondooliesTech. She is currently selling off all equipment, miners, IP/designs and assets and everything will be gone within a week or two. If you are interested in bidding, please see the three documents attached (in english) which you will need to get access to the items.

Initiation for submission of proposals.pdf
Representation and undertaking.pdf
Confidentiality agreement.pdf

Previous:
After a liquidator was appointed to handle the assets of Spondoolies-Tech, Guy Corem has now started deleting critical posts from multiple people from his self moderated thread. As per instructions, I have opened up a sister thread so open discussion can still take place. We all know what happens when a mining company resorts to censorship.

A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by the starter of a self-moderated topic. There are no rules of self-moderation, so this deletion cannot be appealed. Do not continue posting in this topic if the topic-starter has requested that you leave.

You can create a new topic if you are unsatisfied with this one. If the topic-starter is scamming, post about it in Scam Accusations.

Hey dogie with your lying past you don't expect us to simply believe you. Post the invoice with your lawyer fees too because otherwise your words are worth nothing!

1. No one cares if you believe me or not, you are no one.
2. No one else is required to believe me or not.
3. As I said many months ago, nearly everything in this case is open to the public. You are more than welcome to pull the actions of my lawyer using the case code "191050116" as I previously provided.
4. I'll bite; what have I lied about previously?
5. While you're saying dumb stuff, would you like to make clear what remuneration you have received to date from Spondoolies?

RoadStress raised an interesting point.
dogie posted an invoice + receipt from his lawyer and claimed that it "Receipt for filing court fees and security of funds [like a deposit in the case of loss to help pay the defendant's fees]"

Dogie removed the original image of the invoice and receipt and changed his previous post to remove this description. Now it's only "Receipt for filing court fees..."

disclaimer:
dogie is suing Spondoolies-Tech, so I can't engage him. I am posting the evidence of dogie's edit and wonder what dogie is trying to hide.

Guy

I removed it so simpletons like RoadStress don't get confused again, and its pretty disingenuous for you to claim that there is some conspiracy going on when I literally sued your company with the court fees that receipt contains. You even know first hand of the security of costs because you tried to use that post to get the judge to impose them.

But games aside and lets be serious for a second, Guy. If you'd spent less time crying on forums and more time actually running your business, you might not have run it into the ground. Or you know, not continued to run it for years past when you should have shut up shop. Doesn't matter what happens to your creditors (or BTCS) just as long as you can milk out a salary, right?

[1713582108]

1713582108

[1713582108]

1713582108

[Guy Corem]

Hey dogie with your lying past you don't expect us to simply believe you. Post the invoice with your lawyer fees too because otherwise your words are worth nothing!

1. No one cares if you believe me or not, you are no one.
2. No one else is required to believe me or not.
3. As I said many months ago, nearly everything in this case is open to the public. You are more than welcome to pull the actions of my lawyer using the case code "191050116" as I previously provided.
4. I'll bite; what have I lied about previously?
5. While you're saying dumb stuff, would you like to make clear what remuneration you have received to date from Spondoolies?

RoadStress raised an interesting point.
Adam Allcock (a.k.a. dogie) posted an invoice + receipt from his lawyer and claimed that it "Receipt for filing court fees and security of funds [like a deposit in the case of loss to help pay the defendant's fees]"

Dogie removed the original image of the invoice + receipt and changed his previous post to remove this description. Now it's only "Receipt for filing court fees..."

disclaimer:
Adam is suing Spondoolies-Tech, so I can't engage him. I am posting the evidence of Adam's edit and wonder what Adam is trying to hide.

One possible explanation:
The invoice + receipt Dogie posted did indeed include his lawyer fees.
The problem here is that the entire payment to the lawyer was titled 'expenses' and therefore he did not pay VAT (as he should have).
Dogie can easily prove that this explanation is wrong by posting another invoice + receipt to his lawyer which is properly titled 'lawyer fees' and include VAT payment as required by the law.
Instead of doing that, he chose to attack Roadstress and me (I removed the 2nd post in which he attacks me).  

Guy

Dogie's original post:


Dogie's rewritten post (rewritten few hours ago, after Roadstress post):


The invoice + receipt from Dogie's lawyer, which Dogie removed after RoadStress post:


Dogie's claim about paying his lawyer's fee in advance:

[Unacceptable]

Oh goody,a dog fight!!!! 

[Guy Corem]

Oh goody,a dog fight!!!!  

Unfortunately, since he is suing Spondoolies, I can't engage directly.
I can only show evidence and raise questions.

[dogie]

Oh so you now want to have the conversation now that you can't post missleading stuff than delete my replies? How cute.

Instead of doing that, he chose to attack Roadstress and me (I removed the 2nd post in which he attacks me). 

The post you deleted is the post I've quoted in the OP, in its entirety. Again you've been caught lying and so you deleted my reply claiming it was "attacking you", but you didn't think I'd open an unmoderated thread.

Dogie is suing Spondoolies-Tech, so I can't engage him.

Not sure you know what "can't" means.

The invoice + receipt Dogie posted did indeed include his lawyer fees.

If you can find a lawyer handling an entire case for $8,600 then let me know. That receipt is for money on account, not for lawyer fees.

The problem here is that the entire payment to the lawyer was titled 'expenses' and therefore he did not pay VAT (as he should have).

If you're accusing my lawyer of VAT fraud, you're going to have a bad time.

Dogie can easily prove that this explanation is wrong by posting another invoice + receipt to his lawyer which is properly titled 'lawyer fees' and include VAT payment as required by the law.

Request it via the lawyer of that company you run... oh wait. If you're really that desperate to see an irrelevant piece of paper (Pekatete 2.0) then you could even call my lawyer and ask.


And while you've finally decided to ungag yourself, why don't you answer the 30 unanswered questions in your own thread? PS, if anyone should be posting receipts, it should be you posting your pay stubs along with an explanation of why staff and creditors were going unpaid.

[iCEBREAKER]

Thanks for making this thread.

Here's the evidence RoadStress and his accomplices at ScamDoolies tried to erase from the public record:

A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by the starter of a self-moderated topic. There are no rules of self-moderation, so this deletion cannot be appealed. Do not continue posting in this topic if the topic-starter has requested that you leave.

You can create a new topic if you are unsatisfied with this one. If the topic-starter is scamming, post about it in Scam Accusations.

RoadStress wasn't just ScamDoolies attack dog.  He also acted as a liability buffer for the group buy of machines that failed to perform as marketing specs advertised.

If Cypherdoc's Bitcoin can be claimed in bankruptcy court as an improper asset transfer, then RoadStress' shill renumeration (especially if paid in BTC) may also be up for clawback by creditors.

I suggest you find out who he is and how much he was paid to help promote/defend this exit scam.

Please don't compare me to the cypherdoc scammer! He endorsed HashFash with no chip developing technical skills and with no tech start-up business skills!

What "business skills" led you to believe it would be a good idea to endorse and act as attack dog for a company that lost millions of customers+investors' $$$?

And exactly what "technical skills" led you to organize group buys pre-orders for ScamDoolies miners that failed to meed advertised specs and/or never ever existed?

Are you ready to recognize the fact an ASIC start-up may go bankrupt due to adverse business conditions, despite their best efforts?   

You could even do the classy thing, and admit it is illogical (and rude) to assume bad faith motivations, when the people involved did the best anyone could have, given dramatic subsequent BTC price/difficulty volatility.

(As for Cypherdoc, he never misrepresented his level of expertise, and at the time we prospective customers considered his real-world DYODD proxy efforts a service to the community.)

[Guy Corem]

Hey dogie with your lying past you don't expect us to simply believe you. Post the invoice with your lawyer fees too because otherwise your words are worth nothing!

1. No one cares if you believe me or not, you are no one.
2. No one else is required to believe me or not.
3. As I said many months ago, nearly everything in this case is open to the public. You are more than welcome to pull the actions of my lawyer using the case code "191050116" as I previously provided.
4. I'll bite; what have I lied about previously?
5. While you're saying dumb stuff, would you like to make clear what remuneration you have received to date from Spondoolies?

RoadStress raised an interesting point.
Adam Allcock (a.k.a. dogie) posted an invoice + receipt from his lawyer and claimed that it "Receipt for filing court fees and security of funds [like a deposit in the case of loss to help pay the defendant's fees]"

Dogie removed the original image of the invoice + receipt and changed his previous post to remove this description. Now it's only "Receipt for filing court fees..."

disclaimer:
Adam is suing Spondoolies-Tech, so I can't engage him. I am posting the evidence of Adam's edit and wonder what Adam is trying to hide.

One possible explanation:
The invoice + receipt Dogie posted did indeed include his lawyer fees.
The problem here is that the entire payment to the lawyer was titled 'expenses' and therefore he did not pay VAT (as he should have).
Dogie can easily prove that this explanation is wrong by posting another invoice + receipt to his lawyer which is properly titled 'lawyer fees' and include VAT payment as required by the law.
Instead of doing that, he chose to attack Roadstress and me (I removed the 2nd post in which he attacks me).  

Edit:
Adam continue with the smoke screen tactics in the following post:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1471914.msg14843373#msg14843373

Other possible explanation is that Adam's lawyer is working on success fee (percentage of the funds he will be able to win in this lawsuit). It is common practice in many such lawsuits.
In that case, the $8,600 invoice + receipt was indeed for "Receipt for filing court fees and security of funds [like a deposit in the case of loss to help pay the defendant's fees]" as Adam originally claimed.
If this is indeed the case, it explains why Dogie refuse to produce another receipt + invoice, simply because there isn't such an invoice + receipt, just a success fee agreement between Adam and his lawyer.
However, this explanation clearly contradict Adam claim about paying his lawyer's fee in advance.

So, there are three possible scenarios:

(1) Adam's posted invoice + receipt includes his lawyer's fees. If this is true, VAT wasn't paid as it should have been.
(2) There is an agreement between Adam and his lawyer and the lawyer is working on success fee. In this case, Adam lied when he claimed that his lawyer was paid in advance.
(3) Adam is right and there is another receipt + invoice and payment from Adam to his lawyer covering his lawyer fees in advance.

In order to prove that (3) is the right scenario as he claims, Adam needs to post such receipt + invoice. So far Adam refused to post such a receipt + invoice.

Note:
It's highly irregular (read: never heard of) to post security of funds deposit to one's lawyer as Adam claimed.
This is why we asked the court to force Adam to deposit the security of funds directly to the court. The funds were indeed deposited before a liquidator was appointed and now the case is frozen.
Adam's lawyer tried to prevent the security of funds deposit with all sort of arguments initially, but eventually agreed to make the deposit (30,000 ILS which is about $7,925).
In any case Dogie's reply to Tupsu question "How much do you already have paid your lawyer ?" which was "Not yet, no. Lawyer is paid for up front so no changes." isn't true. He or his lawyer had to deposit $7,925 to the court.

Guy

Dogie's original post:


Dogie's rewritten post (rewritten few hours ago, after Roadstress post):


The invoice + receipt from Dogie's lawyer, which Dogie removed after RoadStress post:


Dogie's claim about paying his lawyer's fee in advance:


Dogie's smoke screen reply to my original post (before the Edit: addition) after his reply to RoadStress post:

[dogie]

Because Guy can't delete my posts in this thread, he instead keeps posting the same giant post again and again.

In order to prove that (3) is the right scenario as he claims, dogie needs to post such receipt + invoice. So far dogie refused to post such a receipt + invoice.

I don't need to do anything of the sort. You still haven't explained why you want to see that I've paid solicitor's fees, it literally makes no sense other than you've gone off the deep end. Why don't you post your invoice for all four of your solicitors?

Note: It's highly irregular (read: never heard of) to post security of funds deposit to one's lawyer as dogie claimed.

This just in, CEO of a company has never heard of paying creditors! What a weird concept.

This is why we asked the court to force dogie to deposit the security of funds directly to the court.

You asked the court to do many things and newsflash you're still on the hook.

Dogie's lawyer tried to prevent the security of funds deposit with all sort of arguments initially

That's how it works? You were trying to request security of funds for a case you were never, ever, EVER going to win. Ever. Where are your security of funds?

The funds were indeed deposited before a liquidator was appointed and now the case is frozen.

You say that like you're proud that managed to ruin your company so much that even your ex-employees had to sue you. You screwed your employees, your investors, your creditors, BTCS and BTCS's shareholders but you show no remorse at all.

PS, if anyone should be posting receipts, it should be you posting your pay stubs along with an explanation of why staff and creditors were going unpaid.

[Ultrafinery]

Thanks for making this thread.

Gentlemen, look at yourselves! stop! This is Bitcoin. This is to be expected.

Allow me to pose a rhetorical question: War (Good God y'all!) What is it good for?

[redsn0w]

I'm very disappointed , this is a very 'strange' situation and a good lawyer is really necessary.


@dogie, so they owe you this amount of money http://archive.is/Zwfqp , right ?

[philipma1957]

I'm very disappointed , this is a very 'strange' situation and a good lawyer is really necessary.


@dogie, so they owe you this amount of money http://archive.is/Zwfqp , right ?

400 x 134 = 53600 usd in commissions .

Oh well.

While I have had a few people do me wrong in this game I think it is still under 1k.

53.6k is a lot of coin.

[Finksy]

I do hope you get your settlement before all that's left is dust, Dogie.

[klondike_bar]

I'm very disappointed , this is a very 'strange' situation and a good lawyer is really necessary.


@dogie, so they owe you this amount of money http://archive.is/Zwfqp , right ?

400 x 134 = 53600 usd in commissions .

Oh well.

While I have had a few people do me wrong in this game I think it is still under 1k.

53.6k is a lot of coin.

in all fairness, i think spondoolies failed to think the campaign through properly. 5-10% commission for directing people to the site is just crazy - even bulk purchasers barely got a 10% discount. It should ave been more like 1% (which would still be >$10,500 for dogie)

its unlikely you will get more than $20,000 from them if things go well. They could argue that it was a "gratuitous promise", and perhaps that it was not properly revised as the sales price dropped towards the manufacturing cost. Its a shitty argument, but its likely a card in thier deck should this go to court

[dogie]

I'm very disappointed , this is a very 'strange' situation and a good lawyer is really necessary.
@dogie, so they owe you this amount of money http://archive.is/Zwfqp , right ?

That's the bare minimum that they admit to in papers.

So SPTech had no farm??

[From the other thread but I can't post there] SPTech said they had no farm, but had a farm.

I do hope you get your settlement before all that's left is dust, Dogie.

Thanks, I will get it one way or another.

I'm very disappointed , this is a very 'strange' situation and a good lawyer is really necessary. @dogie, so they owe you this amount of money http://archive.is/Zwfqp , right ?

Good lawyers are working fine for me so far, hence Guy's flip-out. That is an approximation of the lower bound of money they've agreed to owing, but I am still owed significantly more. Full claim text is here, its not that long of a read: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=521520.msg13695311#msg13695311

in all fairness, i think spondoolies failed to think the campaign through properly. 5-10% commission for directing people to the site is just crazy - even bulk purchasers barely got a 10% discount. It should ave been more like 1% (which would still be >$10,500 for dogie)

It was tiered commission, 5% up to 100k per quarter, 10% up to 500k per quarter and 15% over. My sales accounted very roughly for 3% of their revenue based on the little information we have of their sales.

They could argue that it was a "gratuitous promise", and perhaps that it was not properly revised as the sales price dropped towards the manufacturing cost. Its a shitty argument, but its likely a card in thier deck should this go to court

This went to court 4 months ago, and precourt jousting has been happening since last September. They can not argue that and failure to drop the price is on them.

[klondike_bar]

in all fairness, i think spondoolies failed to think the campaign through properly. 5-10% commission for directing people to the site is just crazy - even bulk purchasers barely got a 10% discount. It should ave been more like 1% (which would still be >$10,500 for dogie)

It was tiered commission, 5% up to 100k per quarter, 10% up to 500k per quarter and 15% over. My sales accounted very roughly for 3% of their revenue based on the little information we have of their sales.

They could argue that it was a "gratuitous promise", and perhaps that it was not properly revised as the sales price dropped towards the manufacturing cost. Its a shitty argument, but its likely a card in thier deck should this go to court

This went to court 4 months ago, and precourt jousting has been happening since last September. They can not argue that and failure to drop the price is on them.

yeah they screwed up bad then. I mean, Im sure that they would have still gotten those sales without your referral links. Your fantastic reviews obviously helped generate interest, but i think a lot of people simply used your links for easy access to the spondoolies site (which is how a referral link should work)  Spondoolies did not need a referral program IMO, and doing at >5% is sheer insanity.

it looks like they willfully ran themselves into bankruptcy, either through expensive hardware design choices or by simply getting the staff rich - you probably wont have much more luck than all the guys trying to sue paycoin or a dozen other mining startups.

[dogie]

Think a lot of people simply used your links for easy access to the spondoolies site

The conversion window was very short so it had to be almost a direct conversion every time. Loads of sales were denied because they'd time out and I think even more that were overwritten by other affiliates.

[iCEBREAKER]

From the above discussion, it seems like ScamDoolies may have abused their discretion in paying out marketing affiliates in order to  (illegally) give RoadStress undue preference in getting paid before Dogie, etc.

No wonder the OP deletes posts like these:

A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by the starter of a self-moderated topic. There are no rules of self-moderation, so this deletion cannot be appealed. Do not continue posting in this topic if the topic-starter has requested that you leave.

You can create a new topic if you are unsatisfied with this one. If the topic-starter is scamming, post about it in Scam Accusations.

Hey dogie with your lying past you don't expect us to simply believe you. Post the invoice with your lawyer fees too because otherwise your words are worth nothing!

Hey look, RoadStress is still playing white knight for ScamDoolies, a company that accepted $$$$ from a merger partner despite knowing they were (going?) bankrupt.

Wow, this is so scammy! Has anyone noticed, just a couple of days ago, there was a sticky/sponsored link here on Reddit, pointing to some useless, fact-less and very short article (something about Craig Wright facing criminal charges, which I can't find now) and that article had a promo paragraph with the link to spondoolies's miners ordering page. One could supposedly order the miners right there, with no waiting. I was a bit surprised about this and I even searched for a feedback on spondoolies. But I definitely noticed that it was a rather clever way to advertise the site indirectly.

So, it looks like they've had a "run for the money" right before closure.

Speaking of words which are "worth nothing" RoadStress helped push this blue sky pipe dream on BTCC investors:

“Spondoolies-Tech is hard at work developing a third-generation ASIC,” Guy Corem said in an interview with Bitcoin Magazine. “The new ASIC is aiming for a 4X improvement over the efficiency of the second-generation unit. The new ASIC will allow the merged company to secure a significant percentage of the hash rate.”

According to a statement by the company, this next-generation chip should allow for bitcoin to be mined profitably, even if the bitcoin price was to drop below $100.

Releasing this third-generation chip should definitely allow BTCS the potential to gain a large chunk of market share in the bitcoin mining space, increasing the likelihood that the merger does take place. However, if the merger does break down, BTCS will walk away with a $1 million breakup fee.

If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is....

I was pitched personally in October By Gadi to buy the new SP 50's on pre-payment basis for delivery in March -April. I declined the offer fearing that this exact scenario would happen. Seems that anyone who trusts a manufacturer to deliver miners down the road is just asking to get screwed. Is there anyone that actually paid in advance that has any comments to add to this thread? I'd like to know how Spondoolies id dealing with them.

Does Gadi post here under the name RoadStress?

NOTE TO MODS: PLEASE STOP THE OP FROM DELETING ANY MORE EVIDENCE OF HIS SCAMMING as it is an abuse of the self-moderation system's intended function.[/size]

[smooth]

I have no idea why they deleted my posts discussing the reasons why "carrier grade" miners were a bad idea (or at best a risky bet on high BTC prices and continued rapid price appreciation that didn't pay off). It certainly doesn't improve my opinion of them though.

[Guy Corem]

I have no idea why they deleted my posts discussing the reasons why "carrier grade" miners were a bad idea (or at best a risky bet on high BTC prices and continued rapid price appreciation that didn't pay off). It certainly doesn't improve my opinion of them though.

It was deleted in mistake, go ahead and post again.

[smooth]

I have no idea why they deleted my posts discussing the reasons why "carrier grade" miners were a bad idea (or at best a risky bet on high BTC prices and continued rapid price appreciation that didn't pay off). It certainly doesn't improve my opinion of them though.

It was deleted in mistake, go ahead and post again.

I have a better suggestion that should help prevent any future mistakes: Let's just all stay here and carry on the discussion on the unmoderated thread.