-

[Frankthechicken]

I'd like to know more on the specifics of the 'legal pressure'.  I'm really surprised that bitcoin is having such a tough time considering most politicians and lobbyists seem to LOVE suitcases full of cash... they should REALLY love bitcoin... anyway, I digress.  

Considering bondholders have just seen their bond values slashed by about 85% or so with this announcement, I'm in the mood for some beer I think.

Would liquidating the hardware and distributing the proceeds to bondholders to recoup a decent portion of the bitcoin we invested be an option as epoch suggested?  Whatever the cause, a significant amount of joy has been killed for bondholders and I am sure Lab_Rat as well.

[1714495025]

1714495025

[1714495025]

1714495025

[1714495025]

1714495025

[sparky999]

How about answering about what are you planning to do with the hardware and the hundreds of thousands of dollars invested in new hardware.

I've stated I'm working on the specifics of this.

Could existing  bond holders buy more bonds at a proportional rate to their existing holding for say 1 satoshi. This would solve the problem, no? Would prob mean no new bondhders though.

[Lab_Rat]

I'd like to know more on the specifics of the 'legal pressure'.  I'm really surprised that bitcoin is having such a tough time considering most politicians and lobbyists seem to LOVE suitcases full of cash... they should REALLY love bitcoin... anyway, I digress.  

Considering bondholders have just seen their bond values slashed by about 85% or so with this announcement, I'm in the mood for some beer I think.

Would liquidating the hardware and distributing the proceeds to bondholders to recoup a decent portion of the bitcoin we invested be an option as epoch suggested?  Whatever the cause, a significant amount of joy has been killed for bondholders and I am sure Lab_Rat as well.

I was thinking run instead of beer, but the idea is the same.  I promise the joy was killed for me the first time this issue was presented to me and I tried to find loopholes to avoid it.

Liquidating and distributing would pay out an equal or less amount that just paying dividends due to the decrease in value of hardware since the beginning of the company.

[Lab_Rat]

How about answering about what are you planning to do with the hardware and the hundreds of thousands of dollars invested in new hardware.

I've stated I'm working on the specifics of this.

Could existing  bond holders buy more bonds at a proportional rate to their existing holding for say 1 satoshi. This would solve the problem, no? Would prob mean no new bondhders though.

I have considered something like this and will be presenting more information as I determine the legality of certain methods I'd like to use to ease the transition.

[sparky999]

Re-sell the incoming hardware at as close to retail as possible and distribute divs is the only other reasonable solution I can think of

[Bigrah]

Sorry but this is absolutly shit!

We are now mining at 280MH/s and we have incoming Hardware for over 1GH/s for which WE!!!! paid with our dividends over 4 or 5 weeks.. (the 2 weeks was just a joke..)  and now the days before this hardware should arrive you want to tell us it will not mine for us???

I could only say:

Cancel BFL orders, sell all Hardware you have and you get for the Max price and close the company!   Pay all you get to the shareholders.

I could have never imagined such a joke.. This really pisses me off at the moment..  Or simply move to another location an scam us all the old way... Because this is simply Scam only in new cloth...

[sparky999]

How about answering about what are you planning to do with the hardware and the hundreds of thousands of dollars invested in new hardware.

I've stated I'm working on the specifics of this.

Could existing  bond holders buy more bonds at a proportional rate to their existing holding for say 1 satoshi. This would solve the problem, no? Would prob mean no new bondhders though.

I have considered something like this and will be presenting more information as I determine the legality of certain methods I'd like to use to ease the transition.

I can't see why this wouldn't work if no new bond holders are allowed to join. I'm not an expert on your local law though. I think I know the issue your having and as long as money changes hands for new bonds there shouldn't be an issue. Capping purchases at a proportional amount to ownership May be an issue but bond holders could hv a hand shake agreement to only purchase their fair share

[zibrus]

I was about to begin the full liquidation of my LRM bonds, as I recognized the math wasn't working in anyone's favor and LR wasn't able to hold the difficulty increase. However, I wait 3 days on the trading forum and still no reply to sell a minuscule 10 shares...

With no practical exchange, there is no way out. Not that it matters anymore the cat's out of the bag for all to see.


I'm with epoch, the best strategy for the bondholders is to liquidate all assets and distribute the coinage proportionately to holdings.


z

[goddardnet]

How about answering about what are you planning to do with the hardware and the hundreds of thousands of dollars invested in new hardware.

I've stated I'm working on the specifics of this.

The 'original' IPO contract states 0.25 BTC for a 'minimum' of 100MH/s.

This works both ways, you refund all bonds held at 100MH/s at a price of 0.25 BTC for however long that takes with future hardware purchases bought with BTC invested.

Failing that refund all bonds at their original purchase price you can interrogate the blockchain - that is what it is there for.

Legally the IPO is not 'fit for purpose' so a refund 'at any time' of all investments means no one is out of pocket - a great idea crushed by 'the man'. Effectively unwinding all financial possitions held.

The honorable thing to do, no?

[Lab_Rat]

I can't see why this wouldn't work if no new bond holders are allowed to join. I'm not an expert on your local law though. I think I know the issue your having and as long as money changes hands for new bonds there shouldn't be an issue. Capping purchases at a proportional amount to ownership May be an issue but bond holders could hv a hand shake agreement to only purchase their fair share

There are multiple issues, local and federal.  The main issue is specifically pertaining to variable payout though.  I'm not a lawyer so I'm waiting for my legal rep to put it all in legal terminology before laying it out there.

[Lab_Rat]

How about answering about what are you planning to do with the hardware and the hundreds of thousands of dollars invested in new hardware.

I've stated I'm working on the specifics of this.

The 'original' IPO contract states 0.25 BTC for a 'minimum' of 100MH/s.

This works both ways, you refund all bonds held at 100MH/s at a price of 0.25 BTC for however long that takes with future hardware purchases bought with BTC invested.

Failing that refund all bonds at their original purchase price you can interrogate the blockchain - that is what it is there for.

Legally the IPO is not 'fit for purpose' so a refund 'at any time' of all investments means no one is out of pocket - a great idea crushed by 'the man'. Effectively unwinding all financial possitions held.

The honorable thing to do, no?

4 significant issues with this as well as many others. 

The original contract stated 0.15.
Not everyone paid this price.
Not everyone bought from me.
I operate in USD behind the scenes.

[Frankthechicken]

I can't see why this wouldn't work if no new bond holders are allowed to join. I'm not an expert on your local law though. I think I know the issue your having and as long as money changes hands for new bonds there shouldn't be an issue. Capping purchases at a proportional amount to ownership May be an issue but bond holders could hv a hand shake agreement to only purchase their fair share

There are multiple issues, local and federal.  The main issue is specifically pertaining to variable payout though.  I'm not a lawyer so I'm waiting for my legal rep to put it all in legal terminology before laying out there.

Can you issue a 'change of bond terms' that each bondholder must accept?  Such as

Old terms:
100MH/s per bond
New terms:
1.5 GH/s per bond (depending on total hardware active at the time of course with some safety cushion)

So, once a bondholder accepts the change of terms via signed message, they can begin receiving the benefit of the new hardware.

I'm getting the feeling that it is the specification of 100MH/s in the original bond agreement that is screwing us over.

[Bigrah]

I can't see why this wouldn't work if no new bond holders are allowed to join. I'm not an expert on your local law though. I think I know the issue your having and as long as money changes hands for new bonds there shouldn't be an issue. Capping purchases at a proportional amount to ownership May be an issue but bond holders could hv a hand shake agreement to only purchase their fair share

There are multiple issues, local and federal.  The main issue is specifically pertaining to variable payout though.  I'm not a lawyer so I'm waiting for my legal rep to put it all in legal terminology before laying out there.

With fixed Hashrate you would still pay variable payout... It will change each week..  

[Lab_Rat]

I can't see why this wouldn't work if no new bond holders are allowed to join. I'm not an expert on your local law though. I think I know the issue your having and as long as money changes hands for new bonds there shouldn't be an issue. Capping purchases at a proportional amount to ownership May be an issue but bond holders could hv a hand shake agreement to only purchase their fair share

There are multiple issues, local and federal.  The main issue is specifically pertaining to variable payout though.  I'm not a lawyer so I'm waiting for my legal rep to put it all in legal terminology before laying out there.

With fixed Hashrate you would still pay variable payout... It will change each week..  

That's not how that particular phrase is meant to be interpreted legally.  The reason why I said some answers will be coming shortly (as in the next few weeks)

[goddardnet]

How about answering about what are you planning to do with the hardware and the hundreds of thousands of dollars invested in new hardware.

I've stated I'm working on the specifics of this.

The 'original' IPO contract states 0.25 BTC for a 'minimum' of 100MH/s.

This works both ways, you refund all bonds held at 100MH/s at a price of 0.25 BTC for however long that takes with future hardware purchases bought with BTC invested.

Failing that refund all bonds at their original purchase price you can interrogate the blockchain - that is what it is there for.

Legally the IPO is not 'fit for purpose' so a refund 'at any time' of all investments means no one is out of pocket - a great idea crushed by 'the man'. Effectively unwinding all financial possitions held.

The honorable thing to do, no?

4 significant issues with this as well as many others. 

The original contract stated 0.15.
Not everyone paid this price.
Not everyone bought from me.
I operate in USD behind the scenes.

Point 1. Agree, my mistake.
Point 2 and 3. You have the blockchain and you know how many bonds are held
Point 4. Not my problem, you take 25% of eveything to 'make it work'

[contactmike1]

If we can't get credit for new hardware, then why not buy back the bonds at the issued value (0.15)?  It sounds like there are very few options to get the value back to the bondholders now, but this type of option will alleviate most losses. The company will have a very large amount of incoming bitcoin available from the new hardware in March.

[goddardnet]

If we can't get credit for new hardware, then why not buy back the bonds at the issued value (0.15)?  It sounds like there are very few options to get the value back to the bondholders now, but this type of option will alleviate most losses. The company will have a very large amount of incoming bitcoin available from the new hardware in March.

My point.

Also, Are divs on hold indefinately until this is resolved 'Two Weeks^TM'

[Lab_Rat]

If we can't get credit for new hardware, then why not buy back the bonds at the issued value (0.15)?  It sounds like there are very few options to get the value back to the bondholders now, but this type of option will alleviate most losses. The company will have a very large amount of incoming bitcoin available from the new hardware in March.

My point.

Also, Are divs on hold indefinately until this is resolved 'Two Weeks^TM'

No they're being prepared.

[sparky999]

What about ending LRM and starting a new company when the new hardware arrives and selling bonds for 1 satoshi each .

[Lab_Rat]

What about ending LRM and starting a new company when the new hardware arrives and selling bonds for 1 satoshi each .

Something is telling me that would be even more illegal.