-

[||bit]

I will add my voice to Epoch's to state that the only reasonable course in this process is to wind up the company rather than spending additional resources trying to fight your bondholders or somehow restructure the deal. All existing and inbound equipment needs to be sold and the proceeds distributed to the bondholders accordingly.

Lab_Rat's response on this has been that it will result in less value for the bond holders than ongoing operation with each original bond being worth 300 MH/s (including the 1->3 split).



grnbrg.

And why not 2 gh/s bond to reflect the futur hashrate ?
Why 300 mh/s when the issue is around the 100 mh/s bonds definition?

Something don't work here...

Absolutely right!

First of all if splitting now is appropriate can we look forward to future splits as new hardware comes in?  I would be OK with that because it just makes the growth more staggered.

If future splits aren't possible then for god's sake split us 10 to 20 ways x100MH to account for the hardware we already financed with our bond purchases.

I can only hope that the news improves from here.  Locked at 300MH is unacceptable.  That IS theft and we will fight for what's ours.

Yeah, clumsy, but a very simple solution. If you want to call the mining bonds a fixed hash rate, for now, make it 1,000,000 PH. Done! And yes, it is THAT easy.
...or...
But a better solution is to call it a fixed PERCENTAGE based on total issued bonds, where bonds issued may vary. That is how it should have been structured from day one.

It really shouldn't be that complicated.

[1714505807]

1714505807

[1714505807]

1714505807

[1714505807]

1714505807

[1714505807]

1714505807

[1714505807]

1714505807

[1714505807]

1714505807

[grnbrg]

He did not answer the questions regarding bfl refund...i guess he will just order the additional promised hardware and everything that goes above 100/300 mh/s /share/contract goes into <xyz> pocket.

Now find out by yourself whom xyz stands for.

In private conversation he indicated he was thinking refund from BFL.

But that's something of a no-brainer (IMO) regardless of what happens with the refunded BTC.


grnbrg.

[||bit]

Labrat.

Here is a very simple solution:

Step 1. Write up a new "agreement" that is more clear, so that investors are fairly and proportionately compensated with LRM growth. Bonds should represent a percentage based on all bonds.

Step 2. Allow for people to confirm that they want the new agreement. Anyone silent on the issue, you can leave in the old structure, whatever that means. Just be prepared for legal recourse of people sticking with the old agreement and feeling screwed if you withhold dividends that would come from LRM growth.

...or some reasonable variation of this.

[Frankthechicken]

I will add my voice to Epoch's to state that the only reasonable course in this process is to wind up the company rather than spending additional resources trying to fight your bondholders or somehow restructure the deal. All existing and inbound equipment needs to be sold and the proceeds distributed to the bondholders accordingly.

Lab_Rat's response on this has been that it will result in less value for the bond holders than ongoing operation with each original bond being worth 300 MH/s (including the 1->3 split).



grnbrg.

And why not 2 gh/s bond to reflect the futur hashrate ?
Why 300 mh/s when the issue is around the 100 mh/s bonds definition?

Something don't work here...

Absolutely right!

First of all if splitting now is appropriate can we look forward to future splits as new hardware comes in?  I would be OK with that because it just makes the growth more staggered.

If future splits aren't possible then for god's sake split us 10 to 20 ways x100MH to account for the hardware we already financed with our bond purchases.

I can only hope that the news improves from here.  Locked at 300MH is unacceptable.  That IS theft and we will fight for what's ours.

Yeah, clumsy, but a very simple solution. If you want to call the mining bonds a fixed hash rate, for now, make it 1,000,000 PH. Done! And yes, it is THAT easy.
...or...
But a better solution is to call it a fixed PERCENTAGE based on total issued bonds, where bonds issued may vary. That is how it should have been structured from day one.

It really shouldn't be that complicated.

I've read over the OP a few times now, and I just can't see what the issue is.  100 is specified as the bare minimum.  It also says that the intent was to increase value of the bonds by adding hashrate.

We've exhausted the analysis of the known info and are venturing into speculation now, but it would seem for whatever reason, LR has assigned a fixed 100MH to each bond since that was the minimum promised, then provided a three for one split because that roughly represents the amount of hardware in hand and active now minus the 25% portion for cost of running the company.

It would stand to reason, one of two things happens now:

Hardware comes in, new 100 MH bonds are issued for sale, existing bondholders are stuffed and see their holdings decline in value every 2016 blocks.
or
Hardware comes in, additional splits occur to bring existing bondholders up to their fair share of 100MH bonds for the new hardware.

I'm really really hoping it is the latter.  I would be okay with bond splits.

[||bit]

I've read over the OP a few times now, and I just can't see what the issue is.  100 is specified as the bare minimum.  It also says that the intent was to increase value of the bonds by adding hashrate.

We've exhausted the analysis of the known info and are venturing into speculation now, but it would seem for whatever reason, LR has assigned a fixed 100MH to each bond since that was the minimum promised, then provided a three for one split because that roughly represents the amount of hardware in hand and active now minus the 25% portion for cost of running the company.

It would stand to reason, one of two things happens now:

Hardware comes in, new 100 MH bonds are issued for sale, existing bondholders are stuffed and see their holdings decline in value every 2016 blocks.
or
Hardware comes in, additional splits occur to bring existing bondholders up to their fair share of 100MH bonds for the new hardware.

I'm really really hoping it is the latter.  I would be okay with bond splits.

Bondholders getting stuffed is out of the question. A lawsuit would be a near certainty.

[fruitcake]

what a mess this is turning into.
I've even been driven to post from my btctalk account ive never bothered to use. i invested a fair amount into this and had high hopes but its been setback after setback, i have no doubt in my mind that labrat/zach is pulling his hair out over the complications but i think its time to put lrm down, you've secured yourself a nice job as a result of your initial work in setting lrm up - focus on that now, liquidate the hardware in hand, take the BFL refund offer and distribute the proceeds to bond holders.

[||bit]

If Labrat liquidated, and I'm not saying he should, then ~180TH/60,000bonds = approx. 3+GH/bond; +  most of the other 25% of mined coins in the mean time; + the BFL hardware funds.

He can sell the in-hand hardware for $400 (~BTC0.67) per 25GH - based on this: https://megabigpower.com/shop/index.php?route=product/category&path=68
Being slightly used shouldn't matter, since he can ship immediately.

So, let's round down a bit and say each bond could be compensated with BTC.06 ... That would be a ~60% loss. Maybe a ~50% loss if you count the dividends paid since inception.

But I don't want to get ahead of myself. I'd still rather see LRM succeed, and in a fair way!

[BKM]

I've read over the OP a few times now, and I just can't see what the issue is.  100 is specified as the bare minimum.  It also says that the intent was to increase value of the bonds by adding hashrate.

We've exhausted the analysis of the known info and are venturing into speculation now, but it would seem for whatever reason, LR has assigned a fixed 100MH to each bond since that was the minimum promised, then provided a three for one split because that roughly represents the amount of hardware in hand and active now minus the 25% portion for cost of running the company.

It would stand to reason, one of two things happens now:

Hardware comes in, new 100 MH bonds are issued for sale, existing bondholders are stuffed and see their holdings decline in value every 2016 blocks.
or
Hardware comes in, additional splits occur to bring existing bondholders up to their fair share of 100MH bonds for the new hardware.

I'm really really hoping it is the latter.  I would be okay with bond splits.

I appears that I may have misunderstood the intent of the OP as well. If it is the case that new 100 mh/s bonds will be issued for all new hardware that comes on line then I would be fine with that approach.

Zach, please take a moment to clarify this point......

[||bit]

I've read over the OP a few times now, and I just can't see what the issue is.  100 is specified as the bare minimum.  It also says that the intent was to increase value of the bonds by adding hashrate.

We've exhausted the analysis of the known info and are venturing into speculation now, but it would seem for whatever reason, LR has assigned a fixed 100MH to each bond since that was the minimum promised, then provided a three for one split because that roughly represents the amount of hardware in hand and active now minus the 25% portion for cost of running the company.

It would stand to reason, one of two things happens now:

Hardware comes in, new 100 MH bonds are issued for sale, existing bondholders are stuffed and see their holdings decline in value every 2016 blocks.
or
Hardware comes in, additional splits occur to bring existing bondholders up to their fair share of 100MH bonds for the new hardware.

I'm really really hoping it is the latter.  I would be okay with bond splits.

I appears that I may have misunderstood the intent of the OP as well. If it is the case that new 100 mh/s bonds will be issued for all new hardware that comes on line then I would be fine with that approach.

Zach, please take a moment to clarify this point......

I think it would be a workable solution too. But it would be clumsy when a fixed percentage (based on all issued bonds) should be just as good. I fail to see what legal issues could come from this.

[||bit]

Labrat.

I apologize if I was ever coming off as too intense. Maybe, I'm not. But please clarify & update soon... let us know you are committed to succeeding with LRM and to being fair according to the spirit of the original agreement. Being fair to the spirit of the agreement means that it doesn't matter how you structure the percentage people invested, or if you call that percentage invested as bonds or chicken salad, as long as people are fairly compensated in dividends, that their overall dividends grow proportionately with the company, and that the bonds (or chicken salad) can be bought and sold in whatever units they exist.

[bobfranklin]

My concerns have mostly been aired and I am leaning towards the cash out and reimburse what you can to bond holders as the alternative is a hashrate that will hit nothing in short order.

Couple of queries - this "asic company" which I'm assuming is coinseed (although I had the thought it was a manufacturing facility that we were buying into) what happens to our investment in that? Obviously if it's investment in the production divs from that will continue to pay off - I believe this should be passed on to the bondholder in some form (perhaps a share?).

I guess we need to really see what the issue is before we can comment too much.

[mufa23]

Alright guys, I think I may be on to something here:

-Feds/State getting pissy and want Labrat to only payout at 300MH/s per bond rate.
-Comply and continue to pay us all at 300MH/s
-Labrat will be making much more Bitcoin now
-He "takes-us-out-to-lunch" each Saturday with the extra bitcoins
-Those that coincidentally happen to have more bonds that others receive more "lunch money" than those that don't have as many bonds
-completely coincidentally *wink* *wink* *nudge* *nudge*

They may be able to stop him from "paying out" more Bitcoin (as a business). But I don't think they can stop him from "donating" (as a person) varying amounts of his bitcoins to certain addresses that also happen to be bond holders.

[kaneda2004]

I'm still at a loss as to how this is remotely fair or legal..
I've got 38.1 BTC invested with you LabRat. You've killed any chance of us seeing our investments remotely returned...
0.82 BTC dividends on 38.1 BTC investment.... what a tragedy.

I vote for you to liquidate the company's assets and buy back our bonds for whatever pittance you get for the hardware.

[Lab_Rat]

There are issues with a percentage being considered shares and a contract being considered a sale.  I will attempt to clarify more over the course of next week when I have more legal documentation to explain.

Also, I've done the math and liquidating the company's assets will turn out worse for the contract-holders as well as myself (rather than paying out "dividends").
Hardware just doesn't sell for what it did in may 2013......

[daemonfox]

There are issues with a percentage being considered shares and a contract being considered a sale.  I will attempt to clarify more over the course of next week when I have more legal documentation to explain.

Also, I've done the math and liquidating the company's assets will turn out worse for the contract-holders as well as myself (rather than paying out "dividends").
Hardware just doesn't sell for what it did in may 2013......

Then your attorney is at fault... and I, like some others, would implore you to reach out for a second opinion on any move you next make to right this for us all.

[hamburgerhelper]

Zach, you sold unlicensed securities to unsophisticated investors. I am one of them. You need to make sure that all current and future hardware purchased by LRM and all liquid assets are equitably distributed to bond holders or I will personally coordinate a class action civil suit against you. I will prove that you knowingly committed fraud and I will hold you personally liable for my losses.  This will be in addition to dedicating effort to insuring that the SEC pursues criminal proceedings against you, personally. Your ill-gotten gains won't make you rich enough to avoid jail.

Your status as an LLC is not a permit to break the law and defraud investors.

Do the right thing, and make bond holders whole.

[Ashitank]

I don't see why we cannot find a work around for the issues at hand if done with patience & dedication to original intentions of the OP , I think if we all work together we should be able find our way out as we all know if this goes south it will not be nice for any one involved here , we should come together to find a solution respecting investors expectation , legal issues & respecting LRM as well.

[countduckula]

First of all, to get that, he should have reached us when this "legal" problems came, that way, we can work out a solution, as he claims he's been on this for weeks and we just got the "screw them" solution.

I've different definitions of his management in general, let alone a huge dissapointment on the "solution" he never tried to discuss, he just posted it.

[Ashitank]

First of all, to get that, he should have reached us when this "legal" problems came, that way, we can work out a solution, as he claims he's been on this for weeks and we just got the "screw them" solution.

I've different definitions of his management in general, let alone a huge disappointment on the "solution" he never tried to discuss, he just posted it.

Unfortunately for us Zach has always dropped a nuke post after being away for quite some time , this pattern which repeats every time Zach is away for long time   , I hope he doesn't do the same to his real friend & family too !

[Lab_Rat]

First of all, to get that, he should have reached us when this "legal" problems came, that way, we can work out a solution, as he claims he's been on this for weeks and we just got the "screw them" solution.

I've different definitions of his management in general, let alone a huge dissapointment on the "solution" he never tried to discuss, he just posted it.

Your average company isn't as vocal or caring as I've been for the last 8 months.  They give the "screw you" solution whereas I have stuck by my contract-holders through countless hurdles including delayed hardware, bitfunder closing, and countless other issues that have occurred behind the scenes and publicly.  I have bit the bullet on many issues that have negatively effected me.  Please try to be patient as more information is released over the next week or two.