-

[Endlessa]

if the bond value in hashrate will no longer increase as LRM increases, then these bonds are dead.

Exactly, I deliberately did NOT buy into any mining concern with a fixed hashrate and no reinvestment and growth plan.

...and exactly the reason why I invested in LRM, sadly.

same 

[1714498632]

1714498632

[1714498632]

1714498632

[1714498632]

1714498632

[1714498632]

1714498632

[daemonfox]

if the bond value in hashrate will no longer increase as LRM increases, then these bonds are dead.

Exactly, I deliberately did NOT buy into any mining concern with a fixed hashrate and no reinvestment and growth plan.

...and exactly the reason why I invested in LRM, sadly.

same 

None of this is an issue if we are all going to be issued more bonds as hardware comes online...

The only reason we do not have confirmation that this IS INDEED the way LRM is moving forward is that it would be premature of Zach to make such an announcement without leagl standing and documentation to do so...

Crypto may be the land of instant gratification... the real world still operates 9-5 M-F.

[rangerbob21]

if the bond value in hashrate will no longer increase as LRM increases, then these bonds are dead.

Exactly, I deliberately did NOT buy into any mining concern with a fixed hashrate and no reinvestment and growth plan.

...and exactly the reason why I invested in LRM, sadly.

same  

None of this is an issue if we are all going to be issued more bonds as hardware comes online...

The only reason we do not have confirmation that this IS INDEED the way LRM is moving forward is that it would be premature of Zach to make such an announcement without leagl standing and documentation to do so...

Crypto may be the land of instant gratification... the real world still operates 9-5 M-F.

I like the idea though...

LR deemed it fit to announce the cap on hash rate per bond. There is no indication of any kind that anything else is happening other than "more to come" on the "legal issues" that caused this change.

[Endlessa]

I really don't see where in FinCEN this fixes his legal position either.  I don't see anywhere a law was pointed to this is fixing.

to fix his FinCEN issue he'd have to be doing this as a legal corp to avoid being an MSB.

Did I miss where a legitimate explanation or reference to the legal code?

[rangerbob21]

I really don't see where in FinCEN this fixes his legal position either.  I don't see anywhere a law was pointed to this is fixing.

to fix his FinCEN issue he'd have to be doing this as a legal corp to avoid being an MSB.

Did I miss where a legitimate explanation or reference to the legal code?

"...more to come on this..." I guess...

[CumpsD]

no we are expecting a complete picture when you drop a bombshell and for you to responsibly present information

I'm working on doing so and all I have done is provide an immediate fix that does fit into the original contract promises, with the intent to find a way to benefit early contract purchasers as more hardware comes in.

No, because you do not communicate, nobody knows if you provided a fix or just ripped everyone off. Since you are not clear about all the details about the problem, nobody here can tell if your fix is really any good.

[Endlessa]

no we are expecting a complete picture when you drop a bombshell and for you to responsibly present information

I'm working on doing so and all I have done is provide an immediate fix that does fit into the original contract promises, with the intent to find a way to benefit early contract purchasers as more hardware comes in.

No, because you do not communicate, nobody knows if you provided a fix or just ripped everyone off. Since you are not clear about all the details about the problem, nobody here can tell if your fix is really any good.

It would be nice to know exactly what you're fixing here too.  If you have a fix, you must know what you are fixing, or at least one would hope.

[Flashman]

None of this is an issue if we are all going to be issued more bonds as hardware comes online...

Yes IF. However, we now have cause to have severe "trust issues" and if unilaterally forcing us to accept fixed rate contracts is a way of divorcing us from the "share-iness" of the investment, then  tacitly accepting that, with nothing set in stone about further recompense, leaves us in a potentially weakened position.

Bondholders have to understand that whatever Messrs Wormtongue, Screwem and Sneer (or whatever his lawyers are called) are whispering in Labrats ear is all atuned to HIS benefit, as a perceived sole proprietor. Thus all advice would be aimed at ensuring dictatorial control and the maximum recompense for the littlest "work" possible.


Or in other words, it wasn't about control until the lawyer made loss of control a fear, (With the SEC boogeyman no doubt) and control was attempted to be enforced by a unilateral attempt to change terms, so now it's about control, sorry about your lawyers and your luck. We don't necessarily want control, but will leverage the "share-iness"* to it 's full extent until recompense is restored to expectations.

(*Hey SEC this guy sold us these things what looked like shares....)

[smracer]

How does this make any sense?  I invested early BTC with LRM with the idea that I would share in the profits down the road.

I have gotten back about 10% of my investment in the form of dividends.  The bonds are worthless now.

Why not just split up all the new hardware coming in and give it to the investors?

It is sure going to be easier than running it all this summer once it starts to warm up.

[Endlessa]

How does this make any sense?  I invested early BTC with LRM with the idea that I would share in the profits down the road.

I have gotten back about 10% of my investment in the form of dividends.  The bonds are worthless now.

Why not just split up all the new hardware coming in and give it to the investors?

It is sure going to be easier than running it all this summer once it starts to warm up.

best thing in that type of scenario would be to auction and split. that's not what should happen, but if you were going to do that.

[elitenoob]

Zach did you visit your lawyer today? And we would like to have some official documents to look at. And did you actually asked a 2nd lawyer for his opinion, because relying on an answer of your current one is too less.

edit: fixed name...not zacK

[Frankthechicken]

Labrat. Please respond to these questions where answers are highly anticipated:

What is up with the 150TH order?

What is the current status of the hardware resources you've been working on? Were any bridges closed or burned?

Are you committed to LRM being an actual success?

Are you committed to keeping the spirit of the agreement you communicated and sold to everyone?
That spirit means you intend to continue to send out dividends in proportion to the growth of the whole company hash-rate, and maintain the same continual re-investment plan.

Bumping this comment in hopes @Lab_Rat sees it (again?).  I think these are particularly urgent questions that would put a lot of concerns at ease.

Though Lab_Rat has stated (once) more or less that he wants to have an outcome where contract holders benefit from increases in hashrate, clarification would be nice.  Hopefully that is what today's meeting with the lawyer is about... how to allow current contract holders to benefit from additional hardware purchases as was the original intent.

I'm not terribly concerned with the why and the how as long as the original intent and benefit of additional hardware is preserved.

A second opinion from an unrelated lawyer is HIGHLY recommended regardless, Lab_Rat.

[M31]

The wait we are now enduring depends on lawyers, and if you’ve had dealings with lawyers before, you know things are not instantaneous.  Lab_Rat is speaking to a lawyer today.. so let's see how that goes

We still have gear incoming and I'd certainly prefer a short wait here while LR figures out company structure, to having to deal with the government down the road.

Thanks for bashing away at this problem preemptively Lab_Rat!  I'd hate for the government to be the one handling divs on the weekend - so far letting anyone else handle that job has not gone too well!

[int03h]

None of this is an issue if we are all going to be issued more bonds as hardware comes online...

Yes IF. However, we now have cause to have severe "trust issues" and if unilaterally forcing us to accept fixed rate contracts is a way of divorcing us from the "share-iness" of the investment, then  tacitly accepting that, with nothing set in stone about further recompense, leaves us in a potentially weakened position.

Bondholders have to understand that whatever Messrs Wormtongue, Screwem and Sneer (or whatever his lawyers are called) are whispering in Labrats ear is all atuned to HIS benefit, as a perceived sole proprietor. Thus all advice would be aimed at ensuring dictatorial control and the maximum recompense for the littlest "work" possible.


Or in other words, it wasn't about control until the lawyer made loss of control a fear, (With the SEC boogeyman no doubt) and control was attempted to be enforced by a unilateral attempt to change terms, so now it's about control, sorry about your lawyers and your luck. We don't necessarily want control, but will leverage the "share-iness"* to it 's full extent until recompense is restored to expectations.

(*Hey SEC this guy sold us these things what looked like shares....)

I would demand a balance sheet if I was in your position. (hopefully his accountant also doesn't have his head up HIS ass)

Also I would demand my original money back since these were bonds not shares.

No horse in this race .. but I am sad to see this thing going the way it is.

[bittymitty]

Lab rat has said repeatedly that as bond holder we have zero claim to any in hand or incoming hardware.

We only get a share of the BTC mined.

Now that the bonds are a fixed hashrate he just has to maintain the current hardware until it is not longer profitable and then wind down the mine.

The reason he waited until now is so that he can mine with the new equipment without paying out any of the proceeds and just claim " its with the lawyers/courts"

This will drag on for several month without a doubt.

The fact of the matter is Lab Rat has played his hand. Trust has been lost in LRM and it is now worthless.

Actions speak louder than words.

"I'm working on doing so and all I have done is provide an immediate fix that does fit into the original contract promises, with the intent to find a way to benefit early contract purchasers as more hardware comes in."

Benefit early contract purchases.  Did Lab Rat forget he was selling bonds direct to users long after the IPO finished and as recent as last month?  So what about these late purchases are they lesser bond holders?  What about the the current buyers picking up bonds for pennies?

The immediate fix only served to finalize the scam. 

I am ready to report this fraudster to the Authorities.  Please PM me if anyone would like to work together with this.

Lab Rat please send me your lawyers details.   

[elitenoob]

Lab rat has said repeatedly that as bond holder we have zero claim to any in hand or incoming hardware.

We only get a share of the BTC mined.

Now that the bonds are a fixed hashrate he just has to maintain the current hardware until it is not longer profitable and then wind down the mine.

The reason he waited until now is so that he can mine with the new equipment without paying out any of the proceeds and just claim " its with the lawyers/courts"

This will drag on for several month without a doubt.

The fact of the matter is Lab Rat has played his hand. Trust has been lost in LRM and it is now worthless.

Actions speak louder than words.

What tells us that he is not already hashing with that huge ammount of TH? If he wants to put all hashing power that was purchased with investors money going into his own pocket, well this hashing power in jail will be pretty worthless.

[||bit]

Here's where it appears the assets stand at the least:

25TH online
156TH incoming
~10-20TH BFL Monarchs (guesstimate)
+ others hardware (e.g. power supplies)
+ mined bitcoins saved for re-investment

That is all about 200TH. Divided among roughly 60,000 bonds is 3.3GH per bond!

On how to evaluate liquidating GH...

Dave at Bitfury is selling 25GH for $400. That's $16/GH. Cut that in half to be conservative and you have $8/GH that LRM could sell pretty fast (after all it's in-hand hardware).

Original bonds would then be at least worth (if liquidating)  3.3GH x $8/GH = $26.40 ..or.. roughly  BTC0.04 + currently saved coins divided up.

If LRM can't beat that in short term dividends (within 4-6 months), then liquidation seems the best route. Everybody go on their merry way, and nobody get's sued or sent to prison (yet).

[bittymitty]

The BTC is lost for all bond holders( except maybe a few insiders)

Lab Rat will not be paying out any more BTC for this scam.

He is going to hide behind lawyers and "Statues" to be clarified.

I don't even care about the 120+ BTC I have lost.  I will be happy when Lab Rat is in jail.

[Endlessa]

I'll give it until Friday, unless something happens or new info shows up in the meantime, then I'll start notifying authorities and the system can work it out.

It's a reasonable amount of time, considering he's already spent 2-3 months working this out according to his own admission, for him to come to the table with an explanation of:

• exactly what this action is "fixing".  
• why this is the "best" option.
• Why this can't be address with a corporation (in compliance with FinCEN guidelines for this type of distribution of dividends for mining groups).
• What the exit strategy is for people who don't want to accept these new terms.
• What the current hashrate is and what is the future hashrate with current purchases in the pipeline
• What the current balance of BTC is
• Whether or not the coinseed agreement is still in play
• How is the future implementation of bonds going to reconcile with the loses/expectations of current holders
• For bonus points: Why is he not having further activity with coinseed

[chrisfor]

LabRat, why don't you scan the letters you received from authorities and show them to us (certain bits blacked out)?
Or post links here about those new laws which force you to change lrm's share/bond concept.

Apart from that, I just googled 'new jersey bitcoin law' ... it does not look amusing.