-

[Lab_Rat]

Zach can't tell you what the end solution is because legally he MUST NOT until his lawyers have put to rest any chance that THIS pending change might still violate the law.

I know you were responding to someone else. And on what you wrote here, I agree with what you are driving at. Labrat can only do what he can only do within the law.

However, he could at least answer some hardware questions or express his intentions better. Especially, if his intentions are seeking to honor the spirit of the original agreement. It doesn't have to be expressed in the sense that "this is how the end solution will be", but it can be "this is the KIND of end solution I want to find. And I will fight to find if such a solution is possible". .... That is not an end solution, but it is a commitment to fight or work for a kind of end solution (if it's possible). This would resonate well with people, especially if it's seeking to honor the spirit of the agreement. That really wouldn't be hard to ask. In the meantime, however, people have to read in between the lines and observe his very defensive posturing.

I really don't want to be unfair to Labrat's intentions or misrepresent him. If I ever did, then I was wrong. But the importance of investors questions & concerns should not be so easily dismissed. And I find it ironic that he said he was advised to stop answering questions, when he really didn't answer any questions. Correct me if I'm wrong, because I'm willing to be corrected on that.

Orbit please read the last 10 pages, I answered the 3 questions you asked.  I read every page therefore anyone asking questions should be doing the same.

EDIT: also the order of those 3 entities did not signify importance.

[1714493626]

1714493626

[1714493626]

1714493626

[a2offrb]

To anyone dictating how fast my lawyers will work, that's just not going to happen.  I don't even dictate how fast they work.

Oh... now i know why HW is always late.  

I am taking advice of many folks and stopping answering any questions. 

"Smart" move. "I will do nothing until my lawyers will tell me how to solve this shit"?
Even answer questions about new hardware? What about other questions?
Who is this "many folks"?

U didnt learnt anything since last time u taked fee from dividends? In contract was that will be no fee. U have broken it. And.... u got solution in... what time? In some hours someone posted about sendmany. But u still did taked this fee because ... u dont know what u doing.
And we are again in same situation. U have problem, find some idiotic solution and u have again same problem. We didnt like the way u solve problem.
The problem is in formulation u said about it. I hope/believe this is temporary solution.

 As someone have said before if u would just say:
 "Houston, we have a problem. My lawyers says that by $ paragraph we cannot do "this" and "this". Currently i have no solution to make it painless way, so temporary decision will be that bond hashrate will be fixed at 100MH but bond amount will be tripled so 1 280MH old bond will magically turn into 3 new 100MH bond. This will be applied and stand until better solution will be found by my lawyers(maybe community will help?). About new hardware: Its still didnt arrived. I think that i will issue new bonds when HW will arrive and give it to investors to maintain same procentual part of LRM hashrate for investors."

I think that with this kind of announcement there would not be this negative reaction from community. But u must understand that if you order hardware on investors money and say that they will not get any hashrate from it - they will be very angry.

LabRat
Can you say to us, that we will get same proportional hashrate from hardware was already ordered and your lawyers will find some solution? Because if you want to keep BF order and BFL order by yourself and leave current investors only with 17TH - this not gonna happen and you must understand it.

[||bit]

Zach can't tell you what the end solution is because legally he MUST NOT until his lawyers have put to rest any chance that THIS pending change might still violate the law.

I know you were responding to someone else. And on what you wrote here, I agree with what you are driving at. Labrat can only do what he can only do within the law.

However, he could at least answer some hardware questions or express his intentions better. Especially, if his intentions are seeking to honor the spirit of the original agreement. It doesn't have to be expressed in the sense that "this is how the end solution will be", but it can be "this is the KIND of end solution I want to find. And I will fight to find if such a solution is possible". .... That is not an end solution, but it is a commitment to fight or work for a kind of end solution (if it's possible). This would resonate well with people, especially if it's seeking to honor the spirit of the agreement. That really wouldn't be hard to ask. In the meantime, however, people have to read in between the lines and observe his very defensive posturing.

I really don't want to be unfair to Labrat's intentions or misrepresent him. If I ever did, then I was wrong. But the importance of investors questions & concerns should not be so easily dismissed. And I find it ironic that he said he was advised to stop answering questions, when he really didn't answer any questions. Correct me if I'm wrong, because I'm willing to be corrected on that.

Orbit please read the last 10 pages, I answered the 3 questions you asked.  I read every page therefore anyone asking questions should be doing the same.

EDIT: also the order of those 3 entities did not signify importance.

Thanks. I have been tracking. It was actually a total of four questions in blue lettering (or did you not read that?). But I'll go back and re-read your comments to double check.

[Lab_Rat]

Zach can't tell you what the end solution is because legally he MUST NOT until his lawyers have put to rest any chance that THIS pending change might still violate the law.

I know you were responding to someone else. And on what you wrote here, I agree with what you are driving at. Labrat can only do what he can only do within the law.

However, he could at least answer some hardware questions or express his intentions better. Especially, if his intentions are seeking to honor the spirit of the original agreement. It doesn't have to be expressed in the sense that "this is how the end solution will be", but it can be "this is the KIND of end solution I want to find. And I will fight to find if such a solution is possible". .... That is not an end solution, but it is a commitment to fight or work for a kind of end solution (if it's possible). This would resonate well with people, especially if it's seeking to honor the spirit of the agreement. That really wouldn't be hard to ask. In the meantime, however, people have to read in between the lines and observe his very defensive posturing.

I really don't want to be unfair to Labrat's intentions or misrepresent him. If I ever did, then I was wrong. But the importance of investors questions & concerns should not be so easily dismissed. And I find it ironic that he said he was advised to stop answering questions, when he really didn't answer any questions. Correct me if I'm wrong, because I'm willing to be corrected on that.

Orbit please read the last 10 pages, I answered the 3 questions you asked.  I read every page therefore anyone asking questions should be doing the same.

EDIT: also the order of those 3 entities did not signify importance.

Thanks. I have been tracking. It was actually a total of four questions in blue lettering (or did you not read that?). But I'll go back and re-read your comments to double check.

If it was 4 I apologize but I believe it covered them.  I recall the Blue writing followed by red writing almost immediately after demanding an answer in the middle of the night. 

[Ashitank]

Bargrpahics has not posted in some time , I hope he is A ok.

[DemocraticRepublicOfDave]

No new hardware is in yet.

To clarify the current change.  If you had 1 contract @ ~280MH/s you now have 3 @ 100MH/s.

Hi Lab Rat.

Can you give us an estimate yet of when new hardware will be arriving?

Cheers

Dave

[||bit]

Zach can't tell you what the end solution is because legally he MUST NOT until his lawyers have put to rest any chance that THIS pending change might still violate the law.

I know you were responding to someone else. And on what you wrote here, I agree with what you are driving at. Labrat can only do what he can only do within the law.

However, he could at least answer some hardware questions or express his intentions better. Especially, if his intentions are seeking to honor the spirit of the original agreement. It doesn't have to be expressed in the sense that "this is how the end solution will be", but it can be "this is the KIND of end solution I want to find. And I will fight to find if such a solution is possible". .... That is not an end solution, but it is a commitment to fight or work for a kind of end solution (if it's possible). This would resonate well with people, especially if it's seeking to honor the spirit of the agreement. That really wouldn't be hard to ask. In the meantime, however, people have to read in between the lines and observe his very defensive posturing.

I really don't want to be unfair to Labrat's intentions or misrepresent him. If I ever did, then I was wrong. But the importance of investors questions & concerns should not be so easily dismissed. And I find it ironic that he said he was advised to stop answering questions, when he really didn't answer any questions. Correct me if I'm wrong, because I'm willing to be corrected on that.

Orbit please read the last 10 pages, I answered the 3 questions you asked.  I read every page therefore anyone asking questions should be doing the same.

EDIT: also the order of those 3 entities did not signify importance.

Thanks. I have been tracking. It was actually a total of four questions in blue lettering (or did you not read that?). But I'll go back and re-read your comments to double check.

If it was 4 I apologize but I believe it covered them.  I recall the Blue writing followed by red writing almost immediately after demanding an answer in the middle of the night.  

No worries.. I was just poking at you for poking at me about reading. I actually had read most of your posts (scanned where it seemed unimportant). But I guess re-reading them helped sort it a bit more - if not for the mere cathartic effect. I will summarize for myself and others to track with me. The blue is my original blue question. The quotes are your responses you gave to other people about either their question or some other topic, but that hit in the vicinity of answering my question - even if wasn't directly answering my question. And these are all of your comments that I gleaned over the past ten pages that seem significantly enough related to my questions. There is a reason I didn't think you answered my questions, and it was because these are only partial answers. So, I'll expound in purple.

1. What is up with the 150TH order?

In one comment you wrote:
"No new hardware is in yet."
I had figured it wasn't in. But wasn't sure. So, that answers that part. But the question is a little deeper. Was the order actually ever placed, and if you were getting any updates.
I was speculating that since Coinseed's orders were so large that it would interfere with LRM orders. Ifso, that would stink.


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

I found three relevant comments you made to others:
i. "There are certain important connections that are still in place, but there are things changing in the BTC hardware manufacturing community that are not my place to comment on."
Can you at least comment on if buying at prices comparable to what were expected before are at the least still achievable?

ii. "It has been done as an immediate fix, but the business world does not operate on same day basis unfortunately.  I can beg and plead for information today and I'll get answers by the end of the week if I'm lucky."
The second half seemed to be a comment about begging for hardware shipment updates. Is that correct?

iii. "No I can't as they are not my companies and releasing information that is not mine to release would destroy relationships built with manufacturers."
Ok, secret squirrel stuff.

3. Are you committed to LRM being an actual success?

No answer found.
This may have been answered in some effect, but I don't think it is entirely clear. Let me just ask: Do you have a confident (not necessarily certain) outlook for LRM and current investors for the long run?

4. 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.

You commented in one place to another comment:
"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."
Is it correct for me to interpret this to mean that you do have the intention to do what you can to grow investors dividends with the company in at least the general spirit of the original agreement? In other words, you intend to diligently seek ways to grow investors investments (sounds obvious, but needs to be asked in light of how things have been perceived).

...

[Lab_Rat]

I will make an attempt to clarify #4 in one quick sentence but the rest you can read a little more for.  Everyone who has contracts at this point in time is an "early purchaser" of contracts.  The company is still young and people should not be looking at this like it's all going to end in 3-4 months.  I can't count how many times I've stated Bitcoin is not a sprint it's a marathon.  For over 2 years people said that graphics cards were not profitable and in 4-6 months people will stop mining so much, but every time someone said that the price went up and they remained profitable.  Change =/= Death.

[Flashman]

Focus! May as well ask the magic 8 ball anything.

We are now gaining the impression of a weasel word spewing slimeball with intent to deceive. We need some sort of commitment that says our bonds will be worth more than a flat 300Mh, because seriously if you've had 2-3 months to think about this and THAT is your final word, I don't know why we're giving you the courtesy of even another minute to explain yourself before the shit hits the fan.

[runam0k]

Focus! May as well ask the magic 8 ball anything.

We are now gaining the impression of a weasel word spewing slimeball with intent to deceive. We need some sort of commitment that says our bonds will be worth more than a flat 300Mh, because seriously if you've had 2-3 months to think about this and THAT is your final word, I don't know why we're giving you the courtesy of even another minute to explain yourself before the shit hits the fan.

To be fair, LR already said that new hashrate will be divided between contract holders one way or another. He just hasn't proposed the method yet.

So right now we are stuck with 300mh contracts + his word.  It's far from ideal but it's not quite time to sue either.  Let's see what the proposed method is.

I'm stuggling to see why the change is necessary and how we will achieve adequate liquidity going forward, but the lawyers must have something in mind...

[VinceSamios]

1. What is up with the 150TH order?

In one comment you wrote:
"No new hardware is in yet."
I had figured it wasn't in. But wasn't sure. So, that answers that part. But the question is a little deeper. Was the order actually ever placed, and if you were getting any updates.
I was speculating that since Coinseed's orders were so large that it would interfere with LRM orders. Ifso, that would stink.

The order has been placed and is due this month.

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

I found three relevant comments you made to others:
i. "There are certain important connections that are still in place, but there are things changing in the BTC hardware manufacturing community that are not my place to comment on."
Can you at least comment on if buying at prices comparable to what were expected before are at the least still achievable?

I don't know an answer to this but my understanding and experience is that prices are only coming down and service (guaranteed delivery etc) is only improving.

ii. "It has been done as an immediate fix, but the business world does not operate on same day basis unfortunately.  I can beg and plead for information today and I'll get answers by the end of the week if I'm lucky."
The second half seemed to be a comment about begging for hardware shipment updates. Is that correct?

This is more about legal updates - the legal world works slowly - nothing has changed on the hardware side except for possible slight delays (1-2 weeks) on incoming hardware.

iii. "No I can't as they are not my companies and releasing information that is not mine to release would destroy relationships built with manufacturers."
Ok, secret squirrel stuff.

aka discretion.

3. Are you committed to LRM being an actual success?

No answer found.
This may have been answered in some effect, but I don't think it is entirely clear. Let me just ask: Do you have a confident (not necessarily certain) outlook for LRM and current investors for the long run?

The answer to question 3 is "yes" - There is no such thing as a "certain outlook" in the world of bitcoin.

4. 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.

You commented in one place to another comment:
"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."
Is it correct for me to interpret this to mean that you do have the intention to do what you can to grow investors dividends with the company in at least the general spirit of the original agreement? In other words, you intend to diligently seek ways to grow investors investments (sounds obvious, but needs to be asked in light of how things have been perceived).

The intention is clearly still to do right by investors - and anything other than this would be contractual suicide. There is some flexibility in what LRM can do, but the spirit of the contract (ie. we all benefit from increase hashing power) is the solution labrat is looking for, fighting for.

[ksenter]

To be fair, LR already said that new hashrate will be divided between contract holders one way or another. He just hasn't proposed the method yet.

So right now we are stuck with 300mh contracts + his word.  It's far from ideal but it's not quite time to sue either.  Let's see what the proposed method is.

I'm stuggling to see why the change is necessary and how we will achieve adequate liquidity going forward, but the lawyers must have something in mind...

No he didn't.  He said he'd attempt to find a way to benefit us.  Maybe he'll offer us a 25% discount on future bond purchases.  That would also qualify as an attempt to benefit us.  As of right now he has not once said he would honor the original agreement of our shares growing proportionally with the company's hashrate.

[kaneda2004]

I will make an attempt to clarify #4 in one quick sentence but the rest you can read a little more for.  Everyone who has contracts at this point in time is an "early purchaser" of contracts.  The company is still young and people should not be looking at this like it's all going to end in 3-4 months.  I can't count how many times I've stated Bitcoin is not a sprint it's a marathon.  For over 2 years people said that graphics cards were not profitable and in 4-6 months people will stop mining so much, but every time someone said that the price went up and they remained profitable.  Change =/= Death.

This is probably the most hopeful thing I've heard in the last few days on this thread.
I'm serious - no sarcasm whatsoever.
If you're in for the long haul then that is reassuring.

[rangerbob21]

I will make an attempt to clarify #4 in one quick sentence but the rest you can read a little more for.  Everyone who has contracts at this point in time is an "early purchaser" of contracts.  The company is still young and people should not be looking at this like it's all going to end in 3-4 months.  I can't count how many times I've stated Bitcoin is not a sprint it's a marathon.  For over 2 years people said that graphics cards were not profitable and in 4-6 months people will stop mining so much, but every time someone said that the price went up and they remained profitable.  Change =/= Death.

He is avoiding the question and refusing to be specific. The end is near...

With the change to the original terms, If I do not agree, do I get my original 1 BTC investment back? Fair question, I think.

The very question implies a complete lack of understanding of the investment you have made. Your original 1 BTC investement, for accounting purposes, is converted to USD at the time it is was made. The tax system does not function under BTC - think of it as if you had bought Euros or Yen six months ago and then sold them today at a loss or a gain. Furthermore, the market is the place you go to sell your bonds (or whatever the hell they are actually supposed to be called) just like you would with any company where you wanted to sell your stake. There is no right of redemption in the "real world" of investments, nor should one be implied with any investment in the wild west of BTC land.  

I do not intend this reply as a defense of LRM or any other company in the world of BTC but rather as a comment on the seemingly basic and essential lack of understanding regarding accounting and business that seems to come through loud and clear when the shit hits the fan(s).

Also, while I took a pretty hard stance towards LRM in my initial reaction to this situation, I await further guidance from Zach, particularly in regards to the disposition of the incoming hardware, before a decision that this is bad or good. In fact, this may turn out very, very well not only for us but also for the entire space that this kind of business is working within. Its the bleeding edge people. Get your red blood cell count up because you might bleed a little more before its done.

Yea, BKM... I guess NONE of us actually had any "understanding" in the "investment" we made because it was not an actual investment. Now it is over. No understanding of "accounting" or "business" needed here.  

[runam0k]

No he didn't.  He said he'd attempt to find a way to benefit us.  Maybe he'll offer us a 25% discount on future bond purchases.  That would also qualify as an attempt to benefit us.  As of right now he has not once said he would honor the original agreement of our shares growing proportionally with the company's hashrate.

You are right, but he has acknowledged several times that the change made is a temporary fix and that "the specifics of the payout moving forward is being worked on".

LR could turn around and offer us 25% and that's when we, collectively, would take action.  There is zero doubt that we all based our investment decision on the promise of proportional BTC returns based on reinvestment and increased hashrate.  We know it, LR knows it and his lawyers know it.  They just need to work out a compliant way of achieving that and if they can't then something needs to change or the operation needs to be liquidated.

Let's see what they come up with.

[rangerbob21]

No he didn't.  He said he'd attempt to find a way to benefit us.  Maybe he'll offer us a 25% discount on future bond purchases.  That would also qualify as an attempt to benefit us.  As of right now he has not once said he would honor the original agreement of our shares growing proportionally with the company's hashrate.

You are right, but he has acknowledged several times that the change made is a temporary fix and that "the specifics of the payout moving forward is being worked on".

LR could turn around and offer us 25% and that's when we, collectively, would take action.  There is zero doubt that we all based our investment decision on the promise of proportional BTC returns based on reinvestment and increased hashrate.  We know it, LR knows it and his lawyers know it.  They just need to work out a compliant way of achieving that and if they can't then something needs to change or the operation needs to be liquidated.

Let's see what they come up with.

I do not disagree with your assessment of lets wait and see... but either #1-LR is fucking stupid for announcing the capped bonds without being able to answer the most obvious NEXT questions from the bond holders OR #2- this is part of the game, espoused by other posts here, and the jig is up... 

[Endlessa]

No he didn't.  He said he'd attempt to find a way to benefit us.  Maybe he'll offer us a 25% discount on future bond purchases.  That would also qualify as an attempt to benefit us.  As of right now he has not once said he would honor the original agreement of our shares growing proportionally with the company's hashrate.

You are right, but he has acknowledged several times that the change made is a temporary fix and that "the specifics of the payout moving forward is being worked on".

LR could turn around and offer us 25% and that's when we, collectively, would take action.  There is zero doubt that we all based our investment decision on the promise of proportional BTC returns based on reinvestment and increased hashrate.  We know it, LR knows it and his lawyers know it.  They just need to work out a compliant way of achieving that and if they can't then something needs to change or the operation needs to be liquidated.

Let's see what they come up with.

I could get behind this statement except for a few lingering problems with it:

• Still no expression of what he's fixing.  Did he lose some money?  Is it a legal problem? or even an external entity?
• I have a hard time stomaching that the shares, something he price fixed and sold more shares @ ~$80 in the last several weeks, are now worth $0.36 of hash
• I'm sick of the murky communication.  I don't just mean this incident alone.
• Combine that with the lack of transparency in general (no idea what the assests are, failure to give out mining wallets or self identify on the blockchain for accounting, etc), It does feel like an "investment black hole".

I'd make a longer list, but I'm giving him until friday to get his house of cards in order.

[VinceSamios]

I'd make a longer list, but I'm giving him until friday to get his house of cards in order.

LOL - thats right, you dictate time frames - totally reasonable!

[Endlessa]

I'd make a longer list, but I'm giving him until friday to get his house of cards in order.

LOL - thats right, you dictate time frames - totally reasonable!

never said I dictated LRM's time frame. I'm dictating my time frame.  read back bit, so you can get some context.

[a2offrb]

Also:
Current hashrate is 23-24 TH.
75% of it is 17.62 TH.

So as i understand, LabRat now will take whole 25% to himself(minus electricity)? No reinvestment part anymore?

Also, already asked:
What is real name of LabRat?