-

[||bit]

If Vince was right about the hardware, why hasn't LR said anything about it arriving yet? Why would it be a secret? Unless LR was thinking there is a chance it might not be legally necessary to report it to investors... of course, this presumes Vince was correct.

[1714485313]

1714485313

[CumpsD]

If Vince was right about the hardware, why hasn't LR said anything about it arriving yet? Why would it be a secret? Unless LR was thinking there is a chance it might not be legally necessary to report it to investors... of course, this presumes Vince was correct.

Because LR decided to not post anything here anymore, untill he has some big wall of text again, or some random no-content remark

It's not like we ever have been informed about hashrate, or any other operational status updates

[Endlessa]

If Vince was right about the hardware, why hasn't LR said anything about it arriving yet? Why would it be a secret? Unless LR was thinking there is a chance it might not be legally necessary to report it to investors... of course, this presumes Vince was correct.

Because LR decided to not post anything here anymore, untill he has some big wall of text again, or some random no-content remark

It's not like we ever have been informed about hashrate, or any other operational status updates

we don't even know where the pools in use are. . nor can we see it

[BKM]

If Vince was right about the hardware, why hasn't LR said anything about it arriving yet? Why would it be a secret? Unless LR was thinking there is a chance it might not be legally necessary to report it to investors... of course, this presumes Vince was correct.

Because LR decided to not post anything here anymore, untill he has some big wall of text again, or some random no-content remark

It's not like we ever have been informed about hashrate, or any other operational status updates

we don't even know where the pools in use are. . nor can we see it

I wholeheartedly agree that the transparency issue needs to be resolved concurrent or precedent to the issue of the legal status of participants in LRM mining. In fact, there is nothing that prevents transparency in advance of the resolution of the legal issues. Indeed, it may favorably dispose LRM towards its stakeholders (the issue of us being shareholders or bondholders remains to be clarified in the eyes of the SEC et al) and the various regulatory bodies pressing for resolution of the issue. I cannot possibly imagine a case where a lack of transparency would be to the benefit of LRM unless it is due to some form of malfeasance. There is no solve for malfeasance save for a legal process undertaken by regulators and/or stakeholders. [edit: I personally do not believe there has been any malfeasant motive on LRM's part]

If it is simply a lack of resources available to provide the required transparency, this is simply an excuse and is completely unacceptable. It is still not too late to provide the transparency required of a company in LRM's position; that of one solicitous of investments from the public. To suggest that the anonymous members of this forum and the Bitcoin community in general are a closed community and that they fall with in the bound of SEC regulations surrounding private share offerings to accredited investors is tenuous at best. I pretty much guarantee that LRM will lose big time on that front if they proffer that argument to the regulators.

So, provide transparency and support your position to the regulators and to the community of investors or.......not? Seems like a simple rubric Zach...... ponder carefully but quickly. For as you know all too well, time is of the essence.

I like the idea of transparency - it seems to me that it would go a long ways to solving a main issue with your investors..... and maybe the  gummint revenuers too.

[int03h]

If Vince was right about the hardware, why hasn't LR said anything about it arriving yet? Why would it be a secret? Unless LR was thinking there is a chance it might not be legally necessary to report it to investors... of course, this presumes Vince was correct.

Because LR decided to not post anything here anymore, untill he has some big wall of text again, or some random no-content remark

It's not like we ever have been informed about hashrate, or any other operational status updates

we don't even know where the pools in use are. . nor can we see it

I wholeheartedly agree that the transparency issue needs to be resolved concurrent or precedent to the issue of the legal status of participants in LRM mining. In fact, there is nothing that prevents transparency in advance of the resolution of the legal issues. Indeed, it may favorably dispose LRM towards its stakeholders (the issue of us being shareholders or bondholders remains to be clarified in the eyes of the SEC et al) and the various regulatory bodies pressing for resolution of the issue. I cannot possibly imagine a case where a lack of transparency would be to the benefit of LRM unless it is due to some form of malfeasance. There is no solve for malfeasance save for a legal process undertaken by regulators and/or stakeholders. [edit: I personally do not believe there has been any malfeasant motive on LRM's part]

If it is simply a lack of resources available to provide the required transparency, this is simply an excuse and is completely unacceptable. It is still not too late to provide the transparency required of a company in LRM's position; that of one solicitous of investments from the public. To suggest that the anonymous members of this forum and the Bitcoin community in general are a closed community and that they fall with in the bound of SEC regulations surrounding private share offerings to accredited investors is tenuous at best. I pretty much guarantee that LRM will lose big time on that front if they proffer that argument to the regulators.

So, provide transparency and support your position to the regulators and to the community of investors or.......not? Seems like a simple rubric Zach...... ponder carefully but quickly. For as you know all too well, time is of the essence.

I like the idea of transparency - it seems to me that it would go a long ways to solving a main issue with your investors..... and maybe the  gummint revenuers too.

BKM .. saying the same words over and over again doesn't make it so. How you would like it ... similarly.

Zack / La Brat is actually not in the drivers seat here. You are.

Labrat... you are over your head here son. Liquidate.  ASAP.

And let me re-iterate my view : Its a Ponzi and LR is a thief. You all did it because you were greedy and didn't want to work together.

[BKM]

I wholeheartedly agree that the transparency issue needs to be resolved concurrent or precedent to the issue of the legal status of participants in LRM mining. In fact, there is nothing that prevents transparency in advance of the resolution of the legal issues. Indeed, it may favorably dispose LRM towards its stakeholders (the issue of us being shareholders or bondholders remains to be clarified in the eyes of the SEC et al) and the various regulatory bodies pressing for resolution of the issue. I cannot possibly imagine a case where a lack of transparency would be to the benefit of LRM unless it is due to some form of malfeasance. There is no solve for malfeasance save for a legal process undertaken by regulators and/or stakeholders. [edit: I personally do not believe there has been any malfeasant motive on LRM's part]

If it is simply a lack of resources available to provide the required transparency, this is simply an excuse and is completely unacceptable. It is still not too late to provide the transparency required of a company in LRM's position; that of one solicitous of investments from the public. To suggest that the anonymous members of this forum and the Bitcoin community in general are a closed community and that they fall with in the bound of SEC regulations surrounding private share offerings to accredited investors is tenuous at best. I pretty much guarantee that LRM will lose big time on that front if they proffer that argument to the regulators.

So, provide transparency and support your position to the regulators and to the community of investors or.......not? Seems like a simple rubric Zach...... ponder carefully but quickly. For as you know all too well, time is of the essence.

I like the idea of transparency - it seems to me that it would go a long ways to solving a main issue with your investors..... and maybe the  gummint revenuers too.

BKM .. saying the same words over and over again doesn't make it so. How you would like it ... similarly.

Zack / La Brat is actually not in the drivers seat here. You are.

Labrat... you are over your head here son. Liquidate.  ASAP.

And let me re-iterate my view : Its a Ponzi and LR is a thief. You all did it because you were greedy and didn't want to work together.

Do you even own any LRM share/bonds/contracts? Do you have evidence that LRM is a ponzi, scam or that Zach is a thief? Or, are you just attempting to entertain us?

[int03h]

I wholeheartedly agree that the transparency issue needs to be resolved concurrent or precedent to the issue of the legal status of participants in LRM mining. In fact, there is nothing that prevents transparency in advance of the resolution of the legal issues. Indeed, it may favorably dispose LRM towards its stakeholders (the issue of us being shareholders or bondholders remains to be clarified in the eyes of the SEC et al) and the various regulatory bodies pressing for resolution of the issue. I cannot possibly imagine a case where a lack of transparency would be to the benefit of LRM unless it is due to some form of malfeasance. There is no solve for malfeasance save for a legal process undertaken by regulators and/or stakeholders. [edit: I personally do not believe there has been any malfeasant motive on LRM's part]

If it is simply a lack of resources available to provide the required transparency, this is simply an excuse and is completely unacceptable. It is still not too late to provide the transparency required of a company in LRM's position; that of one solicitous of investments from the public. To suggest that the anonymous members of this forum and the Bitcoin community in general are a closed community and that they fall with in the bound of SEC regulations surrounding private share offerings to accredited investors is tenuous at best. I pretty much guarantee that LRM will lose big time on that front if they proffer that argument to the regulators.

So, provide transparency and support your position to the regulators and to the community of investors or.......not? Seems like a simple rubric Zach...... ponder carefully but quickly. For as you know all too well, time is of the essence.

I like the idea of transparency - it seems to me that it would go a long ways to solving a main issue with your investors..... and maybe the  gummint revenuers too.

BKM .. saying the same words over and over again doesn't make it so. How you would like it ... similarly.

Zack / La Brat is actually not in the drivers seat here. You are.

Labrat... you are over your head here son. Liquidate.  ASAP.

And let me re-iterate my view : Its a Ponzi and LR is a thief. You all did it because you were greedy and didn't want to work together.

Do you even own any LRM share/bonds/contracts? Do you have evidence that LRM is a ponzi, scam or that Zach is a thief? Or, are you just attempting to entertain us?

funny.. you require evidence from me for just suggesting it but demand nothing from the person holding your money  ?

burn you fucking idiot. burn.

[bobfranklin]

Generally thieves take without permission (theft) and give nothing in return, and pozni's use other investors to pay off existing investors (either in lump sums or partial). Neither of those is happening here by pure definition that I can see.

Libel could be happening here, and we could all be handed the raw end of a pie eyed dream souring however it doesn't make it a ponzi or the man in question a thief.

[BKM]

Do you even own any LRM share/bonds/contracts? Do you have evidence that LRM is a ponzi, scam or that Zach is a thief? Or, are you just attempting to entertain us?

funny.. you require evidence from me for just suggesting it but demand nothing from the person holding your money  ?

burn you fucking idiot. burn.

Even funnier is your complete lack of reading comprehension. I require no evidence from those that demean themselves by their own words. If you are interested in facts - perhaps you would take a little more time to examine the fact that I demanded transparency (defined as "evidence" just in case you needed someone to break it down for you there champ) from LRM in my post.

As for you........ on the special kind of ignore reserved for exceptional dumbasses.  

[int03h]

Do you even own any LRM share/bonds/contracts? Do you have evidence that LRM is a ponzi, scam or that Zach is a thief? Or, are you just attempting to entertain us?

funny.. you require evidence from me for just suggesting it but demand nothing from the person holding your money  ?

burn you fucking idiot. burn.

Even funnier is your complete lack of reading comprehension. I require no evidence from those that demean themselves by their own words. If you are interested in facts - perhaps you would take a little more time to examine the fact that I demanded transparency (defined as "evidence" just in case you needed someone to break it down for you there champ) from LRM in my post.

As for you........ on the special kind of ignore reserved for exceptional dumbasses.  

oooo nooooooooooo bkm is going to ignore me .. what will I do .. !?!?! BKM you have added no value at the best of times. They are at best duplicitous and the worst just random brain farts. Ignore me .. thank god.  .

[bobfranklin]

Well that was tedious enough to encourage me to go back to cleaning a fishtank instead of procrastinating.

So much like a school yard at times.

[int03h]

Well that was tedious enough to encourage me to go back to cleaning a fishtank instead of procrastinating.

So much like a school yard at times.

you cleaned fish tanks at school ?

[bobfranklin]

Well that was tedious enough to encourage me to go back to cleaning a fishtank instead of procrastinating.

So much like a school yard at times.

you cleaned fish tanks at school ?

What an odd thing to ask.

[||bit]

It seems to me that Labrat can solve all issues with one simple business change.

Define all hardware as hardware belonging to investors. And LRM's function is only to act as a hosting service.
Investors are actually customers. And LR can charge a 5% hosting & service fee.

Customers (formerly known as LRM investors) receive 85-90% of all minded coins and can then make the decision to send LR more of those bitcoins to purchase & install more hardware.

Simple.

After all, if I recall correctly, Labrat used the term "group purchase" to describe this business better than anything else.

[VinceSamios]

It seems to me that Labrat can solve all issues with one simple business change.

Define all hardware as hardware belonging to investors. And LRM's function is only to act as a hosting service.
Investors are actually customers. And LR can charge a 5% hosting & service fee.

Customers (formerly known as LRM investors) receive 85-90% of all minded coins and can then make the decision to send LR more of those bitcoins to purchase & install more hardware.

Simple.

After all, if I recall correctly, Labrat used the term "group purchase" to describe this business better than anything else.

Another of many good suggestions.

[mike81]

So i'm not a big share holder here and i don't always follow this thread. It seems to me all investors bought shares in Labrat's LLC on the basis that he tries to run a profitable company. Please correct me if i'm wrong but now it seems we bought a number of mhs per share. To me that was never the idea. I'm not even going to start about tradeable shares but if all i wanted to buy was a static amount of hashing power i would have gone to cex.io. With an ever increasing hashrate (and therefore decreasing payouts) this investment doesn't make sense.

[||bit]

So i'm not a big share holder here and i don't always follow this thread. It seems to me all investors bought shares in Labrat's LLC on the basis that he tries to run a profitable company. Please correct me if i'm wrong but now it seems we bought a number of mhs per share. To me that was never the idea. I'm not even going to start about tradeable shares but if all i wanted to buy was a static amount of hashing power i would have gone to cex.io. With an ever increasing hashrate (and therefore decreasing payouts) this investment doesn't make sense.

Explain that to Labrat. Nobody would have bought the shares if they were static and didn't grow proportionately with hardware. Labrat never sold bondholders that agreement, and he knows it. And of course he knows we know he knows that (it's documented in emails & internet archives). This is why lawsuits have been a topic for the past couple weeks.

[mike81]

Explain that to Labrat. Nobody would have bought the shares if they were static and didn't grow proportionately with hardware. Labrat never sold bondholders that agreement, and he knows it. And of course he knows we know he knows that (it's documented). This is why lawsuits have been a topic for the past couple weeks.

I'm not about to sue. That won't help anyone because the LLC would simply go out of business. Labrat has always been reasonable so i'm not sure what has happened. It would be nice to get some from of explanation.

[runam0k]

Any hint of when we might get an update?

How is it possible that the lawyer has not been able to set out a brief summary of the key issues and the prosposed solution to share with us?

Perhaps remind the lawyer that it is literally part of his or her job - a very important part! - to meet deadlines set by a client.  I am a lawyer, I should know.  I imagine with the months already spent pondering these questions it would take all of an hour to prepare a memo.

[||bit]

Explain that to Labrat. Nobody would have bought the shares if they were static and didn't grow proportionately with hardware. Labrat never sold bondholders that agreement, and he knows it. And of course he knows we know he knows that (it's documented). This is why lawsuits have been a topic for the past couple weeks.

I'm not about to sue. That won't help anyone because the LLC would simply go out of business. Labrat has always been reasonable so i'm not sure what has happened. It would be nice to get some from of explanation.

I don't think anyone will sue if he maintains the spirit of the original agreement. The legal topics came up because the way it was sounding was that he planned to make bonds static. And some of his subsequent communication seemed to carry a bit of legal posturing defending any decisions. So, I don't blame people for discussing legal options - at least in terms of showing willingness to legally counter such a reverse on the agreement. If he did do that, the LLC going out of business might be the best thing, even if liquidating meant less of a return to investors. Nobody would want to see someone get away by dishonoring an agreement and then ending up wealthier off the backs of sucker investors.