-

[grnbrg]

LRM : Their is not a better way to cheat your investors out of their investments & gobble-up all the equipment & profits........ period.

Clearly you've never been a BFL customer.  

On an unrelated note...  I think I mentioned a while back that I'm planning a trip to Washington DC in late May.  And if I haven't I just did.

I'll be within day-tripping distance of Lab_Rat, and there have been requests for photo documentation of the LRM datacentres.  I'm given to understand that two of the three DCs are visitable.  (With the third being in another state, across the country...)  If I post a bunch of pictures from these two DCs, will this satisfy those who are asking?  Or am I too close to LRM, and too potentially biased?

Fair warning:  The trip already booked, and unrelated to Lab_Rat and LRM.  I won't be able to post any images before May 31st.



grnbrg.

Edit to add:  With a real camera -- 20 Mpix Canon 70D.  No EXIF location data, though. 

[ksenter]

Even if LR is to be honorable the contract does nothing to assure that he will act in good faith. Initial contracts were sold on the promise of growth. True it was stated that contracts would be worth a minimum of 100MH/s and that benchmark was exceeded given the 3 way split. However, there was consistent representation over time from LR that we were growing to more and more MH/s.

Going back on that representation and not contractually assuring dividends from the growth that WE paid for is a betrayal to the initial contract holders. It betrays us in that the destiny of our contracts was misrepresented over the course of several Months. Our funds are not protected under contract to be used as WE intended under the terms originally agreed upon. It's a bait and switch to lock the hash rate.

This 1000 times.  Many of us would not have continued investing if it weren't for the misrepresentation that the value of the bonds would continue to grow.  To say that you fulfilled your obligation of providing at least 100 mhs is disingenuous at best after spending months telling us about all the hardware that would soon be arriving and the deals you were making to increase the hashrate. 

[smracer]

I'll be within day-tripping distance of Lab_Rat, and there have been requests for photo documentation of the LRM datacentres.  I'm given to understand that two of the three DCs are visitable.  (With the third being in another state, across the country...)  If I post a bunch of pictures from these two DCs, will this satisfy those who are asking?  Or am I too close to LRM, and too potentially biased?

Why in the world do you need 3 DC's for 17TH?

[countduckula]

Ok, after all this BS that we got forced to read and see.

Who's starting the lawsuit to dismantle LRM and prosecute Mr. Lab_Rat for fraud, breaching of contract, and any other goodies he put himself into?

I'm in.

This was the original offering:
Of the hardware bought, 25% will be for the company, and mine for expenses and new hardware acquisitions. The remaining 75% will pay customer dividends.-

Any way to twist wording to make it appear like you're the saint and saviour offering 300mhz its just a shovel of dirt in your head.

[Ashitank]

I request all the old contract holders to not accept the new contract , we need to fight for what belongs to us & not to teach any body any lessons on right or wrong , we just need to fight for our rights as share holders.

[karusloom]

Ok, after all this BS that we got forced to read and see.

Who's starting the lawsuit to dismantle LRM and prosecute Mr. Lab_Rat for fraud, breaching of contract, and any other goodies he put himself into?

I'm in.

This was the original offering:
Of the hardware bought, 25% will be for the company, and mine for expenses and new hardware acquisitions. The remaining 75% will pay customer dividends.-

Any way to twist wording to make it appear like you're the saint and saviour offering 300mhz its just a shovel of dirt in your head.

+1 for lawsuit unless:

LabRat im not asking you to return my BTC but i'd like to get the equivalent amount of bitfury mining gear, so i have 162 shares and i bought them @ 0,15 per pc, that makes 24,3 BTC. Taking todays Bitstamp rate its approx 11k dollars which when looking at bitfuryin price in EU would be about 2,5TH worth of mining gear so you would only have to send me 6 bitfury full kits (H-cards x16, motherboard, rasp, sd card) x6.

Please contact me as soon as possible.

[Ashitank]

There are 100 better ways to overcome legal issues facing LRM which doesn't screw investors over & gift all our coins & mining equipment to Zach.

[Ashitank]

LRM : Their is not a better way to cheat your investors out of their investments & gobble-up all the equipment & profits........ period.

Clearly you've never been a BFL customer.  

Oh I did pre-order few jalapenos & did find way to get my monie's refunded   

I hope Zach is not set out to out do BFL in levels of screwing people over , I have to tell you though BFL_JOSH promoting LAB_Rat mining did struck to me as bit wired & worrying when I was about to invest in LRM , I wish I had followed my Intuition of not investing in LRM.   

[sparky999]

@Zach

1. Why was the original contract not posted at the same time as this new contract? You had plenty of time to ensure a copy of the file was on the appropriate computer.

2. Why when you changed the first contract to 100Mh/s fixed contracts from share of mining revenue contracts were we not given a new contract but when you change for a second time we are given a new contract?

3. Is it correct to assume that there was never a new contract for that change and that you decided at your own discretion to interpret the original contract as only needing to meet 100Mh/s to full fill your obligations? If so why should bondholders have any faith that you will act in a way commensurate with the original 'share of hashrate' contract manner going forward.

4. If you were in our position how would you feel about this change you are effectively forcing on people?

5. DO you believe that bondholders have a legitimate grievance?

6. Do you feel that you are currently acting in a manner consistent with the original goals of LRM as set out under the original 'share of hashrate' bonds?

7. Do you feel that refusing to disclose the legal issue surrounding this change is wise given that you only leave shareholders one line of recourse to find out the truth (legal discovery process)?

8. Do you feel that refusing to disclose the legal issues surrounding this change is wise considering that you told us you would disclose the legal issue as soon as you could?

9. Why should bondholders trust that you are going to act in good faith going forward and provide the bonus payments in line with the original 'share of hashrate' bonds that you sold us?

10. What date and time will you meet major shareholders for a conference call?

11. Why was it ok to split bonds from 300Mh/s to 3 x 100Mh/s but it would not be ok to do this again in the future? i.e. why can't the new 100Mh/s bonds increase to 300Mh/s and then be split again back to 100Mh/s and so on and so forth. I fit was legal to do this once surely the process is repeatable?

12. Can you see hwy it appears to most bondholders that you are trying to worm your way out of your obligations? What assurances can you give that this is not the case?

[Ashitank]

@Zach

1. Why was the original contract not posted at the same time as this new contract? You had plenty of time to ensure a copy of the file was on the appropriate computer.

2. Why when you changed the first contract to 100Mh/s fixed contracts from share of mining revenue contracts were we not given a new contract but when you change for a second time we are given a new contract?

3. Is it correct to assume that there was never a new contract for that change and that you decided at your own discretion to interpret the original contract as only needing to meet 100Mh/s to full fill your obligations? If so why should bondholders have any faith that you will act in a way commensurate with the original 'share of hashrate' contract manner going forward.

4. If you were in our position how would you feel about this change you are effectively forcing on people?

5. DO you believe that bondholders have a legitimate grievance?

6. Do you feel that you are currently acting in a manner consistent with the original goals of LRM as set out under the original 'share of hashrate' bonds?

7. Do you feel that refusing to disclose the legal issue surrounding this change is wise given that you only leave shareholders one line of recourse to find out the truth (legal discovery process)?

8. Do you feel that refusing to disclose the legal issues surrounding this change is wise considering that you told us you would disclose the legal issue as soon as you could?

9. Why should bondholders trust that you are going to act in good faith going forward and provide the bonus payments in line with the original 'share of hashrate' bonds that you sold us?

10. What date and time will you meet major shareholders for a conference call?

11. Why was it ok to split bonds from 300Mh/s to 3 x 100Mh/s but it would not be ok to do this again in the future? i.e. why can't the new 100Mh/s bonds increase to 300Mh/s and then be split again back to 100Mh/s and so on and so forth. I fit was legal to do this once surely the process is repeatable?

12. Can you see hwy it appears to most bondholders that you are trying to worm your way out of your obligations? What assurances can you give that this is not the case?

Expecting in return from Zach one line answer - we dont provide legal advise or financial counsel ->  Meaning f**k you dumb A$$

[PoUpA]

And I thought that my BFL 25GH was a bad investment...

[pontikis13]

Bob borrows money from Sally and agrees to pay Sally back in 1 month.

1 month passes and Sally asks Bob to return the borrowed money.

Sally: Where is my money?

Bob: I have decided not to pay you back because of some unknown law.

Sally: What law?

Bob: "We" do not provide legal advice. BUT you will be able to not receive your money at no additional cost.

Sally: wtf?

Bob: Rofl pwned n00b!

[Frankthechicken]

I'll be within day-tripping distance of Lab_Rat, and there have been requests for photo documentation of the LRM datacentres.  I'm given to understand that two of the three DCs are visitable.  (With the third being in another state, across the country...)  If I post a bunch of pictures from these two DCs, will this satisfy those who are asking?  Or am I too close to LRM, and too potentially biased?

Why in the world do you need 3 DC's for 17TH?

Because it's NOT just 17TH!  17.7TH is "contracted".  There were 23.6 or so TH running before the 2nd batch of bitfury gear came in, which was supposed to be around 150TH, of which about 55% is online judging by LR's comments meaning LRM is running at about 106TH and will grow to about 173 or more TH and if you add in the Monarchs at the low end estimate close to 200TH and at the high end 225TH.  If anyone would like to correct those numbers, please feel free, but I feel pretty confident those numbers are fairly accurate.

Starting to question why you'd blindly repeat this 17TH number again and again.

[Komodorpudel]

Does anyone believe that LabRat will ever deliver this so called "bonus"??

[pontikis13]

On a more serious note this situation is a false dichotomy.

Zach is creating the illusion that there are only 2 options for bondholders to chose between. He has named his recent contract change to capped bonds "the original contract" and is claiming that we must chose between the new contract where we have zero guarantees of any sort and the "original" contract which is NOT the original contract.

The refusal to justify any of his scammy behavior by claiming he does not provide legal advice is just comical.

As is already evident by his previous lack of accountability with the 2 week mining for hardware period being extended to pretty much whatever he pleased despite what was agreed upon, unnecessary complete lack of communication, affiliation with BFL, false claims of moving the asset to an exchange, not posting the new contract until the AMA had already started, complete lack of transparency and refusal to answer any meaningful questions it's becoming obvious to almost all of us that Zach cannot be trusted.

As time is progressing Zach is somehow finding him self in control of more and more of our money and we bondholders are finding ourselves in control of less and less of our original investment.

Do we really want to hand over absolute power to this thus far very flaky unreliable person with the knowledge that accepting this false dichotomy may very well be the last we ever see of our money and the beginning of a new very wealthy life for the person that has been deceiving us?

[mOomOo]

Well that AMA was a complete and udder waste of everyone's time.   What a joke.  It is not legal "advice" to state what the legal problem is and what law is stopping you from keeping the original contract in order. (by original, I mean the original proportional contract, not the sudo original that is fixed). 

As you have stated you would use OUR funds to pay for lawyers etc.  So why can't their advise be shared with everyone.  We helped pay for it, so what's the god damn problem. (Correct me if I'm wrong but... AMA = Ask Me Anything?  Well.... seems like we can ask what we like, but you don't have to answer shit)


I was sold on your investment by not having to look after my own mining equipment and it was the equivalent of a set and forget setup.   I have wasted more time following this forum than I did by following BFL's notorious 2 weeks when I had equipment with them.  And to be honest, I got more information from BFL's announcements...  Can't believe that this AMA wasn't even announced by email, Twitter or on the website...

I'm not a big investor, but I'm standing up and stating that I am happy to go along with any party who is going to be pursuing legal actions.

Mad CoW... out...

[ksenter]

On a more serious note this situation is a false dichotomy.

Zach is creating the illusion that there are only 2 options for bondholders to chose between. He has named his recent contract change to capped bonds "the original contract" and is claiming that we must chose between the new contract where we have zero guarantees of any sort and the "original" contract which is NOT the original contract.

The refusal to justify any of his scammy behavior by claiming he does not provide legal advice is just comical.

As is already evident by his previous lack of accountability with the 2 week mining for hardware period being extended to pretty much whatever he pleased despite what was agreed upon, unnecessary complete lack of communication, affiliation with BFL, false claims of moving the asset to an exchange, not posting the new contract until the AMA had already started, complete lack of transparency and refusal to answer any meaningful questions it's becoming obvious to almost all of us that Zach cannot be trusted.

As time is progressing Zach is somehow finding him self in control of more and more of our money and we bondholders are finding ourselves in control of less and less of our original investment.

Do we really want to hand over absolute power to this thus far very flaky unreliable person with the knowledge that accepting this false dichotomy may very well be the last we ever see of our money and the beginning of a new very wealthy life for the person that has been deceiving us?

Wholeheartedly agree.

[Blazed]

I am still amazed that anyone would invest into BFL that much 

[daemonfox]

I am still amazed that anyone would invest into BFL that much  

It astounds me that LRMs lawyer thinks this is legal...

Zach priced BONDS of the original contract in BTC and NEVER based that on a USD price. Dividends were always paid in BTC and NEVER tied to a USD price in any documented form. Just because mining equipment is priced in USD, and BTC price rising means the BTC price per unit scales down, does not mean we are entitled to any less equipment than what could be purchased with the total amount of BTC Zach held from bond purchases AND the mining periods he forced on us.

There is no way Zach paid for the Bitfury gear before the price boom in November... and EVERY last piece of equipment he can purchase with LRM funds to date belongs to us, no matter how he tries to spin it.

Look at it this way... where else could funds have come from that LRM has used or holds? No where... it is all from bonds sold, mining income and the increased value of BTC to date. By the time he had to pay for Bitfury gear... he could have paid at a 6-12 times increased BTC value from when he took in all the BTC... and even today would have paid with BTC at 5-6 times the value as when he sold us bonds.

There is no reason to cap our bonds... all incoming hashrate belongs to the bond holders... and any attempt to sell future bonds is a breach of contract because LRM will be taking in funds for equipment we already paid for and should be paying out to us.

LR, your solution is terrible and ILLEGAL, your lawyer is a fraud, and you are about to be sued... even if it is our funds you use to pay for the lawyer... LRM is finished unless you act now to end this farce.

JUST BECAUSE BTC VALUE ROSE DOES NOT MEAN YOU GET TO KEEP IT UNDER THE TERMS YOU INITIALLY SOLD US BONDS UNDER! YOU OWE US THAT EQUIPMENT TO MINE AND PAY US !

[Ashitank]

On a more serious note this situation is a false dichotomy.

Zach is creating the illusion that there are only 2 options for bondholders to chose between. He has named his recent contract change to capped bonds "the original contract" and is claiming that we must chose between the new contract where we have zero guarantees of any sort and the "original" contract which is NOT the original contract.

The refusal to justify any of his scammy behavior by claiming he does not provide legal advice is just comical.

As is already evident by his previous lack of accountability with the 2 week mining for hardware period being extended to pretty much whatever he pleased despite what was agreed upon, unnecessary complete lack of communication, affiliation with BFL, false claims of moving the asset to an exchange, not posting the new contract until the AMA had already started, complete lack of transparency and refusal to answer any meaningful questions it's becoming obvious to almost all of us that Zach cannot be trusted.

As time is progressing Zach is somehow finding him self in control of more and more of our money and we bondholders are finding ourselves in control of less and less of our original investment.

Do we really want to hand over absolute power to this thus far very flaky unreliable person with the knowledge that accepting this false dichotomy may very well be the last we ever see of our money and the beginning of a new very wealthy life for the person that has been deceiving us?

Bingo ! I agree whole heatedly , either Zach better start to pay us what we deserve or he can fight a legal battle with the Bozo stupid lawyer he has which increases his chances of wining by  -100%.

I think if we try we will find lots of people in community here who will come forward to help us Peruse legal course of action.

Or May be Zach can work on a better contract & in mean time start paying us dividends we deserve right fucking now !