-

[Lab_Rat]

I read you pay us for 17.7th, when it was more close to 30th, and according to your vague and sporadic reports of hardware purchases, there's 150th wich you claim some already arrived, and yet, still paying for lets say 18. you systematically refuse to address the incoming hardware, and now you claim you do not have to share anything with us, plus you now added 2 weeks of mining with the new equipment to do what? you're not going to pay for that to us and we paid for that equipment.

Anything above 17TH WAS PAID by our 25% and 2 weeks of mining with OUR PAID equipment, if you dont pay us for what we purchased, then you're stealing the equipment and the proceeds you obtain from them, plain and simple, you expect me to believe you just have 18th running? you ALWAYS claimed that cex.io was just a part of all.

Trying to force us to believe you just offered 100mhz bonds and out of your kindness you end up giving 300mh after 2-3 months ago you were speaking of 2-3Gh share will not work at all, it will not.

Where did I say I was mining for myself or the company for 2 weeks?  I just stated that people will receive payouts from the new hardware in 2 weeks.  That neither states that it includes or doesn't include what has been acquired over the past period of time.  Hence my statement about you assuming.  

It has also been discussed that things have not worked out as planned on this buildout, so more information will be given when the time comes.

All I'm saying is please don't accuse me or LRM of anything we have not done.

[1714177254]

1714177254

[countduckula]

First of all, you've not done? i'm not sure, you claim you received the Bitfury hardware wich would have boosted the mining speed at least 4x times, you said 40-45% still not installed and you're still paying for 18th? wouldnt that be 50 minimum?

And also, You dont even know your contract?

Once our suppliers deliver the mining equipment we will be mining from day 1. Payouts
will be on a weekly basis once mining starts. Newly received hardware may be held for
up to 2 payout periods to raise capital for the company.  <-- in benefit of who? why? we already did that and look where it go us.

Things not working, doesnt mean you boast about giving 2-3gh per bond in the future and now go out running with the tail between your legs offering 300 miserable mhz.

All i'm saying, hope we can liquidate the company, receive what we can and maybe, would love to, send you in a paid jail vacation.

[contactmike1]

I am not sure what all the fuss is about.  

The original contact was 100 plus more if growth allowed.  It was intended the company would grow for the benefit of shareholders.

The new contract is 100 plus bonus as growth allows.  It is intended the company will grow for the benefit of shareholders.  

Neither contract was ever more than 100, and neither contract guarantees more over 100 other than "intention".

The march hardware arrived late, plus facility problems, plus the 2 week hold to buy more hardware, means we get paid from this hardware starting in about 2 weeks. I know everyone hates the phrase 2 weeks, but still...what has changed from the old contract?


Am I wrong?

[countduckula]

You bought 1 share of the 100.000 LRM shares, wich was 1/100000 of the mining speed, basically you'll always have 100mh no matter how much LRM mining speed is, and you'll get a bonus if he wants to pay it, so if he has like now, prob 50th mining, he will pay you for 100mh instead of 500, when all hardware is home with the 150 th, he will pay you for 100 not 1500.

Yes, you're dead wrong.

Oh.. sorry, your highness will offer us 300mh, how kind of him.

[pontikis13]

Hey Zach, how about instead of only responding to emotional, badly written posts you respond to this one instead.

@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?

[Flashman]

By the way, I doubt "Managed Group Buy" is  a get out of jail free card...

Since this brings about a structure most closely resembling a managed Timeshare property that is rented (We rent hashing power to bitcoin network for block rewards and tx fees)

So then...

National or state securities or investment law may also apply to fractional ownership arrangements. In general, these regulations will apply where rental income is pooled among the owners, management responsibilities are delegated completely, or the purpose of the co-ownership is primarily investment. Application of these laws may result in expensive registration and compliance requirements, advertising restrictions, securities deal licensing, and requirements relating to the wealth and sophistication of each purchaser.

Yah, straight into the "manor" of our old friends SEC again... and the New Jersey securities and exchange people.

[runam0k]

The original contact was 100 plus more if growth allowed.  It was intended the company would grow for the benefit of shareholders.

No, it was for a minimum of 100, being x% of total hashrate, plus x% of any growth.

Now it's 100 fixed, regardless of hashrate, plus a completely discretionary bonus not necessarily related to growth.

No one in their right mind would accept this change.

[countduckula]

I made a mistake there, 1/100,000 was IPO, actually it is close to 1/58,000, so 150 th is 2.5 gh/bond, sorry =)

[countduckula]

I'm sorry if i'm not perfect in my writing skills, english its not my main language, or less emotional, neither of those 2 things make me less or more than you, i ask and state whatever i desire to without asking anyone else to endorse or forbidding anyone else to post.

Altough, I'm gonna tell you why he's not going to answer any of your questions, he just doesnt care or feel sh*t of what you want to know, you try to appeal to his sense of what? morality? loyalty? kindness? bussiness is bussiness, legal advice couldnt care less about what he feels, he saw the opportunity to seize 130 TH of the hardware bought with the proceeds of our "group buy" and pay us nothing, and Bingo!, there you go, have fun with your 300mh, now he wants to take 25% of any new hardware too for Capital Gains... hah!

My apologies for writing the best way i can again.

[sparky999]

I made a mistake there, 1/100,000 was IPO, actually it is close to 1/58,000, so 150 th is 2.5 gh/bond, sorry =)

so give us 25 100Mh bonds for each of our original bonds and then switch to the bonus system as a sign of good faith?

Seems like a fairly reasonable suggestion to me.

[countduckula]

If He was able to do 1 bond 100mh, and triple the number of bonds to give 300mhz, he can just do 1 of 100 to 25 of 100, any logic that allows the first allows the 2nd.

[elitenoob]

If He was able to do 1 bond 100mh, and triple the number of bonds to give 300mhz, he can just do 1 of 100 to 25 of 100, any logic that allows the first allows the 2nd.

Thought same, but unfortunatly he seems to think different.

[Flashman]

Only way to avoid SEC is if we DIRECTLY OWN fractional shares of the mine.... not just use of xxx hashpower.

For aircraft for example ...

Q: Is there a reason why the operators offer fractional shares of an airplane, rather than incorporating an aircraft and selling shares in the corporation?
A: Yes. The primary reason is to avoid the problem of the ownership certificate being deemed a security under various Federal and state securities laws.

[Endlessa]

Only way to avoid SEC is if we DIRECTLY OWN fractional shares of the mine.... not just use of xxx hashpower.

For aircraft for example ...

Q: Is there a reason why the operators offer fractional shares of an airplane, rather than incorporating an aircraft and selling shares in the corporation?
A: Yes. The primary reason is to avoid the problem of the ownership certificate being deemed a security under various Federal and state securities laws.

Only way for this to not end badly, imo, is if LRM sucks it up and turns itself into a real corp with real shares.  The very reason corporations exist.  Non-voting shares could be issued.  According to Fincen BTC dividends are legal as a share of profits and distributed to share holders.   Anything less than this allows too many shady situations.  That would put ownership of assets under a single corp entity. allow lrm to maintain control of decisions (obviously important to him).  And legally allow profit sharing. Corps exist for a reason.  That's the avenue I'd pursue with a lawyer, this just feels all hookey.  Not legal advise, just a suggestion inline with my observations.

[Endlessa]

ffs you called it an IPO . . . .I know you'll say this and that about it wasn't profit sharing, wtf ever.  we know the reality and playing coy about it isn't helping.

If you don't understand why people feel you are ganking their profits, then perhaps business isn't really your strong suit.

[smracer]

It has also been discussed that things have not worked out as planned on this buildout, so more information will be given when the time comes.

When is the right time to explain what happened?

[grnbrg]

9. LRM has determined that running our own trading platform within the US has legal issues we are not willing to undertake.  There is a trading platform being developed by a third party that LRM has knowledge of which we find may be beneficial to everyone.

Is this third party someone here who wants to own up to the project?

Any details and/or ETA?


grnbrg.

[Mindsync Miner]

I had an inkling how the new contract would work but it turns out I'm dead wrong. It's occurred to me that maybe I should propose my ideas as an alternative Zach can investigate with his lawyer if it wasn't proposed already.

I'm assuming since there will be different contracts "new" and "old" that uniformity of contracts is already out the window. So why not write into contracts for existing owners a provision that will exist only for them and not for any future contract buyers ("newer" contracts)?

Instead of relying on an ethereal discretionary bonus payment why not offer a contingency that states every time new contracts are to be sold that existing contracts have the option to purchase new contracts at discount? Limit it to 1 to 1. So if I currently have 100 contracts I'm entitled first dibs on 100 new contracts for the sum of say 100 satoshis. This would be ongoing for every future offering allowing me to purchase 100 new contracts every offering. Or perhaps my bought contracts would be additive allowing me to purchase 200 discounted contracts on the 2nd offering (assuming I bought 100 + my original 100) progressing to 400 the next offering etc.

The numbers and specifics would have to be balanced to work with LRM's growth trajectory. Regardless of the specifics, such a contact would satisfy a contractual obligation to offer participation to existing owners when company growth occurs at minimal cost.

Or put in a contingency that mandates future share splits when company milestones are reached (either in terms of hash rate or offerings of new contracts).

Neither of these two ideas strike me as impossible to implement nor running astray of law/regulations. Lab Rat, please inform if these ideas have been floated. If there are reasons neither of these can be put into the contract please advise. I think we deserve to know why you haven't been able to express growth as a contractually binding principle in your proposed contracts.

[John122]

Here is my understanding of the situation.

Given that :
1. LabRat has realised that the company is doomed to fail soon with only a 25% reinvestment rate.
2. LabRat has become uneasy about the few people threatening to sue left and right.

The following happened :
3. LabRat needed to change the policy for a bigger reinvestment rate (to avoid the failure of the company).
4. LabRat needed to use a lawyer to craft a new contract which allow for the new reinvestment rate without being at risk of being sued by the few assholes in (2).
5. Everything LabRat has said since then in the new contract and AMA is his lawyer speaking through him, which is obviously going to protect him legally speaking.

I want to say I am from the silent majority/minority (who knows at this point) that have been supporting LabRat in every decision he made before this legal mumbo-jumbo.
LabRat has always been honest with us in his intentions from the beginning (until he lawyered up), even if he never told much detail about what is going on with LRM on a day to day basis.
He always said that he wanted the company to grow and our share to grow with it, and kept this word until now.
The new system allows the company to still be profitable and increase our payout while remaining legally protected.

_________________________________________

My question for LabRat is the following :

Do you intend to keep the same philosophy you always kept until now (for us to profit from the company's growth at your side) or has that changed in any way (since you might have lost respect for the people outlined in (2), for example)? The change could include but is not limited to diluting the shares, preventing us from profiting of the discretionary bonus hashrate.

If your philosophy is still the same, I will be one to go through with the change of contract, since this whole thing has always been trust-based, and I personally think that every decision you took before profited us as investors.

BTW, this question is in no way legal advice and is purely about your personal philosophy/ethics.

[pontikis13]

Here is my understanding of the situation.

Given that :
1. LabRat has realised that the company is doomed to fail soon with only a 25% reinvestment rate.
2. LabRat has become uneasy about the few people threatening to sue left and right.

The following happened :
3. LabRat needed to change the policy for a bigger reinvestment rate (to avoid the failure of the company).
4. LabRat needed to use a lawyer to craft a new contract which allow for the new reinvestment rate without being at risk of being sued by the few assholes in (2).
5. Everything LabRat has said since then in the new contract and AMA is his lawyer speaking through him, which is obviously going to protect him legally speaking.

I want to say I am from the silent majority/minority (who knows at this point) that have been supporting LabRat in every decision he made before this legal mumbo-jumbo.
LabRat has always been honest with us in his intentions from the beginning (until he lawyered up), even if he never told much detail about what is going on with LRM on a day to day basis.
He always said that he wanted the company to grow and our share to grow with it, and kept this word until now.
The new system allows the company to still be profitable and increase our payout while remaining legally protected.

_________________________________________

My question for LabRat is the following :

Do you intend to keep the same philosophy you always kept until now (for us to profit from the company's growth at your side) or has that changed in any way (since you might have lost respect for the people outlined in (2), for example)? The change could include but is not limited to diluting the shares, preventing us from profiting of the discretionary bonus hashrate.

If your philosophy is still the same, I will be one to go through with the change of contract, since this whole thing has always been trust-based, and I personally think that every decision you took before profited us as investors.

BTW, this question is in no way legal advice and is purely about your personal philosophy/ethics.

And you base this on:

1) nothing
2) absolutely nothing
3) unsubstantiated assumptions
4) all of the above


Assholes? Seriously?
Not everyone can follow others in blind faith buddy. Especially after repeated breaches of trust. Scams happen all the time. How are you so certain you aren't being scammed? I'm rather curious as to if you have even read through this thread...

In your fantastic theory what exactly was stopping labrat from discussing these concerns you assume he had with bondholders? It's not like we have a thread on a forum where the company was started and discussion can occur. In fact the only person not willing to discuss much of anything at all was labrat himself.