-

[elitenoob]

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.

It starts to get even worse than bitcoin-24 in the past with Simon with the flow of information we get.

[bittymitty]

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.

Brief summary of the key issues

We bought shares/bonds in a company as per the page one "non-document"(still waiting for someone to show me the actual agreement)

Lab rat changed the terms because of unspecified laws/statutes

Our share are now almost worthless and have diminishing returns to zero

Lab Rat's Lawyer advised him not to talk as anything he said could be used as evidence against him. Lab rat is heroically sticking to his guns and mining with the new equipment for his own gain.

[sparky999]

2-3 weeks after the new hardware order arrives lab rat will have a solution, but the solution will mean that back dividends can not be paid. Lab rat will vow to use those 2-3 weeks of mining income for re-investment in more hardware.

Just my prediction - let's see if i can go 2 out of 2

[smracer]

Labrat,

Are you upgrading all your BFL Monarch's to Imperial Monarch's or are you getting a refund?

If upgrading, are you then going to use the BFL vouchers and get free 600GH Monarch's (minus shipping) or are you going to sell the vouchers?

[||bit]

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.

Brief summary of the key issues

We bought shares/bonds in a company as per the page one "non-document"(still waiting for someone to show me the actual agreement)

Lab rat changed the terms because of unspecified laws/statutes

Our share are now almost worthless and have diminishing returns to zero

Lab Rat's Lawyer advised him not to talk as anything he said could be used as evidence against him. Lab rat is heroically sticking to his guns and mining with the new equipment for his own gain.

How do we know for sure he has the new hardware yet? Vince is the only one that has informed us that that was the case. And I've heard contradicting back-end stories on this.

[Flashman]

Nobody would want to see someone get away by dishonoring an agreement and then ending up wealthier off the backs of sucker investors.

Also, there's great value to the community as a whole to throw someone under the bus to get these nebulous "Shroedingers cat" legal interpretations cleared up by firm court precedents so nobody can hide behind "maybes" any more.

[Komodorpudel]

so will we ever get new infos?

[contactmike1]

so will we ever get new infos?

You'll get all the info, contracts, hardware updates, etc. once labrat's lawyer finishes deciding the answers to all those questions.

[rangerbob21]

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.

Actually the ONLY thing that has been done so far is that the bonds are now static, in opposition to the original agreement. LR has stated that he will try and do "something" for the "original" bond holders, whatever that means... No more info from LR, period. Anything else is pure speculation, good or bad.

[KonstantinosM]

Why should we, as bitcoiners show such great respect for regulations which are unfair to us and pushed by people who are corrupted by lobbyist money?

This is extremely unfair. What if the US gov says that every bitcoin miner is now illegal and should be destroyed by burning in a big pile, will Labrat just pile them all up and burn them?

[rangerbob21]

Why should we, as bitcoiners show such great respect for regulations which are unfair to us and pushed by people who are corrupted by lobbyist money?

This is extremely unfair. What if the US gov says that every bitcoin miner is now illegal and should be destroyed by burning in a big pile, will Labrat just pile them all up and burn them?

Not sure what you are getting at...

Why should we... get information on what is happening?
- Well, our paid for bonds and agreement with LRM is why we should have more information on the seemingly non-advantagous to the bond holders change to the original agreement and hint to some kind of recompense...

Why should we... continue to ask for more information?
- None has presented itself yet other then the change to the original agreement for "legal reasons" with no detail or further information.

Why should we... "fill in your question here"

[maqifrnswa]

Why should we, as bitcoiners show such great respect for regulations which are unfair to us and pushed by people who are corrupted by lobbyist money?

This is extremely unfair. What if the US gov says that every bitcoin miner is now illegal and should be destroyed by burning in a big pile, will Labrat just pile them all up and burn them?

for all we know, this is as much an IRS thing as a fincen/sec/whatever.

Here's some more sausage, because it's fun to make up stories:

March 15 is the business filing day in the US. Perhaps as he prepared taxes several things showed up.

His LLC equity far exceeds capital contributions. The money had to come from somewhere. It either came from sales of services/goods, sale of equity, or sale of bonds/loans. When LR started the company, he didn't want to sell fixed rate contracts (that eliminated sale of "services"), definitely didn't want to give up equity, so said he was selling "bonds." When accountants saw that, and saw that the bonds were not backed by anything nor where there any promissory notes or other necessary documents, they realized he was running outside of the rules of taxes. Tax lawyers may have told him that he really needs to sell something "concrete" or sell equity (but equity is very complicated and he losses control, but it would allow investors to maintain a growing share of the company).

I still think this may have nothing to do with bitcoin regulation but instead something to do with LR not knowing how to run a business or a security. He essentially promised people equity (a share in growing proceeds from the operation including investment of retained earnings), but declined to give them equity.

[pontikis13]

Why should we, as bitcoiners show such great respect for regulations which are unfair to us and pushed by people who are corrupted by lobbyist money?

This is extremely unfair. What if the US gov says that every bitcoin miner is now illegal and should be destroyed by burning in a big pile, will Labrat just pile them all up and burn them?

for all we know, this is as much an IRS thing as a fincen/sec/whatever.

Here's some more sausage, because it's fun to make up stories:

March 15 is the business filing day in the US. Perhaps as he prepared taxes several things showed up.

His LLC equity far exceeds capital contributions. The money had to come from somewhere. It either came from sales of services/goods, sale of equity, or sale of bonds/loans. When LR started the company, he didn't want to sell fixed rate contracts (that eliminated sale of "services"), definitely didn't want to give up equity, so said he was selling "bonds." When accountants saw that, and saw that the bonds were not backed by anything nor where there any promissory notes or other necessary documents, they realized he was running outside of the rules of taxes. Tax lawyers may have told him that he really needs to sell something "concrete" or sell equity (but equity is very complicated and he losses control, but it would allow investors to maintain a growing share of the company).

I still think this may have nothing to do with bitcoin regulation but instead something to do with LR not knowing how to run a business or a security. He essentially promised people equity (a share in growing proceeds from the operation including investment of retained earnings), but declined to give them equity.

+1

[tempestb]

I think speculating on what might be a completely fake and bogus story is pointless.

What people need to know is what LRM is doing with the new hardware.  If that hardware is not distributed to the bond holders as agreed, then lawsuits should happen.  I only invested a handful of coins, so I'm not going after him.  It wouldn't be worth it.  Those of you though that spent thousands should reach out to your lawyers to discuss options and see if it's worthwhile to go after him.  (It may not be.) 

If, on the other hand, LabRat comes in here and says that he's going to start distributing the new hardware profits to the bond holders as agreed, then there isn't any reason for a lawsuit.

So really, it comes down to that more than anything else.  Maintaining silence after we know he's received the hardware means he intends to keep it for himself, and so should be sued.  It's pretty cut and dry.  The rest of the speculation is interesting but does shareholders little good.

[maqifrnswa]

I think speculating on what might be a completely fake and bogus story is pointless.

What people need to know is what LRM is doing with the new hardware.  If that hardware is not distributed to the bond holders as agreed, then lawsuits should happen.  I only invested a handful of coins, so I'm not going after him.  It wouldn't be worth it.  Those of you though that spent thousands should reach out to your lawyers to discuss options and see if it's worthwhile to go after him.  (It may not be.) 

If, on the other hand, LabRat comes in here and says that he's going to start distributing the new hardware profits to the bond holders as agreed, then there isn't any reason for a lawsuit.

So really, it comes down to that more than anything else.  Maintaining silence after we know he's received the hardware means he intends to keep it for himself, and so should be sued.  It's pretty cut and dry.  The rest of the speculation is interesting but does shareholders little good.

totally agree - you are hitting the important point, the only one that matters. I've written exactly what you've said in the past - as long as people get what they paid for, everything is fine.

However, it's been months of radio silence - so random interesting speculation is as helpful as blank computer screens, just more entertaining.

[fractal02]

Ohhhh look LRM sharesbondsnotsomuchholders waiting for some answers by LabRat! ==>

[ICantThinkOfaName]

I felt this might be slightly relevant while being highly amusing.

[grnbrg]

I felt this might be slightly relevant while being highly amusing.

In a similar vein:  








grnbrg.

[SimonBelmond]

OK I seem to have missed several pages here. Could someone please point me to the relevant LRM post about these regulatory issues. I gather there isn't much but anyway... THX

[ICantThinkOfaName]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=251423.msg5591108#msg5591108