-

[bobfranklin]

I do enjoy a good forum ignore.

A bit more clarity would be nice (in amongst the conspiracy theories and guessing) - take all the answers slap them on the LRM website along with the contracts to compare etc.

'Bonus' is a word that needs to be quantified or at minimum really defined.

Even with 3x bonds we're coming in a shade over the current ~283mhz/bond on the existing hardware BUT we've essentially already purchased the 150TH odd from BFL/BF and to be perfectly fair I believe that should be included in the 'whatever you want to call it for going to contract April 2014' as a minimum. We provided the means to even get it to begin with - not saying we own it, just saying without the bond holders neither would you.

[runam0k]

ITs only common sense to put everything on the table..

1. What is the total hashrate?
2. What is the estimated future hashrate?
3. What will this bonus be?
4. BE TRANSPARENT!

I don't mind signing a new deal if the deal makes sense.

I have emailed you and you know my answer: no to the unilateral 3:1 conversion and no to the most recent proposal. I get that things need to change to stay on side of the regs but without full disclosure and a trust less process we are done.

Lab_Rat - I really hope you step up and say something well before your May 10 deadline.

Personally, I need to see two things before I can even consider agreeing to new terms (and by "new" I mean anything other than the generally accepted position prior to your purported unilateral change on 8 March).

First is an undertaking by LRM to provide, on a weekly basis, basic information regarding total hashrate, estimated future hashrate based on incoming hardware, mining proceeds, costs and any amounts set aside for reinvestment.  See any of the weekly updates by peta-mine as an example of how things ought to be done - short, concise and reassuring.  This is basic information that should not be difficult to provide.

Second is some additional information regarding the bonus itself.  I understand what you are trying to do (whether I think it is stictly necessary, legally, is another matter).  I could, possibly, get comfortable with the concept of a discretionary bonus if you at least set out what the bonus, if paid, would be based on.  Even if you say, "LRM intends to pay, on a weekly basis, a bonus based on mining proceeds less costs and reinvestment, but investors should be aware that any such bonus is discretionary and the payment of a bonus one week is neither representative nor a guarantee of a bonus to be paid the following week" - this achieves exactly the same thing (ie discretionary bonus) but it is couched in slightly friendlier terms; it presents evidence of good faith and best intentions on your part.  Probably not enough to rescue the share price, which is ruined, but combined with the undertaking above it would, I believe, make the decision slightly easier/less stressful for some.

[maqifrnswa]

First is an undertaking by LRM to provide, on a weekly basis, basic information regarding total hashrate, estimated future hashrate based on incoming hardware, mining proceeds, costs and any amounts set aside for reinvestment.  See any of the weekly updates by peta-mine as an example of how things ought to be done - short, concise and reassuring.  This is basic information that should not be difficult to provide.

and addiction:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=244042.msg6201645#msg6201645
(had the same situation as LRM - bitfunder failed, delays in delivery - but addiction customers love their managers because of the amount of transparency and communications)

and nastyfans:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=86854.0
(they use "donations" like LRM wants to use "bonus," but they give auditable financial data and details of their current hardware and pending orders so you can calculate what your bonus should be and that you are receiving it)

grnbrg asked if anyone would step up and acknowledge that they are working on a trading platform, and no one has yet.

[sparky999]

ITs only common sense to put everything on the table..

1. What is the total hashrate?
2. What is the estimated future hashrate?
3. What will this bonus be?
4. BE TRANSPARENT!

I don't mind signing a new deal if the deal makes sense.

I have emailed you and you know my answer: no to the unilateral 3:1 conversion and no to the most recent proposal. I get that things need to change to stay on side of the regs but without full disclosure and a trust less process we are done.

Lab_Rat - I really hope you step up and say something well before your May 10 deadline.

Personally, I need to see two things before I can even consider agreeing to new terms (and by "new" I mean anything other than the generally accepted position prior to your purported unilateral change on 8 March).

First is an undertaking by LRM to provide, on a weekly basis, basic information regarding total hashrate, estimated future hashrate based on incoming hardware, mining proceeds, costs and any amounts set aside for reinvestment.  See any of the weekly updates by peta-mine as an example of how things ought to be done - short, concise and reassuring.  This is basic information that should not be difficult to provide.

Second is some additional information regarding the bonus itself.  I understand what you are trying to do (whether I think it is stictly necessary, legally, is another matter).  I could, possibly, get comfortable with the concept of a discretionary bonus if you at least set out what the bonus, if paid, would be based on.  Even if you say, "LRM intends to pay, on a weekly basis, a bonus based on mining proceeds less costs and reinvestment, but investors should be aware that any such bonus is discretionary and the payment of a bonus one week is neither representative nor a guarantee of a bonus to be paid the following week" - this achieves exactly the same thing (ie discretionary bonus) but it is couched in slightly friendlier terms; it presents evidence of good faith and best intentions on your part.  Probably not enough to rescue the share price, which is ruined, but combined with the undertaking above it would, I believe, make the decision slightly easier/less stressful for some.

Completely agree with this, if it had been worded like that then I don't think almost anyone would hv kicked up much of a fuss.

[Flashman]

He probably doesn't even begin to comprehend how astoundingly weak his position is. Have a good read of this for example... http://www.companiesinc.com/llc/managers.asp
even skimming through it drunk you should see a number of points of weakness.

He's like the pig in the straw house here who i) Doesn't believe in wolves, ii) thinks straw is 100% wind, flame and waterproof. ... and he's sitting in there with the toothpick "sword" of the revised contract, and the cardboard "shield" of his LLC, while we're doing circuits at 50,000 feet in "Enola Gay" tapping the fuel gauge.... and sooner or later we're gonna be ticked off enough that the large bang and faint whiff of bacon will be reward aplenty.

[ICantThinkOfaName]

ITs only common sense to put everything on the table..

1. What is the total hashrate?
2. What is the estimated future hashrate?
3. What will this bonus be?
4. BE TRANSPARENT!

I don't mind signing a new deal if the deal makes sense.

I have emailed you and you know my answer: no to the unilateral 3:1 conversion and no to the most recent proposal. I get that things need to change to stay on side of the regs but without full disclosure and a trust less process we are done.

Lab_Rat - I really hope you step up and say something well before your May 10 deadline.

Personally, I need to see two things before I can even consider agreeing to new terms (and by "new" I mean anything other than the generally accepted position prior to your purported unilateral change on 8 March).

First is an undertaking by LRM to provide, on a weekly basis, basic information regarding total hashrate, estimated future hashrate based on incoming hardware, mining proceeds, costs and any amounts set aside for reinvestment.  See any of the weekly updates by peta-mine as an example of how things ought to be done - short, concise and reassuring.  This is basic information that should not be difficult to provide.

Second is some additional information regarding the bonus itself.  I understand what you are trying to do (whether I think it is stictly necessary, legally, is another matter).  I could, possibly, get comfortable with the concept of a discretionary bonus if you at least set out what the bonus, if paid, would be based on.  Even if you say, "LRM intends to pay, on a weekly basis, a bonus based on mining proceeds less costs and reinvestment, but investors should be aware that any such bonus is discretionary and the payment of a bonus one week is neither representative nor a guarantee of a bonus to be paid the following week" - this achieves exactly the same thing (ie discretionary bonus) but it is couched in slightly friendlier terms; it presents evidence of good faith and best intentions on your part.  Probably not enough to rescue the share price, which is ruined, but combined with the undertaking above it would, I believe, make the decision slightly easier/less stressful for some.

Completely agree with this, if it had been worded like that then I don't think almost anyone would hv kicked up much of a fuss.

This seems reasonable.  Has someone emailed LR yet about this?

[sparky999]

I have emailed him multiple times and had no response to any of them.

[Endlessa]

He's made his decision.  The choice we have now is to take action against him or accept it.  Talking about it or pleading with him to change his mind will do nothing productive.

[tabbek]

I think LRM should buy back the shares/contracts/wishful-thinking/whatever theyre called now from any holder who does not agree to the contract changes forced upon them since the original buy in.

LRM changed the terms unilaterally, to ones that I did not agree to nor would have agreed to had they been set forth at onset.

LRM is the one left holding and owning the gear in the end, as he has made it very clear none of us have any actual stake in the business or hardware.  All we have are "contracts" that LRM will pay us.  "Contracts" LRM willfully changes after the agreement was struck.


Buy my shares back at the cost I paid you LRM, since you decided to break the contract.

That was the case from the outset though so nothing changed in regards to that.

You are correct, this was the case from the outset.  I never said otherwise.  I merely stated the state of the situation.  Regardless of what happens, LRM is left with the actual gear, meaning, he likely could care less about what actually happens to his "investors", since it's all "his".


Still changes nothing.  The original contract was unilaterally changed, ie nullified in favor of a different contract.  Therefor, I would like the BTC I paid for said holding returned and the holdings canceled once the original payment is returned.

LRM, please PM me to arrange for this.

[redphlegm]

I've been out of the loop on this for a month or so. Can someone point me in the direction of a quick / easy to get update on the current status? Was some tendering supposed to be done on the shares? I get the sense that there's some uncertainty on what is going on but I am not able to figure it out from the thread. It derails so easily and it doesn't help to look at LR's / grnbrg's history either. Thanks very much in advance for any assistance you are able to give.

[runam0k]

I've been out of the loop on this for a month or so. Can someone point me in the direction of a quick / easy to get update on the current status? Was some tendering supposed to be done on the shares? I get the sense that there's some uncertainty on what is going on but I am not able to figure it out from the thread. It derails so easily and it doesn't help to look at LR's / grnbrg's history either. Thanks very much in advance for any assistance you are able to give.

Read in this order:

https://109.201.133.195/index.php?topic=251423.msg5591108#msg5591108
LR purports to unilaterally change the terms of our shares (now called "contracts") for unspecified legal reasons with immediate effect - says that all contracts are now fixed at 100MH/s hashrate (he goes on to claim this was all that was ever offered)
 
https://109.201.133.195/index.php?topic=251423.msg6395306#msg6395306
LR presents the "new contract" at the start of an AMA, giving no one any time to digest it - the contract is for 100MH/s with a discretionary bonus based on nothing in particular

https://109.201.133.195/index.php?topic=251423.msg6415742#msg6415742
LR employs coercion: get 100MH/s and no bonus at all until you switch to the new contract

I think that about covers it.

[Flashman]

LRM is the one left holding and owning the gear in the end, as he has made it very clear none of us have any actual stake in the business or hardware.  All we have are "contracts" that LRM will pay us.  "Contracts" LRM willfully changes after the agreement was struck.

That was the case from the outset though so nothing changed in regards to that.

You are correct, this was the case from the outset. 

He's gonna have a hard time making it clear to SEC since he listed this in securities and called them "bonds" which are 1st tier capital investment.

If we were really just customers he would have stuck it in services. "LRM 0.5 BTC a gigahash plus mystery secret squirrel bonus" which probably would be sitting 500 pages back with no replies.

Plus then if you're trying to clear up the fact that your "victims" have no stake, going and calling it a "Group Buy" will not be seen as mitigating of the claim by the judge.

If this was even done as a "kickstarter" with 100% donations to gift a pile of mining hardware to Zach just because we like him, he would at this point be liable for breach of donor intent, which charities and non-profits have been heavily punished for recently.

So don't let him spin anything after the fact, he's got something of yours and owes you an obligation for it.

[tabbek]

bla bla bla

bla bla bla

more bla bla bla 

He's gonna have a hard time making it clear to SEC since he listed this in securities and called them "bonds" which are 1st tier capital investment.

If we were really just customers he would have stuck it in services. "LRM 0.5 BTC a gigahash plus mystery secret squirrel bonus" which probably would be sitting 500 pages back with no replies.

Plus then if you're trying to clear up the fact that your "victims" have no stake, going and calling it a "Group Buy" will not be seen as mitigating of the claim by the judge.

If this was even done as a "kickstarter" with 100% donations to gift a pile of mining hardware to Zach just because we like him, he would at this point be liable for breach of donor intent, which charities and non-profits have been heavily punished for recently.

So don't let him spin anything after the fact, he's got something of yours and owes you an obligation for it.

This is the heart of it.  I'll take my initial investment back please since the original agreement for which it was provided was canceled by LRM, at LRM's choice.  Not mine.
And no, I don't see a contract as a 'modified' version of the original.  A contract is what it is when both sides agree to it.  you can draw up a new contract that supersedes the original, but the original still exists.

[BKM]

First is an undertaking by LRM to provide, on a weekly basis, basic information regarding total hashrate, estimated future hashrate based on incoming hardware, mining proceeds, costs and any amounts set aside for reinvestment.  See any of the weekly updates by peta-mine as an example of how things ought to be done - short, concise and reassuring.  This is basic information that should not be difficult to provide.

and addiction:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=244042.msg6201645#msg6201645
(had the same situation as LRM - bitfunder failed, delays in delivery - but addiction customers love their managers because of the amount of transparency and communications)

and nastyfans:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=86854.0
(they use "donations" like LRM wants to use "bonus," but they give auditable financial data and details of their current hardware and pending orders so you can calculate what your bonus should be and that you are receiving it)

Great examples Maq..... I too would be fine with a change of some kind to the original bonds if we had a sufficient basis on which to make a decision. "Trust me" is not sufficient.

[oldbushie]

Okay, I just emailed Lab_Rat for clarification.

Assuming 100 "original" contracts:

Option 1:
They get converted to 300 "original" contracts with 100 MH/s each and not a hash more.

Option 2:
They get converted to 300 "new" contracts with 100 MH/s each with potential variable growth on top of the guaranteed hash rate.

This is keeping in mind that before the change, contracts were getting roughly 300 MH/s apiece on average based on the proportional rate (75%/25% split). So this is effectively a clarification change and nothing more, with option 2 being the better option. I agree that there should be a lot more than that amount of hash rate by now, but there have been a lot of unfortunate manufacturer delays. The outlook right now is a little bleak but I am hopeful that one day my investment will still pay off.

[contactmike1]

Okay, I just emailed Lab_Rat for clarification.

Assuming 100 "original" contracts:

Option 1:
They get converted to 300 "original" contracts with 100 MH/s each and not a hash more.

Option 2:
They get converted to 300 "new" contracts with 100 MH/s each with potential variable growth on top of the guaranteed hash rate.

This is keeping in mind that before the change, contracts were getting roughly 300 MH/s apiece on average based on the proportional rate (75%/25% split). So this is effectively a clarification change and nothing more, with option 2 being the better option. I agree that there should be a lot more than that amount of hash rate by now, but there have been a lot of unfortunate manufacturer delays. The outlook right now is a little bleak but I am hopeful that one day my investment will still pay off.

Yeah you got it right.

[tempestb]

Nobody here agreed or signed a contract.  Everyone sent money to Labrat and expected him to follow through on what he was telling everyone he was going to do.  At best there was a verbal/text based understanding of what was going to happen.  But contracts via changed or otherwise don't mean anything because nobody is signing anything with a legal signature.  And no, Bitcoin signatures are not legal signatures and are not proof that we agreed to any contract.

LabRat is going to do whatever he wants.  And people in here will complain.  That's all that is going to happen unless someone sues him.  That's it.  He's probably not even reading this thread.  Probably out by the pool enjoying a cool drink and thinking about spending our money on his dinner. 

That's what happens when you trust people you don't know with a lot of money.  They screw you over.

[Endlessa]

Okay, I just emailed Lab_Rat for clarification.

Assuming 100 "original" contracts:

Option 1:
They get converted to 300 "original" contracts with 100 MH/s each and not a hash more.

Option 2:
They get converted to 300 "new" contracts with 100 MH/s each with potential variable growth on top of the guaranteed hash rate.

This is keeping in mind that before the change, contracts were getting roughly 300 MH/s apiece on average based on the proportional rate (75%/25% split). So this is effectively a clarification change and nothing more, with option 2 being the better option. I agree that there should be a lot more than that amount of hash rate by now, but there have been a lot of unfortunate manufacturer delays. The outlook right now is a little bleak but I am hopeful that one day my investment will still pay off.

problem with this is you're taking a snap shot measurement on the eve of us receiving our largest hashrate investment.  These numbers are fine and dandy, except, we're just short of a large upgrade.  

[bobfranklin]

Okay, I just emailed Lab_Rat for clarification.

Assuming 100 "original" contracts:

Option 1:
They get converted to 300 "original" contracts with 100 MH/s each and not a hash more.

Option 2:
They get converted to 300 "new" contracts with 100 MH/s each with potential variable growth on top of the guaranteed hash rate.

This is keeping in mind that before the change, contracts were getting roughly 300 MH/s apiece on average based on the proportional rate (75%/25% split). So this is effectively a clarification change and nothing more, with option 2 being the better option. I agree that there should be a lot more than that amount of hash rate by now, but there have been a lot of unfortunate manufacturer delays. The outlook right now is a little bleak but I am hopeful that one day my investment will still pay off.

problem with this is you're taking a snap shot measurement on the eve of us receiving our largest hashrate investment.  These numbers are fine and dandy, except, we're just short of a large upgrade.  

Exactly what I wondered about.

[sparky999]

http://www.coindesk.com/fincen-digital-currency-cloud-mining-escrow-services-arent-money-transmitters/