-

[Flashman]

So as long as Lab_Rat isn't sailing around on a yacht that we bought (which I find highly unlikely) I'll chalk it up as an entertaining couple of years.

I'd love to see him sailing around on a yacht... on his 25%... but the wording in the contract reads like someone setting up to rob us... wording of someone trustworthy and having issues, would be more like "I'm gonna have to split the fiat costs with you guys." or "I'm gonna publish a  month in advance what the split is" or whatever.

[countduckula]

Someone trustworthy will just publish the required information in a timely manner and will inform accurately about the progress of the bussiness overall. Right now we've no details at all, no information at all and weeks of silence.

[grnbrg]

Zach claims he wants to show those that won't listen how its going to be. What condition exists that prevents him from holding on to the dividends of those that are not yet prepared to accept the new contracts based on faith? I can't think of any reason. Can you? It's not as if faith is a common way of doing business anyway. Logic tells me that if he really wanted to show us how it's going to be in good faith he wouldn't steal our dividends. He would simply demonstrate his point and go on to allow others to convert to the new contract WITHOUT stealing their dividends. How do you explain this?

I'm getting into deep water here...  What follows is my opinion, based on what Lab_Rat has posted, and having seen at least one episode of "Law & Order". (ie:  I'm not a lawyer, and may well be way off base, and this is in no way an "Official LRM Response".)

Lab_Rat has posted in general terms that the issue was due to problems with bonds being "proportional", and that in order to avoid issues, they needed to represent a fixed hash rate.  The solution to this problem is embodied in the new contract -- essentially a fixed hash rate, but with the option for LRM to issue at it's sole discretion "bonus hashrate".  Speculation on my part:  It may well be that if Lab_Rat makes any promises or representations about what this bonus is, or how it relates to hardware, or anything else then suddenly the contracts are (potentially) proportional again.  It's quite possible his lawyer has told him to say nothing about the bonus, period, for this reason.  End wild speculation.

And as a contract holder, you have to be in one camp or the other, not half-way between the two.


grnbrg.

[ICantThinkOfaName]

Zach claims he wants to show those that won't listen how its going to be. What condition exists that prevents him from holding on to the dividends of those that are not yet prepared to accept the new contracts based on faith? I can't think of any reason. Can you? It's not as if faith is a common way of doing business anyway. Logic tells me that if he really wanted to show us how it's going to be in good faith he wouldn't steal our dividends. He would simply demonstrate his point and go on to allow others to convert to the new contract WITHOUT stealing their dividends. How do you explain this?

I'm getting into deep water here...  What follows is my opinion, based on what Lab_Rat has posted, and having seen at least one episode of "Law & Order". (ie:  I'm not a lawyer, and may well be way off base, and this is in no way an "Official LRM Response".)

Lab_Rat has posted in general terms that the issue was due to problems with bonds being "proportional", and that in order to avoid issues, they needed to represent a fixed hash rate.  The solution to this problem is embodied in the new contract -- essentially a fixed hash rate, but with the option for LRM to issue at it's sole discretion "bonus hashrate".  Speculation on my part:  It may well be that if Lab_Rat makes any promises or representations about what this bonus is, or how it relates to hardware, or anything else then suddenly the contracts are (potentially) proportional again.  It's quite possible his lawyer has told him to say nothing about the bonus, period, for this reason.  End wild speculation.

And as a contract holder, you have to be in one camp or the other, not half-way between the two.


grnbrg.

Speak for yourself.  I plan on riding the line until 11:59 May 9th (EST).

[countduckula]

Let me try to wild guess as you do:

If he can.. as he did, triplicate the total of contracts at will... didnt he do that?

Why not do that at will to match total hardware and avoid all this? i mean, he already did it, i know 3x contracts of what i had previously.

If we duplicate the speed, he just can assign new contracts to owners, shouldnt they be paid? yes... they were with the 25% and the weeks of mined coins, that can be easily done in the company finances.

[grnbrg]

Speak for yourself.  I plan on riding the line until 11:59 May 9th (EST).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHF9itPLUo4





grnbrg

[elitenoob]

And as a contract holder, you have to be in one camp or the other, not half-way between the two.

Not true. I could make another User Account, sell him half of my contracts and i put each half in a different contract type

[grnbrg]

And as a contract holder, you have to be in one camp or the other, not half-way between the two.

Not true. I could make another User Account, sell him half of my contracts and i put each half in a different contract type

grnbrg.

[Bargraphics]

Unfortunately I'm going to have to agree that the contract is way too arbitrary.

Regardless of if there's trust or not (and I do trust Zach) I would not sign a contract like that. There needs to be hard figures in there that somehow legally reflect what the intention of the original contract were.

The original contract said in no uncertain terms that our hashrate would grow proportional to the amount of "bonds" in circulation compared to the amount of hashrate LRM had from equipment purchased by the selling of additional bonds or by reinvestment. There was definitely a "minimum hashrate of 100MH" given but I can't see how that reflects a maximum which is trying to be portrayed currently.

Shareholders have also agreed to do a one time "2 Weeks of Mining on New Equipment" that seems to have been made permanent. It seems as this is a "Do or Die" situation that the company is in. Somehow the 25% isn't enough (Since there's no transparency on the accounting side we cannot be shown this to be true or false) I'd personally vote for this to be removed as the original contract did not include this.


I will say that I've personally met Zach and worked along side him putting up some of his mining equipment. He is a smart, hardworking, trustworthy guy but I'm not convinced that this contract is the best fit.

[pontikis13]

Zach claims he wants to show those that won't listen how its going to be. What condition exists that prevents him from holding on to the dividends of those that are not yet prepared to accept the new contracts based on faith? I can't think of any reason. Can you? It's not as if faith is a common way of doing business anyway. Logic tells me that if he really wanted to show us how it's going to be in good faith he wouldn't steal our dividends. He would simply demonstrate his point and go on to allow others to convert to the new contract WITHOUT stealing their dividends. How do you explain this?

I'm getting into deep water here...  What follows is my opinion, based on what Lab_Rat has posted, and having seen at least one episode of "Law & Order". (ie:  I'm not a lawyer, and may well be way off base, and this is in no way an "Official LRM Response".)

Lab_Rat has posted in general terms that the issue was due to problems with bonds being "proportional", and that in order to avoid issues, they needed to represent a fixed hash rate.  The solution to this problem is embodied in the new contract -- essentially a fixed hash rate, but with the option for LRM to issue at it's sole discretion "bonus hashrate".  Speculation on my part:  It may well be that if Lab_Rat makes any promises or representations about what this bonus is, or how it relates to hardware, or anything else then suddenly the contracts are (potentially) proportional again.  It's quite possible his lawyer has told him to say nothing about the bonus, period, for this reason.  End wild speculation.

And as a contract holder, you have to be in one camp or the other, not half-way between the two.


grnbrg.

That's where my problem lies. There is no good reason for the 2 available camps to be defined the way they are. Are you familiar with the phrase "between a rock and a hard place"? Even if what you just wildly speculated is true it doesn't adequately answer the question. There is STILL no sufficient reason to steal the dividends of those that don't agree immediately. You are talking about the over all situation with the "bonus". I am specifically talking about the decision to not hold the bonus for an extra 2 weeks after May 10th (Besides, some investors may not be following this thread at the time. Why should they randomly lose their right to the bonus? I don't recall the original contract stating that you should be following this thread like a hawk if you don't want to lose your dividends).

The bonds being proportional or not have nothing to do with this. Still can't think of a logical reason?

[rangerbob21]

Probably won't be difficult to find a prosecutor in NJ who is just itching to get on the "bitcoin scam train"... just to get one under their belt...

[grnbrg]

I've had a number of people PM me, asking how they can convert to the new (April 25th, 2014) contract.

There are two options to do so:

• Email Lab_Rat (at labrat@labratmining.com) from an email address that you have previously verified and state that you wish to convert to the new contract.  As long as the email address you have used was previously verified with LRM, he is not requiring a signature.
• Alternately, you can email or PM myself with this information.  I, however, will require that the message is signed with your LRM address.  I will confirm receipt, and will ensure that Lab_Rat has the information before the deadline.

Note that you are not being required to convert to the April 25th contract, but if you do not do so, you will not eligible to collect dividends under the payout terms outlined in that contract.  (ie:  The old contracts will be paid divs for 100MH/s per contract.  The new contracts are paid divs for 100MH/s plus an optional bonus, at the discretion of LRM.)



grnbrg.

[theMiracle]

...Regardless of if there's trust or not (and I do trust Zach)...

Lol, is there anyone you *don't trust*, Bar? 

[bobfranklin]

Just when it seemed this drama couldn't get any more ridiculous.

I'm here all week.

Try the veal!



grnbrg.

Dinner and a show!

[LostDutchman]

Just when it seemed this drama couldn't get any more ridiculous.

I'm here all week.

Try the veal!



grnbrg.

Dinner and a show!

I do not eat veal because of the cruel conditions under which the lambs are held prior to slaughter.

Is this some kind of comparison?

My $.02.

[Flashman]

Let's run this one up the flagpole again...

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.

But with wording something along the lines of..

Each contract gives the holder the right to buy another contract out of every subsequent issue of bonds for the sum of 1 satoshi.

This means effectively that should new issues be mainly 100% for existing holders that the number of outstanding bonds will double every time, but since the hashpower required to "compete" in bitcoin is doubling every few months this sort of makes sense.

[sparky999]

Just when it seemed this drama couldn't get any more ridiculous.

I'm here all week.

Try the veal!



grnbrg.

Dinner and a show!

I do not eat veal because of the cruel conditions under which the lambs are held prior to slaughter.

Is this some kind of comparison?

My $.02.

Veal is not lamb. Veal is the calf of a cow that has been only fed on milk.

[Mindsync Miner]

I'm going to sign the new contract.
300 plus bonus will in all likelihood be better than 300 no bonus.

No, it's not ideal but if Zach's intent is good we can all continue to make money. Many here have chosen to punish Zach for the fact he's not obligated to pay a bonus. How about we reserve punishment for when/if he fails to pay a proper bonus or fails to supply us with adequate info after the new contract is in place?

I view a lawsuit as the nuclear option. The new contract and the way it was introduced to us would probably not fare well in court. I'm no lawyer but signing the contract appears to be a far cry from waiving all rights.
   
What we have is a Mutually Assured Destruction situation.

Zach knows if he acts irresponsibly with the bonus we will sue and if we sue there's no real chance of a good bonus.

Uncomfortable yes, but it's incentive enough for all involved to play nice until somebody is truly being screwed over.

TLDR: We have a M.A.D. situation. Zach knows a lawsuit will ensue if he's tight with bonuses and we know suing would torpedo the whole venture. Best way forward is to cooperate.


Edit: This hasn't played out in it's entirety. Let's see how things look a few Months after the new contract is being served. I'm glad some are prepared to lawyer up. It's prudent, but please keep your finger off the trigger until we really know.

P.P.S. Edit: Anybody here a lawyer or have one looking into this? It would be helpful to know how binding the new contract is should we choose to sign it. Specifically in a hypothetical case against LRM how much would signing the new contract affect proceedings or possible judgments or our right to claim that LRM should honor a verbal agreement assuring proportional payout?

[Ashitank]

I'm going to sign the new contract.
300 plus bonus will in all likelihood be better than 300 no bonus.

No, it's not ideal but if Zach's intent is good we can all continue to make money. Many here have chosen to punish Zach for the fact he's not obligated to pay a bonus. How about we reserve punishment for when/if he fails to pay a proper bonus or fails to supply us with adequate info after the new contract is in place?
  

Lol as per new contract you have given up right to sue as you agree to dividends being issued on sole discretion of lab_rat.

[a2offrb]

LABRAT/GRNBRG

HOW MUCH LRM HAVE RUNNING HASHRATE, ORDERED, RECEIVED BUT UNINSTALLED, OTHER HASHRATE?