all finished

[Batshark]

Here's the real bottom line:

waldo is saying:

I will try to contact HashFast to request USD refunds

If he does this, i will take him to small claims for my BTC. I didnt authorize this. The thought of it just makes me sick.

Waldo, you owe me BTC. Just because HashFast owes you makes no difference to me..

You are operating a business that took a LOSS. do you know what that is? It means you ordered a product, re-sold it before you took delivery (with a clause that you would refund upon NON-DELIVERY) and now you are going to take a loss on that because unfortunately for you, you still need to honor your refunds. Hashfast really has nothing to do with me. I didnt purchase from them, I purchased from waldo.

[1714865904]

1714865904

[1714865904]

1714865904

[1714865904]

1714865904

[1Neptune]

Here's the real bottom line:

waldo is saying:

I will try to contact HashFast to request USD refunds

If he does this, i will take him to small claims for my BTC. I didnt authorize this. The thought of it just makes me sick.

Waldo, you owe me BTC. Just because HashFast owes you makes no difference to me..

You are operating a business that took a LOSS. do you know what that is? It means you ordered a product, re-sold it before you took delivery (with a clause that you would refund upon NON-DELIVERY) and now you are going to take a loss on that because unfortunately for you, you still need to honor your refunds. Hashfast really has nothing to do with me. I didnt purchase from them, I purchased from waldo.

Finally someone other than me hits the nail on the head - BANG!

Waldo received, as has been stated, 600 btc, saying in a public post that it would be refunded on the condition of non-delivery. It was not conditioned upon Hashfast refunding the order, no matter how much was paid or not paid, it was conditioned only upon non-delivery. That condition has now been met. Hashfast failed to deliver. Waldo failed to deliver. By his own public statement he is now required to refund the btc he received because the condition he set has been met - non-delivery.

Waldo needs to refund 600 btc immediately to members of the group buy. If he doesn't do this in a timely manner, then he needs to be sued.

[filharvey]

If you want to sue HashFast or Waldo, please make me an offer for my share. You want to spend more money in the future fine, I don't this is where the whole group buy falls down.

Who pays for the next stage. And my answer is not me should be waldo but he is not.

But I'm not will to agree to a lawyer for a % of any, just want out.

Phil

[Batshark]

If you want to sue HashFast or Waldo, please make me an offer for my share. You want to spend more money in the future fine, I don't this is where the whole group buy falls down.

Who pays for the next stage. And my answer is not me should be waldo but he is not.

See therein lies the problem, and probably why we cant sue waldo and have to wait for HF to screw us all royally. But this "group buy" is definately the epitome of failure.

I dont like that HF didnt deliver. Waldo tried his best, but this leaves him in a hazy legal spot. I only want my BTC. I dont want to screw anyone. I dont want to ruin anyones day. I want what is mine. Either hashes, or BTC, this is very very simple.

But I'm not will to agree to a lawyer for a % of any, just want out.

Who would in their right mind agree to those legal terms? No one. Exactly. Might as well send me money like I said as you'd be throwing it away.

I wish our group buy leader would have a discussion instead of getting his panties in a wrinkle and running off everytime someone says anything negative. Children do that.

He plain and simple doesnt respond to messages, never posted any updates. Yet, probably still posting more group buys when he cant manage the ones hes running. Why would a sane person do that? Well because it doesnt matter if the company even delivers, he can shell out group buys knowing he can profit even if the company doesnt even deliver. Its literally no sweat off his back at all, its not like hes going to step up for his "shareholders". Am i right? I thought I was paying extra for managing my best interests. God. What. A. Joke.

[piecinitup]

Are there documents or anything I can see that shows

A. How much BTC was taken in by Waldo from the group buy members for the Batch 1 Miners
B. How much BTC was paid to Hashfast for the 7 Batch 1 miners
C. How much more BTC was taken in for the Upgrade Kit (Just on Miner 1 it looks like)
D. How much BTC was paid to Hashfast for the Upgrade Kit.

Or is all this information hidden by Waldo?

I guess my question is how much BTC was paid to Hashfast and How much did Waldo keep?

[3rac3]

I'm definately NOT up for a USD refund. What is wrong with you people?

As a matter of fact, if you are "IN" for a USD refund, why dont you send me $50 bucks now and I'll send you $5 bucks next week.

Did you know california just passed a law making BTC legal currency?

Did you know hashfast is in california?

Did you know waldo is supposedly in california?

Since you all enjoy losing money so much, just send me any money you dont mind losing.

Waldo, you arent getting anywhere with this. Why do you like fucking us all so much? It doesnt seem to bother you one bit. Oh thats right your the only one making any sort of money here.

Pretty sad thread this is. Bunch of people bending over taking it up the butt. Willingly. Ugh.

You do not seem like very active member of this forum. If you have some other info or opinion please speak up rather than complain about ppl bending over.

[Batshark]

You do not seem like very active member of this forum. If you have some other info or opinion please speak up rather than complain about ppl bending over.

My activity on this forum, currently, is solely to get my Waldohoover group buy resolved.

I actually found waldo on reddit at /r/teamredditmining, so all of my communication up until the point that he stopped responding has been on reddit.

I cant tell if you are saying my opinion doesnt matter because I havent posted enough? I am an investor, I deserve to be here. My voice is just as important as yours, even if I havent posted enough for your liking.

I'm really not sure of the point of your post.

I had an opinion, I spoke up. My opinion is that this group buy is going to bend to whatever pennies refund waldo decides he has the energy to throw at us.

If you have something real to add to the conversation, please dont hesitate to post meaningful replies.

[3rac3]

You do not seem like very active member of this forum. If you have some other info or opinion please speak up rather than complain about ppl bending over.

My activity on this forum, currently, is solely to get my Waldohoover group buy resolved.

I actually found waldo on reddit at /r/teamredditmining, so all of my communication up until the point that he stopped responding has been on reddit.

I cant tell if you are saying my opinion doesnt matter because I havent posted enough? I am an investor, I deserve to be here. My voice is just as important as yours, even if I havent posted enough for your liking.

I'm really not sure of the point of your post.

I had an opinion, I spoke up. My opinion is that this group buy is going to bend to whatever pennies refund waldo decides he has the energy to throw at us.

If you have something real to add to the conversation, please dont hesitate to post meaningful replies.

I am not saying that you opinion doesn't matter. Quite the contrary. I simply don't like when someone calls me names.

Apart from sharing some details about California can you please explain how would you like to get yours and my btc back?

[itod]

Are there documents or anything I can see that shows

A. How much BTC was taken in by Waldo from the group buy members for the Batch 1 Miners
B. How much BTC was paid to Hashfast for the 7 Batch 1 miners
C. How much more BTC was taken in for the Upgrade Kit (Just on Miner 1 it looks like)
D. How much BTC was paid to Hashfast for the Upgrade Kit.

Or is all this information hidden by Waldo?

I guess my question is how much BTC was paid to Hashfast and How much did Waldo keep?

Everything is intentionally non-transparent by Waldo, we know that the group maid BTC payments, but how much for each device is not disclosed ever. You can only calculate how much you paid for your 1/20 or 1/40 share in BTC, find out BTC price at the time of the payment and compare with the dollar value of the first 5 miners which are disclosed. Closest calculation we got is that we collected slightly over 600 BTC, and 7 miners + upgrades are paid around 400 BTC.

200 BTC are missing in action, because Waldo claims that quote from the opening post:

Refunds will be given in case of non-delivery less 3% for management of the Group Buy.

does not apply to those 200 BTC, only to those 400 BTC he forwarded to HashFast. On which legal and moral grounds he bases that claim is not known.

[Batshark]

I am not saying that you opinion doesn't matter. Quite the contrary. I simply don't like when someone calls me names.

Apart from sharing some details about California can you please explain how would you like to get yours and my btc back?

My bad, wasnt trying to call you names. I just get heated discussing this stuff because so many people are getting screwed while the only guy who can prevent it from happening isnt even around and refuses to help.

Here is a good start: https://oag.ca.gov/consumers

The summary of AB129 (bill in CA legalizing alternative currencies) currently reads like this:

Summary: Specifies that current law which bans the issuance or circulation of anything but lawful money of the United States  does not prohibit the issuance and use of alternative currency.

If the senate passes the bill, we will be in a much better position to recoup our btc losses from this "investment". I'm not even sure if a *certain* individual is legally allowed to offer investments like this anyway, and for good reason (this situation right here).

(See: http://www.sec.gov/about/laws.shtml, although, waldo may fall under an exemption which he would have already had to file, see: http://www.arnoldporter.com/resources/documents/CalBusLawPract%20EKF%20JSK%20Formatted.pdf )

I can keep going, this is literally just the top of the shit-pile.

[Chef Ramsay]

The bottom line is that no one here would like to be in Waldo's shoes on this. The 400 coins are in HF's pocket and that's the end of it. I'm willing to listen to arguments as to whether or not holding out for a full BTC recovery is possible but the way HF has been, I'm not seeing it. I doubt some new law will legally affect what has already transpired but perhaps I'm wrong. This lawyer thing seemed decent as a 'stick it' to HF sort of thing coupled with getting back more coinage but the letter about a blank check for expenses sucked all the air out of the room. The only option left is getting the dismal usd return if HF will give us the time of day here. I'm currently out 7.5 coins and would love to recoup as much as possible but I'm also being realistic and getting irate isn't going to solve anything at this stage. W/o a lawyer and the related baggage, how are we supposed to force HF's hand on anything? They're in the driver's seat and there's not much we can do about it besides maybe contacting some big BTC names and see if they can lean on HF to do something. That's all I got.

[paulej]

The bottom line is that no one here would like to be in Waldo's shoes on this. The 400 coins are in HF's pocket and that's the end of it. I'm willing to listen to arguments as to whether or not holding out for a full BTC recovery is possible but the way HF has been, I'm not seeing it. I doubt some new law will legally affect what has already transpired but perhaps I'm wrong. This lawyer thing seemed decent as a 'stick it' to HF sort of thing coupled with getting back more coinage but the letter about a blank check for expenses sucked all the air out of the room. The only option left is getting the dismal usd return if HF will give us the time of day here. I'm currently out 7.5 coins and would love to recoup as much as possible but I'm also being realistic and getting irate isn't going to solve anything at this stage. W/o a lawyer and the related baggage, how are we supposed to force HF's hand on anything? They're in the driver's seat and there's not much we can do about it besides maybe contacting some big BTC names and see if they can lean on HF to do something. That's all I got.

Yeah, a new law most definitely will not change anything. One cannot introduce a new law and use that ex post facto.  That said, one does not have to worry about that if the original agreement was to refund BTC.  I don't know what the sales literature said; I only know the claims made on this site that HashFast guaranteed that people will not lose their BTC.

It would be interesting to know how things are progressing for others who took legal action against HashFast.

[beavertank]

Everyone seems to be freaking out about the $1k deposit to cover costs... so let me further explain the way contingency fee agreements usually work:

In any sort of contingency arrangement (where the lawyer's fee is a percentage of any recovery, paid out that recovery) defendants are still liable for costs associated with the case, whether they win or not. Those costs include things like filing fees, arbitration fees, expert witness fees, costs of hiring an investigator, photocopies, long distance calls, etc... all the things that actually represent costs paid out by the lawyer in pursuing the case. This does NOT include the lawyer's time, or the time of any associates or paralegals or secretaries under him.

With a contingency agreement, the lawyer is compensated for his time (and the time of those who work for him) only if he wins, and is then compensated in the form of a percentage of the recovery.

This $1k up front is not a $1k payment that is then gone and never coming back, it's $1k that's placed in the lawyer's trust account and not touched until an invoice is sent to and signed off on by the client for costs incurred so far. The possibility of "additional payments" is in the case where more than $1k is spent in costs, an additional deposit is made to the trust account and handled in the same way. If, when the case is over, there is money left from that initial $1k it is refunded to the client.

If we lose, the money spent on costs out of that $1k is gone and never coming back. That's the risk of litigation.

If we win, the money spent on costs is first subtracted out of the recovery, and then the lawyer's fee is calculated based on what's left, and the remainder goes to us. To illustrate with relatively easy round numbers:

Assume $750 are spent on costs, and we recover $2750. We are first returned the remaining $250 from the initial $1k deposit. The $750 spent on costs is then subtracted from the recovery, so our costs are reimbursed from the recovery first. The lawyers contingency is taken out of the remaining recovery (so 40% of $2k, or $800) and what remains, $1200 in this example, is sent to us along with the $750 of costs we already paid.

It's extremely common for lawyers to ask for money up front which they will use to cover costs in contingency cases, especially when dealing with an unknown group like this, because it's going to be extremely difficult if not impossible for the lawyer to get money out of us to pay for costs incurred in the event that we lose. He's already gambling his time on this by accepting it as a contingency, and he's not interested in gambling an out-of-pocket payment by fronting us the money for costs too.

...that said, it does seem like it would be difficult to get the group to put up the $1k deposit. I'd still like to see us do it, though, because it's the only way we're going to get anything even approaching a reasonable refund (and I want to shove a lawsuit so far up Hash Fast's ass they taste it for weeks).

[paulej]

...that said, it does seem like it would be difficult to get the group to put up the $1k deposit. I'd still like to see us do it, though, because it's the only way we're going to get anything even approaching a reasonable refund (and I want to shove a lawsuit so far up Hash Fast's ass they taste it for weeks).

People might actually do it if they knew their costs.  Thus far, we only know $1K, which seems substantial in light of already losing money.  However, given the number of shares across all miners and, I suspect the per-share cost is minimal.

What would that be?

[filharvey]

Well, for the lawyer to work, we need to figure out:

1) How do we raise the $1000. This will not happen split between all investors. I for 1 will not put more money down this money pit.

2) Then if the $1000 is split between a smaller group, how / if we win, does this $1000 get paid back. Is it purely just the $1000, and then the rest is split. Or does the people who put up the $1000 expect more payment back as it is another investment by them. For that you will need a majority agreement, but nothing has been put down as to what sort of majority is expect, 51%, 75%?

Again, at the end of the day I just want back what I can get and want it now, not in x years time.

Phil

[paulej]

Well, for the lawyer to work, we need to figure out:

1) How do we raise the $1000. This will not happen split between all investors. I for 1 will not put more money down this money pit.

2) Then if the $1000 is split between a smaller group, how / if we win, does this $1000 get paid back. Is it purely just the $1000, and then the rest is split. Or does the people who put up the $1000 expect more payment back as it is another investment by them. For that you will need a majority agreement, but nothing has been put down as to what sort of majority is expect, 51%, 75%?

Again, at the end of the day I just want back what I can get and want it now, not in x years time.

Phil

I would argue that anyone who is willing to chip in 0.2 BTC to pay for the lawyer should get that 0.2 BTC back immediately at the end of the case.  Then whatever is left would be divided among all shareholders per share.

Legal proceedings are never fast.  I mentioned that before.  There's really no reason to demand speed, because you cannot hurry the legal system.

I would really like to know, however, whether a BTC refund was promised by HashFast or not.  I read on this site that it was, but I also saw various purchase agreements that said nothing about a BTC refund.  However, the purchase agreements did offer a refund if the miners were not delivered on time.  So, were the miners purchased in dollars or BTC?  If the miners were purchased in dollars, then those sales agreements speaking of refund would likely be interpreted by a court as US dollar refunds.

A third option we have (in addition to a legal argument for BTC or a USD refund) is a request by HashFast to provide the group with the comparable hashing power that would have been given if the products shipped on time.  I don't know what the difficulty was then vs. now, but if the company matched the difficulty with more hardware, I'd say it would be a win for everyone.

[Batshark]

I would argue that anyone who is willing to chip in 0.2 BTC to pay for the lawyer should get that 0.2 BTC back immediately at the end of the case.  Then whatever is left would be divided among all shareholders per share.

Legal proceedings are never fast.  I mentioned that before.  There's really no reason to demand speed, because you cannot hurry the legal system.

I would really like to know, however, whether a BTC refund was promised by HashFast or not.  I read on this site that it was, but I also saw various purchase agreements that said nothing about a BTC refund.  However, the purchase agreements did offer a refund if the miners were not delivered on time.  So, were the miners purchased in dollars or BTC?  If the miners were purchased in dollars, then those sales agreements speaking of refund would likely be interpreted by a court as US dollar refunds.

A third option we have (in addition to a legal argument for BTC or a USD refund) is a request by HashFast to provide the group with the comparable hashing power that would have been given if the products shipped on time.  I don't know what the difficulty was then vs. now, but if the company matched the difficulty with more hardware, I'd say it would be a win for everyone.

I'd like to know these answers as well. I wouldnt have any problems at all throwing 0.2 towards this  if A) our group guy operator wasnt MIA and B) there were others in the GB willing to match me.

My guess is that some of you guys are outstanding fellows and would step up to the plate for the group, as I would, if condition A were met. Problem is the guy is so goddamn shady nowadays with communication that I cant even fathom sending him more btc. Its insane.

[paulej]

My guess is that some of you guys are outstanding fellows and would step up to the plate for the group, as I would, if condition A were met. Problem is the guy is so goddamn shady nowadays with communication that I cant even fathom sending him more btc. Its insane.

I suspect there would be enough who would provide funds.  I don't think waldohoover is being shady. I suspect he's rather tired of people throwing rocks at him, threatening to sue him, etc.

Whatever the case, we do have to have active dialog to move forward.  But, he may have already moved forward with asking for the USD refund. I think he last indicated he would do that.

[beavertank]

Well, for the lawyer to work, we need to figure out:

1) How do we raise the $1000. This will not happen split between all investors. I for 1 will not put more money down this money pit.

2) Then if the $1000 is split between a smaller group, how / if we win, does this $1000 get paid back. Is it purely just the $1000, and then the rest is split. Or does the people who put up the $1000 expect more payment back as it is another investment by them. For that you will need a majority agreement, but nothing has been put down as to what sort of majority is expect, 51%, 75%?

Again, at the end of the day I just want back what I can get and want it now, not in x years time.

Phil

I'd say pay back the $1k the same way you handle it in calculating the lawyer's fee. The costs come out of the recovery before anything else happens with it, so the costs that come back get distributed back to those who paid them. After that, the lawyer's fee is deducted, and the remaining recovery is split based on shareholder stake.

But that also means a potentially small group of investors bears all the risk of loss, as they may be out their portion of the $1k if we lose. I'd be willing to chip in a bit (and if Waldo is still reading this, and not simply pulling his hair out in frustration, I'd welcome him to message me about this), but I'm probably in the minority in that.

Legal proceedings are never fast.  I mentioned that before.  There's really no reason to demand speed, because you cannot hurry the legal system.

I would really like to know, however, whether a BTC refund was promised by HashFast or not.  I read on this site that it was, but I also saw various purchase agreements that said nothing about a BTC refund.  However, the purchase agreements did offer a refund if the miners were not delivered on time.  So, were the miners purchased in dollars or BTC?

What's happening here isn't really legal proceedings. At least, not as most people think of them. The purchase agreement required arbitration to settle disputes, so arbitration is where we'd be going. That's significantly simpler and faster than full-blown in-court litigation.

As for the rest, the original purchase agreement was ambiguous on how refunds would be calculated, but there were representations by HashFast that BTC payments would receive an equal amount of BTC in refund. And that's generally the way refunds are understood. This group buy paid HashFast entirely in BTC.

[paulej]

As for the rest, the original purchase agreement was ambiguous on how refunds would be calculated, but there were representations by HashFast that BTC payments would receive an equal amount of BTC in refund. And that's generally the way refunds are understood. This group buy paid HashFast entirely in BTC.

Given they were paid for in BTC, then that definitely suggests a BTC refund. That also aligns with what others were saying.

Perhaps with the Mt Gox issues today, BTC might be cheap to come by this week.