[Closed]R17x: Black Arrow Prospero X-3 <DZMC Exclusive> $130 / 40GHS

[thehun]

Wow.

I don't blame DZC for what's happened.

I do know that I'm not going within a million miles of a BTC mining investment ever again.

Talk about learning hard lessons.

+1

Got burned in R4 and now R17 seems to be going in the same direction. While I don't think DZ & co have acted in bad faith, I do believe they should have been more cautious when formulating the refund policy.

[1714475216]

1714475216

[1714475216]

1714475216

[1714475216]

1714475216

[1714475216]

1714475216

[smooth]

In terms of what bobsag3 (or borito4, I have to say that I too am uncomfortable with multiple accounts) should try to do in London:
if we have to wait all the way until may, then maybe we should just agree that BAs initial policy of disallowing group buys was well-founded and that a cancellation with a full refund would be the least painful way to go about things.

It will certainly be the least painful for the organizers. To have used a refund policy to induce people to buy into their operations (generating significant hosting revenue from R17 alone for a for-profit business operated by them for example, plus whatever profit margin,  commissions, etc. they made on the buy itself, if any), and then not honor it, would put them in a terrible spot.

Let's hope they have a good agreement with Black Arrow that allows them to satisfy their refund obligation without needing to go into to their personal assets. Because, you know, not having any kind of effective limited liability corporate entity for the coop, that would be a sad outcome. Or perhaps just offer reasonable compensation to the buyers (not this 25% hash rate someday crap) that most don't even want refunds (after all, I'd rather not have to pay a 1.5% restock fee, but maybe its the least I could do at this point to help out those poor unfortunate organizers).

[howardb]

I think there are a lot of people deluding themselves about the possibility of refund. The "Coop" is not a legal entity of any kind, it fact its even debatable whether there is one coop (DZ) or one for each round. So EVEN if the BTC existed, which they don't, who could vote on such a thing without starting a legal battle??

Our best hope for anything out of this is everyone continuing to cooperate, and ensuring thet BA understand they are absolutely trashed as a company if they continue down the road they are on (Which of course raises the possibility they know this, and have the units mining already!).

[smooth]

The "Coop" is not a legal entity of any kind

If so, the organizers are individually and personally responsible for their obligations. If they want to reneg, we'll just see what happens. Maybe $500,000 worth of refund claims will just be forgiven and forgotten, or maybe not.

Hey, after all they can just create new forum accounts and start over. No biggie.

[philipma1957]

The "Coop" is not a legal entity of any kind

If so, the organizers are individually and personally responsible for their obligations. If they want to reneg, we'll just see what happens. Maybe $500,000 worth of refund claims will just be forgiven and forgotten, or maybe not.

Hey, after all they can just create new forum accounts and start over. No biggie.

   Well as much as I want to get my money out of this  and  I do want my money.   We first need to see if they have an idea or 2 when bob returns from the meetings.
  The gear was due feb 24th and march 1.  40 gh a share.

  If we get lessor gear sooner it does help somewhat.  Before I freak I will wait to see what is offered to me.  If this stays at  a may 15th date with a 25% boost and no better solution is offered then I will freak….

as of today  round 17 is not late.  round 17 does not owe us anything at all. Come march 1 if we have no hash and no plan I will start to freak.

[smooth]

does not owe us anything at all

Unless you request a refund before shipping. Then you are owed your purchase price less a 1.5% "restocking fee." (BTW how does one "restock" something that hasn't shipped yet?)

[steamon]

I am really disappointed that black arrow is delaying this. This was me only chance to make some bitcoins for some good holdings in the future...  

Only con on this well I would like to have recieved a e-mail but maybe this group has not discussed any solution yet. But if me shares can by turned into other mining power end feb begin march then yes.

So basicly. I can forget me 15 to 20 bitcoins right? that this possible investment could bring. And refunds well if its the only option i will take it but will not take me much further. I hope a solution comes.

May delivery will lose everyones roi.

edit: I see black arrow giving possible boost well I hope its higher then 25%.

start drama

Further I just have a lot off rage in me because I had me hopes high for black arrow. Missed a lot off chances and now getting more then 10 btc this year dream is ruined.

I do have some stocks in btc but not much.

Now me company must succeed else I can't even life on myself. I still have savings but still now I know I keep walking behind the hype should have invested in 2011 when i saw the btc price on 8$

end drama

Lets first wait what happends.

[mdude77]

I'm certainly not happy with the results here either.

However, this should be a lesson to every one... never ever put more into an investment than you can afford to lose.  Especially a "high risk" investment, such as BTC mining.

M

[Lloydie]

I would like a refund of r17 if this is at all possible. I don't like my chances with BA. Anyone who agrees please add your voice. I have 16 shares.

[TookDk]

I would like a refund of r17 if this is at all possible. I don't like my chances with BA. Anyone who agrees please add your voice. I have 16 shares.

I would also like to have a refund for r17 (this can be considered as a official request).

However I do not think that DZ is able to do so, since I believe that DZ has already paid BA.

I have already signed of r17 as a loss, so any return is a plus for me.
At this point I would be happy just to get a partial refund.
I have also lost my believes in BA - Delivery in May 2014 is far from certain.
 

[Lloydie]

I should've phrased my original post better: I would like dz coop to organise a refund from BA. Thanks.

[ThugRock]

I would like to also request an official refund from BA / The COOP, as I have not counted this as a total loss. Order: #1380 - $650

My payment address is: 1PBWADoE8gGTGpvreJpeJW5w3hYkgmewtJ (paid in bitcoins, but am happy to have US Dollars back via paypal if easier).

[Deano101]

Please take this as a formal request for a refund of my R17 order #935, wallet address is 1BdFV7kJLhA1pRGD8sxkPEMiLJSGGa6k2d), as per the terms laid out.

Email will be sent also
My partner is due to give birth in late March, so I never would have invested without the refund before shipping clause.

[howardb]

The "Coop" is not a legal entity of any kind

If so, the organizers are individually and personally responsible for their obligations. If they want to reneg, we'll just see what happens. Maybe $500,000 worth of refund claims will just be forgiven and forgotten, or maybe not.

Hey, after all they can just create new forum accounts and start over. No biggie.

Would like to see where THAT law is written. It could just as easily be argued that ALL the members of the coop are joint and severally liable, or perhaps even just the members of R17. Being an Organiser acting on our behalf (implicitily or explicitly) does NOT imply personal liability.

[tripppn]

I want to wait and see what Bob has to say after his trip before I vote for refund or not.

[TechByPC]

Would like to see where THAT law is written. It could just as easily be argued that ALL the members of the coop are joint and severally liable, or perhaps even just the members of R17. Being an Organiser acting on our behalf (implicitily or explicitly) does NOT imply personal liability.

Intent to defraud would have to be proved, and I am sure that either a class action or a few dozen individual cases would have the same end result, whether or not they were won. That course of action only benefits BA and lawyers since they would end up with both the hardware and the money. The smartest thing to do at this moment is to wait for the negotiations between DZ and BA to take place so we can see what our options are and then go from there.

Some people apparently had so little faith in DZ that I'm not sure why they invested in the first place, or to the extent that they invested. For the record, I would not have invested in this particular group buy if the refund had not been so clearly written and history had not shown that DZ has respected that refund previously. It does concern me that DZ has so far denied that the refund option is valid, however I'm not ready to demand a refund because there are variables missing from the risk/reward calculation until the negotiations here are completed and conveyed to us. At this moment I still have faith in DZ to be smart enough at least to act in their best interests for this negotiation. Among their various interests is not getting in the middle of a string of lawsuits.

Anyone acting on behalf of someone else does imply faith between the parties. A contract was written, see the OP and DZ website and make copies if you haven't already, and entered into by the exchange of goods and services, get copies of any correspondence and the transaction details. If that faith was breached by one of the parties, then there is an issue. Minimally there is a valid civil case here if that faith was breached. BA failing to deliver in and of itself does not constitute breach of faith by DZ. Prove that DZ knew BA was not going to deliver (on time) and you have a case. Right now all the evidence I have says that DZ did not know ahead of time.

[madao]

Far be it from me to trample anyones right to seek recompense, but also keep in mind that the moment DZCOOP needs to pay lawyer fees, that will also have an impact on their solvency.

Waiting for bobsag3's meetings to take place is absolutely the best course of action, imho.
Would hate for any windfall R17 might get to have to go to lawyer fees, in stead of the shareholders.

[Jhonka86]

I want to wait and see what Bob has to say after his trip before I vote for refund or not.

This. Let's all just calm down for a few days.  There's still basically a full month before it was late anyways, so y'all are a bit premature with the torches and pitchforks.

[smooth]

Would like to see where THAT law is written.

It is simple contract law. Somebody doing business as "DZ miners cooperative" and posting under the name thomas_s made an offer which included a refund provision, I relied on that provision in accepting the offer, and if I am denied a refund, a contract has been breached. Whether there is a breach of contract if the refund provision is not honored is not open to question. If anything the rather absurd statement that "OP applies to R16, not R17" demonstrates what some other poster described as "bad faith" (hopefully it in fact only demonstrates a brief moment of poor judgement at a stressful time -- we can hope).

If it comes to that, it will be up to this alleged DZMC entity and "thomas_s" to demonstrate that he/she/it/they are not liable for damages incurred by me under breach of contract or that he/she/it/they are insolvent and can't pay those damages. Maybe he/she/it/they can do so, or maybe not.  Or maybe just honoring the promised refund offer will be cheaper and easier for everyone concerned. That is my hope.

I doubt the claim that "we are all DZMC" will hold water when we are all entitled to refunds, which it stands to reason would dissolve our interest in any coop (if said coop even exists in more than name only).

[howardb]

Would like to see where THAT law is written.

It is simple contract law. Somebody doing business as "DZ miners cooperative" and posting under the name thomas_s made an offer which included a refund provision, I relied on that provision in accepting the offer, and if I am denied a refund, a contract has been breached. Whether there is a breach of contract if the refund provision is not honored is not open to question. If anything the rather absurd statement that "OP applies to R16, not R17" demonstrates what some other poster described as "bad faith" (hopefully it in fact only demonstrates a brief moment of poor judgement at a stressful time -- we can hope).

If it comes to that, it will be up to this alleged DZMC entity and "thomas_s" to demonstrate that he/she/it/they are not liable for damages incurred by me under breach of contract or that he/she/it/they are insolvent and can't pay those damages. Maybe he/she/it/they can do so, or maybe not.  Or maybe just honoring the promised refund offer will be cheaper and easier for everyone concerned. That is my hope.

I doubt the claim that "we are all DZMC" will hold water when we are all entitled to refunds, which it stands to reason would dissolve our interest in any coop (if said coop even exists in more than name only).

Ok, we are all playing barrack room lawyers now.  I've got 14 shares on this, and to put it simply have the following opinion:

a) If anyone has acted in bad faith here it's BA not the DZMC.
b) There is no money to get back from the DZMC so it's a futile argument on liability.
c) DZMC may have been careless or at worst incompetent in including a money back promise they couldn't honour, that does not PROVE any intent to defraud.
d) I would still trust DZMC on other group buys, they are well intentioned good people as far as I can tell.
e) Working WITH DZMC and not against them to exert market reputational pressure on BA is our best bet to get either a refund or much increased kit further down the road.