Open letter to Hashfast in response to refund terms.

[DPoS]

a few customers said that HF stated to them that they would actually get the same btc that they paid if refunded...  if that is in writing somewhere perhaps that could be enforced in court but who knows...  contract law and how shoddy HF is will make it all a crap shoot if it even gets that far

[1715411091]

1715411091

[gmaxwell]

E.g.

Now since the only payment option is in BTC Will I get the same ammount of BTC back should you fail to deliver by December 31st?

Orders are taken in BTC, in the unlikely event we get to refunds they will be given in BTC.

and

Received: by 10.194.138.199 with SMTP id qs7csp90853wjb;
        Fri, 16 Aug 2013 16:38:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.236.45.102 with SMTP id o66mr196684yhb.13.1376696316262;
        Fri, 16 Aug 2013 16:38:36 -0700 (PDT)
Return-Path: <bitpaysupport@hashfast.com>

Hi Jim,
Thank you so much for your patience while I got the answer for you, I greatly appreciate it.

The answer is if you buy Baby Jet for 51 BitCoins today and it does not ship, you will be refunded the 51 BitCoins you paid.

I hope that helps and hope you have a good weekend!

Thanks,
Cara

In addition to the invoices in BTC that people received with the full refund text, which was only revised months after the sale to indicate that refunds would be of the USD amount at the time of the purchase.

[TinkerTom]

In case you aren't familiar with the Wayback Machine, it may be useful to view the old ToS:

https://web.archive.org/web/*/https://hashfast.com/checkout/terms-of-sale/

[fenwick]

In case you aren't familiar with the Wayback Machine, it may be useful to view the old ToS:

https://web.archive.org/web/*/https://hashfast.com/checkout/terms-of-sale/

Unfortunately, the first snapshot it has is from the 1st of November.
The most interesting changes happaned in August / September.

We need to rely on snapsohts saved by individuals,
and on the versions enclosed in order confirmation emails.

[GlapLaw]

This is a fascinating discussion. Sorry for those who have lost/may have lost money.

My general thought is that, at the very worst, there is a colorable argument for recovery of the current value of the Bitcoins. You can get interest on USD judgments in similar situations, and I don't see why this would be different. You'd simply get the "interest" measured based on Bitcoin's appreciation, rather than the standard interest rate.

That's not a commentary on this specific case. I haven't examined the various TOS provisions. But generally speaking, I think the above would be the worst-case (for consumers) default scenario.

[gmaxwell]

::nods::

I think the key points are that they:

(1) Clearly promised full BTC refunds in the even that they didn't delivery in several venue and forum, including explicit direct communication

(2) Could easily have arranged to make full BTC refunds possible (by holding the coins or hedging against their change in value with an agreement with someone who was holding the coins). They claimed their manufacturing was paid for by investors, so the view that they'd hold the coin was completely realistic (and may be true).

(3) Sold products under terms that would have really only been attractive when secured by the expectation of refund of BTC paid in the event of default. They sold machines for BTC that produce BTC and can't practically be used for anything else, only a fool or a madman would buy such a machine without the expectation that they'd get as much or more BTC back from it.

When I purchased my hashrate estimate was that if they delivered on time my baby-jet units would lose about 10 BTC each, but since they were offering up to 4x more hashrate via MPP that would be enough to let me upgrade my mining hardware to "significantly less than 1.0 W/GH" at basically breakeven, or— if they were so late to deliver that MPP could not protect it against hashrate increases, that I'd receive a full refund of the BTC paid. It was my understanding and belief that hardware itself would be pretty profitable relative to COGS but I was willing to give up most of that profit with HF's high prices in exchange for they and their investors taking the considerable risk of delays and failures to deliver.

[RickJamesBTC]

I gotta say, the trust system here is so hidden that it is basically useless. The BIG RED XXXX scammer tag needs to come back. I'm sure it doesn't work to give someone like inaba a scammer tag, since he pays so much to advertise here. But does hashfast advertise here? They are disappearing with money right now, all the promises about shipping on the 31st have been broken. They want people to sign away any chance of a refund, and they hired a new lawyer. All signs are bad.

[RoadStress]

::nods::

I think the key points are that they:

(1) Clearly promised full BTC refunds in the even that they didn't delivery in several venue and forum, including explicit direct communication

(2) Could easily have arranged to make full BTC refunds possible (by holding the coins or hedging against their change in value with an agreement with someone who was holding the coins). They claimed their manufacturing was paid for by investors, so the view that they'd hold the coin was completely realistic (and may be true).

(3) Sold products under terms that would have really only been attractive when secured by the expectation of refund of BTC paid in the event of default. They sold machines for BTC that produce BTC and can't practically be used for anything else, only a fool or a madman would buy such a machine without the expectation that they'd get as much or more BTC back from it.

When I purchased my hashrate estimate was that if they delivered on time my baby-jet units would lose about 10 BTC each, but since they were offering up to 4x more hashrate via MPP that would be enough to let me upgrade my mining hardware to "significantly less than 1.0 W/GH" at basically breakeven, or— if they were so late to deliver that MPP could not protect it against hashrate increases, that I'd receive a full refund of the BTC paid. It was my understanding and belief that hardware itself would be pretty profitable relative to COGS but I was willing to give up most of that profit with HF's high prices in exchange for they and their investors taking the considerable risk of delays and failures to deliver.

So i am asking you as a moderator. How do they get a scammer tag? Refuse full BTC refunds for who asks or how?

[GlapLaw]

::nods::

I think the key points are that they:

(1) Clearly promised full BTC refunds in the even that they didn't delivery in several venue and forum, including explicit direct communication

(2) Could easily have arranged to make full BTC refunds possible (by holding the coins or hedging against their change in value with an agreement with someone who was holding the coins). They claimed their manufacturing was paid for by investors, so the view that they'd hold the coin was completely realistic (and may be true).

(3) Sold products under terms that would have really only been attractive when secured by the expectation of refund of BTC paid in the event of default. They sold machines for BTC that produce BTC and can't practically be used for anything else, only a fool or a madman would buy such a machine without the expectation that they'd get as much or more BTC back from it.

When I purchased my hashrate estimate was that if they delivered on time my baby-jet units would lose about 10 BTC each, but since they were offering up to 4x more hashrate via MPP that would be enough to let me upgrade my mining hardware to "significantly less than 1.0 W/GH" at basically breakeven, or— if they were so late to deliver that MPP could not protect it against hashrate increases, that I'd receive a full refund of the BTC paid. It was my understanding and belief that hardware itself would be pretty profitable relative to COGS but I was willing to give up most of that profit with HF's high prices in exchange for they and their investors taking the considerable risk of delays and failures to deliver.

I can't imagine that ALL manufacturing for all products was paid for investors. Do you think they used B1 preorders to fund R&D on new machines?

[gmaxwell]

So i am asking you as a moderator. How do they get a scammer tag? Refuse full BTC refunds for who asks or how?

AFAIK we don't issue them anymore.

I gotta say, the trust system here is so hidden that it is basically useless. The BIG RED XXXX scammer tag needs to come back.

Once negatively rated by people in the default trust list, hashfast's posts will have a red warning next to them by people using the default trust list. It should be there already, in fact— is it not?

I can't imagine that ALL manufacturing for all products was paid for investors. Do you think they used B1 preorders to fund R&D on new machines?

They claimed that they wouldn't be using pre-orders to fund development, what they actually did is anyone's guess— much of the coin they'd been paid had apparently not been moved when people were investigating this a week ago.

It's certainly possible, even likely, that they spent some portion of it to cover the actual manufacturing— but we wouldn't know when. Though assuming their hardware works those costs should be amply recoverable.

[RoadStress]

So i am asking you as a moderator. How do they get a scammer tag? Refuse full BTC refunds for who asks or how?

AFAIK we don't issue them anymore.

So i was right. This is now scammers den! Great!

Do you know the reasons behind that decision?

[GlapLaw]

So i am asking you as a moderator. How do they get a scammer tag? Refuse full BTC refunds for who asks or how?

AFAIK we don't issue them anymore.

I gotta say, the trust system here is so hidden that it is basically useless. The BIG RED XXXX scammer tag needs to come back.

Once negatively rated by people in the default trust list, hashfast's posts will have a red warning next to them by people using the default trust list. It should be there already, in fact— is it not?

I can't imagine that ALL manufacturing for all products was paid for investors. Do you think they used B1 preorders to fund R&D on new machines?

They claimed that they wouldn't be using pre-orders to fund development, what they actually did is anyone's guess— much of the coin they'd been paid had apparently not been moved when people were investigating this a week ago.

It's certainly possible, even likely, that they spent some portion of it to cover the actual manufacturing— but we wouldn't know when. Though assuming their hardware works those costs should be amply recoverable.

What do you mean the coin hadn't been moved? I'd love to read those posts.

[RickJamesBTC]

So i am asking you as a moderator. How do they get a scammer tag? Refuse full BTC refunds for who asks or how?

AFAIK we don't issue them anymore.

I gotta say, the trust system here is so hidden that it is basically useless. The BIG RED XXXX scammer tag needs to come back.

Once negatively rated by people in the default trust list, hashfast's posts will have a red warning next to them by people using the default trust list. It should be there already, in fact— is it not?

I can't imagine that ALL manufacturing for all products was paid for investors. Do you think they used B1 preorders to fund R&D on new machines?

They claimed that they wouldn't be using pre-orders to fund development, what they actually did is anyone's guess— much of the coin they'd been paid had apparently not been moved when people were investigating this a week ago.

It's certainly possible, even likely, that they spent some portion of it to cover the actual manufacturing— but we wouldn't know when. Though assuming their hardware works those costs should be amply recoverable.

What are the determinations of the "trusted" trust list? I see the list, but if someone isn't one of those select people, nobody ever sees the feedback they send. What's the point of feedback if only a few people are authorized to send it?

[Bicknellski]

I gotta say, the trust system here is so hidden that it is basically useless. The BIG RED XXXX scammer tag needs to come back. I'm sure it doesn't work to give someone like inaba a scammer tag, since he pays so much to advertise here. But does hashfast advertise here? They are disappearing with money right now, all the promises about shipping on the 31st have been broken. They want people to sign away any chance of a refund, and they hired a new lawyer. All signs are bad.

And applied appropriately to BFL, Avalon and HF by the sounds of it.

[RoadStress]

So i am asking you as a moderator. How do they get a scammer tag? Refuse full BTC refunds for who asks or how?

AFAIK we don't issue them anymore.

I gotta say, the trust system here is so hidden that it is basically useless. The BIG RED XXXX scammer tag needs to come back.

Once negatively rated by people in the default trust list, hashfast's posts will have a red warning next to them by people using the default trust list. It should be there already, in fact— is it not?

I can't imagine that ALL manufacturing for all products was paid for investors. Do you think they used B1 preorders to fund R&D on new machines?

They claimed that they wouldn't be using pre-orders to fund development, what they actually did is anyone's guess— much of the coin they'd been paid had apparently not been moved when people were investigating this a week ago.

It's certainly possible, even likely, that they spent some portion of it to cover the actual manufacturing— but we wouldn't know when. Though assuming their hardware works those costs should be amply recoverable.

What are the determinations of the "trusted" trust list? I see the list, but if someone isn't one of those select people, nobody ever sees the feedback they send. What's the point of feedback if only a few people are authorized to send it?

Trust system is so fucked up. It's small and it's based on a "default" small trusted list and if those 2-3 people decide not to get involved then it's useless. Is this the kind of open community that we want? Sad open community.