Topic: [ANN] Spondoolies-Tech - carrier grade, data center ready mining rigs [UNMOD] - page 8. (Read 12353 times)

The conversion window was very short so it had to be almost a direct conversion every time. Loads of sales were denied because they'd time out and I think even more that were overwritten by other affiliates.

yeah they screwed up bad then. I mean, Im sure that they would have still gotten those sales without your referral links. Your fantastic reviews obviously helped generate interest, but i think a lot of people simply used your links for easy access to the spondoolies site (which is how a referral link should work)  Spondoolies did not need a referral program IMO, and doing at >5% is sheer insanity.

it looks like they willfully ran themselves into bankruptcy, either through expensive hardware design choices or by simply getting the staff rich - you probably wont have much more luck than all the guys trying to sue paycoin or a dozen other mining startups.

That's the bare minimum that they admit to in papers.


[From the other thread but I can't post there] SPTech said they had no farm, but had a farm.


Thanks, I will get it one way or another.


Good lawyers are working fine for me so far, hence Guy's flip-out. That is an approximation of the lower bound of money they've agreed to owing, but I am still owed significantly more. Full claim text is here, its not that long of a read: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.13695311


It was tiered commission, 5% up to 100k per quarter, 10% up to 500k per quarter and 15% over. My sales accounted very roughly for 3% of their revenue based on the little information we have of their sales.


This went to court 4 months ago, and precourt jousting has been happening since last September. They can not argue that and failure to drop the price is on them.

in all fairness, i think spondoolies failed to think the campaign through properly. 5-10% commission for directing people to the site is just crazy - even bulk purchasers barely got a 10% discount. It should ave been more like 1% (which would still be >$10,500 for dogie)

its unlikely you will get more than $20,000 from them if things go well. They could argue that it was a "gratuitous promise", and perhaps that it was not properly revised as the sales price dropped towards the manufacturing cost. Its a shitty argument, but its likely a card in thier deck should this go to court

I do hope you get your settlement before all that's left is dust, Dogie.

400 x 134 = 53600 usd in commissions .

Oh well.

While I have had a few people do me wrong in this game I think it is still under 1k.

53.6k is a lot of coin.

I'm very disappointed , this is a very 'strange' situation and a good lawyer is really necessary.


@dogie, so they owe you this amount of money http://archive.is/Zwfqp , right ?

Gentlemen, look at yourselves! stop! This is Bitcoin. This is to be expected.

Allow me to pose a rhetorical question: War (Good God y'all!) What is it good for?

Because Guy can't delete my posts in this thread, he instead keeps posting the same giant post again and again.

I don't need to do anything of the sort. You still haven't explained why you want to see that I've paid solicitor's fees, it literally makes no sense other than you've gone off the deep end. Why don't you post your invoice for all four of your solicitors?


This just in, CEO of a company has never heard of paying creditors! What a weird concept.


You asked the court to do many things and newsflash you're still on the hook.


That's how it works? You were trying to request security of funds for a case you were never, ever, EVER going to win. Ever. Where are your security of funds?


You say that like you're proud that managed to ruin your company so much that even your ex-employees had to sue you. You screwed your employees, your investors, your creditors, BTCS and BTCS's shareholders but you show no remorse at all.

RoadStress raised an interesting point.
Adam Allcock (a.k.a. dogie) posted an invoice + receipt from his lawyer and claimed that it "Receipt for filing court fees and security of funds [like a deposit in the case of loss to help pay the defendant's fees]"

Dogie removed the original image of the invoice + receipt and changed his previous post to remove this description. Now it's only "Receipt for filing court fees..."

disclaimer:
Adam is suing Spondoolies-Tech, so I can't engage him. I am posting the evidence of Adam's edit and wonder what Adam is trying to hide.

One possible explanation:
The invoice + receipt Dogie posted did indeed include his lawyer fees.
The problem here is that the entire payment to the lawyer was titled 'expenses' and therefore he did not pay VAT (as he should have).
Dogie can easily prove that this explanation is wrong by posting another invoice + receipt to his lawyer which is properly titled 'lawyer fees' and include VAT payment as required by the law.
Instead of doing that, he chose to attack Roadstress and me (I removed the 2nd post in which he attacks me).  

Edit:
Adam continue with the smoke screen tactics in the following post:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.14843373

Other possible explanation is that Adam's lawyer is working on success fee (percentage of the funds he will be able to win in this lawsuit). It is common practice in many such lawsuits.
In that case, the $8,600 invoice + receipt was indeed for "Receipt for filing court fees and security of funds [like a deposit in the case of loss to help pay the defendant's fees]" as Adam originally claimed.
If this is indeed the case, it explains why Dogie refuse to produce another receipt + invoice, simply because there isn't such an invoice + receipt, just a success fee agreement between Adam and his lawyer.
However, this explanation clearly contradict Adam claim about paying his lawyer's fee in advance.

So, there are three possible scenarios:

(1) Adam's posted invoice + receipt includes his lawyer's fees. If this is true, VAT wasn't paid as it should have been.
(2) There is an agreement between Adam and his lawyer and the lawyer is working on success fee. In this case, Adam lied when he claimed that his lawyer was paid in advance.
(3) Adam is right and there is another receipt + invoice and payment from Adam to his lawyer covering his lawyer fees in advance.

In order to prove that (3) is the right scenario as he claims, Adam needs to post such receipt + invoice. So far Adam refused to post such a receipt + invoice.

Note:
It's highly irregular (read: never heard of) to post security of funds deposit to one's lawyer as Adam claimed.
This is why we asked the court to force Adam to deposit the security of funds directly to the court. The funds were indeed deposited before a liquidator was appointed and now the case is frozen.
Adam's lawyer tried to prevent the security of funds deposit with all sort of arguments initially, but eventually agreed to make the deposit (30,000 ILS which is about $7,925).
In any case Dogie's reply to Tupsu question "How much do you already have paid your lawyer ?" which was "Not yet, no. Lawyer is paid for up front so no changes." isn't true. He or his lawyer had to deposit $7,925 to the court.

Guy

Dogie's original post:


Dogie's rewritten post (rewritten few hours ago, after Roadstress post):


The invoice + receipt from Dogie's lawyer, which Dogie removed after RoadStress post:


Dogie's claim about paying his lawyer's fee in advance:


Dogie's smoke screen reply to my original post (before the Edit: addition) after his reply to RoadStress post:

Thanks for making this thread.

Here's the evidence RoadStress and his accomplices at ScamDoolies tried to erase from the public record:


What "business skills" led you to believe it would be a good idea to endorse and act as attack dog for a company that lost millions of customers+investors' $$$?

And exactly what "technical skills" led you to organize group buys pre-orders for ScamDoolies miners that failed to meed advertised specs and/or never ever existed?

Are you ready to recognize the fact an ASIC start-up may go bankrupt due to adverse business conditions, despite their best efforts?   

You could even do the classy thing, and admit it is illogical (and rude) to assume bad faith motivations, when the people involved did the best anyone could have, given dramatic subsequent BTC price/difficulty volatility.

(As for Cypherdoc, he never misrepresented his level of expertise, and at the time we prospective customers considered his real-world DYODD proxy efforts a service to the community.)