Sooner or later we all will know what happened
If only. Personally I don't think that we ever will.
I'm still waiting to hear the details of what when wrong with bASIC/BTCFPGA LLC now, almost a year after their collapse.
Topic: [CLOSED] Avalon ASIC chip distribution - page 9. (Read 220189 times)
If only. Personally I don't think that we ever will.
I'm still waiting to hear the details of what when wrong with bASIC/BTCFPGA LLC now, almost a year after their collapse.
Im not so sure that this is a normal buy. Its a work on order. That means the business can keep 100% even when the customer decides to go away. Thats why burnin is giving 50% refund only, he had already costs and work. He wouldnt need to refund 50% at all by law.
Of course this might change when a product is late. Though i dont know what the rules are there then. I only will say that as long as avalon didnt breach the contract (leadtime) a customer couldnt break the law and get the bitcoins back.
But im not a lawyer, only saying what i read and think is correct...
Seb, as above, you posted just same time as I did
;https://www.eff.org/wp/clicks-bind-ways-users-agree-online-terms-service
Zefir, I'm happy to see something proactive occurring from the Bitsyncom camp, but please for you sake I think you need to re-consider the following;
1). Refunding from your own pocket right now. As much as I dare say Bitsyncom see the need to quell the discontent here, they are flakey at best, so if I were you I'd hold out on the notion you'll 100% receive your refund in the short term. Just for your sake to be safe.
2). There is a huge mount of chips, 135 boxes that were delivered in June to Bitsyncom, as described on the customs info using the tracking number. These are unaccounted for in their entirety. I'm surprised you would discount litigation at this point, as you must be out of a considerable sum from your own pocket beyond just the chips. Certainly Burnin will be, as will BKK, Terrahash and anyone, including all your customers that have coughed up for assembly and parts, and their own time. Certainly the assemblers can afford to refund some of the funds, but they are already huge.y out of pocket for inventory, and hours spent aside chips due to Bitsyncom's shennanigans.
There is a long way to go before this is remotely rectified. If proof to the contrary cannot be provided, which if there is truth to Bitsyncom's claims, proof could then easily be provided, fraud has taken place. It never will be rectified, but really it is up to the community to decide about litigation, and I'm surprised you are so flippant and eager to forgive, when the debt incurred is far beyond that of chips Bitsyncom promised and hand in hand over ten weeks ago. People gave up jobs, and set up businesses and bought stock for their inventory. They have already invested time and money beyond the chips themselves they will never get back. That is not cool, and needs to be addressed. Some of these people face bankruptcy, which may well could have been avoided if Bitsyncom addressed and communicated the issue as and when they knew they would be a little bit late, or reasonably late, before becoming considerably late. The fact they didn't boggles the mind as to what, of any honesty to their claims exist. Again the truth is easy to provide evidence for, and unfortunately you may yet have to force that hand with the threat of litigation. As Bitsyncom are clearly reluctant to provide proof, again if true would be effortless, one can only assume they are not being honest. Supporting paperwork at the very least needs to provided, or if needs be demanded via legal action, for those out of pocket to be reimbursed. Again Bitsyncom's efforts in continuing to voluntarily repay back as much of the debts incurred can only benefit them in the long run in the eyes of the law.
Litigation harming Bitcoin is nonsense, it would in fact mean that companies go the extra mile to ensure Bitcoin becomes a safer alternative, further solidifying it's existence as an alternative payment method to traditional finance. It's up to the community and companies involved to play a smarter game.
1). Refunding from your own pocket right now. As much as I dare say Bitsyncom see the need to quell the discontent here, they are flakey at best, so if I were you I'd hold out on the notion you'll 100% receive your refund in the short term. Just for your sake to be safe.
2). There is a huge mount of chips, 135 boxes that were delivered in June to Bitsyncom, as described on the customs info using the tracking number. These are unaccounted for in their entirety. I'm surprised you would discount litigation at this point, as you must be out of a considerable sum from your own pocket beyond just the chips. Certainly Burnin will be, as will BKK, Terrahash and anyone, including all your customers that have coughed up for assembly and parts, and their own time. Certainly the assemblers can afford to refund some of the funds, but they are already huge.y out of pocket for inventory, and hours spent aside chips due to Bitsyncom's shennanigans.
There is a long way to go before this is remotely rectified. If proof to the contrary cannot be provided, which if there is truth to Bitsyncom's claims, proof could then easily be provided, fraud has taken place. It never will be rectified, but really it is up to the community to decide about litigation, and I'm surprised you are so flippant and eager to forgive, when the debt incurred is far beyond that of chips Bitsyncom promised and hand in hand over ten weeks ago. People gave up jobs, and set up businesses and bought stock for their inventory. They have already invested time and money beyond the chips themselves they will never get back. That is not cool, and needs to be addressed. Some of these people face bankruptcy, which may well could have been avoided if Bitsyncom addressed and communicated the issue as and when they knew they would be a little bit late, or reasonably late, before becoming considerably late. The fact they didn't boggles the mind as to what, of any honesty to their claims exist. Again the truth is easy to provide evidence for, and unfortunately you may yet have to force that hand with the threat of litigation. As Bitsyncom are clearly reluctant to provide proof, again if true would be effortless, one can only assume they are not being honest. Supporting paperwork at the very least needs to provided, or if needs be demanded via legal action, for those out of pocket to be reimbursed. Again Bitsyncom's efforts in continuing to voluntarily repay back as much of the debts incurred can only benefit them in the long run in the eyes of the law.
Litigation harming Bitcoin is nonsense, it would in fact mean that companies go the extra mile to ensure Bitcoin becomes a safer alternative, further solidifying it's existence as an alternative payment method to traditional finance. It's up to the community and companies involved to play a smarter game.
Thank you for this constructive and sane response. I am perfectly with you with all you are saying. But...
I am either just tired from dealing with this over almost half a year, or just too old for this sh*t. Here in Germany we have a relevant saying (sorry for the crappy translation) like 'being right and getting your right are two different pairs of shoes', and in this case the price to get our right for what we know we are right IMHO is too high.
My argument is this: Avalon's dealings in this case are limited to chip sales (to private or group-buyers), they never had an agreement with any designer or manufacturer out there to develop and sell mining rig. There is no contract or anything you could base a legal recourse on to enforce a compensation. As most of the forum folks here IANAL, therefore I try to get some assessment by looking at potential but simple precedence cases. So what if AMD today announced some xx970 chipset and some independent developer starts designing an LC-mining card based on that without having an agreement with AMD. Then (how unexpected) chipset gets delayed or canceled, while developer already spent time and money that is lost now. Would any judge anywhere really care? My feeling is not, but again IANAL.
All we have is the contract to deliver chips with a given lead time of 9-10 weeks. There are no terms included regarding compensations for late orders nor any other form of penalties defined. All we have is a contract that was breached by Avalon and was offered full refund instead. Here I'd expect that any judge would consider this as a fair compromise.
We might speculate why all this happened and even assume that this was all planned and set up by Avalon to crush competition and keep miners invested while developing the next and next-next-gen chip. But until otherwise proven I personally give them the benefit of the doubt and assume things went wrong outside their control. Sooner or later we all will know what happened, and with that my preference is to let the market judge instead of loosing more money and nerves to lawyers.
This is only my personal opinion and in no way meant to represent this group buy or any user participating. I will provide every single bit of information or document I have available to support someone going the litigation path, but I myself am not going to dump more resources or nerves into this.
I am tired and I want to forget.
Zefir, I fully understand and both the irony, and the anger stems from your communications being infinitely greater than anything Bitsyncom ever provided, however you have every right to contest as a contract was indeed put forth by Bitsyncom, here;
http://store.avalon-asics.com/?page_id=9605
They are a company incorporated in the United States, they are not a regulated finacial service, they have broken the law with the use of the term 'investment';
"Please read the above carefully, as with all things Bitcoin one should treat this as an investment and make the decision best for you based on the liquid-able funds available at the moment when placing an order."
And the nail in the coffin in terms of agreement via contract is their button acknowledging their terms;
I accept the terms and the potential risks involved with placing an order.
This making it a legally binding contract of sale between two parties that was subsequently broken.
From that point on TSMC's own order and delivery records can be subpoenaed and Avalon's records and business activity traced and picked apart with a fine toothed comb should you wish, hence their sudden resurgence on this forum and motivation to suddenly put things right. They have broken the law and they know it.
http://www.fincen.gov/contactus.html
Only last week;
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20130826-708042.html
Im not so sure that this is a normal buy. Its a work on order. That means the business can keep 100% even when the customer decides to go away. Thats why burnin is giving 50% refund only, he had already costs and work. He wouldnt need to refund 50% at all by law.
Of course this might change when a product is late. Though i dont know what the rules are there then. I only will say that as long as avalon didnt breach the contract (leadtime) a customer couldnt break the law and get the bitcoins back.
But im not a lawyer, only saying what i read and think is correct...
Good info there BeCoRama... noted.
Zefir and Bicknellski, this is what you need to further substantiate my claim above, from the 'Electronic Frontier Foundation' themselves;
https://www.eff.org/wp/clicks-bind-ways-users-agree-online-terms-service
Good info there BeCoRama... noted.
@zefir... after using the form Yifu is sending out an email from his private email account asking if the refund to the mentioned address is correct. I know avalon mails found the way into my spamfolder first so maybe you should check if its there...
Zefir, I'm happy to see something proactive occurring from the Bitsyncom camp, but please for you sake I think you need to re-consider the following;
1). Refunding from your own pocket right now. As much as I dare say Bitsyncom see the need to quell the discontent here, they are flakey at best, so if I were you I'd hold out on the notion you'll 100% receive your refund in the short term. Just for your sake to be safe.
2). There is a huge mount of chips, 135 boxes that were delivered in June to Bitsyncom, as described on the customs info using the tracking number. These are unaccounted for in their entirety. I'm surprised you would discount litigation at this point, as you must be out of a considerable sum from your own pocket beyond just the chips. Certainly Burnin will be, as will BKK, Terrahash and anyone, including all your customers that have coughed up for assembly and parts, and their own time. Certainly the assemblers can afford to refund some of the funds, but they are already huge.y out of pocket for inventory, and hours spent aside chips due to Bitsyncom's shennanigans.
There is a long way to go before this is remotely rectified. If proof to the contrary cannot be provided, which if there is truth to Bitsyncom's claims, proof could then easily be provided, fraud has taken place. It never will be rectified, but really it is up to the community to decide about litigation, and I'm surprised you are so flippant and eager to forgive, when the debt incurred is far beyond that of chips Bitsyncom promised and hand in hand over ten weeks ago. People gave up jobs, and set up businesses and bought stock for their inventory. They have already invested time and money beyond the chips themselves they will never get back. That is not cool, and needs to be addressed. Some of these people face bankruptcy, which may well could have been avoided if Bitsyncom addressed and communicated the issue as and when they knew they would be a little bit late, or reasonably late, before becoming considerably late. The fact they didn't boggles the mind as to what, of any honesty to their claims exist. Again the truth is easy to provide evidence for, and unfortunately you may yet have to force that hand with the threat of litigation. As Bitsyncom are clearly reluctant to provide proof, again if true would be effortless, one can only assume they are not being honest. Supporting paperwork at the very least needs to provided, or if needs be demanded via legal action, for those out of pocket to be reimbursed. Again Bitsyncom's efforts in continuing to voluntarily repay back as much of the debts incurred can only benefit them in the long run in the eyes of the law.
Litigation harming Bitcoin is nonsense, it would in fact mean that companies go the extra mile to ensure Bitcoin becomes a safer alternative, further solidifying it's existence as an alternative payment method to traditional finance. It's up to the community and companies involved to play a smarter game.
1). Refunding from your own pocket right now. As much as I dare say Bitsyncom see the need to quell the discontent here, they are flakey at best, so if I were you I'd hold out on the notion you'll 100% receive your refund in the short term. Just for your sake to be safe.
2). There is a huge mount of chips, 135 boxes that were delivered in June to Bitsyncom, as described on the customs info using the tracking number. These are unaccounted for in their entirety. I'm surprised you would discount litigation at this point, as you must be out of a considerable sum from your own pocket beyond just the chips. Certainly Burnin will be, as will BKK, Terrahash and anyone, including all your customers that have coughed up for assembly and parts, and their own time. Certainly the assemblers can afford to refund some of the funds, but they are already huge.y out of pocket for inventory, and hours spent aside chips due to Bitsyncom's shennanigans.
There is a long way to go before this is remotely rectified. If proof to the contrary cannot be provided, which if there is truth to Bitsyncom's claims, proof could then easily be provided, fraud has taken place. It never will be rectified, but really it is up to the community to decide about litigation, and I'm surprised you are so flippant and eager to forgive, when the debt incurred is far beyond that of chips Bitsyncom promised and hand in hand over ten weeks ago. People gave up jobs, and set up businesses and bought stock for their inventory. They have already invested time and money beyond the chips themselves they will never get back. That is not cool, and needs to be addressed. Some of these people face bankruptcy, which may well could have been avoided if Bitsyncom addressed and communicated the issue as and when they knew they would be a little bit late, or reasonably late, before becoming considerably late. The fact they didn't boggles the mind as to what, of any honesty to their claims exist. Again the truth is easy to provide evidence for, and unfortunately you may yet have to force that hand with the threat of litigation. As Bitsyncom are clearly reluctant to provide proof, again if true would be effortless, one can only assume they are not being honest. Supporting paperwork at the very least needs to provided, or if needs be demanded via legal action, for those out of pocket to be reimbursed. Again Bitsyncom's efforts in continuing to voluntarily repay back as much of the debts incurred can only benefit them in the long run in the eyes of the law.
Litigation harming Bitcoin is nonsense, it would in fact mean that companies go the extra mile to ensure Bitcoin becomes a safer alternative, further solidifying it's existence as an alternative payment method to traditional finance. It's up to the community and companies involved to play a smarter game.
Thank you for this constructive and sane response. I am perfectly with you with all you are saying. But...
I am either just tired from dealing with this over almost half a year, or just too old for this sh*t. Here in Germany we have a relevant saying (sorry for the crappy translation) like 'being right and getting your right are two different pairs of shoes', and in this case the price to get our right for what we know we are right IMHO is too high.
My argument is this: Avalon's dealings in this case are limited to chip sales (to private or group-buyers), they never had an agreement with any designer or manufacturer out there to develop and sell mining rig. There is no contract or anything you could base a legal recourse on to enforce a compensation. As most of the forum folks here IANAL, therefore I try to get some assessment by looking at potential but simple precedence cases. So what if AMD today announced some xx970 chipset and some independent developer starts designing an LC-mining card based on that without having an agreement with AMD. Then (how unexpected) chipset gets delayed or canceled, while developer already spent time and money that is lost now. Would any judge anywhere really care? My feeling is not, but again IANAL.
All we have is the contract to deliver chips with a given lead time of 9-10 weeks. There are no terms included regarding compensations for late orders nor any other form of penalties defined. All we have is a contract that was breached by Avalon and was offered full refund instead. Here I'd expect that any judge would consider this as a fair compromise.
We might speculate why all this happened and even assume that this was all planned and set up by Avalon to crush competition and keep miners invested while developing the next and next-next-gen chip. But until otherwise proven I personally give them the benefit of the doubt and assume things went wrong outside their control. Sooner or later we all will know what happened, and with that my preference is to let the market judge instead of loosing more money and nerves to lawyers.
This is only my personal opinion and in no way meant to represent this group buy or any user participating. I will provide every single bit of information or document I have available to support someone going the litigation path, but I myself am not going to dump more resources or nerves into this.
I am tired and I want to forget.
Zefir, I fully understand and both the irony, and the anger stems from your communications being infinitely greater than anything Bitsyncom ever provided, however you have every right to contest as a contract was indeed put forth by Bitsyncom, here;
http://store.avalon-asics.com/?page_id=9605
They are a company incorporated in the United States, they are not a regulated finacial service, they have broken the law with the use of the term 'investment';
"Please read the above carefully, as with all things Bitcoin one should treat this as an investment and make the decision best for you based on the liquid-able funds available at the moment when placing an order."
And the nail in the coffin in terms of agreement via contract is their button acknowledging their terms;
I accept the terms and the potential risks involved with placing an order.
This making it a legally binding contract of sale between two parties that was subsequently broken.
From that point on TSMC's own order and delivery records can be subpoenaed and Avalon's records and business activity traced and picked apart with a fine toothed comb should you wish, hence their sudden resurgence on this forum and motivation to suddenly put things right. They have broken the law and they know it.
http://www.fincen.gov/contactus.html
Only last week;
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20130826-708042.html
Zefir, I'm happy to see something proactive occurring from the Bitsyncom camp, but please for you sake I think you need to re-consider the following;
1). Refunding from your own pocket right now. As much as I dare say Bitsyncom see the need to quell the discontent here, they are flakey at best, so if I were you I'd hold out on the notion you'll 100% receive your refund in the short term. Just for your sake to be safe.
2). There is a huge mount of chips, 135 boxes that were delivered in June to Bitsyncom, as described on the customs info using the tracking number. These are unaccounted for in their entirety. I'm surprised you would discount litigation at this point, as you must be out of a considerable sum from your own pocket beyond just the chips. Certainly Burnin will be, as will BKK, Terrahash and anyone, including all your customers that have coughed up for assembly and parts, and their own time. Certainly the assemblers can afford to refund some of the funds, but they are already huge.y out of pocket for inventory, and hours spent aside chips due to Bitsyncom's shennanigans.
There is a long way to go before this is remotely rectified. If proof to the contrary cannot be provided, which if there is truth to Bitsyncom's claims, proof could then easily be provided, fraud has taken place. It never will be rectified, but really it is up to the community to decide about litigation, and I'm surprised you are so flippant and eager to forgive, when the debt incurred is far beyond that of chips Bitsyncom promised and hand in hand over ten weeks ago. People gave up jobs, and set up businesses and bought stock for their inventory. They have already invested time and money beyond the chips themselves they will never get back. That is not cool, and needs to be addressed. Some of these people face bankruptcy, which may well could have been avoided if Bitsyncom addressed and communicated the issue as and when they knew they would be a little bit late, or reasonably late, before becoming considerably late. The fact they didn't boggles the mind as to what, of any honesty to their claims exist. Again the truth is easy to provide evidence for, and unfortunately you may yet have to force that hand with the threat of litigation. As Bitsyncom are clearly reluctant to provide proof, again if true would be effortless, one can only assume they are not being honest. Supporting paperwork at the very least needs to provided, or if needs be demanded via legal action, for those out of pocket to be reimbursed. Again Bitsyncom's efforts in continuing to voluntarily repay back as much of the debts incurred can only benefit them in the long run in the eyes of the law.
Litigation harming Bitcoin is nonsense, it would in fact mean that companies go the extra mile to ensure Bitcoin becomes a safer alternative, further solidifying it's existence as an alternative payment method to traditional finance. It's up to the community and companies involved to play a smarter game.
1). Refunding from your own pocket right now. As much as I dare say Bitsyncom see the need to quell the discontent here, they are flakey at best, so if I were you I'd hold out on the notion you'll 100% receive your refund in the short term. Just for your sake to be safe.
2). There is a huge mount of chips, 135 boxes that were delivered in June to Bitsyncom, as described on the customs info using the tracking number. These are unaccounted for in their entirety. I'm surprised you would discount litigation at this point, as you must be out of a considerable sum from your own pocket beyond just the chips. Certainly Burnin will be, as will BKK, Terrahash and anyone, including all your customers that have coughed up for assembly and parts, and their own time. Certainly the assemblers can afford to refund some of the funds, but they are already huge.y out of pocket for inventory, and hours spent aside chips due to Bitsyncom's shennanigans.
There is a long way to go before this is remotely rectified. If proof to the contrary cannot be provided, which if there is truth to Bitsyncom's claims, proof could then easily be provided, fraud has taken place. It never will be rectified, but really it is up to the community to decide about litigation, and I'm surprised you are so flippant and eager to forgive, when the debt incurred is far beyond that of chips Bitsyncom promised and hand in hand over ten weeks ago. People gave up jobs, and set up businesses and bought stock for their inventory. They have already invested time and money beyond the chips themselves they will never get back. That is not cool, and needs to be addressed. Some of these people face bankruptcy, which may well could have been avoided if Bitsyncom addressed and communicated the issue as and when they knew they would be a little bit late, or reasonably late, before becoming considerably late. The fact they didn't boggles the mind as to what, of any honesty to their claims exist. Again the truth is easy to provide evidence for, and unfortunately you may yet have to force that hand with the threat of litigation. As Bitsyncom are clearly reluctant to provide proof, again if true would be effortless, one can only assume they are not being honest. Supporting paperwork at the very least needs to provided, or if needs be demanded via legal action, for those out of pocket to be reimbursed. Again Bitsyncom's efforts in continuing to voluntarily repay back as much of the debts incurred can only benefit them in the long run in the eyes of the law.
Litigation harming Bitcoin is nonsense, it would in fact mean that companies go the extra mile to ensure Bitcoin becomes a safer alternative, further solidifying it's existence as an alternative payment method to traditional finance. It's up to the community and companies involved to play a smarter game.
Thank you for this constructive and sane response. I am perfectly with you with all you are saying. But...
I am either just tired from dealing with this over almost half a year, or just too old for this sh*t. Here in Germany we have a relevant saying (sorry for the crappy translation) like 'being right and getting your right are two different pairs of shoes', and in this case the price to get our right for what we know we are right IMHO is too high.
My argument is this: Avalon's dealings in this case are limited to chip sales (to private or group-buyers), they never had an agreement with any designer or manufacturer out there to develop and sell mining rig. There is no contract or anything you could base a legal recourse on to enforce a compensation. As most of the forum folks here IANAL, therefore I try to get some assessment by looking at potential but simple precedence cases. So what if AMD today announced some xx970 chipset and some independent developer starts designing an LC-mining card based on that without having an agreement with AMD. Then (how unexpected) chipset gets delayed or canceled, while developer already spent time and money that is lost now. Would any judge anywhere really care? My feeling is not, but again IANAL.
All we have is the contract to deliver chips with a given lead time of 9-10 weeks. There are no terms included regarding compensations for late orders nor any other form of penalties defined. All we have is a contract that was breached by Avalon and was offered full refund instead. Here I'd expect that any judge would consider this as a fair compromise.
We might speculate why all this happened and even assume that this was all planned and set up by Avalon to crush competition and keep miners invested while developing the next and next-next-gen chip. But until otherwise proven I personally give them the benefit of the doubt and assume things went wrong outside their control. Sooner or later we all will know what happened, and with that my preference is to let the market judge instead of loosing more money and nerves to lawyers.
This is only my personal opinion and in no way meant to represent this group buy or any user participating. I will provide every single bit of information or document I have available to support someone going the litigation path, but I myself am not going to dump more resources or nerves into this.
I am tired and I want to forget.
Zefir, I'm happy to see something proactive occurring from the Bitsyncom camp, but please for you sake I think you need to re-consider the following;
1). Refunding from your own pocket right now. As much as I dare say Bitsyncom see the need to quell the discontent here, they are flakey at best, so if I were you I'd hold out on the notion you'll 100% receive your refund in the short term. Just for your sake to be safe.
2). There is a huge amount of chips, 135 boxes that were delivered in June to Bitsyncom, as described on the customs info using the tracking number. These are unaccounted for in their entirety. I'm surprised you would discount litigation at this point, as you must be out of a considerable sum from your own pocket beyond just the chips. Certainly Burnin will be, as will BKK, Terrahash and anyone, including all your customers that have coughed up for assembly and parts, and their own time. Certainly the assemblers can afford to refund some of the funds, but they are already huge.y out of pocket for inventory, and hours spent aside chips due to Bitsyncom's shennanigans.
There is a long way to go before this is remotely rectified. If proof to the contrary cannot be provided, which if there is truth to Bitsyncom's claims, proof could then easily be provided, fraud has taken place. It never will be rectified, but really it is up to the community to decide about litigation, and I'm surprised you are so flippant and eager to forgive, when the debt incurred is far beyond that of chips Bitsyncom promised and hand in hand over ten weeks ago. People gave up jobs, and set up businesses and bought stock for their inventory. They have already invested time and money beyond the chips themselves they will never get back. That is not cool, and needs to be addressed. Some of these people face bankruptcy, which may well could have been avoided if Bitsyncom addressed and communicated the issue as and when they knew they would be a little bit late, or reasonably late, before becoming considerably late, then far too late. The fact they didn't boggles the mind as to what, of any honesty to their claims exist. Again the truth is easy to provide evidence for, and unfortunately you may yet have to force that hand with the threat of litigation. As Bitsyncom are clearly reluctant to provide proof, again if true would be effortless, one can only assume they are not being honest. Supporting paperwork at the very least needs to provided, or if needs be demanded via legal action, for those out of pocket to be reimbursed. Again Bitsyncom's efforts in continuing to voluntarily repay back as much of the debts incurred can only benefit them in the long run in the eyes of the law.
Litigation harming Bitcoin is nonsense, it would in fact mean that companies go the extra mile to ensure Bitcoin becomes a safer alternative, further solidifying it's existence as an alternative payment method to traditional finance. It's up to the community and companies involved to play a smarter game.
1). Refunding from your own pocket right now. As much as I dare say Bitsyncom see the need to quell the discontent here, they are flakey at best, so if I were you I'd hold out on the notion you'll 100% receive your refund in the short term. Just for your sake to be safe.
2). There is a huge amount of chips, 135 boxes that were delivered in June to Bitsyncom, as described on the customs info using the tracking number. These are unaccounted for in their entirety. I'm surprised you would discount litigation at this point, as you must be out of a considerable sum from your own pocket beyond just the chips. Certainly Burnin will be, as will BKK, Terrahash and anyone, including all your customers that have coughed up for assembly and parts, and their own time. Certainly the assemblers can afford to refund some of the funds, but they are already huge.y out of pocket for inventory, and hours spent aside chips due to Bitsyncom's shennanigans.
There is a long way to go before this is remotely rectified. If proof to the contrary cannot be provided, which if there is truth to Bitsyncom's claims, proof could then easily be provided, fraud has taken place. It never will be rectified, but really it is up to the community to decide about litigation, and I'm surprised you are so flippant and eager to forgive, when the debt incurred is far beyond that of chips Bitsyncom promised and hand in hand over ten weeks ago. People gave up jobs, and set up businesses and bought stock for their inventory. They have already invested time and money beyond the chips themselves they will never get back. That is not cool, and needs to be addressed. Some of these people face bankruptcy, which may well could have been avoided if Bitsyncom addressed and communicated the issue as and when they knew they would be a little bit late, or reasonably late, before becoming considerably late, then far too late. The fact they didn't boggles the mind as to what, of any honesty to their claims exist. Again the truth is easy to provide evidence for, and unfortunately you may yet have to force that hand with the threat of litigation. As Bitsyncom are clearly reluctant to provide proof, again if true would be effortless, one can only assume they are not being honest. Supporting paperwork at the very least needs to provided, or if needs be demanded via legal action, for those out of pocket to be reimbursed. Again Bitsyncom's efforts in continuing to voluntarily repay back as much of the debts incurred can only benefit them in the long run in the eyes of the law.
Litigation harming Bitcoin is nonsense, it would in fact mean that companies go the extra mile to ensure Bitcoin becomes a safer alternative, further solidifying it's existence as an alternative payment method to traditional finance. It's up to the community and companies involved to play a smarter game.
Update: Refund Status and Deadline
Refund Status
This is the current refund queue:
I placed a refund request yesterday, but neither got an confirmation email nor BTC so far. With the refunds already processed, I'm quite confident that everyone requesting will get his coins back, therefore I will start refunding today as much as I can from my own reserves.
Refund Request Deadline
Yifu announced that 40 batches will be ready for shipment on Wednesday. Since our orders are among the early ones, chances are good that we get the remaining 5 batches sent out all at once. Therefore, the time frame to get refund requests accepted is limited.
Those of you still considering a refund, please do so until Tuesday evening GMT (2013-09-03T18:00Z, epoch 1378231200). Refund requests posted after this request can not be guaranteed to get accepted.
I have no idea what 'sort of compensation model' Avalon is referring to, but what I know for sure is that once chips are delivered, you are left with a limited scope of action and Avalon's goodwill - without means to enforce anything. So if you decide to keep your chips and hope for some additional compensation, do this solely on your own assessment and risk-awareness.
My position in this case is this: with the refunds offered, Avalon met their liability towards their direct customers and there remains no justification for legal recourses. Of course the damage dealt to the community exceeds the refunded coins: designers spent lots of time and efforts, manufacturers paid for parts and PCBs, and finally a dozen of group-buyers lost time and nerves to organize the chip distribution. Alas, IMHO this is none of Avalon's business - everyone made his decision based on own risk-reward-assessment and due diligence. Sure the manufacturers invested the most and are facing huge financial losses short term. But their efforts are not void in mid to long-term - just to name some examples: burnin proved his ability to design great mining devices and therefore was selected as designer for the PETA-MINE project; Bitmine attracted a large investor and is going to have their own 28nm ASICs soon; and finally BkkCoins showed the Bitcoin world how open source HW development is done right and gained a huge reputation that will open him doors in the future.
Since almost all designers and manufacturers have next-gen mining boards in their pipeline, instead of waiting for Avalon to offer some compensation, please consider showing your support by leaving your pre-order funds there and buy some next-gen mining rig.
Refund Status
This is the current refund queue:
Code:
Chips BTC Address
------------------------------------------------------
-250 -21.5 1PxMjbE7nJub4JVQdFtopMxh4mCGxjbzfC
-100 -8.6 1DSFkmqxzyH7CynXQ76d6uc1WzSxBHTha2
-600 -51.6 1NrTTDSEQHKiSxmQqe7ch8ovMenBjUBkBZ
-500 -43.0 18uvZrG9q2hAJrY1MNxVbLs7pZZQGXELSg
-1290 -110.94 12knpx2FZaG22k1KCwhMviNZfTwYDjPCeg
-15 -1.29 1LLJGXsHZqv4DMGhi5n27PGxaNpcxFmsFq
-30 -2.58 1JphTgzZXWYqxh8JQtB2vannMSWa3yJr2A
-70 -6.02 16SSPCBRxzaiXjA6XoCpq8tBvJdhoSSPmA
-10 -0.86 16SSPCBRxzaiXjA6XoCpq8tBvJdhoSSPmA
-120 -10.32 1HaNP4owS4pfSDSeYydHuckZPmCcozLUGP
-40 -3.44 15o5rVc3doyACnZihjXmhCmNK92tGf1DMB
-20 -1.72 1HMwhanZiGHBdJUsUymvjdeLvGc8p6rXqF
-300 -25.8 1F8dG9k57uiNyPh1K8eekXbEVqjFFsuZKy
-680 -58.48 1F8dG9k57uiNyPh1K8eekXbEVqjFFsuZKy
-50 -4.3 14xFPNKEhdX4EiXFzS1heZBaee7fczjFoW
-250 -21.5 1K6cDLhcQCHjpXQD9KUM4rs9PFLgfYBpKc
-50 -4.3 1JEiGfeEDixjt3YFRNHj83y125eNzBQwrN
-150 -12.9 19FijdTUxXE4shP3uBHHGhDW32GwBC5Lyw
-200 -17.2 12V3iHq7yAbZk3XC2KDDSmJP2RzzUudkCj
-50 -4.3 1Bgu2w4vBTXDDkpWkjAeomVnRRYASnCaJV
-200 -17.2 16b2mStn1YjH8bnWYGrayLgdBMa6hAiNpU
-20 -1.72 13jHEGUfPfCPozzG2VxLYJZdjeYhv2fq5f
-10 -0.86 13jHEGUfPfCPozzG2VxLYJZdjeYhv2fq5f
-10 -0.86 13jHEGUfPfCPozzG2VxLYJZdjeYhv2fq5f
-200 -17.2 1ChoHXUKSkhYfTo17LNPKZK3St9NWSrSrf
-50 -4.3 1ChoHXUKSkhYfTo17LNPKZK3St9NWSrSrf
-10 -0.86 18NNZA7eV9zdE6B6fT8D3qVtaimMwkDiGh
-60 -5.16 18wizj3k69UKcayeC9NEM3mR8Ye3zfMtbT
-40 -3.44 16wD5mRQBfUHUpmZyEeFQv3sgySzZqiUX4
-50 -4.3 16wD5mRQBfUHUpmZyEeFQv3sgySzZqiUX4
-50 -4.3 16wD5mRQBfUHUpmZyEeFQv3sgySzZqiUX4
-20 -1.72 19bKGxRDdQzxZCiomBQTCJdTuY9hY8MaAG
-400 -34.4 19E1Hi1AEhgxfXsQH4StxHP1a6rL2gztim
-500 -43 1JZXXL1bL5oU7qTZJ9y1o1yXEm1HuSDxfx
-1150 -98.9 16MxDjVzmCQ62usJj649PFf7y5CF192NM4
-100 -8.6 13Q3eksnXYv7yaZhqtYUd8SJSKi1JJ8W53
-10 -0.86 1Gqy5JeUU9RWCnnYXeCjCaEuFts9wKyQem
-10 -0.86 1Gqy5JeUU9RWCnnYXeCjCaEuFts9wKyQem
-20 -1.72 1Gqy5JeUU9RWCnnYXeCjCaEuFts9wKyQem
-10 -0.86 1PW9fvHQdUqwSb8DMkpDFCwnGjCJp6ZWX1
-40 -3.44 18WWjvZfjDLsDuBRktL4YK5jpe2bvG7b7a
-300 -25.8 1Fpp7B3DJbjf1Tg2aodi7rPUym2UKa7gHc
-20 -1.72 17sYSprh8QbWXat1vnYoyR7kuindCcpj23
-45 -3.87 1NMrtqsMgDBp1zGSGKC6bC26tQsj1Emt85
-600 -51.6 1Ex87tbegxtyd1GGLtP1cHBidqxMQZjxhA
-20 -1.72 13niA2BjbXg3p3g6YvUy1RCm79AwB9tzgc
-30 -2.58 1VQtwHQHNyLiZ6ttRVBxcuPt8jt1U1yWG
-300 -25.8 1GjAbLU8UTn4YArcGv4kRnkMtWnqe5aq4c
-20 -1.72 1FcXcUL45YQu4aWmtZLF8uPvJPNYhV6Ee4
-100 -8.6 19sS8Duo2as8X7UTqEBR4FVFJxGyar7Ry1
-40 -3.44 1Ja5MunxuEXqx4EAhPxXaQowuq55srVH6N
That is a total amount of refund requests for 9210 chips.------------------------------------------------------
-250 -21.5 1PxMjbE7nJub4JVQdFtopMxh4mCGxjbzfC
-100 -8.6 1DSFkmqxzyH7CynXQ76d6uc1WzSxBHTha2
-600 -51.6 1NrTTDSEQHKiSxmQqe7ch8ovMenBjUBkBZ
-500 -43.0 18uvZrG9q2hAJrY1MNxVbLs7pZZQGXELSg
-1290 -110.94 12knpx2FZaG22k1KCwhMviNZfTwYDjPCeg
-15 -1.29 1LLJGXsHZqv4DMGhi5n27PGxaNpcxFmsFq
-30 -2.58 1JphTgzZXWYqxh8JQtB2vannMSWa3yJr2A
-70 -6.02 16SSPCBRxzaiXjA6XoCpq8tBvJdhoSSPmA
-10 -0.86 16SSPCBRxzaiXjA6XoCpq8tBvJdhoSSPmA
-120 -10.32 1HaNP4owS4pfSDSeYydHuckZPmCcozLUGP
-40 -3.44 15o5rVc3doyACnZihjXmhCmNK92tGf1DMB
-20 -1.72 1HMwhanZiGHBdJUsUymvjdeLvGc8p6rXqF
-300 -25.8 1F8dG9k57uiNyPh1K8eekXbEVqjFFsuZKy
-680 -58.48 1F8dG9k57uiNyPh1K8eekXbEVqjFFsuZKy
-50 -4.3 14xFPNKEhdX4EiXFzS1heZBaee7fczjFoW
-250 -21.5 1K6cDLhcQCHjpXQD9KUM4rs9PFLgfYBpKc
-50 -4.3 1JEiGfeEDixjt3YFRNHj83y125eNzBQwrN
-150 -12.9 19FijdTUxXE4shP3uBHHGhDW32GwBC5Lyw
-200 -17.2 12V3iHq7yAbZk3XC2KDDSmJP2RzzUudkCj
-50 -4.3 1Bgu2w4vBTXDDkpWkjAeomVnRRYASnCaJV
-200 -17.2 16b2mStn1YjH8bnWYGrayLgdBMa6hAiNpU
-20 -1.72 13jHEGUfPfCPozzG2VxLYJZdjeYhv2fq5f
-10 -0.86 13jHEGUfPfCPozzG2VxLYJZdjeYhv2fq5f
-10 -0.86 13jHEGUfPfCPozzG2VxLYJZdjeYhv2fq5f
-200 -17.2 1ChoHXUKSkhYfTo17LNPKZK3St9NWSrSrf
-50 -4.3 1ChoHXUKSkhYfTo17LNPKZK3St9NWSrSrf
-10 -0.86 18NNZA7eV9zdE6B6fT8D3qVtaimMwkDiGh
-60 -5.16 18wizj3k69UKcayeC9NEM3mR8Ye3zfMtbT
-40 -3.44 16wD5mRQBfUHUpmZyEeFQv3sgySzZqiUX4
-50 -4.3 16wD5mRQBfUHUpmZyEeFQv3sgySzZqiUX4
-50 -4.3 16wD5mRQBfUHUpmZyEeFQv3sgySzZqiUX4
-20 -1.72 19bKGxRDdQzxZCiomBQTCJdTuY9hY8MaAG
-400 -34.4 19E1Hi1AEhgxfXsQH4StxHP1a6rL2gztim
-500 -43 1JZXXL1bL5oU7qTZJ9y1o1yXEm1HuSDxfx
-1150 -98.9 16MxDjVzmCQ62usJj649PFf7y5CF192NM4
-100 -8.6 13Q3eksnXYv7yaZhqtYUd8SJSKi1JJ8W53
-10 -0.86 1Gqy5JeUU9RWCnnYXeCjCaEuFts9wKyQem
-10 -0.86 1Gqy5JeUU9RWCnnYXeCjCaEuFts9wKyQem
-20 -1.72 1Gqy5JeUU9RWCnnYXeCjCaEuFts9wKyQem
-10 -0.86 1PW9fvHQdUqwSb8DMkpDFCwnGjCJp6ZWX1
-40 -3.44 18WWjvZfjDLsDuBRktL4YK5jpe2bvG7b7a
-300 -25.8 1Fpp7B3DJbjf1Tg2aodi7rPUym2UKa7gHc
-20 -1.72 17sYSprh8QbWXat1vnYoyR7kuindCcpj23
-45 -3.87 1NMrtqsMgDBp1zGSGKC6bC26tQsj1Emt85
-600 -51.6 1Ex87tbegxtyd1GGLtP1cHBidqxMQZjxhA
-20 -1.72 13niA2BjbXg3p3g6YvUy1RCm79AwB9tzgc
-30 -2.58 1VQtwHQHNyLiZ6ttRVBxcuPt8jt1U1yWG
-300 -25.8 1GjAbLU8UTn4YArcGv4kRnkMtWnqe5aq4c
-20 -1.72 1FcXcUL45YQu4aWmtZLF8uPvJPNYhV6Ee4
-100 -8.6 19sS8Duo2as8X7UTqEBR4FVFJxGyar7Ry1
-40 -3.44 1Ja5MunxuEXqx4EAhPxXaQowuq55srVH6N
I placed a refund request yesterday, but neither got an confirmation email nor BTC so far. With the refunds already processed, I'm quite confident that everyone requesting will get his coins back, therefore I will start refunding today as much as I can from my own reserves.
Refund Request Deadline
Yifu announced that 40 batches will be ready for shipment on Wednesday. Since our orders are among the early ones, chances are good that we get the remaining 5 batches sent out all at once. Therefore, the time frame to get refund requests accepted is limited.
Those of you still considering a refund, please do so until Tuesday evening GMT (2013-09-03T18:00Z, epoch 1378231200). Refund requests posted after this request can not be guaranteed to get accepted.
I have no idea what 'sort of compensation model' Avalon is referring to, but what I know for sure is that once chips are delivered, you are left with a limited scope of action and Avalon's goodwill - without means to enforce anything. So if you decide to keep your chips and hope for some additional compensation, do this solely on your own assessment and risk-awareness.
My position in this case is this: with the refunds offered, Avalon met their liability towards their direct customers and there remains no justification for legal recourses. Of course the damage dealt to the community exceeds the refunded coins: designers spent lots of time and efforts, manufacturers paid for parts and PCBs, and finally a dozen of group-buyers lost time and nerves to organize the chip distribution. Alas, IMHO this is none of Avalon's business - everyone made his decision based on own risk-reward-assessment and due diligence. Sure the manufacturers invested the most and are facing huge financial losses short term. But their efforts are not void in mid to long-term - just to name some examples: burnin proved his ability to design great mining devices and therefore was selected as designer for the PETA-MINE project; Bitmine attracted a large investor and is going to have their own 28nm ASICs soon; and finally BkkCoins showed the Bitcoin world how open source HW development is done right and gained a huge reputation that will open him doors in the future.
Since almost all designers and manufacturers have next-gen mining boards in their pipeline, instead of waiting for Avalon to offer some compensation, please consider showing your support by leaving your pre-order funds there and buy some next-gen mining rig.
indeed.
any news on refunds?
any news on refunds?
Zefir, as I understand SebastianJu already received a refund - did you also receive one?
See here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.3053704
See here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.3053704
I've cut this quote down to just the most important part:
Does anyone know anything on this compensation model he is talking about? I would prefer to keep my order if (adequate) compensation is provided but I don't want [edit: "him"] to suddenly ship worthless chips without any compensation, that would honestly be the worst case scenario right now.
Rest of the stuff you said, I agree. We are a team of 4 people ( it'll stay that way for reasons I'll not get into for the time being.) and we will learn and grow as a team, I have no problem admitting to issue and mistakes. The only got I really got to comment on is the chinese reseller chip thing you mentioned that keeps coming up over and over. As far as I understand it, some one ordered ~2k chips from somebody in china, then a whole shit storm starts on how we have been selling chips to resellers and delaying everyone else, this simply is not true. I said before(and been ignored.) more than 50% of the chip orders originates from china. We've shipped out chips, a few hundred thousand a best so far. there is simply no resellers with volume. People keep asking for evidence on how we have NOT "sell-out" to these resellers, but where is the evidence on the fact they have chips?
Anyhow, If people think I'm trying to screw the people who ordered from 15th to the 22th of June that is just silly, and false in their assumption. Here's the new deal,
The form will extend to orders made before the 22nd, which is exatly 10 weeks. and every order after, on the date it is suppose to ship, we'll send out a email asking if a refund is desired.
While I have no problems issue refunds, compensating for delay and such, I got no patience for people complaining when their orders are not late. Not too surprisingly, the people complaining the loudest are people whose order are not late yet(so more people refund and they can get their chips earlier maybe?), and people who have no orders(standard trolls of bitcointalk).
Most people who have chip orders are much more understanding to the situation, whom are either taking refunds, or working out some sort of compensation model.
Anyhow, If people think I'm trying to screw the people who ordered from 15th to the 22th of June that is just silly, and false in their assumption. Here's the new deal,
The form will extend to orders made before the 22nd, which is exatly 10 weeks. and every order after, on the date it is suppose to ship, we'll send out a email asking if a refund is desired.
While I have no problems issue refunds, compensating for delay and such, I got no patience for people complaining when their orders are not late. Not too surprisingly, the people complaining the loudest are people whose order are not late yet(so more people refund and they can get their chips earlier maybe?), and people who have no orders(standard trolls of bitcointalk).
Most people who have chip orders are much more understanding to the situation, whom are either taking refunds, or working out some sort of compensation model.
Does anyone know anything on this compensation model he is talking about? I would prefer to keep my order if (adequate) compensation is provided but I don't want [edit: "him"] to suddenly ship worthless chips without any compensation, that would honestly be the worst case scenario right now.
I've also already paid burnin for assembly. Just to clarify, is Bitsyncom still offering to deliver chips to those who ordered, or is a refund the only option? If the former, since I can only get a 50% refund on the assembly cost, I would have to factor that into any decision on whether to wait for the chips or get a refund.
Also, could you (Zefir) possibly ask Bitsyncom if they are willing to provide some other additional compensation, (e.g. future discounts) to those who have already ordered assembly services?
Also, could you (Zefir) possibly ask Bitsyncom if they are willing to provide some other additional compensation, (e.g. future discounts) to those who have already ordered assembly services?
While I agree that there should be no litigation involved unless we want all of the Bitcoin business to be heavily regulated, I don't necessarily agree with compensating those who designed and built systems. I am speaking as one of those who have built clones, and even though I spent less in terms of design time to build the clones, the total time and material spent is comparable to those spent by BKKCoins and Burnin. We all went into this knowing the risks involved, and besides whatever compensation scheme devised will fall short of expectation.
I think what we need to do is negotiate in good faith. I suggest we go into some kind of arbitration. We need a disinterested third party, someone or a group whose interest lies in seeing the Bitcoin space grow, who can do the arbitration. I am thinking of the Bitcoin Foundation. It is very important that we keep this issue within the Bitcoin community. If this is litigated, yes, I agree we will all be losers.
We should demonstrate to the world that the idea of a crypto-currency can be an economic force for good, and can remain a frictionless medium of exchange. Once we let the regulators in, that would only demonstrate that the idea of a frictionless medium of exchange is bunk, that high fees are needed for every transaction to pay for rent-seekers and lawyers.
We should refer this matter to the Bitcoin Foundation.
I think what we need to do is negotiate in good faith. I suggest we go into some kind of arbitration. We need a disinterested third party, someone or a group whose interest lies in seeing the Bitcoin space grow, who can do the arbitration. I am thinking of the Bitcoin Foundation. It is very important that we keep this issue within the Bitcoin community. If this is litigated, yes, I agree we will all be losers.
We should demonstrate to the world that the idea of a crypto-currency can be an economic force for good, and can remain a frictionless medium of exchange. Once we let the regulators in, that would only demonstrate that the idea of a frictionless medium of exchange is bunk, that high fees are needed for every transaction to pay for rent-seekers and lawyers.
We should refer this matter to the Bitcoin Foundation.
Not only would litigation cause issues for the community but a mere refund for the chips does not address the main problem:
A community of people (Burning, BKK, TerraHash, etc) developed themselves and invested around Avalon. Now this community gets screwed by Avalon.
Not only will this result in legal action against Avalon but fighting/litigation within said community as many of these community members will not be able to offer refunds.
Therefore, 'refunds for chips' are not the same as 'refunds for miners'. Not only is Avalon screwing a community that developed around their product but they are alienating it. I highly doubt that said community will likely support Avalon in the future unless a better alternative than a refund is offered for chips.
A refund option the instant Avalon KNEW the chips were late would have been acceptable. A refund option with regards to chips so delayed when there has been a significant investment by the community alienates the community and, in reality, is unacceptable. I doubt people will be buying Avalon products in the future if this is the best they offer to their customers.
This isn't about greed. This is about righting a wrong and the 'no bullshit' policy that's become 'pure bullshit'.
A community of people (Burning, BKK, TerraHash, etc) developed themselves and invested around Avalon. Now this community gets screwed by Avalon.
Not only will this result in legal action against Avalon but fighting/litigation within said community as many of these community members will not be able to offer refunds.
Therefore, 'refunds for chips' are not the same as 'refunds for miners'. Not only is Avalon screwing a community that developed around their product but they are alienating it. I highly doubt that said community will likely support Avalon in the future unless a better alternative than a refund is offered for chips.
A refund option the instant Avalon KNEW the chips were late would have been acceptable. A refund option with regards to chips so delayed when there has been a significant investment by the community alienates the community and, in reality, is unacceptable. I doubt people will be buying Avalon products in the future if this is the best they offer to their customers.
This isn't about greed. This is about righting a wrong and the 'no bullshit' policy that's become 'pure bullshit'.
If everyone turns to litigation to get compensation from BitSyncom everyone is going to lose. Regulators are going to tighten their grasp on Bitcoins and a lot of money is going to be spent on both ends litigating. The entire Bitcoin community loses.
BitSyncom has been very profitable on these chip orders and should bite the bullet and provide compensation to resolve these issues with his customers before it ends up in the hands of lawyers and governments. It could cost them, and everyone else, a hell of a lot more in the long run if Bitcoins keep attracting negative attention. A refund 10 weeks ago may have been an acceptable solution when they knew chips weren't going to arrive on time. Now that it's another 10+ weeks later, they need to do more than just offer refunds.
These chips were priced based on 10 week delivery time and they were priced with heavy profit margins built in for Avalon. All purchasing parties agreed that it was acceptable based on the terms at the time. Given that circumstances have dramatically changed, prices should reflect that. At the very least, Avalon shouldn't be making a heavy profit when their customers are seeing heavy losses. This situation is dramatically different than B3 units -- there are many groups with money invested for assembly services and parts that can't be refunded. B3 purchasers were able to make a decision for a full refund.
At this point it isn't "toxic malformed greed" from the community. Forget profits -- it's people desperate to even have a chance of getting close to breaking even. Prior to this delays on units only diluted profits. Now the delays are costing people more and more money. I really hope Yifu considers these aspects of the equation.
BitSyncom has been very profitable on these chip orders and should bite the bullet and provide compensation to resolve these issues with his customers before it ends up in the hands of lawyers and governments. It could cost them, and everyone else, a hell of a lot more in the long run if Bitcoins keep attracting negative attention. A refund 10 weeks ago may have been an acceptable solution when they knew chips weren't going to arrive on time. Now that it's another 10+ weeks later, they need to do more than just offer refunds.
These chips were priced based on 10 week delivery time and they were priced with heavy profit margins built in for Avalon. All purchasing parties agreed that it was acceptable based on the terms at the time. Given that circumstances have dramatically changed, prices should reflect that. At the very least, Avalon shouldn't be making a heavy profit when their customers are seeing heavy losses. This situation is dramatically different than B3 units -- there are many groups with money invested for assembly services and parts that can't be refunded. B3 purchasers were able to make a decision for a full refund.
At this point it isn't "toxic malformed greed" from the community. Forget profits -- it's people desperate to even have a chance of getting close to breaking even. Prior to this delays on units only diluted profits. Now the delays are costing people more and more money. I really hope Yifu considers these aspects of the equation.
Quote
I don't think I understand this, there are 400000 chips coming, but NOT for orders from April but for orders made in June or later?
What they mean is, they're on schedule to meet the deadlines for all chip orders placed after June 1st. Anything before that, they have already missed the deadline, so they can't meet the deadline. It is not saying that these chips are for any specific orders; just statements about deadlines they're currently trying to meet.No no, that early batch of chips for all the group buys we saw pictured delivered to Bitsynocom from TSMC's Shanghi fab on the 25th June with tracking waybills proving they had been delivered, was clearly sold to some other party on the blackmarket for a tidy sum.
He's still stuck with the subsequent batch about to be delivered for orders made after 15th June, so he can't refund those.
But he said it was for batch 3. Yifu would never lie to us.
But that would mean he was starting to assemble Batch 3 long after he promised to deliver Batch 3.
Only in reality Batch 3 had already been assembled, just there was this slight hiccup, when he got caught pre mining Batch 2's as they turned up covered in dust and preconfigured to mining pools, linked to wallets with lots of coins. So Batch 2 (all silver up to that point) was halted mid shipped, and magically these black box Avalons fulfilled the rest of Batch 2's orders.
Thing was those black Avalon boxes used to fulfil the rest of the Batch 2 orders, were actually Batch 3's that were already purposely being held back, whilst they premined Batch 2.
Meaning Batch 3 had to be assembled out of some of the millions of bulk chips pictured, hence the mega delay in Batch 3's, screwing their ROIs and that were, guess what? Black.
This has been commonly known information in the BTCman thread for some time apparently.
@zefir... i think if you hope to get enough information from your members you have to send everyone a pm and/or an email if you collected this data. You can send 20 blindcopy pms in one pm with a limit of 120 per hour. If i hadnt done this i would have way less data. Of course that wont help fully too.
So he has 400k ready, but didn't send them. When will he decide to send them? How much time will be given to request a refund? This step would/should take about a week for everyone to decide, so the chips will not go out avalons door until this happend. again: in two weeks tm, it's not even funny anymore.
The 400k chips are reaching him on wednesday he wrote. Until then everyone should have done his refund requests i think.
Jump to: