Topic: HashFast announces specs for new ASIC: 400GH/s - page 64. (Read 880461 times)

I don't know it, but I don't think that Monica is accountable for whatever happened before her arrival. Maybe they were asking who is the responsible as of today?

This is the initial meeting where they identified Monica as the responsible party (some sock puppet account asked "how could monica have so much power to delay" and that is your answer).   They also said that simon and eduardo never received more than 5 BTC total from all the revenue.   So that is in sworn testimony and should be assumed to be true unless someone proves otherwise.
And Monica is legally responsible for signing the documents (why would she do that when she must have known the level of scammy sales behavior and lying that went on in november?).  She also was privy to the contracts that were sketchy at best and the delaware LLC that "owns all the IP and gets revenue from its use YET NEVER PAID ONE DOLLAR FOR IT"?
I guess that is my biggest confusion in all of this.   Why would some professional come into this company in April and agree to take any responsibility when it is obvious that some really bad decisions were made and very obvious that many customers were lied to?   It is one thing to take a paycheck but it is another to sign anything on the part of the company.

As far as I know it's not too wrong: Edward should have left (but maybe he is still being paid as "sales guy") and Monica should be still there, but that could have changed. Anything interesting they said?

There is also a second one: http://hashfast.org/071514.2.pdf

I Googled for Monica, Cara, Tim, Hashfast and found a transcript of a 2014-07-08 meeting.

Sat next to a group of loud people at Salt Room yesterday for lunch.  Evidently this was the HashFast crew.  Recognized her harshness Monica, miss Cara and Hong Kong Tim.  They seemed to be very happy to no longer be working for HF and said that the only people left are Eduardo and Simon.  Can anyone else verify this?

https://www.kncminer.com/products/knc-28nm-sha256-processor

$27/chip, below production costs.

No, but let me make a guess: dissolved for lack of assets.

It is not for me: is LB trying to create acceptance before proposing a second deal? That sounds improbable to me, and it's the only reason "newbies" should pump the defunct LB deal. Why are they still discussing about it elsewise? Only to complain about a wise choice from the committee (and the judge, that regardless of the trolling above would have never approved the sale, even with the committee consent)?

But I take it from the same newbies that Barber is back. Good, now he will have to explain why he doesn't want the cfo. Or maybe not. Maybe he will just take an unpaid leave.

scr3u.ucr3trs don't you find weird that there are several new members that come here and post some HF related stuff without revealing their true identity and their affiliation? I find it very weird. It seems that all newbies are supporting the LB deal while the "veterans" are against it. Come on it's actually very obvious what is going on here.

Has there been a final ruling yet on the Hashfast case?

Monica is the incompetent person that has run this company into the ground over the last 4 months while she has done nothing to return it to an ongoing concern.   She is now the ONE person that is holding up everything to bring in a CRO.    Considering the only deal that she has come up with in 4 months is one so bad a Federal Judge would not even hear arguments on it, she should step aside quickly.     More value would have been realized if they just accepted chapter 7.

Sounds like Eddie talking again yeah?

What a cope out.  Monica is CFO.  She is doing her job running the numbers, reporting to the Court (not hashfast btw). She actually has a strong CV as CFO.  I doubt she would risk her career for Hashfast or anyone.   "The only deal she came up with"....  Please, tell me what proposition we had from the Creditor's Council?  Besides a "franchise" deal emanating from Eduardo (still to be confirmed, mind you, but the research on that is fun).  From what I read, (and I'm still trying to confirm as well, so if anyone knows for sure, correct me.  I might have missed something), the IP was marketed and no real bites resulted (btw, in the LB deal, the IP stayed with the Creditors, they only got a licensing deal).  The Chips?  They are being sold (or were being sold I should say) to pay employees and keeping the lights on.  But it's not a depreciating asset right? So who cares if they are sold today or in October?  RIGHT.  Sure.  Of course.  What other deals came to the table besides LB that we have not been made aware of?  Who else has expressed interest and made a formal proposal?  Why are we not being told?  There has to be quite a few I am sure.



[/quote]

I'd like to meet this Monica as she must be a mega hero to be able to singlehandedly mismanage a company for a year prior to arriving there, take ownership for lack of ability to develop product, blame all vendors without any leadership, allow poor spending, lie to customers, and piss away millions?  That was the CEO ownership - Was she paid to be CEO or promoted to the role without telling the court? (or without telling her maybe?)

There was a marketing guy Tim  leading the company for while- maybe it was all his fault too?   AND Simon was leading it after Eddie was fired.  Well not really fired.  They couldn't figure out what to do with him so made him a sales person so he could sell more false hope as before.  Any way, Simon responsible?  How can the only person last in the company be the one that is blamed for everything.  seems just a bit unbelievable but I definitely want to meet her.  And I'd like to see the owners admit just once, even the slightest bit of responsibility. Oh no, wait, that's for grown ups, not idiots. 

Meantime, how are we creditors going to get money now?  isn't that the focus?  Blame doesn't fix anything.  who's fixing it now?
Oh, but no, lets look for who else can be blamed.  I heard there is a customer service person who answered a phone one day and was told what to say, maybe they caused the bankruptcy to?

The ethics of this group is amazing.  Peyton Place like, although the tv show is more factual and entertaining.

Does anyone on this forum deal with reality or facts?  There are requirements in bankruptcy for reporting and anyone dealing with facts would know that the court requires inventory to be reported and assets,so the CFO did provide it along with cash reconciliations according to the testimony.  Stop making up false accusations against one of the few people that was actually looking out for creditors benefit.

With regards to delays, the creditors committee are the only ones at fault right now as they have come up with no proposals, have used HashFast management time for stalling instead of selling, have blocked all deals, and have now hired an expensive person only to ensure legal fees are covered. 

Now that Simon is back he will theoretically be looking out for creditors too, or would that be Eddie boy?  How does Monica have anything to do with bringing in the CRO?  Wasn't that the creditor committee duty?  How can you say she didn't do anything for the company- they had no money, and no financial reports according to the testimony and she recreated and tried to do a  CFO job.  It wasn't her job to be the CEO, that was Simon, and he was gone out of the country caring for what he deemed more important than his company.  From what I've heard, there were others at the company that would support her efforts but that doesn't matter, it's the job of the President to run the company.  Don't cast blame needlessly.  And the committee had responsibility for ensuring progress and approving or facilitating asset sales.

While there could be some blame that nobody told the CFO what she was getting into,or what the CEO was not doing, where do the lawyers play into this?  Aren't they the only ones getting money right now?  I doubt that a finance person coming into the company almost a year after all the problems started caused the 20million bankruptcy but I of course could be wrong.

Post with your real name and I will answer you sincerely, you can PM me if you want to be secretive.    If you had listened to everything and understood, you would know some of the questions you ask are fatuous.  I assume LB's lawyer does not even understand what was wrong with his motion, if you do not understand either.    Assets valuations are dependent on what you use the assets for.   If you liquidate, they are worth far less than before (there are option models to explain that to you).   If they attempt at creating an ongoing concern, they may be worth more.   Considering Monica has not even published a list of assets, how could you value them?    Don't you think if you really wanted to sell stuff, you would list what you have for sale?  What IP does the company own?   What conditions are held against its transfer?   Can you answer this?   No.    Because the debtor is stonewalling, and trying to make creditors lose more money so that the ONE thing she did for the last five months does not look so bad.
Why does management not care?   I do not know.   

Your bank information about Indian Ocean and stuff does not really matter.    What would have mattered (and does not anymore), would have been where the new company was domiciled AND where the money came from.   It could have come from Russia as long as it was legitimately attained (taxes paid on it etc).
But this does not really matter because it is likely dead in the water.    None of us could value the estate because we do not really know what is in the estate and what impairments there may be on the assets.    Wasting 4 months has probably cost creditors at least $2MM and my guess would be 50 cents on the dollar.    If bitcoin goes to $1000 before the stonewalling stops, we might be okay.   
On your criminal point, I am not sure that is the case.   Monica has been in there for long enough that she should have uncovered any "missing" money.   If she had found that, she would have had to report it to the court.   Why would she risk covering it up?   That would not make sense.    I would therefore assume that gross incompetence may be the only "crime" here.    That the incompetence is allowed to continue is sickening to me.   

Monica is the incompetent person that has run this company into the ground over the last 4 months while she has done nothing to return it to an ongoing concern.   She is now the ONE person that is holding up everything to bring in a CRO.    Considering the only deal that she has come up with in 4 months is one so bad a Federal Judge would not even hear arguments on it, she should step aside quickly.     More value would have been realized if they just accepted chapter 7.
[/quote]



What a cope out.  Monica is CFO.  She is doing her job running the numbers, reporting to the Court (not hashfast btw). She actually has a strong CV as CFO.  I doubt she would risk her career for Hashfast or anyone.   "The only deal she came up with"....  Please, tell me what proposition we had from the Creditor's Council?  Besides a "franchise" deal emanating from Eduardo (still to be confirmed, mind you, but the research on that is fun).  From what I read, (and I'm still trying to confirm as well, so if anyone knows for sure, correct me.  I might have missed something), the IP was marketed and no real bites resulted (btw, in the LB deal, the IP stayed with the Creditors, they only got a licensing deal).  The Chips?  They are being sold (or were being sold I should say) to pay employees and keeping the lights on.  But it's not a depreciating asset right? So who cares if they are sold today or in October?  RIGHT.  Sure.  Of course.  What other deals came to the table besides LB that we have not been made aware of?  Who else has expressed interest and made a formal proposal?  Why are we not being told?  There has to be quite a few I am sure.

Yes Minor Miner.  We have read your venom against LB over and over.  That too is getting old.  The fact is that from what I heared from the audio tapes that is NOT what happened.  LB put an ultimatum on their proposal to the court.  The Judge refused the ultimatum, and didnt like that, perhaps precisely because according our creditor's council, there is NO hurry since the assets are not depreciating.  I also easily found out who LB is banking with: WF and UTB (a big bank, and a small bank) IN THE US.  So I have no idea where this Indian Ocean Bank thingy came from.  I also re-read the LB proposition.  THe fact that it was not liked is OK BY ME.  I have no problem with that.  What do we have today?   LB answered on the forum, made their case, it was refused, end of story.  WHY THE FOCUS on LB now?  WHo cares?  They are no longer trying to make proposal.

WHAT WE ALL WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IS WHAT ARE THE OPTIONS TODAY THAT THE CREDITORS COUNCIL HAS?  It has to be meaningfull and significant with a lot of cash up --- Like CEDIVAD said to LB at the time: PUT 10million in a company upfront...  I'd like to see that.  I thought that the creditor's council HAD such an offer on hand.  WHAT HAPPENED?  What are the assets worth (TRUTHFULLY, not a valuation according to Simon Barber or Eduardo Criminal PLEASE).

You have that power as CFO? Meh... Is it because barber can't/won't sign it from overseas? Who told the lawyers to say so to the judge if they didn't really intended to? Meh... It must have something to do with their confuse and delay tactics.

LB's deal never would have went forward.   The judge was angered by how it tried to take everything from the creditors.   He REFUSED to hear anything more than the filing because it was so stupid.   You should listen to the hearing.
Besides, if they did propose a good deal, they would have had to prove the source of their funds.  Did you listen to all the testimony?   They hadn't even come up with a smaller amount of money on time.
Monica is the incompetent person that has run this company into the ground over the last 4 months while she has done nothing to return it to an ongoing concern.   She is now the ONE person that is holding up everything to bring in a CRO.    Considering the only deal that she has come up with in 4 months is one so bad a Federal Judge would not even hear arguments on it, she should step aside quickly.     More value would have been realized if they just accepted chapter 7.

Appointing a CRO is a voluntary action taken by a company.  If the CRO hasn't been officially hired yet even though HF's lawyer told the court last Friday they agreed to hire a CRO then that is because whomever is in charge at Hashfast is dragging their feet and hasn't signed the paperwork making it official.  I agree the run around we are getting is really old but lets not fool ourselves about where the problem lies.

Further more as has been repeated multiple times here, the LiquidBits deal would have in all likelihood resulted in $0 being paid out to customer creditors who are owed refunds.  The only people it would have benefited are a select group of Hashfast's suppliers and employees.  You can't get a worse deal than zero.

O, and by the way for anyone who still thinks that a different law firm should have been chosen to represent the creditors the choice that some other people were pushing made the legal news yesterday because they are being sued for hiding conflicts of interest and over billing in a bankruptcy case.

http://www.law360.com/bankruptcy/articles/567327