Since it looks like HF is starting to communicate, I am going to table this discussion.
I still think the timely delivery of the MPP will be critical to Batch1 taking a small vs a very large loss for those who bought day 1 via BTC.
My guess is that they didn't want to communicate a time for MPP until they had a working board. Looks like that has been handled.
Locking this thread for now.
Feel free for someone to open a similar if you feel it is worthwhile.
Topic: Hashfast deceptive advertising Batch1 reparations thoughts (Read 664 times)
So avalon was not a mining company. And full BTC refunds where not promised several times and never denied.
Noted.
Noted.
Good luck with option #1. History has shown that BTC refunds for mining hardware are almost like the fable of a unicorn.
So I have been thinking about what would be a balanced resolution to what seems to be clearly false advertising of lying about October/November as possible shipping dates.
Basically what I am looking for is break even with the HF hardware (which the MPP was supposed to provide).
I think suing is a very bad option. Only the lawyers make out in that scenario.
Here are some options that I think are balanced...
1) Customer has the option of canceling their order and having the same amount of BTC returned
or
2) Customer has the option of receiving batch 1 order and after 90 days... any statistical gap between break even and the paid amount would be refunded (therefore achieving break even ~27 BTC)
or
3) If HF can provide MPP quantities of the rev0/1 boards, customers can opt for immediate MPP and you take your chances at ROI... no other reparations will be available.
Of course at this point option 1 would I think be preferable for all parties involved since batch 1 customers are not receiving what we were initially expecting when we ordered.
I personally like option 2 as I think it is the most balanced. For those who paid with bitcoin... after 90 days with the hardware if we have not achieved break-even, HF will refund the difference. From my calculations if we get mining on 1/1/2014 and get MPP on 2/2/2013, that combo after 90 days will return about 25 BTC. If they refund 27 BTC per order in April (90 days after initial hardware receipt), I will consider myself made whole.
Basically what I am looking for is break even with the HF hardware (which the MPP was supposed to provide).
I think suing is a very bad option. Only the lawyers make out in that scenario.
Here are some options that I think are balanced...
1) Customer has the option of canceling their order and having the same amount of BTC returned
or
2) Customer has the option of receiving batch 1 order and after 90 days... any statistical gap between break even and the paid amount would be refunded (therefore achieving break even ~27 BTC)
or
3) If HF can provide MPP quantities of the rev0/1 boards, customers can opt for immediate MPP and you take your chances at ROI... no other reparations will be available.
Of course at this point option 1 would I think be preferable for all parties involved since batch 1 customers are not receiving what we were initially expecting when we ordered.
I personally like option 2 as I think it is the most balanced. For those who paid with bitcoin... after 90 days with the hardware if we have not achieved break-even, HF will refund the difference. From my calculations if we get mining on 1/1/2014 and get MPP on 2/2/2013, that combo after 90 days will return about 25 BTC. If they refund 27 BTC per order in April (90 days after initial hardware receipt), I will consider myself made whole.
Jump to: