Labrat.
I apologize if I was ever coming off as too intense. Maybe, I'm not. But please clarify & update soon... let us know you are committed to succeeding with LRM and to being fair according to the spirit of the original agreement. Being fair to the spirit of the agreement means that it doesn't matter how you structure the percentage people invested, or if you call that percentage invested as bonds or chicken salad, as long as people are fairly compensated in dividends, that their overall dividends grow proportionately with the company, and that the bonds (or chicken salad) can be bought and sold in whatever units they exist.
Topic: Lab Rat Data Processing, LLC (LabRatMining) Official Announcement - page 103. (Read 452224 times)
March 08, 2014, 09:48:54 PM
March 08, 2014, 09:38:31 PM
I've read over the OP a few times now, and I just can't see what the issue is. 100 is specified as the bare minimum. It also says that the intent was to increase value of the bonds by adding hashrate.
We've exhausted the analysis of the known info and are venturing into speculation now, but it would seem for whatever reason, LR has assigned a fixed 100MH to each bond since that was the minimum promised, then provided a three for one split because that roughly represents the amount of hardware in hand and active now minus the 25% portion for cost of running the company.
It would stand to reason, one of two things happens now:
Hardware comes in, new 100 MH bonds are issued for sale, existing bondholders are stuffed and see their holdings decline in value every 2016 blocks.
or
Hardware comes in, additional splits occur to bring existing bondholders up to their fair share of 100MH bonds for the new hardware.
I'm really really hoping it is the latter. I would be okay with bond splits.
I appears that I may have misunderstood the intent of the OP as well. If it is the case that new 100 mh/s bonds will be issued for all new hardware that comes on line then I would be fine with that approach.
Zach, please take a moment to clarify this point......
I think it would be a workable solution too. But it would be clumsy when a fixed percentage (based on all issued bonds) should be just as good. I fail to see what legal issues could come from this.
March 08, 2014, 09:30:16 PM
I've read over the OP a few times now, and I just can't see what the issue is. 100 is specified as the bare minimum. It also says that the intent was to increase value of the bonds by adding hashrate.
We've exhausted the analysis of the known info and are venturing into speculation now, but it would seem for whatever reason, LR has assigned a fixed 100MH to each bond since that was the minimum promised, then provided a three for one split because that roughly represents the amount of hardware in hand and active now minus the 25% portion for cost of running the company.
It would stand to reason, one of two things happens now:
Hardware comes in, new 100 MH bonds are issued for sale, existing bondholders are stuffed and see their holdings decline in value every 2016 blocks.
or
Hardware comes in, additional splits occur to bring existing bondholders up to their fair share of 100MH bonds for the new hardware.
I'm really really hoping it is the latter. I would be okay with bond splits.
I appears that I may have misunderstood the intent of the OP as well. If it is the case that new 100 mh/s bonds will be issued for all new hardware that comes on line then I would be fine with that approach.
Zach, please take a moment to clarify this point......
March 08, 2014, 09:27:50 PM
If Labrat liquidated, and I'm not saying he should, then ~180TH/60,000bonds = approx. 3+GH/bond; + most of the other 25% of mined coins in the mean time; + the BFL hardware funds.
He can sell the in-hand hardware for $400 (~BTC0.67) per 25GH - based on this: https://megabigpower.com/shop/index.php?route=product/category&path=68
Being slightly used shouldn't matter, since he can ship immediately.
So, let's round down a bit and say each bond could be compensated with BTC.06 ... That would be a ~60% loss. Maybe a ~50% loss if you count the dividends paid since inception.
But I don't want to get ahead of myself. I'd still rather see LRM succeed, and in a fair way!
He can sell the in-hand hardware for $400 (~BTC0.67) per 25GH - based on this: https://megabigpower.com/shop/index.php?route=product/category&path=68
Being slightly used shouldn't matter, since he can ship immediately.
So, let's round down a bit and say each bond could be compensated with BTC.06 ... That would be a ~60% loss. Maybe a ~50% loss if you count the dividends paid since inception.
But I don't want to get ahead of myself. I'd still rather see LRM succeed, and in a fair way!
March 08, 2014, 08:59:35 PM
what a mess this is turning into.
I've even been driven to post from my btctalk account ive never bothered to use. i invested a fair amount into this and had high hopes but its been setback after setback, i have no doubt in my mind that labrat/zach is pulling his hair out over the complications but i think its time to put lrm down, you've secured yourself a nice job as a result of your initial work in setting lrm up - focus on that now, liquidate the hardware in hand, take the BFL refund offer and distribute the proceeds to bond holders.
I've even been driven to post from my btctalk account ive never bothered to use. i invested a fair amount into this and had high hopes but its been setback after setback, i have no doubt in my mind that labrat/zach is pulling his hair out over the complications but i think its time to put lrm down, you've secured yourself a nice job as a result of your initial work in setting lrm up - focus on that now, liquidate the hardware in hand, take the BFL refund offer and distribute the proceeds to bond holders.
March 08, 2014, 08:55:24 PM
I've read over the OP a few times now, and I just can't see what the issue is. 100 is specified as the bare minimum. It also says that the intent was to increase value of the bonds by adding hashrate.
We've exhausted the analysis of the known info and are venturing into speculation now, but it would seem for whatever reason, LR has assigned a fixed 100MH to each bond since that was the minimum promised, then provided a three for one split because that roughly represents the amount of hardware in hand and active now minus the 25% portion for cost of running the company.
It would stand to reason, one of two things happens now:
Hardware comes in, new 100 MH bonds are issued for sale, existing bondholders are stuffed and see their holdings decline in value every 2016 blocks.
or
Hardware comes in, additional splits occur to bring existing bondholders up to their fair share of 100MH bonds for the new hardware.
I'm really really hoping it is the latter. I would be okay with bond splits.
We've exhausted the analysis of the known info and are venturing into speculation now, but it would seem for whatever reason, LR has assigned a fixed 100MH to each bond since that was the minimum promised, then provided a three for one split because that roughly represents the amount of hardware in hand and active now minus the 25% portion for cost of running the company.
It would stand to reason, one of two things happens now:
Hardware comes in, new 100 MH bonds are issued for sale, existing bondholders are stuffed and see their holdings decline in value every 2016 blocks.
or
Hardware comes in, additional splits occur to bring existing bondholders up to their fair share of 100MH bonds for the new hardware.
I'm really really hoping it is the latter. I would be okay with bond splits.
Bondholders getting stuffed is out of the question. A lawsuit would be a near certainty.
March 08, 2014, 08:43:43 PM
I will add my voice to Epoch's to state that the only reasonable course in this process is to wind up the company rather than spending additional resources trying to fight your bondholders or somehow restructure the deal. All existing and inbound equipment needs to be sold and the proceeds distributed to the bondholders accordingly.
Lab_Rat's response on this has been that it will result in less value for the bond holders than ongoing operation with each original bond being worth 300 MH/s (including the 1->3 split).
grnbrg.
And why not 2 gh/s bond to reflect the futur hashrate ?
Why 300 mh/s when the issue is around the 100 mh/s bonds definition?
Something don't work here...
Absolutely right!
First of all if splitting now is appropriate can we look forward to future splits as new hardware comes in? I would be OK with that because it just makes the growth more staggered.
If future splits aren't possible then for god's sake split us 10 to 20 ways x100MH to account for the hardware we already financed with our bond purchases.
I can only hope that the news improves from here. Locked at 300MH is unacceptable. That IS theft and we will fight for what's ours.
Yeah, clumsy, but a very simple solution. If you want to call the mining bonds a fixed hash rate, for now, make it 1,000,000 PH. Done! And yes, it is THAT easy.
...or...
But a better solution is to call it a fixed PERCENTAGE based on total issued bonds, where bonds issued may vary. That is how it should have been structured from day one.
It really shouldn't be that complicated.
I've read over the OP a few times now, and I just can't see what the issue is. 100 is specified as the bare minimum. It also says that the intent was to increase value of the bonds by adding hashrate.
We've exhausted the analysis of the known info and are venturing into speculation now, but it would seem for whatever reason, LR has assigned a fixed 100MH to each bond since that was the minimum promised, then provided a three for one split because that roughly represents the amount of hardware in hand and active now minus the 25% portion for cost of running the company.
It would stand to reason, one of two things happens now:
Hardware comes in, new 100 MH bonds are issued for sale, existing bondholders are stuffed and see their holdings decline in value every 2016 blocks.
or
Hardware comes in, additional splits occur to bring existing bondholders up to their fair share of 100MH bonds for the new hardware.
I'm really really hoping it is the latter. I would be okay with bond splits.
March 08, 2014, 08:42:06 PM
Labrat.
Here is a very simple solution:
Step 1. Write up a new "agreement" that is more clear, so that investors are fairly and proportionately compensated with LRM growth. Bonds should represent a percentage based on all bonds.
Step 2. Allow for people to confirm that they want the new agreement. Anyone silent on the issue, you can leave in the old structure, whatever that means. Just be prepared for legal recourse of people sticking with the old agreement and feeling screwed if you withhold dividends that would come from LRM growth.
...or some reasonable variation of this.
Here is a very simple solution:
Step 1. Write up a new "agreement" that is more clear, so that investors are fairly and proportionately compensated with LRM growth. Bonds should represent a percentage based on all bonds.
Step 2. Allow for people to confirm that they want the new agreement. Anyone silent on the issue, you can leave in the old structure, whatever that means. Just be prepared for legal recourse of people sticking with the old agreement and feeling screwed if you withhold dividends that would come from LRM growth.
...or some reasonable variation of this.
March 08, 2014, 08:29:53 PM
He did not answer the questions regarding bfl refund...i guess he will just order the additional promised hardware and everything that goes above 100/300 mh/s /share/contract goes into pocket.
Now find out by yourself whom xyz stands for.
In private conversation he indicated he was thinking refund from BFL.Now find out by yourself whom xyz stands for.
But that's something of a no-brainer (IMO) regardless of what happens with the refunded BTC.
grnbrg.
March 08, 2014, 08:29:13 PM
I will add my voice to Epoch's to state that the only reasonable course in this process is to wind up the company rather than spending additional resources trying to fight your bondholders or somehow restructure the deal. All existing and inbound equipment needs to be sold and the proceeds distributed to the bondholders accordingly.
Lab_Rat's response on this has been that it will result in less value for the bond holders than ongoing operation with each original bond being worth 300 MH/s (including the 1->3 split).
grnbrg.
And why not 2 gh/s bond to reflect the futur hashrate ?
Why 300 mh/s when the issue is around the 100 mh/s bonds definition?
Something don't work here...
Absolutely right!
First of all if splitting now is appropriate can we look forward to future splits as new hardware comes in? I would be OK with that because it just makes the growth more staggered.
If future splits aren't possible then for god's sake split us 10 to 20 ways x100MH to account for the hardware we already financed with our bond purchases.
I can only hope that the news improves from here. Locked at 300MH is unacceptable. That IS theft and we will fight for what's ours.
Yeah, clumsy, but a very simple solution. If you want to call the mining bonds a fixed hash rate, for now, make it 1,000,000 PH. Done! And yes, it is THAT easy.
...or...
But a better solution is to call it a fixed PERCENTAGE based on total issued bonds, where bonds issued may vary. That is how it should have been structured from day one.
It really shouldn't be that complicated.
March 08, 2014, 08:26:13 PM
Well, i could have gotten about 0.04 per share, now i can get 0.0005, 90% drop. Feel free to react as you want.
March 08, 2014, 08:19:05 PM
Let me ask.
Is there any over reaction of emotions going on on my part or others?
Is this the end of LRM? So far, it seems that the only change is that LRM will have to issue out more bonds for every 100MH improvement in total hash rate. Again, that would still be a clumsy solution, imo.
Talk to me goose... or geese.
Is there any over reaction of emotions going on on my part or others?
Is this the end of LRM? So far, it seems that the only change is that LRM will have to issue out more bonds for every 100MH improvement in total hash rate. Again, that would still be a clumsy solution, imo.
Talk to me goose... or geese.
Truth is we just do not have enough facts for all the hype being spewed right now.
When Zach defines the issues legally, and then clarifies what the future hashrate to be added does for us... THEN we will have final pieces that allow for proper dissection of how fucked we all are.
I don't like the tone of how it sounds equivocal like when a boyfriend or girlfriend wants to break up. Instead, what I'd like to hear from Labrat is more confidence and that he's committed to going the distance with LRM... and with seeing a way through to solve this supposed "legal concern". There's really no clear reason what-so-ever that he can't solve this supposed problem.
Imagine if Microsoft said to shareholders. "Dear Investors, the dividends we are paying you is variable. Legal stuff - new state and federal laws we aren't too sure about - it's complicated. So, anyway, we have to cap your dividends to only a percentage of earnings generated from legacy software DOS and Windows 3.1.... Latest software resulting from company growth won't contribute to your dividends anymore, since that will cause your dividends to vary. Thanks for your money."
Sure, not an exact analogy. But the notion that a company would take investors money for a decaying return and decaying share value is ridiculous.
March 08, 2014, 08:04:57 PM
I will add my voice to Epoch's to state that the only reasonable course in this process is to wind up the company rather than spending additional resources trying to fight your bondholders or somehow restructure the deal. All existing and inbound equipment needs to be sold and the proceeds distributed to the bondholders accordingly.
Lab_Rat's response on this has been that it will result in less value for the bond holders than ongoing operation with each original bond being worth 300 MH/s (including the 1->3 split).
grnbrg.
And why not 2 gh/s bond to reflect the futur hashrate ?
Why 300 mh/s when the issue is around the 100 mh/s bonds definition?
Something don't work here...
Absolutely right!
First of all if splitting now is appropriate can we look forward to future splits as new hardware comes in? I would be OK with that because it just makes the growth more staggered.
If future splits aren't possible then for god's sake split us 10 to 20 ways x100MH to account for the hardware we already financed with our bond purchases.
I can only hope that the news improves from here. Locked at 300MH is unacceptable. That IS theft and we will fight for what's ours.
March 08, 2014, 08:02:19 PM
How about answering about what are you planning to do with the hardware and the hundreds of thousands of dollars invested in new hardware.
I've stated I'm working on the specifics of this.
Why isn't the answer to that question this easy:
"I'll be putting that hardware online and continue to pay out the proportionate percentage of mining that that hardware can generate for bond holders...even if it means issuing out even more bonds to allow for this."?
March 08, 2014, 07:50:00 PM
Let me ask.
Is there any over reaction of emotions going on on my part or others?
Is this the end of LRM?
Talk to me goose... or geese.
Maybe so, maybe not. Thus far there has been no explicit mention of what will happen to the hardware on order, so until we know how that will be dealt, with this is almost not even news, just a change of wording.
Looking more carefully, it seems that the "legal concerns" and their current "solution" mean that LRM would have to issue out more bonds for every 100MH of future improvement in total hash rate. Again, that would still be a very clumsy solution, imo. And Zach did mention in his update that LRM is " seeking to maintain its current status as a leader in the Bitcoin community". He can't take from investors expected growth and make that claim, that much is clear. Besides, that would be a case for a major lawsuit. Bitcoin has established itself to have value and has much more widespread attention now. So, a legal recourse would seem much easier to follow through with now as compared to last year. But I'll try to hold back until we get some much needed clarity on this, and hopefully very soon.
March 08, 2014, 07:46:59 PM
Let me ask.
Is there any over reaction of emotions going on on my part or others?
Is this the end of LRM? So far, it seems that the only change is that LRM will have to issue out more bonds for every 100MH improvement in total hash rate. Again, that would still be a clumsy solution, imo.
Talk to me goose... or geese.
Is there any over reaction of emotions going on on my part or others?
Is this the end of LRM? So far, it seems that the only change is that LRM will have to issue out more bonds for every 100MH improvement in total hash rate. Again, that would still be a clumsy solution, imo.
Talk to me goose... or geese.
Truth is we just do not have enough facts for all the hype being spewed right now.
When Zach defines the issues legally, and then clarifies what the future hashrate to be added does for us... THEN we will have final pieces that allow for proper dissection of how fucked we all are.
March 08, 2014, 07:42:47 PM
Let me ask.
Is there any over reaction of emotions going on on my part or others?
Is this the end of LRM? So far, it seems that the only change is that LRM will have to issue out more bonds for every 100MH improvement in total hash rate. Again, that would still be a clumsy solution, imo.
Talk to me goose... or geese.
Is there any over reaction of emotions going on on my part or others?
Is this the end of LRM? So far, it seems that the only change is that LRM will have to issue out more bonds for every 100MH improvement in total hash rate. Again, that would still be a clumsy solution, imo.
Talk to me goose... or geese.
Truth is we just do not have enough facts for all the hype being spewed right now.
When Zach defines the issues legally, and then clarifies what the future hashrate to be added does for us... THEN we will have final pieces that allow for proper dissection of how fucked we all are.
March 08, 2014, 07:41:44 PM
Let me ask.
Is there any over reaction of emotions going on on my part or others?
Is this the end of LRM?
Talk to me goose... or geese.
Maybe so, maybe not. Thus far there has been no explicit mention of what will happen to the hardware on order, so until we know how that will be dealt, with this is almost not even news, just a change of wording.
March 08, 2014, 07:38:20 PM
Let me ask.
Is there any over reaction of emotions going on on my part or others?
Is this the end of LRM?
Talk to me goose... or geese.
March 08, 2014, 07:29:36 PM
I definitely want to know details of the legal reasons behind this drastic and sudden (from our perspective) change. The laws at issue and how they conflict with the original bond terms and why it is forcing the bonds to be fixed at 300 MH/s per bond. If it is just a wording issue, I don't see why new terms can't be issued and accepted by signed message.
This is a huge explosive issue and I think LR needs to get a second opinion from another lawyer urgently.
This is a huge explosive issue and I think LR needs to get a second opinion from another lawyer urgently.
Jump to: