Topic: Lab Rat Data Processing, LLC (LabRatMining) Official Announcement - page 104. (Read 452224 times)

Are you saying Labrat is going to cap investors return? We might need to know the name of Labrat's lawyer soon. No joke.

The timing of this news is VERY odd and suspect.

1.Zach said he knew about this for a couple months, BUT just a month ago he was talking about adding 156TH to LRM hashrate.
... That doesn't sound like a person that had legal concerns brewing. At least not a responsible person.
2. The legal issues stated are not cited, and are trivial at best - especially compared to how companies already pay dividends. Also, Zach admitted no certainty on the legal reference.
...Had Zach actually been contemplating this for two months, he should know the legal basis by heart and able to cite which specific new federal and state laws are an issue.
3. The proximity of the news to Zach's recent position as Coinseed CTO and the deals Coinseed leave reasons for one to be extremely suspect.
...Obvious question are: Was LRM becoming too much baggage for Coinseed? Was it a concern of Kauffman that LRM would grow under benefits of the umbrella of his own mining operation?

How things play out could cause things to turn very very ugly. If Zach is Coinseed, then it may turn out that Coinseed is a risky or toxic investment.

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...

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.

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.

So, here's a place to start. Coinseed hired the founder to lead development for them.

http://www.coindesk.com/coinseed-5m-investment-bitfury-mining/

Nothing like several million dollars to distract you from day to day operations.

Yes, Zachary Dailey is well known and LRM is an incorporated LLC company in the USA - dox not an issue here

Long time no see everyone, just popping in to clear up a few things.

1) I have been emigrating and super busy with a bunch of things these last few months and haven't been reading this forum or even this thread. I was prompted to pop back in today and have caught up with the posts since "the announcement" but have not read anything else since around p. 110 of this thread. I intend to catch up, but it will take some time.

2) It took me a while to work out what the second sentence above meant, but I've got it now and I want to clear something up:

Whilst my real name is indeed Merlin, I am not the Merlin from Coinseed. We do indeed share an extremely unusual name, so I can see why people would assume this, but I am not him. I imagine this was conjectured at some point in the period I was away, so I just thought I should clarify that, whilst I am a major bondholder in LRM, I am not Merlin Kauffman.

Clearly a lot is going on at the moment, and I'm sure I will post about it here at some point, but just wanted to say that I am, as of today, reading this thread again, and clarify the fact that I am not the guy from Coinseed.

A few months only for the next answer of him...
Anyone knows the dox of the guy that runs labrat mining?

It's maybee part of the plan...

How a really good start for Coinseed to start with 190 TH/s almost Free...

Why are you guys talking about liquidating hardware? Why can't this work out? It seems to me that Zach and his lawyer made a decision not based on any certainty of what to do.
As such, what he is proposing is not necessarily the way it will proceed. If it is, then he'll have to issue new bonds for each bond every time the total hashrate goes up 100MH per bond. Which seem ridiculous way of doing something that should be understood as a percentage of mining, and not a fixed hashrate. Labrat said from the start that bond hashrate equivalents would only increase - translation: 100MH was never a cap per bond - it was a minimal based on percentage of growth in mining.

If I'm not mistaken, the FINCEN report that we spoke of last indicated this is not an issue.

Not really, i would be really happy if all assets would be seized instead of getting the bondholders's payed equipment into his own hands!

This would also be an option if possible. But, not everyone will want to accept the hardware vs BTC. For example, if I bring hardware into Canada from the USA I will need to pay taxes on the value.

This may be preferable for Zach because it is a relatively simple matter to divide up the gear and ship it as compared to selling it all. In any case, the only reasonable outcome from this situation is some form of liquidation of ALL HARDWARE whether in hand or inbound and distribution of the proceeds to the stakeholders. Make it clean and make it quick and move on...... for the better of all.

Here is why what you wrote is false. And why you need a new lawyer.

Any supposed issue about "variable payouts" based on company performance is refuted by the fact that most companies ALREADY pay dividend based on their varying performance/growth. And each unit of ownership that receives dividends is based on a percentage of that unit per all units issued. That is exactly what each bond represents. Is paying dividends based on performance against federal or state laws? Clearly not.

Nobody that paid a percentage into this expected a "bond" to stop at 100MH. That was NEVER the expectation, and if you claim it was then you need to read the original posts about LRM. We aren't that stupid. And if your lawyer wrote it up differently, then you need to ask him how you can avoid being sued for documenting on your website and these forums how hashrates would not stop at 100MH.

The spirit of the matter(i.e the understood agreement) is this: The TRUE value of a bond was a fixed percentage of mining yields (not hashrate!), based on all issued bonds at any one time, and a fixed percentage is NOT VARIABLE. What ends up being mined may vary, but that is true if you fixed a bond at 100MH/bond instead of fixing it at ~1/50,000th of the 75% allotted for investors.

Cutting people off from their due percentage is a setup for a lawsuit, and I'm pretty sure a majority here are willing to go all the way with a lawsuit. Especially, after all the anger built up from all the scamming going on.

Your lawyer (who advised you from the beginning!) should have known exactly how this was going to work. And nobody signed a statement saying it was only going to be 100MH. If he's changing his story now,  then all I can say is that this smells like a crap story that needs investigation. And you might need to seek better legal counsel, because this guy is going to get you sued big time.

I hate to say it, but it seems like this is the first phases of allowing LRM to fail. And ifso it would seem to have something to do with Coinseed and some new hardware opportunities.
percentage.

It may relate to Money Service Bureau issues as a mining consortium may fall under the MSB regulatory climate. If this is the case then all the assets of the company could be siezed and forfeit in which case we would be totally screwed. Better to shut down immediately and liquidate the company for asset value.

With regard to accounting - it is very important for everyone to understand that the value of BTC when you purchased the bond to now has changed. Your input value would have been accounted for in USD and exit values will be the same. BTC is simply a mode of exchange and regarded as something like a foreign currency. Money in money out. BTC is not money. All accounting records must be kept in USD. We are not in a Bitcoin economy, yet.

I would like to vote for sending HW to bondholders, who want it and then sell everything else. My bonds worth over 1TH by current HW orders have been made. There is no reason to sell just arrived HW. And as i believe, some of BF order should be in LR hand currently, and i mean new order for over 100TH he has told about.

Why does this still not hold ?

I imagine its kept him up. Regardless of how much sleep Zach does or does not get or how much he really cares, there is always more than one way to solve a problem. One point I need to clarify is that you represented from the outset that LRM's legal counsel advised that its structuring at launch were within statutes. If things have changed, fine. If they have not and you were wrong, you are in a heap of shit and that is truly unfortunate for all of us.

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. Simple is as simple does. Do not try to hold on and fight - move on and lesson learned. Make it clean. Just let go.