Topic: Lab Rat Data Processing, LLC (LabRatMining) Official Announcement - page 106. (Read 452224 times)

I found out last Saturday.  I suggested delaying the announcement until he had documentation regarding what the legal issues were (documentation which he has indicated is coming).

No argument that this truly sucks....  :-/



grnbrg.

Legality?... how come.. What power can stop you to tell us what is happening with our investment?

Lawyers feel like you would be liable somehow? how hiding under the carpet will make you not responsable for this? just buy more time and hit us with a bigger hammer this way?

Let's look at it another way. IIRC, grnbrg posted recently that 58792 bonds were currently held. As per LRM's decision, tripling that and using 100MH/bond gives 17.6 TH.

So, effectively, LRM is locking in 17.6 TH of equipment to pay bondholders 'indefinitely' ('indefinitely' does not mean what you think it means; even James Gibson's Gigamining 'perpetual bond' could not make this work and had to backpedal on its original promises). At some point the income stream to bondholders is going to stop.

Any equipment beyond 17.6 TH (including what is already in the queue to come in, and including whatever else is bought in the future) is going into LRM's pockets instead of being added (75% of it added, anyway, once you remove the 25% 'management fee') to everyone's per-bond hashrate as was originally expected. It was that expectation of increasing hashrate which luredattracted many of the original and current investors. Now that has stopped. Guess who plans to keep all the investor-purchased hardware?

If a business finds itself on legally shaky ground as LRM seems to have realized, the right thing to do is not to arbitrarily change the original contract terms. It is to either (a) get a majority of bondholders to agree to the newly proposed terms or, if majority agreement cannot be reached, (b) close the business, sell all assets, and distribute the net proceeds.

He knew ~ a week ago and didn't sell his bonds behind the scenes.  He understands because he knows me well enough to know I wouldn't do this unless I had to.

Yes, now he knows. I think they will not be anymore best friends
And if he knew...well the word "rat" comes into my mind.

yes.

Does Grnbrg know?

Unacceptable. Period

Plan B, get a majority of bond holders to have the assets seized, appoint someone else to run it.

Again I would like to apologize for this seeming like I'm randomly dropping this out of thin air.  I have had morality yanking on one arm and legality yanking on the other for the last 2-3 months.  This is not a new development, it is just becoming a finalized one though.

I'm sure if there is a legal means of transitioning bonds from their current state to a better state, it'll happen.

It really sounds like it is the original terms of the bonds that are screwing us over right now.

I think the best solution would be changing the terms of the bonds and each bondholder must accept via signed message if I'm understanding the issue correctly.

Lab_Rat's lawyer will have to evaluate and suggest a solution.  

Speaking of hardware... When is the new hardware going to arrive?

Something is telling me that would be even more illegal.

What about ending LRM and starting a new company when the new hardware arrives and selling bonds for 1 satoshi each .

No they're being prepared.

My point.

Also, Are divs on hold indefinately until this is resolved 'Two Weeks^TM'

If we can't get credit for new hardware, then why not buy back the bonds at the issued value (0.15)?  It sounds like there are very few options to get the value back to the bondholders now, but this type of option will alleviate most losses. The company will have a very large amount of incoming bitcoin available from the new hardware in March.

Point 1. Agree, my mistake.
Point 2 and 3. You have the blockchain and you know how many bonds are held
Point 4. Not my problem, you take 25% of eveything to 'make it work'

That's not how that particular phrase is meant to be interpreted legally.  The reason why I said some answers will be coming shortly (as in the next few weeks)

With fixed Hashrate you would still pay variable payout... It will change each week..  

Can you issue a 'change of bond terms' that each bondholder must accept?  Such as

Old terms:
100MH/s per bond
New terms:
1.5 GH/s per bond (depending on total hardware active at the time of course with some safety cushion)

So, once a bondholder accepts the change of terms via signed message, they can begin receiving the benefit of the new hardware.

I'm getting the feeling that it is the specification of 100MH/s in the original bond agreement that is screwing us over.

4 significant issues with this as well as many others. 

The original contract stated 0.15.
Not everyone paid this price.
Not everyone bought from me.
I operate in USD behind the scenes.