Unless you have reason to think these one or two people selling a lot of shares has insider information, then don't worry about why they are selling.
These events that have happened lately - like Bitfunder - are not changes in the basic fundamentals of Labrat.
what are the fundamentals of LRM? have you seen a balance sheet or income statement?
Of course I'm not thinking about fundamentals in that sense of detail or transparency. I would assume most of everyone here knew that Labrat wasn't transparent on financial data. I was making the point that there is no special new information about fundamental information - that could affect revenue - that we already know or have been told.
For example: Labrat hasn't changed any projections in the past couple weeks. Ordered hardware has had no good or bad updates. Difficulty is going up as always expected. Bitcoin is on the incline, but still in the same ball park as it has been for the past month. So..in THAT SENSE.. fundamentals haven't really changed (much). And seeing a lot of selling doesn't mean any of these (or one's we are not aware of) have necessarily changed - which is why I made that comment.
So, if a person was happy about LRM potential, by what they knew a week ago, then I'd say there is no obvious significant changes to cause one to feel any different now about potential. They'd more likely have to form a new different opinion from the same information.
see my post as to the mathematical projections. That math explains that the drop could have happened without btifunder's problems if investors lost faith in LRM.
In addition to that math (disclosed hashrate projects and difficulty increases) there are big fundamental changes that make people feel different about the potential:
1) people less than 20 shares no longer receive dividends. that is temporary, but such a decision caused a large loss of confidence in management. The shares are worthless without reliable dividends.
2) everyone else has to pay a new fee of a minimum 0.025 per account, perhaps as much as 0.075 per account. again temporary, but investors think it is outrageous and no longer want to be a part of it.
3) transaction fees now have to paid for by investors, and are projected to be 0.0005 per account per week. Small, but investors are losing faith.
Since there are no financial disclosures, board of directors, or real assets, this entire security is based on "trust that zach will buy the right hardware and keep paying dividends." Once the trust is gone, the security isn't based on anything.
EDIT: Although illegal if this was a real security, one could imagine implementing 1-3 above to purposefully drive down the price so you can buy back the proceeds from the hardware yourself. That would be brilliant! Make other people buy you hardware and promise them the proceeds, then drive down the exchangeable price of the hardware, the buy back the rights to dividends below the cost of the hardware!