Topic: Lab Rat Data Processing, LLC (LabRatMining) Official Announcement - page 249. (Read 452188 times)

Put another 1k bonds up for sale split between 0.2 and 0.225.

Those bondholders happened to purchase bonds and receive some from hardware, so those bonds were not "given away."

Most individuals who are looking to sell hardware for bonds have some money on the side and are looking to further their investment in the company.  There will be a very nice hike in hashrate again this week and nothing is paid for until received.

Were currently at ~2.7TH with some issues on Singles (being RMA'ed) so with the newly acquired singles and expected hardware 4TH should be very easily a possibility and might I add that Dave is going to be pointing some additional hashrate at LRM very soon!!!

Hi Labrat,

Can you divulge how much hashing we acquired for giving away 1789 BTC($232,000) worth of bonds?

LabRatMining   5,087   18whVGfLcTnXva7rFGqwr6DkW1RzS3zJb1
LabRatMining   4,091   1EGiTu5sz89jjvcoy2FdQNpuks3sPTNn8q

I know a miner in the hand is worth 2 in the bush but from my napkin calculations we should have over 4 th for this give away.  I would also assume you would only pay out once the miners have been received and not before?

Thanks

Lol, I have seen him post perfectly reasonable and sometimes rather insightful things. He may have a bit of an acid tongue on him at times (perhaps a bit of an understatement), but be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath-water...

I agree with much of what you are saying, but I was being reticent before and left myself a little open to attack; most of the obligations are pretty clearly defined in the contracts that were signed.

Out of interest though, who are the "known shills" you are referring to?

Feel free to PM if you don't want to call people out in public, though I have a feeling this is not something you're going to be too worried about

There's no such thing as a vague contract, just as there's no such thing as an "at least some obligation", just as the processed pink swill formed into patties and sold at McDonald's isn't chicken, just as your feelings about how some guy is nice has exactly zero to do with securities.

There is one, and only one reason to continue putting money into crap like this, and it's not some notion that people won't fuck up because they're afraid of being "sued". It's not the "analyses" of known shills. It is laziness.

Pure and simple. There is no other reason to eschew actual contracts crafted by the actually transparent, there is no other reason to "invest" based on politeness and pictures. Save that shit for McDonald's, because at least there you're making YOURSELF fat, you're making YOURSELF sick.

By being freely and cluelessly lazy in Bitcoin you're strictly sending one message to the world: Bitcoin isn't real, it isn't good, and it's not worth fighting for, it's just another vat of pink goop we're going to suck in 'til the whole mess is so full of bullshit Nanny will have to come and "regulate" it for "our own protection."

Considering you have been sitting on most of the bitcoins raised, that bitcoin value has gone up mostly since fund raising, and that your plan has apparently been to place a very large order next week for October delivery (hopefully). Then it makes sense that you would not want to spend bitcoins on in-hand asic hardware.

Assuming you can get institutional pricing, raised funds could go even further pound for pound than if a bunch of 28nm pre-orders were placed a month ago. And I suspect leveraging is likely because of the reason I have come to change my mind on buying any asic hardware personally - the numbers just aren't looking that good unless you can get institutional pricing. Retail level mining might double your investment in 6 to 10 months, but only if you can get a product cheap enough and soon enough. An institutional purchase seems like it would have at least half of that covered with quantity purchasing power. And going with a product that is delivering now makes up for the other half of the equation.

I admit to being optimistic. My prior calculations came up with a potential estimate of 0.0050337BTC/week in dividends by December. So, if you bought bonds now around 0.20, you'd be seeing a weekly return of (0.0050337/0.2)*100% = 2.5%/week which is 130% annualized (without compounding)  ... I could have missed a factor that makes it all a loss. But it would be pretty nice if it all works.

Even if that level is reached, the problem then will be sustaining that performance against the network.

Bitfinder does list how many outstanding shares are out there: https://bitfunder.com/asset/LabRatMining (under "Profile" tab) and this # has not changed since the dividends were paid out. I hope there is no hidden pool of bonds outside if bitfunder, right?

Interesting facts about LBM shareholders:
- There 400 LBM shareholders
- Top 10 shareholders have 21844 shares (46%)
- 173 shareholders are holding 10 or less shares for a total of 813 shares (1.75% of all shares)
- 90% of all shares are held by 22.75% of shareholders (91 people)

Yes I am trading bonds for hardware, but nothing close to the ridiculous prices you find on eBay or BCT.org  There have been a few private sales, but nothing under market yet as I'm, for the time being, offering a deal to large purchasers.  No one has taken me up on that offer yet, but I have a feeling there are a few people out there that are interested.

Not speaking for Labrat, but I know for a fact that these bond sales are specifically for the purpose of purchasing hardware from individuals (they were paid in bonds). This is reason that hash rate is rising so fast and I think is a genius way to go about it. Anyone who is selling their mining gear to LRM in exchange for bonds clearly has a vested interest in the future success of the company. I trust Zachary to ensure that these purchases are not made at too great a cost. Like anyone else who is waiting on gear to deliver, I know all to well the value of hashing power today versus hashing power "Coming Soon" 

Hi Labrat,

Are you going to declare when you make private sales of shares?  My main concern is that you could sell the shares privately for an undisclosed amount and massively devalue our share holdings without us knowing.  I have a record of the shares held per key and I have seen two new holders in the last few days(these were not there last week as per my records).

LabRatMining   5,087   18whVGfLcTnXva7rFGqwr6DkW1RzS3zJb1
LabRatMining   2,491   1EGiTu5sz89jjvcoy2FdQNpuks3sPTNn8q

I have not seen this amount traded on Bitfunder? At the current rate this is worth aprox 1500 btc!

If these were bought at market rate then this is good news and should mean a massive increase in hashing power even if we do take a bit hit per dividend in the short term.

I guess some more transparency in sales outside of Bitfunder would be nice otherwise I am left to speculate about this...

LabRat is a real pro.

I know my bonds and bitcoins are in the right hands

All speculation here is absolutely laughtable.
Thin foil hat style.

Bonds market ? no ? anyone ?

We have some players in this kind of market, who make Day-trading.
Buying at 0.15 cashout at 0.22.
Profit ? almost 45%...45% ! (in few days).

If you know how Exchange market and all the derivative products works, this kind of movement is pretty usual.
Some are for the short run...other for the long

In others words : Cheap LRM bonds !!! Time to buy more

I don't think anyone was doubting you, just speculating. This is bitcointalk.org after all 

As far as the panic sale last night, it looks to me like someone may have been spooked by Lab Rat's announcement of further share issuance, even though that's always been the plan.

There were some panic selloffs in other stocks too, so an alternate explanation is that someone was trying to free up capital for one of the many IPO's coming up.

Of course, these things are magnified by low liquidity and thin order books, and that problem will likely get worse as more companies offer shares. There are only so many BTC playing in these equity / bond markets. A strong stomach is definitely an asset in this game.

I can assure you I have left enough cushion to keep the company running for a long time.  I left this cushion to ensure the stability of the company while it is getting going, and once stable the cushion will be used to purchase further hardware.

I have showed my honesty by securing hardware and paying out dividends at a rate faster than the growth of difficulty, so if you choose not to believe my words still, just wait and see as the company grows.  I have secured multiple TH with more on the way and a large deal in the works to launch LRM far past the 10TH guaranteed minimum.  I'm excited to see where this goes and hope other people are as excited as I am.

Yeah, that's probably fair... 

I know he's honest and is working hard, I really don't think he'll close up shop -- it's just that our contracts are solely backed by the good will and faith of LabRat. If he has financial problems and the business model is not sustainable, we won't see it coming. I've seen so many start-ups with good intentions run by good people fail, even with proper checks and transparency. I'm confident he knows about bitcoin, mining, how to get hardware -- but running a sustainable business is something else. This model is something a VC wouldn't go anywhere near (the way the bonds are currently structured), but might work out well for investors anyways...

BTW, suing won't do anything if an LLC goes bankrupt... Those laws you think are protecting you are actually protecting LabRat, you are an unsecured creditor...

Yeah, pretty confusing behaviour... There's only 10 people who it could be, but sadly they are pseudonymous...

Strange huh!

It's not as bad as you make out, though I totally understand where you're coming from.

He's a real person (identity known) incorporated as a real company in a country with functioning legal system operating in a field in which the last thing he wants is to attract legal enquiry.

He won't stop paying dividends because a) he is honest, but also b) it really wouldn't be in his best interests. Contracts have been posted online and in person outlining at least some obligations, however vague they may be stated. The last thing he wants is hundreds of angry bitcoiners sueing him. The lack of transparency is a complex issue with two sides to it, and I understand your concern, but as far as him just shutting up shop and there being nothing that could be done about it, that's really not a problem.