Topic: Lab Rat Data Processing, LLC (LabRatMining) Official Announcement - page 50. (Read 452224 times)

That's where my problem lies. There is no good reason for the 2 available camps to be defined the way they are. Are you familiar with the phrase "between a rock and a hard place"? Even if what you just wildly speculated is true it doesn't adequately answer the question. There is STILL no sufficient reason to steal the dividends of those that don't agree immediately. You are talking about the over all situation with the "bonus". I am specifically talking about the decision to not hold the bonus for an extra 2 weeks after May 10th (Besides, some investors may not be following this thread at the time. Why should they randomly lose their right to the bonus? I don't recall the original contract stating that you should be following this thread like a hawk if you don't want to lose your dividends).

The bonds being proportional or not have nothing to do with this. Still can't think of a logical reason?

Unfortunately I'm going to have to agree that the contract is way too arbitrary.

Regardless of if there's trust or not (and I do trust Zach) I would not sign a contract like that. There needs to be hard figures in there that somehow legally reflect what the intention of the original contract were.

The original contract said in no uncertain terms that our hashrate would grow proportional to the amount of "bonds" in circulation compared to the amount of hashrate LRM had from equipment purchased by the selling of additional bonds or by reinvestment. There was definitely a "minimum hashrate of 100MH" given but I can't see how that reflects a maximum which is trying to be portrayed currently.

Shareholders have also agreed to do a one time "2 Weeks of Mining on New Equipment" that seems to have been made permanent. It seems as this is a "Do or Die" situation that the company is in. Somehow the 25% isn't enough (Since there's no transparency on the accounting side we cannot be shown this to be true or false) I'd personally vote for this to be removed as the original contract did not include this.


I will say that I've personally met Zach and worked along side him putting up some of his mining equipment. He is a smart, hardworking, trustworthy guy but I'm not convinced that this contract is the best fit.

grnbrg.

Not true. I could make another User Account, sell him half of my contracts and i put each half in a different contract type

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHF9itPLUo4





grnbrg

Let me try to wild guess as you do:

If he can.. as he did, triplicate the total of contracts at will... didnt he do that?

Why not do that at will to match total hardware and avoid all this? i mean, he already did it, i know 3x contracts of what i had previously.

If we duplicate the speed, he just can assign new contracts to owners, shouldnt they be paid? yes... they were with the 25% and the weeks of mined coins, that can be easily done in the company finances.

Speak for yourself.  I plan on riding the line until 11:59 May 9th (EST).

I'm getting into deep water here...  What follows is my opinion, based on what Lab_Rat has posted, and having seen at least one episode of "Law & Order". (ie:  I'm not a lawyer, and may well be way off base, and this is in no way an "Official LRM Response".)

Lab_Rat has posted in general terms that the issue was due to problems with bonds being "proportional", and that in order to avoid issues, they needed to represent a fixed hash rate.  The solution to this problem is embodied in the new contract -- essentially a fixed hash rate, but with the option for LRM to issue at it's sole discretion "bonus hashrate".  Speculation on my part:  It may well be that if Lab_Rat makes any promises or representations about what this bonus is, or how it relates to hardware, or anything else then suddenly the contracts are (potentially) proportional again.  It's quite possible his lawyer has told him to say nothing about the bonus, period, for this reason.  End wild speculation.

And as a contract holder, you have to be in one camp or the other, not half-way between the two.


grnbrg.

Someone trustworthy will just publish the required information in a timely manner and will inform accurately about the progress of the bussiness overall. Right now we've no details at all, no information at all and weeks of silence.

I'd love to see him sailing around on a yacht... on his 25%... but the wording in the contract reads like someone setting up to rob us... wording of someone trustworthy and having issues, would be more like "I'm gonna have to split the fiat costs with you guys." or "I'm gonna publish a  month in advance what the split is" or whatever.

The contract is also basically saying "Last chance to sue", combined with a drastic erosion of trust of late, exacerbated with the virtual kick in the balls of failing to post the contract significantly in advance of the AMA, this is not looking good.

I'm trying to say what it looks like when you take off the dark rose tinted shades and get down to the bare bones, stripped of all the happy clappy optimism.

FWIW I have decided to convert to the new contracts and have already sent a signed message to that effect. This is not an ideal situation but the reality is that any judgement in a court of law will be 2 years down the line and in U.S.$, the reality is that even if Zach only pays out the bonus for a month or so, you will be  better off having those bitcoins and holding for 2 years than getting the U.S.$ in 2 years time.

1)  I think he has been doing his best to deal with the issues that were not foreseen in July last year in a way that A) Keeps him out of jail.  B) Fairly benefits the investors.  C) Keeps LRM operating.  And in that order, although B & C are closely related.
2) Overall, about what I expected.  I would have liked more detail on what hardware has been purchased, what has been delivered and what is yet undelivered (and when it is expected to arrive) but I didn't expect to hear that.  I have no "business" experience, but do understand that there are things that businesses keep confidential.  I also understand that he is limited in what he can comment on because "releasing information that is not mine to release would destroy relationships built with manufacturers".
3) In a perfect world, I would have preferred that a change in contract not have to occur.  Since it appears to be needed, then the new contract needs a start date.  Since (for better or worse) we now have all of the information we're going to get to make the choice, two weeks is not unreasonable.
4) I think if LRM fails it is far more likely going to be due to a lawsuit filed by investors who don't think they have been treated the way they thought they were going to be, than by Lab_Rat lining his pockets.  And if it does fail, I will be annoyed that yet another Bitcoin-related investment that I've tried my hand at has bitten me, but only annoyed.  I went into this with the attitude of "no more than I can afford to lose", and to date have seen at least some return on that investment. Admittedly less than "buy and hold", but I knew going in that this was going to be risky.  So as long as Lab_Rat isn't sailing around on a yacht that we bought (which I find highly unlikely) I'll chalk it up as an entertaining couple of years.

tl;dr In my opinion, I don't think Lab_Rat's intentions have changed since he started LRM, and I thought it was worth backing then.  I see no reason to do anything but continue forward. 

And the above is backed by ~1750 contracts.  I'd like to see some of the more negative posters volunteer how much skin they have in this game.  I know some of loudest have significant holdings, but not all of them.



grnbrg.

@grnbrg


1) So what do you think (honestly) about  the way Zach has been handling the situation? Are you comfortable with it?
2) Are you satisfied with the (lack of) answers we received at the AMA?
3) Do you think it's OK to steal the dividends of all the investors that don't have faith in the almighty lab_rat? Since when is skepticism supposed to be punished?
4) What do you plan on doing if Zach doesn't have your best interest in mind after all and decides to put his own interest before yours after you have lost all rights to your investment?

This guy doesn't seem to prefer veal either.

Time to put this lying scumbag in jail or at least the poor house. Fuck you Zach, you are a scammer plain and simple. Again, fuck you.

EDIT... OK, a little strong here    ... but it was the only thing I could think of to adequately express my displeasure on the current state of affairs... I retract the tone (but not the sentiment) of my hastily and ill-conceived post.

Yes, I'm in error, current market rate for 100Mh/s of cloud hashing is 23.5 cents per pbmining @ 0.0053/Gh and coindex price index at $444 at time of post.

Maybe I'm being irrational holding them, and even giving Zach this much chance to prove me wrong, but that's the rational value.

Let's do a quick summary of LRM communications since October...

LR: You guys will see 1 or 2Gh shortly, if I keep reinvesting that may get as big as 10Gh, 100Gh down the road!
LR: Lulz, I totally lied, you suckers are locked at 300Mh split to 3x 100.
LR: But if you trust me and sign your soul away on this new contract, I might give you a bit extra, if and when I feel like it, BTW, IT'S MINE ALL MINE MUHUHAHAHAAA!!!!

How much over 25c are you willing to pay for that?

If you're up for buying at that price, pbmining link is on left of my sig.

pass. tortured baby cow isn't really my bag.

the stench of tortured and betrayed investor doesn't really do much for the appetite anyway.

I'm here all week.

Try the veal!



grnbrg.