Lab Rat Data Processing, LLC (LabRatMining) Official Announcement - page 57.

mrstef

newbie

Activity: 40

Merit: 0

I was just about to post that very thing...

The company line from the AMA has been (as I understand it) : "Choose to take the new contract, or choose to keep the original contract, no legal advice will be provided to inform that decision."

But the original contract is no longer available, considering it's been modified to reflect the capped 100MH/s hash rate... so really, we're only able to choose between contract v1.5 and contract v2...

How do we, as investors/clients reconcile this choice? It hardly seems like one at all.

The original contract (v1) clearly states that individual bond hashrate will increase as new hardware is available. Stop saying we have a choice of our contracts. As far as I understand, we only have the choice between the recently modified contact, and the new contract.

Quote

50,000 bonds will be put up for sale @0.25BTC/bond or market value +-5% at the time of the bonds being issued, whichever is of greater value. This installment will add at least 15TH/s to the companies mining operation, and with it will follow an increase in dividend payout to a minimum of 166.67MH/s per bond (this may increase depending on company expansion). This not only gives the new investors an increase in dividend payment, but gives greater benefits to the initial and early investors.

It is intended the third installment will likely mimic the second installment thereby potentially increasing the company’s total hashrate to 40+TH/s which will in turn bump the dividend payout to 200+MH/s per share. All the forgoing and following estimates presume a fully sold out bond/contract offering and returns for mining based on certain historical data for returns of similar operations.

It is intended installments in the operation will continue to occur which will provide more value to the company as well as more value to each individual bond as the company matures. These expansions, if they occur, will likely grow the company and our mining capacity in size which will provide further expanded payouts in the form of dividends (or increased dividends to investors). It is currently intended a portion of the money the company receives in revenue from bond sales and mining will be used to expand the operation which will further increase dividends per bond. It is currently intended the company will be adding to the bondholders hashrate on a regular basis as the company expands so one should expect to receive greater dividends than those explained above.
Source: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/lab-rat-data-processing-llc-labratmining-official-announcement-251423

Let's find a different solution here, or call it what it is and stop pretending we have a choice at all.

mboehler

member

Activity: 68

Merit: 10

Lab_Rat

hero member

Activity: 599

Merit: 502

Token/ICO management

Quote from: Ashitank on April 26, 2014, 09:09:06 AM

With whos permission was the original contract modified ? Doesn't Lab_Rat need share holder consent to do so, Please advise if otherwise stated so any where.

The original contract was not modified. It will be posted shortly. The payout structure was modified to fit to the original contract.

A quick cover in plain English rather than Legal terminology.

Dividends -> Distributions
Bonds -> Contracts
Investors -> Contract Holders or Customers

Original Contract (was never changed):
Vague
100MH/s minimum
Does not allow for anything more

New Contract:
Clear
Structured
Payout explained in detail
100MH/s + bonus (which allows for growth)
Added refund policy for new purchases

I have not taken any rights away from anyone. Nothing at all has changed except the Original Contract has been cleaned up and clarified in the New Contract. This payout has ALWAYS been trust based... I never have legally been obligated to pay more than 100MH/s, and you will clearly see that in the Original Contract when posted shortly. I'm running out to check up on the hardware hashing for you (the Contract Holders) which I find much more important than arguing with trolls spreading FUD on the forums.

PS The dividends will be a few hours late but will be paid out in a few. Just a warning so no one accuses LRM of not paying them out.

drdops

full member

Activity: 144

Merit: 100

Quote from: karusloom on April 26, 2014, 01:39:37 AM

Quote from: countduckula on April 25, 2014, 11:48:37 PM

Ok, after all this BS that we got forced to read and see.

Who's starting the lawsuit to dismantle LRM and prosecute Mr. Lab_Rat for fraud, breaching of contract, and any other goodies he put himself into?

I'm in.

This was the original offering:
Of the hardware bought, 25% will be for the company, and mine for expenses and new hardware acquisitions. The remaining 75% will pay customer dividends.-

Any way to twist wording to make it appear like you're the saint and saviour offering 300mhz its just a shovel of dirt in your head.

+1 for lawsuit unless:

Quote from: karusloom on April 25, 2014, 05:01:06 PM

LabRat im not asking you to return my BTC but i'd like to get the equivalent amount of bitfury mining gear, so i have 162 shares and i bought them @ 0,15 per pc, that makes 24,3 BTC. Taking todays Bitstamp rate its approx 11k dollars which when looking at bitfuryin price in EU would be about 2,5TH worth of mining gear so you would only have to send me 6 bitfury full kits (H-cards x16, motherboard, rasp, sd card) x6.

Please contact me as soon as possible.

also +1 for lawsuit unless above . ( I too have 160 shares- so I will take approx 2.5TH bitfury gear).
He really did come across as a genuine guy- it felt like such a sound investment. I guess greed got the better of him. You let us down Zach.

mmmerlin

sr. member

Activity: 266

Merit: 250

Quote from: pontikis13 on April 26, 2014, 06:12:04 AM

On a more serious note this situation is a false dichotomy.

Zach is creating the illusion that there are only 2 options for bondholders to chose between. He has named his recent contract change to capped bonds "the original contract" and is claiming that we must chose between the new contract where we have zero guarantees of any sort and the "original" contract which is NOT the original contract.

The refusal to justify any of his scammy behavior by claiming he does not provide legal advice is just comical.

As is already evident by his previous lack of accountability with the 2 week mining for hardware period being extended to pretty much whatever he pleased despite what was agreed upon, unnecessary complete lack of communication, affiliation with BFL, false claims of moving the asset to an exchange, not posting the new contract until the AMA had already started, complete lack of transparency and refusal to answer any meaningful questions it's becoming obvious to almost all of us that Zach cannot be trusted.

As time is progressing Zach is somehow finding him self in control of more and more of our money and we bondholders are finding ourselves in control of less and less of our original investment.

Do we really want to hand over absolute power to this thus far very flaky unreliable person with the knowledge that accepting this false dichotomy may very well be the last we ever see of our money and the beginning of a new very wealthy life for the person that has been deceiving us?

As more and more people are realising and pointing out, this is the pertinent point here. Some have called it the "bait and switch", but I think that the phrase "false dichotomy" describes it very accurately. This new contract is being offered to obscure the previous unilateral change to fixed rate contracts which broke the spirit of the original agreement.

The fact that bonds were going to be proportional was represented until very recently, and saying that the original contract never guaranteed that is disingenuous at best, and criminal at worst.

On top of everything else, ask yourself this: if the contracts were always going to be fixed to 100MH/s (or 300MH/s) , why would he expect that anyone would consent to hold back mined coins for reinvestment if rates are fixed? Clearly this is money comes out of investors' pockets, and a fixed rate contract guarantees that it will never be recouped, by definition. At the time, a poll was taken and a >50% majority decision was reached where this was considered a good idea for everyone, but not a single one of those people would have thought that to be a good idea if bondholders were not going to profit from that reinvestment.

This is just one of numerous examples showing that Zach, many months after the "IPO", knew what the spirit of the original agreement was and was intending to keep to that. Then suddenly something changed, and now we are being offered a "choice" to mask the fact that this was ever the case, along with the option to waive any rights we had under the actual original agreement.

It has been a long wait but the cards are finally down, all that remains to be seen is how the dust settles.

Ashitank

hero member

Activity: 560

Merit: 500

Quote from: PoUpA on April 26, 2014, 09:16:47 AM

I should have been greedy too and didn't return the extra dividends and sold my "contracts" directly ...
Lab_rat can you give a a way to go out of this mess ? are you planning to buy back contracts something like IPO price - dividends ? (if you don't got the BTC refund your BFL crap)

I got BFLed, goxxed and now lab_rated...

lol , +1 same here , ahahhaah

PoUpA

member

Activity: 93

Merit: 10

I should have been greedy too and didn't return the extra dividends and sold my "contracts" directly ...
Lab_rat can you give a a way to go out of this mess ? are you planning to buy back contracts something like IPO price - dividends ? (if you don't got the BTC refund your BFL crap)

I got BFLed, goxxed and now lab_rated...

Ashitank

hero member

Activity: 560

Merit: 500

With whos permission was the original contract modified ? Doesn't Lab_Rat need share holder consent to do so, Please advise if otherwise stated so any where.

DemocraticRepublicOfDave

member

Activity: 77

Merit: 10

Hi All,

My first thoughts. I found it interesting that at the AMA LabRat refused to answer any legal questions, despite the Lawyer being present (wasn't this what he/she was there to do)?

Also we still can't nail down the exact hashing figures for now, plus (rough) estimated projections for next week/month/3 months.

Won't be able to fully digest the new contract until early next week, and it may take a while as I am used to English Law contracts, not US law ones (but I'm a quick learner). However on the face of it, it looks like a much more professional contract than the one previously offered (regardless of the content - re. contract reorganisation).

EDIT : Whether I agree to the new contract is another matter however.

Cheers

Dave

Ashitank

hero member

Activity: 560

Merit: 500

Quote from: Komodorpudel on April 26, 2014, 06:10:17 AM

Does anyone believe that LabRat will ever deliver this so called "bonus"??

Not even Gandhi would fall for such trickery.

Ashitank

hero member

Activity: 560

Merit: 500

Quote from: pontikis13 on April 26, 2014, 06:12:04 AM

On a more serious note this situation is a false dichotomy.

Zach is creating the illusion that there are only 2 options for bondholders to chose between. He has named his recent contract change to capped bonds "the original contract" and is claiming that we must chose between the new contract where we have zero guarantees of any sort and the "original" contract which is NOT the original contract.

The refusal to justify any of his scammy behavior by claiming he does not provide legal advice is just comical.

As is already evident by his previous lack of accountability with the 2 week mining for hardware period being extended to pretty much whatever he pleased despite what was agreed upon, unnecessary complete lack of communication, affiliation with BFL, false claims of moving the asset to an exchange, not posting the new contract until the AMA had already started, complete lack of transparency and refusal to answer any meaningful questions it's becoming obvious to almost all of us that Zach cannot be trusted.

As time is progressing Zach is somehow finding him self in control of more and more of our money and we bondholders are finding ourselves in control of less and less of our original investment.

Do we really want to hand over absolute power to this thus far very flaky unreliable person with the knowledge that accepting this false dichotomy may very well be the last we ever see of our money and the beginning of a new very wealthy life for the person that has been deceiving us?

Bingo ! I agree whole heatedly , either Zach better start to pay us what we deserve or he can fight a legal battle with the Bozo stupid lawyer he has which increases his chances of wining by -100%.

I think if we try we will find lots of people in community here who will come forward to help us Peruse legal course of action.

Or May be Zach can work on a better contract & in mean time start paying us dividends we deserve right fucking now !

daemonfox

hero member

Activity: 630

Merit: 500

Quote from: Blazed on April 26, 2014, 07:10:18 AM

I am still amazed that anyone would invest into BFL that much Roll Eyes

It astounds me that LRMs lawyer thinks this is legal...

Zach priced BONDS of the original contract in BTC and NEVER based that on a USD price. Dividends were always paid in BTC and NEVER tied to a USD price in any documented form. Just because mining equipment is priced in USD, and BTC price rising means the BTC price per unit scales down, does not mean we are entitled to any less equipment than what could be purchased with the total amount of BTC Zach held from bond purchases AND the mining periods he forced on us.

There is no way Zach paid for the Bitfury gear before the price boom in November... and EVERY last piece of equipment he can purchase with LRM funds to date belongs to us, no matter how he tries to spin it.

Look at it this way... where else could funds have come from that LRM has used or holds? No where... it is all from bonds sold, mining income and the increased value of BTC to date. By the time he had to pay for Bitfury gear... he could have paid at a 6-12 times increased BTC value from when he took in all the BTC... and even today would have paid with BTC at 5-6 times the value as when he sold us bonds.

There is no reason to cap our bonds... all incoming hashrate belongs to the bond holders... and any attempt to sell future bonds is a breach of contract because LRM will be taking in funds for equipment we already paid for and should be paying out to us.

LR, your solution is terrible and ILLEGAL, your lawyer is a fraud, and you are about to be sued... even if it is our funds you use to pay for the lawyer... LRM is finished unless you act now to end this farce.

JUST BECAUSE BTC VALUE ROSE DOES NOT MEAN YOU GET TO KEEP IT UNDER THE TERMS YOU INITIALLY SOLD US BONDS UNDER! YOU OWE US THAT EQUIPMENT TO MINE AND PAY US !

Blazed

legendary

Activity: 2128

Merit: 1119

I am still amazed that anyone would invest into BFL that much Roll Eyes

ksenter

member

Activity: 90

Merit: 10

Quote from: pontikis13 on April 26, 2014, 06:12:04 AM

On a more serious note this situation is a false dichotomy.

Zach is creating the illusion that there are only 2 options for bondholders to chose between. He has named his recent contract change to capped bonds "the original contract" and is claiming that we must chose between the new contract where we have zero guarantees of any sort and the "original" contract which is NOT the original contract.

The refusal to justify any of his scammy behavior by claiming he does not provide legal advice is just comical.

As is already evident by his previous lack of accountability with the 2 week mining for hardware period being extended to pretty much whatever he pleased despite what was agreed upon, unnecessary complete lack of communication, affiliation with BFL, false claims of moving the asset to an exchange, not posting the new contract until the AMA had already started, complete lack of transparency and refusal to answer any meaningful questions it's becoming obvious to almost all of us that Zach cannot be trusted.

As time is progressing Zach is somehow finding him self in control of more and more of our money and we bondholders are finding ourselves in control of less and less of our original investment.

Do we really want to hand over absolute power to this thus far very flaky unreliable person with the knowledge that accepting this false dichotomy may very well be the last we ever see of our money and the beginning of a new very wealthy life for the person that has been deceiving us?

Wholeheartedly agree.

mOomOo

jr. member

Activity: 45

Merit: 3

Well that AMA was a complete and udder waste of everyone's time. What a joke. It is not legal "advice" to state what the legal problem is and what law is stopping you from keeping the original contract in order. (by original, I mean the original proportional contract, not the sudo original that is fixed).

As you have stated you would use OUR funds to pay for lawyers etc. So why can't their advise be shared with everyone. We helped pay for it, so what's the god damn problem. (Correct me if I'm wrong but... AMA = Ask Me Anything? Well.... seems like we can ask what we like, but you don't have to answer shit)

I was sold on your investment by not having to look after my own mining equipment and it was the equivalent of a set and forget setup. I have wasted more time following this forum than I did by following BFL's notorious 2 weeks when I had equipment with them. And to be honest, I got more information from BFL's announcements... Can't believe that this AMA wasn't even announced by email, Twitter or on the website...

I'm not a big investor, but I'm standing up and stating that I am happy to go along with any party who is going to be pursuing legal actions.

Mad CoW... out...

pontikis13

newbie

Activity: 53

Merit: 0

On a more serious note this situation is a false dichotomy.

Zach is creating the illusion that there are only 2 options for bondholders to chose between. He has named his recent contract change to capped bonds "the original contract" and is claiming that we must chose between the new contract where we have zero guarantees of any sort and the "original" contract which is NOT the original contract.

The refusal to justify any of his scammy behavior by claiming he does not provide legal advice is just comical.

As is already evident by his previous lack of accountability with the 2 week mining for hardware period being extended to pretty much whatever he pleased despite what was agreed upon, unnecessary complete lack of communication, affiliation with BFL, false claims of moving the asset to an exchange, not posting the new contract until the AMA had already started, complete lack of transparency and refusal to answer any meaningful questions it's becoming obvious to almost all of us that Zach cannot be trusted.

As time is progressing Zach is somehow finding him self in control of more and more of our money and we bondholders are finding ourselves in control of less and less of our original investment.

Do we really want to hand over absolute power to this thus far very flaky unreliable person with the knowledge that accepting this false dichotomy may very well be the last we ever see of our money and the beginning of a new very wealthy life for the person that has been deceiving us?

Komodorpudel

full member

Activity: 137

Merit: 100

Does anyone believe that LabRat will ever deliver this so called "bonus"??

Frankthechicken

member

Activity: 112

Merit: 10

Quote from: smracer on April 25, 2014, 11:44:05 PM

Quote from: grnbrg on April 25, 2014, 09:31:51 PM

I'll be within day-tripping distance of Lab_Rat, and there have been requests for photo documentation of the LRM datacentres. I'm given to understand that two of the three DCs are visitable. (With the third being in another state, across the country...) If I post a bunch of pictures from these two DCs, will this satisfy those who are asking? Or am I too close to LRM, and too potentially biased?

Why in the world do you need 3 DC's for 17TH?

Because it's NOT just 17TH! 17.7TH is "contracted". There were 23.6 or so TH running before the 2nd batch of bitfury gear came in, which was supposed to be around 150TH, of which about 55% is online judging by LR's comments meaning LRM is running at about 106TH and will grow to about 173 or more TH and if you add in the Monarchs at the low end estimate close to 200TH and at the high end 225TH. If anyone would like to correct those numbers, please feel free, but I feel pretty confident those numbers are fairly accurate.

Starting to question why you'd blindly repeat this 17TH number again and again.

pontikis13

newbie

Activity: 53

Merit: 0

Bob borrows money from Sally and agrees to pay Sally back in 1 month.

1 month passes and Sally asks Bob to return the borrowed money.

Sally: Where is my money?

Bob: I have decided not to pay you back because of some unknown law.

Sally: What law?

Bob: "We" do not provide legal advice. BUT you will be able to not receive your money at no additional cost.

Sally: wtf?

Bob: Rofl pwned n00b!

PoUpA

member

Activity: 93

Merit: 10

And I thought that my BFL 25GH was a bad investment...

Topic: Lab Rat Data Processing, LLC (LabRatMining) Official Announcement - page 57. (Read 452224 times)