Topic: Lab Rat Data Processing, LLC (LabRatMining) Official Announcement - page 58. (Read 452224 times)
April 26, 2014, 04:35:23 AM
April 26, 2014, 04:16:54 AM
@Zach
1. Why was the original contract not posted at the same time as this new contract? You had plenty of time to ensure a copy of the file was on the appropriate computer.
2. Why when you changed the first contract to 100Mh/s fixed contracts from share of mining revenue contracts were we not given a new contract but when you change for a second time we are given a new contract?
3. Is it correct to assume that there was never a new contract for that change and that you decided at your own discretion to interpret the original contract as only needing to meet 100Mh/s to full fill your obligations? If so why should bondholders have any faith that you will act in a way commensurate with the original 'share of hashrate' contract manner going forward.
4. If you were in our position how would you feel about this change you are effectively forcing on people?
5. DO you believe that bondholders have a legitimate grievance?
6. Do you feel that you are currently acting in a manner consistent with the original goals of LRM as set out under the original 'share of hashrate' bonds?
7. Do you feel that refusing to disclose the legal issue surrounding this change is wise given that you only leave shareholders one line of recourse to find out the truth (legal discovery process)?
8. Do you feel that refusing to disclose the legal issues surrounding this change is wise considering that you told us you would disclose the legal issue as soon as you could?
9. Why should bondholders trust that you are going to act in good faith going forward and provide the bonus payments in line with the original 'share of hashrate' bonds that you sold us?
10. What date and time will you meet major shareholders for a conference call?
11. Why was it ok to split bonds from 300Mh/s to 3 x 100Mh/s but it would not be ok to do this again in the future? i.e. why can't the new 100Mh/s bonds increase to 300Mh/s and then be split again back to 100Mh/s and so on and so forth. I fit was legal to do this once surely the process is repeatable?
12. Can you see hwy it appears to most bondholders that you are trying to worm your way out of your obligations? What assurances can you give that this is not the case?
1. Why was the original contract not posted at the same time as this new contract? You had plenty of time to ensure a copy of the file was on the appropriate computer.
2. Why when you changed the first contract to 100Mh/s fixed contracts from share of mining revenue contracts were we not given a new contract but when you change for a second time we are given a new contract?
3. Is it correct to assume that there was never a new contract for that change and that you decided at your own discretion to interpret the original contract as only needing to meet 100Mh/s to full fill your obligations? If so why should bondholders have any faith that you will act in a way commensurate with the original 'share of hashrate' contract manner going forward.
4. If you were in our position how would you feel about this change you are effectively forcing on people?
5. DO you believe that bondholders have a legitimate grievance?
6. Do you feel that you are currently acting in a manner consistent with the original goals of LRM as set out under the original 'share of hashrate' bonds?
7. Do you feel that refusing to disclose the legal issue surrounding this change is wise given that you only leave shareholders one line of recourse to find out the truth (legal discovery process)?
8. Do you feel that refusing to disclose the legal issues surrounding this change is wise considering that you told us you would disclose the legal issue as soon as you could?
9. Why should bondholders trust that you are going to act in good faith going forward and provide the bonus payments in line with the original 'share of hashrate' bonds that you sold us?
10. What date and time will you meet major shareholders for a conference call?
11. Why was it ok to split bonds from 300Mh/s to 3 x 100Mh/s but it would not be ok to do this again in the future? i.e. why can't the new 100Mh/s bonds increase to 300Mh/s and then be split again back to 100Mh/s and so on and so forth. I fit was legal to do this once surely the process is repeatable?
12. Can you see hwy it appears to most bondholders that you are trying to worm your way out of your obligations? What assurances can you give that this is not the case?
April 26, 2014, 03:28:33 AM
LRM : Their is not a better way to cheat your investors out of their investments & gobble-up all the equipment & profits........ period.
Clearly you've never been a BFL customer. 
Oh I did pre-order few jalapenos & did find way to get my monie's refunded
I hope Zach is not set out to out do BFL in levels of screwing people over , I have to tell you though BFL_JOSH promoting LAB_Rat mining did struck to me as bit wired & worrying when I was about to invest in LRM , I wish I had followed my Intuition of not investing in LRM.
April 26, 2014, 03:21:56 AM
There are 100 better ways to overcome legal issues facing LRM which doesn't screw investors over & gift all our coins & mining equipment to Zach.
April 26, 2014, 01:39:37 AM
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.
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:
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.
Please contact me as soon as possible.
April 26, 2014, 01:37:39 AM
I request all the old contract holders to not accept the new contract , we need to fight for what belongs to us & not to teach any body any lessons on right or wrong , we just need to fight for our rights as share holders.
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.
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.
April 25, 2014, 11:44:05 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?
April 25, 2014, 09:50:48 PM
Even if LR is to be honorable the contract does nothing to assure that he will act in good faith. Initial contracts were sold on the promise of growth. True it was stated that contracts would be worth a minimum of 100MH/s and that benchmark was exceeded given the 3 way split. However, there was consistent representation over time from LR that we were growing to more and more MH/s.
Going back on that representation and not contractually assuring dividends from the growth that WE paid for is a betrayal to the initial contract holders. It betrays us in that the destiny of our contracts was misrepresented over the course of several Months. Our funds are not protected under contract to be used as WE intended under the terms originally agreed upon. It's a bait and switch to lock the hash rate.
Going back on that representation and not contractually assuring dividends from the growth that WE paid for is a betrayal to the initial contract holders. It betrays us in that the destiny of our contracts was misrepresented over the course of several Months. Our funds are not protected under contract to be used as WE intended under the terms originally agreed upon. It's a bait and switch to lock the hash rate.
This 1000 times. Many of us would not have continued investing if it weren't for the misrepresentation that the value of the bonds would continue to grow. To say that you fulfilled your obligation of providing at least 100 mhs is disingenuous at best after spending months telling us about all the hardware that would soon be arriving and the deals you were making to increase the hashrate.
April 25, 2014, 09:31:51 PM
LRM : Their is not a better way to cheat your investors out of their investments & gobble-up all the equipment & profits........ period.
Clearly you've never been a BFL customer. On an unrelated note... I think I mentioned a while back that I'm planning a trip to Washington DC in late May. And if I haven't I just did.
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?
Fair warning: The trip already booked, and unrelated to Lab_Rat and LRM. I won't be able to post any images before May 31st.
grnbrg.
Edit to add: With a real camera -- 20 Mpix Canon 70D. No EXIF location data, though.
April 25, 2014, 09:21:52 PM
Guys either ways new contract or old contract Zach is asking us to bend over .... we are not going to see any of our invested coins back , I think we should team-up & sue this mofo.
Surely "old contract" means the contract that existed before the purported unilateral change to fixed 100MH/s on March 18.Lab Rat - can you clarify?
I bought contracts priced at and based on a % share of mining proceeds subject to costs and reinvestment. I did not buy contracts for returns based on a fixed hashrate, discretionary bonus or not.
April 25, 2014, 09:18:59 PM
LRM : Their is not a better way to cheat your investors out of their investments & gobble-up all the equipment & profits........ period.
April 25, 2014, 09:12:10 PM
So to clarify, holders of original bonds are locked at 300Mh now? Then if "upgraded" to new contract they get 3 for 1 split at 100Mh each plus bonus which is depending on how much mine is costing to run and expand etc.
The effective rate of original contract holders is 300MH/s which is being paid at 100MH/s per contract due to the 3:1 split. Whomever goes to the new contracts, will receive 1 new contract for each current contract they currently hold. EX: If you hold 100 contracts currently, you will receive 100 new contracts at 100MH/s + bonus. The bonus will be based upon the then available funds to pay it.
I'm confused.
Assuming 100 "original" contracts:
Option 1:
They get converted to 300 "original" contracts with 100 MH/s each and not a hash more.
Option 2:
They get converted to 200 "new" contracts with 100 MH/s each with potential variable growth on top of the guaranteed hash rate.
Unless I'm misreading LabRat, something doesn't quite add up.
From what I understood both before and after you have 100 bonds at 100MH/s each, if you convert them however you get the discretionary bonus option.
April 25, 2014, 08:55:06 PM
How does LRM come to conclusion that we have over achieved the purpose of orignal contract @ 300mh/s per bond. Stop pulling stuff out of your ass Zach.
Why is the new contract limiting each bond to 100Mh/s per bond & not 500 mh/s or more per bond to begin with as base hash rate....... this all sounds messed-up.
If any one believes they will get expected hashrate equivalent payed out as bonus under new contract , u are smoking dam good shit , once any original contract holder conforms to switch over to new bonds you don't have any more rights & are at sole discretion & mercy of LRM.
Why is the new contract limiting each bond to 100Mh/s per bond & not 500 mh/s or more per bond to begin with as base hash rate....... this all sounds messed-up.
If any one believes they will get expected hashrate equivalent payed out as bonus under new contract , u are smoking dam good shit , once any original contract holder conforms to switch over to new bonds you don't have any more rights & are at sole discretion & mercy of LRM.
April 25, 2014, 08:42:45 PM
Guys either ways new contract or old contract Zach is asking us to bend over .... we are not going to see any of our invested coins back , I think we should team-up & sue this mofo.
April 25, 2014, 08:35:23 PM
So to clarify, holders of original bonds are locked at 300Mh now? Then if "upgraded" to new contract they get 3 for 1 split at 100Mh each plus bonus which is depending on how much mine is costing to run and expand etc.
The effective rate of original contract holders is 300MH/s which is being paid at 100MH/s per contract due to the 3:1 split. Whomever goes to the new contracts, will receive 1 new contract for each current contract they currently hold. EX: If you hold 100 contracts currently, you will receive 100 new contracts at 100MH/s + bonus. The bonus will be based upon the then available funds to pay it.
I'm confused.
Assuming 100 "original" contracts:
Option 1:
They get converted to 300 "original" contracts with 100 MH/s each and not a hash more.
Option 2:
They get converted to 200 "new" contracts with 100 MH/s each with potential variable growth on top of the guaranteed hash rate.
Unless I'm misreading LabRat, something doesn't quite add up.
April 25, 2014, 08:09:16 PM
My guess is you are having heat problems. It's going to get much much hotter this summer.
Well he did say the AC busted.... which might not have happened in the hot weather strangely enough, AC that isn't designed to run year round (as in different seasons rather than constantly warm tropics) will tend to freeze up it's coils when the air is below 45ish outside, which can be damaging...
April 25, 2014, 08:06:10 PM
Isn't it about 150TH, not ~5-7?
Nope. Labrat said that 55% of the BitFury gear is up and running already. The current total hashrate is only 17TH, half of which is BFL gear. So that must mean that about 5-7TH of Bitfury gear is left to install.
I think Labrat bought 100 Monarchs.
That hashrate hasn't budged in months so I'm fairly confident it doesn't included the BitFury gear. Effectively there should be around 25TH online but 17-18 of it is at cex.io.
April 25, 2014, 06:30:18 PM
I sincerely hope I'm wrong, but I see the "choice" LR has given us as a false choice. 
We either accept the change he forced upon us when he went from proportional bonds to fixed bonds (with no contract in the interim) -OR- we accept the new contract with the exact same fixed bonds & a nebulous promise of an optional "bonus".
I reject both options. Nowhere in any of this were we given the choice of receiving anything like the original proportional bonds. This is IMHO, an illegal unilateral contract change. I am not a lawyer, but I do know that even unilateral modifications are not supposed to alter the "material or important terms of the original contract". Going from the original proportional-shares model to either of the other two options DO constitute important changes in conflict with the original expressed intent of the company.
Give me a contract (and bonds) which honor the original promise of steadily increasing hashrate thru reinvestment.
We either accept the change he forced upon us when he went from proportional bonds to fixed bonds (with no contract in the interim) -OR- we accept the new contract with the exact same fixed bonds & a nebulous promise of an optional "bonus".
I reject both options. Nowhere in any of this were we given the choice of receiving anything like the original proportional bonds. This is IMHO, an illegal unilateral contract change. I am not a lawyer, but I do know that even unilateral modifications are not supposed to alter the "material or important terms of the original contract". Going from the original proportional-shares model to either of the other two options DO constitute important changes in conflict with the original expressed intent of the company.
Give me a contract (and bonds) which honor the original promise of steadily increasing hashrate thru reinvestment.
April 25, 2014, 05:26:35 PM
Yes, that is how I interpreted it, but that relies on placing trust in a benevolent Lab_Rat who will do what will most benefit the contract holders. The new contract is a huge step backward from what little transparency we did have. I personally think Lab_Rat is more likely than a lot of people to willingly pay out a very large portion of mined bitcoin over and above the contracted rate, however, I do not like the lack of guarantees. The new contract basically reads "100MH/s plus bonus at LR's discretion". I personally think it is likely the "bonus" will consistently be nice and significantly higher than 100MH/s, but there is nothing to prevent LR from having a bad week, going on a coke binge using what would otherwise be bonus bitcoin, waking up on a beach in a singlet somewhere, and paying out just 100MH/s per contract, and we would have zero recourse and zero knowledge there ever was a pool of bitcoins that could have been used as a bonus. This seems like a huge departure from the spirit of the original contract. Worse, LR can't even say what he really intends to do because of legal liabilities. Maybe he intends to payout a bonus regularly every week based on actual mined bitcoin, but he can't say that is what he intends to do one way or the other because of legal concerns.
I would have much rather seen contracts that split to accommodate increased hashrate rather than relying on fixed + bonus.
Will have to think on this more and read what others are thinking.
I really hope the benevolent Lab_Rat you speak of rears his head very soon. I'm negative about the lack of guaranteed bonus the contracts specify. However, LR has acted in good faith on several occasions. Some nice bonus dividends would go a long way to averting legal action on the part of contract holders. As things stand on paper I have no doubt there are several here ready to pursue legal remedies should dividends under new contract stay around the 100MH/s rate.
Jump to: