Topic: Lab Rat Data Processing, LLC (LabRatMining) Official Announcement - page 84. (Read 452235 times)

oooo nooooooooooo bkm is going to ignore me .. what will I do .. !?!?! BKM you have added no value at the best of times. They are at best duplicitous and the worst just random brain farts. Ignore me .. thank god.  .

Even funnier is your complete lack of reading comprehension. I require no evidence from those that demean themselves by their own words. If you are interested in facts - perhaps you would take a little more time to examine the fact that I demanded transparency (defined as "evidence" just in case you needed someone to break it down for you there champ) from LRM in my post.

As for you........ on the special kind of ignore reserved for exceptional dumbasses.  

Generally thieves take without permission (theft) and give nothing in return, and pozni's use other investors to pay off existing investors (either in lump sums or partial). Neither of those is happening here by pure definition that I can see.

Libel could be happening here, and we could all be handed the raw end of a pie eyed dream souring however it doesn't make it a ponzi or the man in question a thief.

funny.. you require evidence from me for just suggesting it but demand nothing from the person holding your money  ?

burn you fucking idiot. burn.

Do you even own any LRM share/bonds/contracts? Do you have evidence that LRM is a ponzi, scam or that Zach is a thief? Or, are you just attempting to entertain us?

BKM .. saying the same words over and over again doesn't make it so. How you would like it ... similarly.

Zack / La Brat is actually not in the drivers seat here. You are.

Labrat... you are over your head here son. Liquidate.  ASAP.

And let me re-iterate my view : Its a Ponzi and LR is a thief. You all did it because you were greedy and didn't want to work together.

I wholeheartedly agree that the transparency issue needs to be resolved concurrent or precedent to the issue of the legal status of participants in LRM mining. In fact, there is nothing that prevents transparency in advance of the resolution of the legal issues. Indeed, it may favorably dispose LRM towards its stakeholders (the issue of us being shareholders or bondholders remains to be clarified in the eyes of the SEC et al) and the various regulatory bodies pressing for resolution of the issue. I cannot possibly imagine a case where a lack of transparency would be to the benefit of LRM unless it is due to some form of malfeasance. There is no solve for malfeasance save for a legal process undertaken by regulators and/or stakeholders. [edit: I personally do not believe there has been any malfeasant motive on LRM's part]

If it is simply a lack of resources available to provide the required transparency, this is simply an excuse and is completely unacceptable. It is still not too late to provide the transparency required of a company in LRM's position; that of one solicitous of investments from the public. To suggest that the anonymous members of this forum and the Bitcoin community in general are a closed community and that they fall with in the bound of SEC regulations surrounding private share offerings to accredited investors is tenuous at best. I pretty much guarantee that LRM will lose big time on that front if they proffer that argument to the regulators.

So, provide transparency and support your position to the regulators and to the community of investors or.......not? Seems like a simple rubric Zach...... ponder carefully but quickly. For as you know all too well, time is of the essence.

I like the idea of transparency - it seems to me that it would go a long ways to solving a main issue with your investors..... and maybe the  gummint revenuers too.

we don't even know where the pools in use are. . nor can we see it

Because LR decided to not post anything here anymore, untill he has some big wall of text again, or some random no-content remark

It's not like we ever have been informed about hashrate, or any other operational status updates

If Vince was right about the hardware, why hasn't LR said anything about it arriving yet? Why would it be a secret? Unless LR was thinking there is a chance it might not be legally necessary to report it to investors... of course, this presumes Vince was correct.

There was a comment made by LR early in all this where he compared it to a group purchase more than a bond or share. Sad thing it that we are even discussing this now - many disillusioned investors - but the ambiguity might end up working in favor of investors if it comes down to a legal case.

I think this is where it is going. I'd personally like to see market forces control hashrate increase. If LR controls how many shares you get every time hardware arrives, then fees, expenses, and cost of purchase will still all be invisible to investors and make the contracts impossible to value accurately. If contracts are worth 100 MH/s, and LR is forced to sell new hashrate increases at market rates (i.e., reinvestment occurs in public, not behind the scenes), LRM is much more likely to survive long term and not burn through cash with inefficient purchases. I outlined a few pages back two ways it can be underwritten: one way LRM assumes all risk and reward, the other is sharing risk and reward (underwriting of hardware) amongst interested investors.

EXACTLY! Glad someone else picked up on that, since I was purposefully going for the "not gonna spell it out for you" tense.

As LR already stated, these are contracts for a given amount of services from a Data Processing firm... and legally, I think that makes the mining portion of what we hold impossible to be a percentage and must be a fixed rate.

Now, what that means for our "contracts" is that we own TWO things... A PARTNER/OWNER CONTRACT (singular) that guarantees us the right to multiple MINING SUBCONTRACTS at the value of 100 MH/s and that as hardware is purchased with our investment funds in LRM, the moment those machines go online, each of our PARTNER/OWNER contracts is awarded an increasing number of subcontracts to match the hashrate to 100 MH/s contract ratio of those machines.

Getting that into legalese AND have the whole thing fit within coming laws and regulations is going to take time... getting your panties in a bunch (love you Endlessa so not aimed at you lol) and threatening to lawyer up is premature. Promising to get your ducks in a row, start documentation and setting certain actions and people in to motion on the other hand is completely warranted. Starting a lawsuit now is like asking LRM to empty the funds WE provided into a lawyers pocket for no good reason, while doing your due diligence to prepare should such action be needed is definitely something we should all do.

Doesn't it leaves us with a contract for a percentage of BTC mined, with terms relating to costs, expenses, reinvestment and whatnot?

Considering if I was him I'd use LRM holdings to fight a lawsuit against LRM then I'd say you've definitely got nothing but contempt from me.

since the whole thing was called an "IPO" multiple times, it sounds a lot more like shares than bonds.  Lacking a palatable solution, I'll let people in charge of such things figure out wtf. 

I do have a hard time believing that a lawyer wrote any of this copy, though.



Vince is a full asshat, imo. I don't take anything from him serious or with any level of caring. I've accept that since he started talking about my panties and bathroom habits and discovered his big contribution to the internet was selling other peoples information as "leads" to companies. . . that's almost below a spammer as far as I'm concerned.  Anyhow, it's hard to take such people seriously either way.

......

been afk a couple days.  looks like still not information after 1 and a half months.  I'll be forming the documentation and a formal complaint (unless of something changes of course).  I imagine it will take a few days to pull together all the information, after that I'll just let people with actual power sort it out.

^^ see that's how you take this forward.

to answer your questions .. I don't know. Asking LR/M is the appropriate place to start. Your lawyers may be the next most appropriate.

I most certainly would not stand cock in hand waiting for him to find loop holes.

And .. note : I did not call for a witchhunt. ( despite my preference for this )  .. some basic information is all that is required.

A statement of accounts for one.

By those short definitions... what we have here does not comply to either.

BOND - we did not LOAN this money to LRM and what he is paying us is in no way, shape of form a payment of principle + interest.

SHARE - what we are receiving as DIVIDENDS are not actually SHARES of the profit of LRM... I would actually say in whole... LRM is probably still in the red and a profit share would not be paid until at least the first entire year was over. Even then, we would still probably be in the red but maybe not... regardless profits would probably be somewhere near what we have already been paid to date at that one year mark.

So that leaves us where...? Awaiting LR and LRM to redefine exactly what it is we hold because what we are receiving is actual WEEKLY EARNINGS of a Data Processing firm. What is the more likely, but I dare say LR would NEVER allow this to be, is that we are all PARTNERS to some extent and have been promised a weekly payout on earnings after cost deductions. What that means to everyone and LRMs lawyers is probably what is taking so long to define in the eyes of the law.

Any updates today, Labrat?

If this discussion has become to complicated for you to follow .. please feel free to opt for silence.