Topic: Lab Rat Data Processing, LLC (LabRatMining) Official Announcement - page 89. (Read 452224 times)

As serious as all of this is (and I do take it seriously) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aULv6Fwr9M

Warning - there is a pitchfork and there are geeks....

WTF: "The nice thing about a Feds v. Zach Dailey case". That would please you?

LRM (Zach) is actively working to be onside of the evolving statute law. Any prosecutor would find a very tough row to hoe in the absence of any statutes that were broken or misinterperted if it can be demonstrated that LRM is doing everything it can to mitigate the issue. Your scenario is exactly what Zach is sweating his testes to AVOID on all our behalf. Sharpen the pitchfork for sure - but don't spread bullshit with it please.

It would be nice if Dave shipped that hardware soon.

*reads 20 pages of posts*

So... my best guess is that we're moving into growth in the number of contracts you have over time, versus growth of the (as we have it now) individual bond hashrate? If that's the case, I'm cool with that. Otherwise it doesn't make sense to have a bunch of contracts trapped at 100 MH/s indefinitely.

Just a thought and a heads up. . .if at any point your solution is that I can buy future bonds with a discount. . . my recent posts will be like a friend request in comparison.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEu2n2DGF8s

I've read several articles in the last day which indicate that more than one federal and regional regulator is waiting patiently for bitcoin fraud cases to fall into their laps.

The nice thing about a Feds v. Zach Dailey case is that I've already paid for the prosecutor's fees in the form of my weekly taxes.

I'll be sharpening my pitchfork until this is equitably resolved.

LOL!

Today I was grilling vegetables and a big chicken sausage. To speed up the cooking, I split the sausage down the middle and flattened it out..and thought about how closely it might resemble a rat being grilled. And fantasized about a rat pelt....but didn't see much use for one... anyway *head shake*gotta snap out of those ideas... indeed, pitchfork is on hold...but within reach.

I have put the pitch fork back in the shed.  Is seems you could have been a lot more clear with your intentions.

Let see if the bonds rebound or if trust has been permanently damaged.

Ok sounds good. Hope angry people think again before they take legal actions. And an updated bond holder list would be nice...unless i missed it.

OK.  Just out of a meeting with my lawyer and things look very very good in respect to how they have looked.  I can't give time frames as things in the real world operate 9-5 m-f (NOT INCLUDING LUNCH HOURS) and my lawyer stated this loud and clear to me.  When I asked for an estimate on time he said it will come when it's done and it's a priority.

What he specified I can share is that there will be an announcement that will provide some clarification followed by a contract to be presented.  More info will come when it is available and no sooner.  It is the intention of LRM to provide further than 300MH/s per contract and is apparent that the way this will be done is legal.

also bump!

lol yeah sell your valued at "$0.36" bonds and go! hahah so lawl.

I can only go on the information provided by LR. So far that has been very little in the way of specifics of why the change, what the problem actually is and how will this change be made right to the bond holders. This is not a long list to SPECIFICALLY address, but LR has chosen not to do so. Why? He points to posts with vague explanations when cornered (which is why there are questions to begin with) or just "I answered that..." replies. These are not answers. 

Guys, stop panicking.


Until the terms are released, according to LRM the split gives roughly +20mh/s a bond.


It certainly would be nice for him to come out and say that he has yet to receive the 150TH miners, and to unequivocally state that he wont mine with them until the contract issue is resolved.

Should the new contract provide no clause or provision for how contracts are compensated for when the mine adds hashing value, then yes, the contracts are effectively worthless and LRM should just dissolve itself. But I cannot believe that there wont be some mechanism that appropriately compensates present and future contract holders. Otherwise what is the point in continuing this distributed mining company? No additional bonds will ever be sold, and the mine would be completely reliant on the 75/25 split, which as LRM put it himself-- as unsustainable past 2014.

"Benjamin Lawsky, the superintendent of financial services, announced the move in a statement today, saying his office will propose a set of rules for virtual-currency firms by the end of the second quarter."
http://libertyblitzkrieg.com/

Looks like Lab Rat has until Jun/July before he will have legal clarification.

But... we're all out of cake... death or death then shall we?

If it is over for you then post your bonds for sale and move on...... Clearly Zach and many others see that it is not over and that change =/= death..... For some the choice is "Cake or Death" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZVjKlBCvhg - Personally I'll take Cake

If LR's intention is to grow investments, which I think he communicated... then how could it not grow proportionately? The only way I see that would happen is if he started taking minded coins and keeping them for himself instead of re-investing. But that would be highly disingenuous and would fuel a firestorm. At worse, I think he restructures the re-investment ratio.

The one way LRM could be successful with the 25/75 ratio is to operate far more transparently and responsibly to investors. And allow people to continue to buy more bonds with their dividends. That way,the success of the company is driven by satisfied investors, and not by feeding a mindless company. I mean really, what's the point of a company growing if nobody is helped by it's growth? That would be like building a giant sand castle ONLY for the sake of building a giant sand castle - why? to look at and feed only one or two people's pride at the big sand castle? How worthless that would be. But...if it was operated responsibly, and people could choose to re-invest, then - if it grew - it would grow because it helped people that want to re-invest in it. So far, LRM is on the polar opposite end of a company a person would want to re-invest in. And this is largely due to the uncertainty in management. This is one reason I think EVERY decision made should by made while respecting this priority list:

1. investors
2. employees
3. company

Perhaps bonds could be converted to shares of (token) ownership in a subsidiary of LRM functioning as a "services" company.  I worked for a company that had a "services" subsidiary that only had internal customers but posted huge "profits" and everyone in the "services" division always received giant bonuses... those a-holes.  

But anyway, we would still have "ownership" over nothing of LRM's if all assets remained within LRM as originally intended with the bond structure and would received dividends as expected from the services company's profits.  But then there would probably be lots of tax implications.  Maybe?  And it wouldn't do much of anything to address transparency.

But, the same end result could probably be achieved if we were all issued non-voting shares(as others had mentioned earlier) in place of bonds except we'd have ownership over a portion of the company itself at that point, which the intent of bonds was to avoid.

Perhaps the best fix would be LR just has to give up 100% ownership and issue shares in place of bonds which would potentially be a huge boon for bond holders.  That would also fix (potentially) the issue of the opacity of the 25% since he'd have to show financial statements and funds not used for rent and maintenance or spent on new hardware whether that was 75% or 50% or 95%, would be profit distributable to shareholders.  Perhaps the new terms just become 90% of profit after expenses (with financial statements proving that of course).

I'm still optimistic that something good will come of this and bond holders will receive a fair deal.  Time will tell.  Hopefully we'll know within days.  Or 14 days at most from the 'announcement'.