Lab Rat Data Processing, LLC (LabRatMining) Official Announcement - page 94.

Endlessa

sr. member

Activity: 335

Merit: 250

Quote from: smracer on March 10, 2014, 03:11:59 PM

How does this make any sense? I invested early BTC with LRM with the idea that I would share in the profits down the road.

I have gotten back about 10% of my investment in the form of dividends. The bonds are worthless now.

Why not just split up all the new hardware coming in and give it to the investors?

It is sure going to be easier than running it all this summer once it starts to warm up.

best thing in that type of scenario would be to auction and split. that's not what should happen, but if you were going to do that.

smracer

donator

Activity: 1057

Merit: 1021

How does this make any sense? I invested early BTC with LRM with the idea that I would share in the profits down the road.

I have gotten back about 10% of my investment in the form of dividends. The bonds are worthless now.

Why not just split up all the new hardware coming in and give it to the investors?

It is sure going to be easier than running it all this summer once it starts to warm up.

Flashman

hero member

Activity: 518

Merit: 500

Hodl!

Quote from: daemonfox on March 10, 2014, 02:22:03 PM

None of this is an issue if we are all going to be issued more bonds as hardware comes online...

Yes IF. However, we now have cause to have severe "trust issues" and if unilaterally forcing us to accept fixed rate contracts is a way of divorcing us from the "share-iness" of the investment, then tacitly accepting that, with nothing set in stone about further recompense, leaves us in a potentially weakened position.

Bondholders have to understand that whatever Messrs Wormtongue, Screwem and Sneer (or whatever his lawyers are called) are whispering in Labrats ear is all atuned to HIS benefit, as a perceived sole proprietor. Thus all advice would be aimed at ensuring dictatorial control and the maximum recompense for the littlest "work" possible.

Or in other words, it wasn't about control until the lawyer made loss of control a fear, (With the SEC boogeyman no doubt) and control was attempted to be enforced by a unilateral attempt to change terms, so now it's about control, sorry about your lawyers and your luck. We don't necessarily want control, but will leverage the "share-iness"* to it 's full extent until recompense is restored to expectations.

(*Hey SEC this guy sold us these things what looked like shares....)

Endlessa

sr. member

Activity: 335

Merit: 250

Quote from: CumpsD on March 10, 2014, 02:48:28 PM

Quote from: Lab_Rat on March 10, 2014, 01:22:52 PM

Quote from: Endlessa on March 10, 2014, 01:19:45 PM

no we are expecting a complete picture when you drop a bombshell and for you to responsibly present information

I'm working on doing so and all I have done is provide an immediate fix that does fit into the original contract promises, with the intent to find a way to benefit early contract purchasers as more hardware comes in.

No, because you do not communicate, nobody knows if you provided a fix or just ripped everyone off. Since you are not clear about all the details about the problem, nobody here can tell if your fix is really any good.

It would be nice to know exactly what you're fixing here too. If you have a fix, you must know what you are fixing, or at least one would hope.

CumpsD

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 250

Quote from: Lab_Rat on March 10, 2014, 01:22:52 PM

Quote from: Endlessa on March 10, 2014, 01:19:45 PM

no we are expecting a complete picture when you drop a bombshell and for you to responsibly present information

I'm working on doing so and all I have done is provide an immediate fix that does fit into the original contract promises, with the intent to find a way to benefit early contract purchasers as more hardware comes in.

No, because you do not communicate, nobody knows if you provided a fix or just ripped everyone off. Since you are not clear about all the details about the problem, nobody here can tell if your fix is really any good.

rangerbob21

member

Activity: 98

Merit: 10

Quote from: Endlessa on March 10, 2014, 02:39:27 PM

I really don't see where in FinCEN this fixes his legal position either. I don't see anywhere a law was pointed to this is fixing.

to fix his FinCEN issue he'd have to be doing this as a legal corp to avoid being an MSB.

Did I miss where a legitimate explanation or reference to the legal code?

"...more to come on this..." I guess...

Endlessa

sr. member

Activity: 335

Merit: 250

I really don't see where in FinCEN this fixes his legal position either. I don't see anywhere a law was pointed to this is fixing.

to fix his FinCEN issue he'd have to be doing this as a legal corp to avoid being an MSB.

Did I miss where a legitimate explanation or reference to the legal code?

rangerbob21

member

Activity: 98

Merit: 10

Quote from: daemonfox on March 10, 2014, 02:22:03 PM

Quote from: Endlessa on March 10, 2014, 02:19:22 PM

Quote from: rangerbob21 on March 10, 2014, 02:18:50 PM

Quote from: Flashman on March 10, 2014, 02:13:18 PM

Quote from: rangerbob21 on March 10, 2014, 02:01:09 PM

if the bond value in hashrate will no longer increase as LRM increases, then these bonds are dead.

Exactly, I deliberately did NOT buy into any mining concern with a fixed hashrate and no reinvestment and growth plan.

...and exactly the reason why I invested in LRM, sadly.

same

None of this is an issue if we are all going to be issued more bonds as hardware comes online...

The only reason we do not have confirmation that this IS INDEED the way LRM is moving forward is that it would be premature of Zach to make such an announcement without leagl standing and documentation to do so...

Crypto may be the land of instant gratification... the real world still operates 9-5 M-F.

I like the idea though...

LR deemed it fit to announce the cap on hash rate per bond. There is no indication of any kind that anything else is happening other than "more to come" on the "legal issues" that caused this change.

daemonfox

hero member

Activity: 630

Merit: 500

Quote from: Endlessa on March 10, 2014, 02:19:22 PM

Quote from: rangerbob21 on March 10, 2014, 02:18:50 PM

Quote from: Flashman on March 10, 2014, 02:13:18 PM

Quote from: rangerbob21 on March 10, 2014, 02:01:09 PM

if the bond value in hashrate will no longer increase as LRM increases, then these bonds are dead.

Exactly, I deliberately did NOT buy into any mining concern with a fixed hashrate and no reinvestment and growth plan.

...and exactly the reason why I invested in LRM, sadly.

same

None of this is an issue if we are all going to be issued more bonds as hardware comes online...

The only reason we do not have confirmation that this IS INDEED the way LRM is moving forward is that it would be premature of Zach to make such an announcement without leagl standing and documentation to do so...

Crypto may be the land of instant gratification... the real world still operates 9-5 M-F.

Endlessa

sr. member

Activity: 335

Merit: 250

Quote from: rangerbob21 on March 10, 2014, 02:18:50 PM

Quote from: Flashman on March 10, 2014, 02:13:18 PM

Quote from: rangerbob21 on March 10, 2014, 02:01:09 PM

if the bond value in hashrate will no longer increase as LRM increases, then these bonds are dead.

Exactly, I deliberately did NOT buy into any mining concern with a fixed hashrate and no reinvestment and growth plan.

...and exactly the reason why I invested in LRM, sadly.

same

rangerbob21

member

Activity: 98

Merit: 10

Quote from: Flashman on March 10, 2014, 02:13:18 PM

Quote from: rangerbob21 on March 10, 2014, 02:01:09 PM

if the bond value in hashrate will no longer increase as LRM increases, then these bonds are dead.

Exactly, I deliberately did NOT buy into any mining concern with a fixed hashrate and no reinvestment and growth plan.

...and exactly the reason why I invested in LRM, sadly.

Flashman

hero member

Activity: 518

Merit: 500

Hodl!

Quote from: rangerbob21 on March 10, 2014, 02:01:09 PM

if the bond value in hashrate will no longer increase as LRM increases, then these bonds are dead.

Exactly, I deliberately did NOT buy into any mining concern with a fixed hashrate and no reinvestment and growth plan.

DemocraticRepublicOfDave

member

Activity: 77

Merit: 10

Hi LabRat,

Can you give us a rough three month projection of incoming hashrate for LabRatMining?

Cheers

Dave

electerium

full member

Activity: 179

Merit: 100

Quote from: Lab_Rat on March 10, 2014, 02:07:31 PM

Quote from: electerium on March 10, 2014, 02:03:19 PM

Quote from: Lab_Rat on March 10, 2014, 01:56:20 PM

Quote from: rustyh17 on March 10, 2014, 01:49:00 PM

Quote from: Lab_Rat on March 10, 2014, 01:42:07 PM

This is way too true. The only issue is that if I paid out all of Z, I would be in a lot of red....

The Z amount would, of course, be less the agreed percentage that LRM would have kept
per the terms of the original contract.

The original contract did not specify an amount that LRM is using to operate the company. I decided a 75/25 split sounded appropriate at the time, but that number can't last forever as LRM's costs are fixed and income is exponentially decreasing. At some point even with the previous payout plans it would have had to eventually change.

Despite this fact, as I've stated countless times. This is an immediate fix with benefits going out to contract-holders undetermined at this time.

So which is it? LRM is unsustainable at 75/25 or that "US laws" made your LLC change its terms?

The 75/25 split would have been fine most of the way through 2014, not an immediate issue by any means. The legal issues requiring changes and clarification on the other hand is. More is coming on this....

with or without the incoming 150THs?

I actually support you for doing this. When I started browsing these forums I quickly realized that there were two kinds of bitcoin entrepeneurs and ceos.

the ones who thought long term

and the ones who just wanted a quick infusion to get by the next 12 months.

My advice is to just shut up until you have everything nailed down with your lawyers. Stop posting and giving information in piecemeal. When you come back, post those terms and let people digest it.

Lab_Rat

hero member

Activity: 599

Merit: 502

Token/ICO management

Quote from: electerium on March 10, 2014, 02:03:19 PM

Quote from: Lab_Rat on March 10, 2014, 01:56:20 PM

Quote from: rustyh17 on March 10, 2014, 01:49:00 PM

Quote from: Lab_Rat on March 10, 2014, 01:42:07 PM

This is way too true. The only issue is that if I paid out all of Z, I would be in a lot of red....

The Z amount would, of course, be less the agreed percentage that LRM would have kept
per the terms of the original contract.

The original contract did not specify an amount that LRM is using to operate the company. I decided a 75/25 split sounded appropriate at the time, but that number can't last forever as LRM's costs are fixed and income is exponentially decreasing. At some point even with the previous payout plans it would have had to eventually change.

Despite this fact, as I've stated countless times. This is an immediate fix with benefits going out to contract-holders undetermined at this time.

So which is it? LRM is unsustainable at 75/25 or that "US laws" made your LLC change its terms?

The 75/25 split would have been fine most of the way through 2014, not an immediate issue by any means. The legal issues requiring changes and clarification on the other hand is. More is coming on this....

rangerbob21

member

Activity: 98

Merit: 10

What needed to change in the terms to comply with laws that were (not?) in effect when the original terms were produced? Were the original terms illegal? Now they are not?

Endlessa

sr. member

Activity: 335

Merit: 250

Still don't get why you don't just restructure this into a legal corp and issue non voting shares so we can continue on without getting boned. take the cost out of the btc expenses and move on.

electerium

full member

Activity: 179

Merit: 100

Quote from: Lab_Rat on March 10, 2014, 01:56:20 PM

Quote from: rustyh17 on March 10, 2014, 01:49:00 PM

Quote from: Lab_Rat on March 10, 2014, 01:42:07 PM

This is way too true. The only issue is that if I paid out all of Z, I would be in a lot of red....

The Z amount would, of course, be less the agreed percentage that LRM would have kept
per the terms of the original contract.

The original contract did not specify an amount that LRM is using to operate the company. I decided a 75/25 split sounded appropriate at the time, but that number can't last forever as LRM's costs are fixed and income is exponentially decreasing. At some point even with the previous payout plans it would have had to eventually change.

Despite this fact, as I've stated countless times. This is an immediate fix with benefits going out to contract-holders undetermined at this time.

So which is it? LRM is unsustainable at 75/25 or that "US laws" made your LLC change its terms?

rangerbob21

member

Activity: 98

Merit: 10

LR, I do think you are trying your best to do right by the bond holders but if the bond value in hashrate will no longer increase as LRM increases, then these bonds are dead.

Lab_Rat

hero member

Activity: 599

Merit: 502

Token/ICO management

Quote from: rustyh17 on March 10, 2014, 01:49:00 PM

Quote from: Lab_Rat on March 10, 2014, 01:42:07 PM

This is way too true. The only issue is that if I paid out all of Z, I would be in a lot of red....

The Z amount would, of course, be less the agreed percentage that LRM would have kept
per the terms of the original contract.

The original contract did not specify an amount that LRM is using to operate the company. I decided a 75/25 split sounded appropriate at the time, but that number can't last forever as LRM's costs are fixed and income is exponentially decreasing. At some point even with the previous payout plans it would have had to eventually change.

Despite this fact, as I've stated countless times. This is an immediate fix with benefits going out to contract-holders undetermined at this time.

Topic: Lab Rat Data Processing, LLC (LabRatMining) Official Announcement - page 94. (Read 452224 times)