weekly payments are credited to accounts who payed the fee, payments are on the low edge of the weekly BTC/LTC rate.
Hi ! Pl. can u confirm if those who paid the fees did get payments frm begining of jan 2015 which were due to them?
Can everybody confirm if this is true please?
Thanx
I think you've got some wrong info here...
The people who have been ridiculous enough to pay the fees, started getting weekly payouts (lagged most of the time, but still weekly) from that point on, nothing from the past has been paid, nor will it... IMO.
That is what I gathered as well. So technically your shares were "offline" for January-June (or more accurately January ==> until you pay for them) and if/when you pay then you will start getting payouts from that point onwards. The first half of the year is lost.
(So you are pretty much buying them again, instead of paying a maintenance fee, since this latter would mean that you'd get the payouts that were missing during the first half of the year.)
Waiting for the ultimatum on Friday....
Today we'll know something from either side. Problem is that the amount "fee" hasn't changed over the weeks. If it's only regarding "from now on" instead of from start of the year you should at least have a lowering amount every week since you've "lost" out on one more weekly payment.
The most honest way would be to pay me in full for the period for which I had my miners. That is, everything missing, because I have not asked him to shut down my miners.The fee was supposedly for last year, so OK Id be happy to pay it and then receive the payments I am owed ever since this fun started. I would be well in profit.
Now the fee is sort of a "reactivation" fee, which doesn't make much sense as it should relate to last year, not this year. The fee won't go lower as (again supposedly) this will be your yearly fee which will restart whenever you paid (?). Unless he plans to do it at the end of the year regardless when you pay, at which point it doesn't make any sense to pay now as technically you'd be paying for only 6 months.
That's the main reason I assume he's going to "add" the missed months to the accounts because the logic would make no sense at all otherwise. Only problem is that it would be the logical thing to "not pay us the owed for the first six months" and keeping the fee already. But that's what's the puzzling part.
