Topic: Official Thread: AMT - page 254. (Read 678353 times)

He said it himself. He gives them a pass because they are holding his Pre Order funds hostage : and he doesn't want to upset AMT out of fear that they will take his money and run.

I'm starting to question whether Isawhim would care if he got his miner, but everyone else that pre-ordered got screwed. I don't know why him or any of these others would come to defend AMT so strongly based simply on a lackluster website with misinformation, unprofessional posts on this thread, and a general lack of updates and clear information for their investors. I just don't get it.

That's what sucks about the mining industry is that it's so competitive that no one really gives a shit about anyone else and only think about themselves. This probably has something to do with the 'money to be made' that is involved.

AMT_MINERS: It's Saturday Feb 08 2014. You said that miners would be built by now and start shipping yesterday. Has that changed? If so, please let us know. If not - please post some pictures or give us some updates as to what orders have been built/shipped.

Thank you.

@ Augusto Croppo -  Earlier posts regarding The bulgarian connection has to do with Technobit.  Their Bitfury miners are Technobits design.  Marto over at Tecnobit had some factory production delays  which probably resulted in AMT delays for their 55NM stuff. Marto at Tecnobit makes some pretty good stuff.  Sometimes you have to wait a while. 

Augusto,

Thanks for doing all the research on John Zipkin.

Quite a bit of this background information on Josh/AMT seems really shady.

Isawhim, you can blab blab blab with your off topic analysis, but you're still wrong. A customer who hasn't received a product yet isn't cooling off, they are an order. What the hell is wrong with you, going to bat over and over for this company to let them screw a customer? Why do so many people here think that these manufacturers should be given a pass for months of delays and lies every time. A business should treat its customers well, at least until they become unbearable. I don't get how people who at least appear to have the ability to make a rational decision just fall so short when it comes to this sort of thing.

Cut the chit chat. You said you are a lawyer. Can you prove that or not? If you are not willing to prove that, than anyone can assume you could be misrepresenting yourself only for the sake to win the argument.

LoL at your "take my analysis to any decent lawyer from a good law school with a good firm, and see what they think if you want to waste a few grand."

That do not prove you are a lawyer. As a lawyer you should know this better than me, but it appears you do not.

Yes I created an account a month ago and have multiple unrelated posts and purchases under this identity just so I could pretend to be a lawyer.  Amazing how I thought that out a month ago isn't it?!!

I gave my analysis.  Happy to debate any meaningful.girl response.  I have no desire to represent anyone on this forum nor am I trolling for business.  And I certainly do t want folks calling me, my firm or my partners or clients... so why on earth would I give out that info given the crazies that populate this board?  No thanks.  If you want the free advice I gave great.  You are free to ignore it I don't care.  Take my analysis to any decent lawyer from a good law school with a good firm, and see what they think if you want to waste a few grand. 

It's not about credentials it's about statutory construction... and this is a pretty clear case if you read the whole rule.

Sure, and by that logic almost every law review article and practicing lawyer article that mentioned real facts from real cases would have the lawyer disbarred.  There is a reason your wife is one exam short of being a lawyer if she really believes that the right to comment publicly is lost once you become a lawyer (hint: first amendment).

Sorry, but this is getting absurd.  The FTC rule is very clear and has the benefit of a long period of time being in force (since I have been a lawyer, which is a very long time).  Find me one case in a federal court where the rule has been interpreted to permit cancellation of pre-orders, where (i) the seller clearly provided a time for delivery prior to the sale, (ii) the seller was not late in delivery, and (iii) there were not any facts indicating a likelihood that the seller would be late.

And by the way, I have no desire to allow the nutballs in this forum to be contacting me personally so I decline the invitation to career suicide by disclosing my firm name and identity.  But if it will get everyone to STFU and accept my analysis (which is obvious to any experienced lawyer reading the text of the rule, but I digress), I am happy to have a trusted member verify me.

This is one of the most stupid comment about consumer protection I even read and shows how you completely fail to understand what are you talking about.

This is not just "computing hardware"... It is a specific machine custom-built with new-technology, for the explicit purpose of "generating bitcoin value". That is like saying a watch is just a computer, or your cell-phone, or a printing-press is just a machine. The specific reason it is purchased, matters. This is not a retail purchase. They are not buying "Superminer" and selling "Superminer", they are building you a custom "AMT miner".

"No refunds", if implicitly stated, as an agreement and stipulation of the purchase, is not only legal, but also enforced, in all 50 states in the USA.

"As is", if implicitly stated...

"pre-order", also has implicit purpose. In the case of "built to suit", it is an agreement that you know you just paid for something which has yet to be constructed. Same if you agree to have a contractor build you something, like a fire-pit. That is a consumer product, "built to suit", and you pay as a "pre-order", and the "delivery time", is also implied to be an estimate. (Since it "has not been built at the time of the estimate".) Though you could have gotten a fire-pit as a consumer product. Standard consumer laws for that situation, which is 100% similar to all of these miners, do not apply. (When you throw-in, "money making machine", at the judge... They will have a hard time digesting that the "consumer", wasn't aware that there was "high risk" involved with the purchase.)

But I digress... Take it to a judge if you feel the need. Just like all other cases, it will end with nothing more than added expenses to the one taking them to court. Just as what happened with BFL, who I actually believed was in the wrong, from day 1. (BFL operated out of California. However, they showed the judges that the delays were reasonable, and "beyond control of BFL". The key thing for them, was BTC's nature, and the orders specific form, being a "pre-order contract" for "build to suit", productions. California judges are hard on businesses... So winning there, says...)

In any event, the law is still just a guide, for a judge to make a ruling. They have done nothing wrong, or criminal, or unjust. So all of this banter is moot.

This is just one example where there are limitations...
http://www.attorneygeneral.gov/consumers.aspx?id=294

Consumer protection is not just for the consumer, it is also protection from the consumer, for the store/shop. (The contractor should not be "stuck" with a pile of bricks, because you decide after he buys them, not to have him build the fire-pit. Doesn't matter how much liquidity he has... He is not going to give you back your money for the bricks, and be out that money himself, and also be stuck with bricks he doesn't want. You don't want the fire-pit, then sell it after it is built, like you paid him to do.)

Most laws were put in place to provide protections where "there is no agreement", or there is no obvious "assumptions to a purchase", or where someone is just trying to rip someone off. It was clear, at the time of purchase, what everyone was buying, and what it would involve, including delays and limitations to refunds.

Two things mate, you cannot skirt retail consumer protection laws by calling a retail product "made to order"  no matter what contract or ToS you have the client sign it is still a retail purchase.  If you want to retail products as a business in the USA you must follow retail consumer protection laws period.  This includes all the fun stuff like refunds and returns and so on.

No matter how closely you think this is to a stock, according to the law (at least currently) buying ANY computing hardware is not a stock and not an investment it is a retail purchase and as such subject to the laws surrounding retail purchase.  You can present all the facts you want that you think makes it an investment but the law will not look at buying a "computer' as investment it is again a retail purchase of a product.

I think 99% of people on this forum simply don't understand the real business world.  When a company is created there is risked involved.  That risk is born by the owner/s of the company and not its CUSTOMERS.  The law is pretty fucking clear about this.  But most of the folks in this thread think that making and or selling an ASIC has some magic formula that allows a company to transfer the risk from themselves to customer.

If most of these folks had any idea of the real business world they would understand the legal implications of using CUSTOMER pre-order money to fund the start up of a business.  I will say just one of the major problems with this business model is that "under capitalization"  (read using customer money instead of investor money to start up) is one of the biggest reason that the corporate veil is pierced.  I'll bet that most of the companies think that an LLC protect them personally, but it may not.  If they have under cap'd the corp their personal assets could very much be on the line.

But hey if you guys want to keep running around funding all these start ups and taking all the risk for very very little reward go for it.  The whole risk reward scheme between the manufactures and customers is currently the EXACT opposite of the way it should be and they are all taking a pretty big gamble IMO that most normal business wouldn't dream of taking. 

Sounds like they do need to clarify some things. (Besides fixing the wrong info on the "additional info" tab, still. )

1: Payment policy (Outlining approved payment methods, and limitations. Such as, "all sales are final", and a contractual agreement to the following #1, #2, #3 and #4 policies.)
2: Refund policy (Outlining the fact that a "pre-order" is a "build to suit", and has limited refund ability.)
3: Order policy (Identifying all "pre-orders", as a "build to suit", product. With any associated risks.)
4: Shipping policy (Identifying "ship dates", of the "pre-orders", which are "build to suit", products, as unencumbered shipping estimates. With links to any public announced NEWS of encumbrance to delays.)

Would that appease your comfort? (It would for me, but I already knew all that obvious stuff.)

Agreeing to facilitate a purchase/exchange/refund by the company, is not illegal. That is, in essence, what happens to any refund. In the situation where a refund by the company is "not within reason", it is not only acceptable, but it is also a sign of good faith. They are not "forcing" anyone to do anything. They are "offering" to ensure that someone does not get ripped-off, while facilitating an order-shift. The money was spent on the hardware that they were asked to buy and build, and now the customer is refusing to accept the hardware which is being built for them. That is already a breach of contract there, of the customer who demanded that they build the unit for them.

Seriously, now you are bitching about people getting refunds.

Sorry dude, but personal hardship is called personal hardship for a reason. It is not only, not others problem, but it not even close to the single situation at hand. They just want a refund, as they admitted, because of buyers remorse. "the difficulty went up faster"... To which, the truth of the matter is that it actually didn't go up as fast as ANY projections. So, thus, they are not only misinformed and incorrect, but also unjustifiably asking for a refund. A refund for a product that they faithfully gave to AMT, to build them a unit, which is being built and shipped, within a reasonable time.

Projected difficulties over the last two months...
35% projected, it went up 31% actual (14 days)
32% projected, it went up 28% actual (14 days)
30% projected, it went up 21% actual (14 days)
28% projected, it went up 19% actual (14 days)
22% projected, ... I guess 15% actual (present)
http://bitcoinwisdom.com/bitcoin/difficulty

Thus, it has not "gone up faster", it has gone up slower than any estimates, from even prior to any sales. Now value... that is a whole other beast. But value past and present are irrelevant to a "future sale" and "future earning". What matters is the QTY of BTC produced, via difficulty, and value at the time which you intend to cash-out. Since YOU set value, that is all on you.

But, since BTC is not the only thing this unit is capable of mining... Lets look at others returns...
Greatest return over BTC has been about 350%, average of mining other alts, about 137%, total. So, reward for mining those, in BTC is 350%-137% greater than mining BTC directly.

Those difficulties, compared to BTC... 2,621,404,453
Peercoin: 73,797,540
Freicoin: 1,050,377
Terracoin: 748,654
Emark: 543,986
FireflyCoin: 172,399
AsicCoin: 65,651
Opensourcecoin: 49,975
Joulecoin: 42,067
TekCoin: 18,394
http://www.coinwarz.com/ (1.2THs with modest power-estimates)

If you want the "big list"... http://www.coinchoose.com/
NOTE: BTC is near the bottom of that "big list".
(That is because it is using Radeon 7970's as a base for mining SHA and SCRYPT. It does not reflect ASIC mining on SHA or the new ASIC Scrypt miners. That page is intended for scrypt-miner rigs, obviously. But you can still see the alt-SHA coins percentage value compared to BTC.)

Take your pick, most go above BTC value, and offer easy solo-mining to boot for an added bonus of unstolen/unlost/uncredited block-rewards and block-fees that are all 100% yours.

There is one or two in every crowd. They didn't have a clue going in, and don't have a clue now, and should never have made a purchase. Refunding them would do everyone a favor. It would shut them up, get them off the forum, make an miner available sooner to someone-else, and save them from 20+ annoying emails and phone-calls that are getting in the way of a customer who actually knows what they want, and are trying to get.

But they, and you, are just trolling for the sake of trolling. To get a rise out of the forum-posters or AMT themselves.

P.S. This exact reason is why you can't buy stocks with CC's and paypal. You buy it, you own it. Period! You purchased a BTC coin maker. BTC is a high-risk market, and so is any associated joint-products. This has been known as common knowledge for the past six years. This is not a "standard consumer sale", these are all "high-risk investments". No matter how consumer-like it ever seems to be portrayed. Even BestBuy sells BFL without a refund, unless there is "good reason". (Like hardware failure.)

My wife is one bar exam short of being a lawyer, and I have to agree. While the law is often arbitrary and capricious, it generally is very strict in regards to what a barred lawyer is allowed to say. Now of course they could be in Vermont, where there is no requirement to be a member of the bar, but I doubt it. That and the rules are similar even sans the bar association

Also, that quoted law is just one of many. Interstate commerce is a tangled web on it's more clear points, and downright arcane for the most part. It is also heavily slanted towards the customer, to the point where outright scammers are often more protected than a legitimate company. Thus, immense amounts of litigation and arbitration where the absence of law and the presence of common sense would lead to lower expense and higher expectations both ways.

AMT lost some points with me posting a customer's name like that, unless they had permission. Which I doubt. They do have permission, verbally, to post mine if they wish. But I am not really a customer. I still think they are a legit company, much in need of more experienced business people. When my tax refund comes I am hoping to have enough to get one of their coincraft based miners, the above notwithstanding.

Good job AMT. Instead of quickly and quietly resolving a customer issue behind the scenes, you have now created an incident. If people want to research your company, they will find stories like this, and posts like your absurd offer to act as escrow for a customer who simply wanted a refund. You said you wanted to improve PR and customer service, but you did the opposite.

I'd actually be more worried for customers who believe they will get their orders on time now, since you apparently don't have ANY liquid funds to pay a single refund. What happens if there is a problem along your product chain? Are you going to come here and beg for more preorders from people who no longer trust you??

Respectfully I must disagree his logic is flawed.  Not to mention I can't imagine any lawyer ever commenting on specific companies and whether or not they are breaking the law or not.  Lawyers don't mention specific companies when not under retainer and they certainly don't post's in forums with what may be construed as legal advice for free without stating something along the lines of "I am a Lawyer but not your Lawyer and nothing I say should be taken as legal advice".  Lawyers talk in generalities unless you are paying them.  They say things like ACME ASIC would be breaking the law if they did X and y while Bob's ASIC isn't because a and b.

If the poster is a lawyer, well I won't finish that because I can't think of anything nice to say...

I have read the rule itself as well as the guide I linked.  Perhaps you could again show me where exactly it says that the ONLY option for a refund is AFTER they missed there stated ship date.  You see all the stuff you linked was in reference to what they MUST do IF they miss the ship date, no where in the rule does it state that until they miss the ship date they can deny refunds, because legally they can't, nor does it say that this is the only option for refunding.  Also just because you say that "any option" clearly refers to 435.2 (a) or (b).  It could actually mean just that ANY OPTION.  If they meant to clearly indicate 435.2 (a) or (b) was the ONLY reference point they would likely have cited that.


Simply not true, there is a myriad of reasons why a customers circumstances may have changed since time of order.   For example lets say that I order a product and within a couple of days of ordering my wife gets hospitalized and I need the money back for hospital expense's I no longer wish for the product.  This is far from Willy-nilly as you put it and the law understands that situations change, and frankly they don't care even if it is willy-nilly it is still your right.   When I see a self claimed lawyer using words like willy-nilly in an argument I begin to question the validity of the claim.

Perhaps you could also address the distance selling/cooling off laws.  Wouldn't those be superfluous as well I mean why have a law that allows the customer to return the product in 3 days for any reason if they can't cancel the order before the expected ship date.  Fine don't cancel my order I will receive it use it for 3 days and legally return it under the cooling off laws most if not all states have.

Now lets begin to look at the world of retail sales.  Did you know when a company that takes a credit card order via internet or phone the customers funds are not transferred from the credit card company to the retailer until the product ships?  Do you know why they do that?  Did you know that very few retailers take FULL PAYMENT orders for products they don't have in stock and when they do you can cancel the order for a full refund for any reason at any time before they ship.  Do you honestly believe they do this out of the goodness of their heart or because they are obligated to by law.

Since there are good lawyers and bad lawyers, the truth of whether he is a lawyer or not isn't important. What is important is his reasoning, and his reasoning on the FTC rules makes a lot of sense.

or you can just take someone up on their offer to pay you for your spot in line ... instead of waiting for your court date.

It could have been over by now. You could have your money back and someone else could have a miner on the way.

Are you a "lawyer" as well?

 

This do not have any significant importance when your are new forum user. Anyone can create multiple accounts here and claim to be a lawyer. If you want people to trust you are a lawyer, start by presenting yourself and your credentials.