Not sure if those Imperial Monarch units will even make it to market if these claims bare fruit BFL is in serious trouble. You are backing a company that defrauds people and your actions are ethically challenged. You admit to doing this in the BFL forums simply to win hardware. There is no argument you can make that absolves you of accepting a bribe. Bribery the act of giving money or a gift which alters the your behaviour. You never posted a SINGLE time about anyone of the 6 accounts you are posting on until you stipulated you wanted to "win" the Monarch and then participated. Your behaviour was changed by the contest. You posted only after you learned of the contest. You are done. Bribed. End of discussion.
What is really morally reprehensible is you are promoting a company that is claimed to do the following and there will definitely be a paper trail for this trust me. There are hundreds of people who were and are being injured by BFL and you are still supporting their efforts here. Why? Because you are being bribed to do so. Cheaply bribed with only the promise of a miner that is currently 14 months in development and for all accounts and purposes VAPORWARE. You have sold your integrity for a promise on nothing but air. Deceived so easily? Wow you might want to rethink your position you obviously are
not unintelligent so that leaves morally and ethically impaired. Have a look at the people your positive trust are alleged to do.
37. Defendant has utilized the funds from customer’s pre-payments for:
(a) the paid in full, unfinanced purchase of a residence in Leawood, Kansas for Mr. Sonny Vleisides;
(b) an automobile for Mr. Sonny Vleisides; and
(c) hundreds of thousands dollars in loans to shareholders of Defendant.
http://www.woodlaw.com/sites/default/files/casedocs/2014-04-04%20Complaint.pdfI am sure more people will be joining in on this class action suit.
What will be interesting is if they can prove these claims which shouldn't be too hard given there are people who can probably testify to this practice:
51. Nearly seven months after receiving payment, on November 1, 2013,
Defendant shipped mining equipment to Plaintiff Dylan Symington.
52. Plaintiff Dylan Symington never gave Defendant permission to use the
equipment he ordered to mine bitcoins for itself or for anyone else.
53. Between the time Plaintiff Dylan Symington pre-paid for his order of
mining equipment from Defendant in April of 2013 and the time he received mining
equipment from Defendant in November of 2013, numerous bitcoins had been mined by
others, and the difficulty of mining new bitcoins had substantially increased over such
time.