Quote from: wheeler on October 12, 2012, 11:53:04 PM

I'm no lawyer and I'm sure your council will find a way, but rather than keep the securitised "mining bond" contract/configuration/nomenclature, could we not simply define Gigamining as a lease or rental agreement for a portion of the physical hardware? I don't see how this would differ from say, leasing a Linode. All totally outside securities regulation.

I mean... I don't think any investors saw this as an actual *bond* in the traditional meaning of the word... (I'm not expecting to be near the top of the list of creditors in case of default).

Anyway, fingers crossed the wind-up will roll along without too many hitches (FWIW a friend and I spoke with Nefario at length at the London conf. He came across to me as a genuinely pleasant and honest guy and I am certainly happy to trust him for the portion of assets I have lodged at GLBSE, which is not an inconsiderable sum).

I second this. So long as you can reliably figure out who owns how many it is the same thing... if you get that part and a payout address while I am sure there must be some backend figuring out % of payouts it is the same thing.. just direct to your "holders"

Naelr