Quote from: Kluge on December 09, 2012, 07:30:44 AM

Quote from: Nolo on December 08, 2012, 05:32:57 AM

Basically with me, you get the benefit of the mining bonds, without the risk of never getting the thing paid off.

It's the same kind of risk as with mining bonds, and of course there's risk of not making investment back. If there were no risk to make a decent return, everyone would be doing it. Both this offering and mining bonds are effectively leasebacks, except OP mentions liquidation (which investor gets 10% back on... for the item he effectively purchased... whoopee!).

There's no guarantee (and by a good few estimations, no likelihood) of ASICs making a decent return if you're not one of the first in line for whatever company ends up delivering first. There's very significant risk of loss, and given orders are being placed on-demand this late in the game, it's almost guaranteed. The difference between this and a mining bond is mostly just in phrasing, but fundamentally, it's the exact same risk. The ASIC will depreciate in value and returns in time -- so will a mining bond. This deal gets OP "free" mining hardware -- so does a mining bond. "Perpetuity" can end without a positive RoI -- so can happen with a mining bond. Just because an ASIC unit is tangible and a "MH/s" is not, does not make this contract significantly different (except for the paltry liquidation value an investor gets at... Idunno, some undefined time).

And electricity? Really. What's that, $.01/gigahash-day? The idea that this offering is "much safer" borders on fraudulent, and "the way the return on this investment works is 1) Full repayment of your loan; 2) 10% of the earnings weekly; and 3) 10% of the liquidation amount." is absolutely misrepresenting the involved risk. Additionally, this offering fulfills every requirement of the Howey test, so there's not really much (if any) regulatory advantage over mining bonds, either, except there not being any type of securities exchange involved (which is not relevant to the Howey test, anyway, so....).

The other problem, which I already hinted at, is lack of definition under when a liquidation happens - and it's a big red flag to have "liquidation" and "perpetuity" in the same description of an offering. They can't co-exist. There is no definition in the terms of which conditions would justify liquidation, or even if both (or >2, in cases of "splitsies") the purchaser and manager need to agree. The only guarantee provided by OP is the implicit "I wouldn't take advantage of ambiguity in contracts like so many others."

(err - sorry to be blunt. The abrasiveness on the forum's rubbing off.)

I appreciate your bluntness. This was the kind of suggestion I was originally asking for in my original post (which I have since edited). The contract I have drafted and have my lenders sign, actually addresses most of your concerns. My contract actually borders on having an illusory term, as I give the lender the right to demand liquidation almost at any time he chooses. So the option is pretty much his. If I decide to liquidate the ASIC the lender receives substantially more than the 10% quoted in the original post, and that is after he has been fully repaid for the cost of the ASIC.

Now I do take issue with your term of "borders on fraudulent". I believe I have been as clear as possible on what the risk is, and in my contract I am even more so.

There are so many issues with ASIC mining, it is clearly a high risk venture. I have taken steps to minimize this risk, but it is still a high risk venture any way you slice it.