Quote from: Pythonideus on November 25, 2013, 03:54:06 AM

Thanks for posting that. Please see my comments below. I'll answer each in the order in which it is listed from top to bottom, with 1 being the top comment.

1. BoA is a very large bank that does business with many businesses. There is nothing wrong with the fact they use BoA.

2. The transaction fee is not immoral or criminal. The purchase of the ATM costs $20k. That is for the actual ATM, the scanning equipment and the other hardware involved. It also includes a the setting up of the ATM with its relevant software. This software is proprietary to Robocoin and is used to effectuate the sale and purchase of bitcoin. It is further set-up to provide industry leading KYC services that are REQUIRED to run a legal Bitcoin related company in the US. Think of the shared transaction fee as a software license. By paying that fee you get to use this software, have Robocoin manage your data in regards to the KYC requirements and have them support the software as it is being used. Further, Robocoin has it in their best interests to keep the ATM running and up to date as it is the key to their profit.

3. I'm not sure what is wrong with this. An ATM and this software is an incredibly complex piece of machinery. This is normal business practice and appears to be inline with industry standards. To be frank I was shocked that it was only $1,000 a year. Further, this gives you same day maintenance service from Robocoin. That is pretty good.

4. This is not a big issue. A company is trying to make money on a service contract. Further, by not using Robocoin for service and maintenance for a period of time and then using them, they are essentially on the hook for any errors or problems that occurred during the time they were not contracted for service and maintenance.

5. No issue here. This is a boilerplate contract sent to multiple companies and purchasers in various jurisdictions. They are not going to be able to spell out each and every circumstance.

6. No issue here. This is a contractual agreement that requires payment. Further, no refunds is normal when making purchases of this size. A company expends valuable time and resources in purchase agreements such as this. They need to make sure their buyers have skin in the game prior to moving forward.

7. See #5.

8. Why wouldn't we, as the owners of the kiosk, be responsible for the data contained in it? There is no issue here. Further, the comment regarding providing upfront costs and liabilities is inappropriate. Robocoin is providing a product with proprietary software. The owners of the kiosk are responsible for the operational costs of the ATM and actually running it. Robocoin does not provide a service running the ATMs. They just provide the ATMs.

9. One year manufacturers warranty is normal. Especially for a potentially high use machine. No issue here.

10. This is something that requires further clarification and which I will be emailing Jordan Kelly about. I do not have a problem with them changing the terms of the agreement secondary to an exclusion for the fee percentage between the operators and robocoin. I do not want them coming back and saying, "we're taking 80% of the transaction fee now." That being said, Robocoin is providing a unique product and service. They have the power here and the contract will favor them. I think that if we can get the transaction fee % made concrete then this provision is acceptable.

11. There is a need for a large cash reserve with this process. There are a couple of ways this can be managed. We can perform a couple of soft-opens for the ATMs with a limited daily sells and purchases until a reserve is built up, via short-term loans, via additional capital investment.

Part of the reason I am doing this auction is to provide a jump-start for these reserves.

All exchange fees will be part of the bitcoin purchase price. I believe the bitcoin ATM in Vancouver is charging 30-40$ more than the bitstamp price for any given transaction.

My review of the contract has also revealed one issue that does require further clarification. In provision 18 it discusses Termination and Suspension. It states that:

Quote

Company reserves the right, without notice and in its sole discretion, to terminate or suspend your right or any of your End Users' rights to use or access the Services, and to block or prevent your or your End Users' future access to and use of the Services (i) if you breach this Agreement, or (ii) to protect the Company's rights or if Company believes that your continued use of the Services will cause harm to the Company or others.

(ii) and (iii) is a serious issue for me. I have requested clarification from Jordan Kelly their CEO. I do not know what "protect the Company's rights" means or what "harm to the Company or others" entails. I think it is fair that they can terminate or suspend the rights if we don't satisfy the agreement, however there is nothing regarding the reinstatement of services or a process in which a resolution can occur given a conflict. There is a resolution process for any breaches of the agreement, but not for termination as a result of "harm to the Company".

This is why I suggest using escrow for the auction winners. The escrow holder can hold the funds secondary to a signing of the purchase agreement. If these terms are not resolved satisfactorily the purchase will not be completed and the auction winners will receive all of their funds back.

Further, the LLC entity will be signing the purchase agreement, not any purchasers. There will be limited liability as a result of the incorporation of the business.

Hope this helps.