CHANGE IN PAYOUT RATE STRUCTURE
Cryptocurrencies, which includes Bitcoin, are relatively new to the world economic communities and its governments. Worldwide there continues to be almost daily announcements from governments regarding crypto currencies. Lab Rat Data Processing, a Limited Liability Company in the state of New Jersey, continues to monitor those announcements and the ever-changing laws and economic environments and how those laws impact cryptocurrencies, including Bitcoin, and in particular Lab Rat Data Processing. Most important to Lab Rat Data Processing are the ever-changing laws and/or announcements from the United States and its governmental agencies and the state of New Jersey and its governmental agencies.
Based upon recent developments in US and local laws, Lab Rat Data Processing, and their legal representatives, have determined a potential current or future problem with its current rate structure, which was originally intended as a variable rate payout. Therefore, Lab Rat Data Processing is amending its variable rate payout with a set rate payout of 100 MH/s per contract. This rate payout shall be for all current contract-holders and all future contract-holders. Contemporaneous with the change from a varying rate payout to a set rate payout Lab_Rat will triple the amount of contracts held by all contract holders as of the date of March 8, 2014. Therefore, for all current contract holders on their current contracts, the effective rate will be permanently set at 300 MH/s per contract. All future contracts purchased will be at the new rate of 100MH/s.
Lab Rat Data Processing will continue to monitor developments for cryptocurrencies and Bitcoin in particular, seeking to maintain its current status as a leader in the Bitcoin community and to maintain compliance with US and New Jersey laws.
More information to come.
Here is why what you wrote is false. And why you need a new lawyer.
Any supposed issue about "variable payouts" based on company performance is refuted by the fact that most companies ALREADY pay dividend based on their varying performance/growth. And each unit of ownership that receives dividends is based on a percentage of that unit per all units issued. That is exactly what each bond represents. Is paying dividends based on performance against federal or state laws? Clearly not.
Nobody that paid a percentage into this expected a "bond" to stop at 100MH. That was
NEVER the expectation, and if you claim it was then you need to read the original posts about LRM. We aren't that stupid. And if your lawyer wrote it up differently, then you need to ask him how you can avoid being sued for documenting on your website and these forums how hashrates would not stop at 100MH.
The spirit of the matter(i.e the understood agreement) is this: The
TRUE value of a bond was a fixed
percentage of mining yields (not hashrate!), based on all issued bonds at any one time, and a fixed percentage is NOT VARIABLE. What ends up being mined may vary, but that is true if you fixed a bond at 100MH/bond instead of fixing it at ~1/50,000th of the 75% allotted for investors.
Cutting people off from their due percentage is a setup for a lawsuit, and I'm pretty sure a majority here are willing to go all the way with a lawsuit. Especially, after all the anger built up from all the scamming going on.
Your lawyer (who advised you
from the beginning!) should have known exactly how this was going to work. And nobody signed a statement saying it was only going to be 100MH. If he's changing his story now, then all I can say is that this smells like a crap story that needs investigation. And you might need to seek better legal counsel, because this guy is going to get you sued big time.
I hate to say it, but it seems like this is the first phases of allowing LRM to fail. And if so it would seem to have something to do with Coinseed and some new hardware opportunities.
percentage.
Well put ||bit. This is a very critical point. The rate of participation is fixed - earnings of the company are variable. Bonds are participatory at that fixed rate of 75%. As a result the bonds
come to be legally defined as being more akin to a share. LRM can call the bonds whatever it wants to - what matters is what the regulators and courts decide they actually are.
Clearly the overwhelming sentiment of the bond holders is that we are entitled to 75% of the LRM's assets on dissolution. If this remains a question in LRM's mind it may be necessary to get this into court for preemptive clarification. I'm not stating that this is the preferred option but it may be one that needs to be forced by a few of the larger stakeholders to preserve some proportion of their investment.
It is evident that the response in this forum indicates LRM's proposal is ENTIRELY unacceptable. There is still an opportunity to reconsider your proposed approach and engage the bondholders in constructive consultation on the best outcome. With this in mind Zach, kindly clarify what exactly is meant by "timely manner" in the statement
Time is of the essence and as a result timelines are best defined clearly rather than being left open ended.