My guess is that Labrat is trying to avoid defining anything as actual bonds or shares. Doing so may require certain requirements be fulfilled. From the beginning, the term "bond" was only used for lack of better term. Even in some of my oldest posts I would put bonds in quotes. And there's probably a reason LR didn't call these shares. Anyway, if you noticed, LR isn't saying bonds anymore, he's calling them 'contracts'. There could easily be a good reason behind this... I simply don't think this is all that serious anymore, or at least if it is serious, I do think that a solution is probably somewhere to be found.

For example, why not rewrite the "contract" or simply redefine LRM as a hosting company of our hardware with Labrat acting as manager. Or find an asset protection specialist and see if moving everything into a trust could free up more options.

So, because I think a solution is achievable and I'm going to assume Labrat actually wants LRM to be successful, I now think the status of new hardware (and future hardware) is more important than this restructuring of the btc distribution schema.