Post
Topic
Board Securities
Re: Lab Rat Data Processing, LLC (LabRatMining) Official Announcement
by
Komodorpudel
on 10/03/2014, 18:52:44 UTC
As long as LRM issues the correct multiple of 100MH/s contracts for the 58,792 original variable rate
contracts based on the total purchased hash rate to date, I see no problem with him. He would be
acting in good faith.

We all took one main risk when purchasing these contracts. We all fundamentally believed that LRM
could mine more BTC than it cost for us to purchase the mining hardware. This belief was dynamic
and transient in nature. That is, there was a time value associated with each piece of hardware LRM
purchased. If LRM could purchase in bulk or get preferential delivery or get lucky with BTC pricing at
the moment, it could provide more BTC returned per BTC invested. That was the key to this whole
agreement.

The facts are that LRM (and just about every other mining company on earth), got steam rolled by
hardware manufacturers. This occurred because of late deliveries and prices that were too high per
gh/s. As unfortunate as that is, LRM cannot be blamed for that.

All we can really do is make sure that LRM took in X amount of BTC, converted it to Y amount of $,
and purchased Z amount of hash rate. We are entitled to Z amount of hash rate divided up 58,792
ways. That is it. If that "conversion engine" does not yield > 100% BTC out for each BTC in, then we
are S.O.L. If LRM does not give us X-->Y-->Z conversion fairly, then LRM needs to be held accountable
for that.

Please enlighten me if you feel this is overly simplistic.

Yes; there is a problem, LabRat promised several times that the hashrate of this "bonds"(although i was said once, that this is not garantueed-->) will increase together with the absolut Hashrate of LabRat.
Outgoing statements from LabRat made in the last few weeks/months, each bond should have ca. 2,6 Gh/s or at least 600MH/s right now; non of that actually is true at the moment.
These statments were made while LabRat already knew about the "legal issues" and the possible fixing of the hashrate at 100MH/s to solve this "legal issue"

This is misrepresentation and almost fraud

Everything you need to know:
http://www.justia.com/consumer/securities-fraud/