Quote from: Flashman on March 10, 2014, 08:07:06 PM

Quote from: daemonfox on March 10, 2014, 07:22:03 PM

None of this is an issue if we are all going to be issued more bonds as hardware comes online...

Yes IF. However, we now have cause to have severe "trust issues" and if unilaterally forcing us to accept fixed rate contracts is a way of divorcing us from the "share-iness" of the investment, then tacitly accepting that, with nothing set in stone about further recompense, leaves us in a potentially weakened position.

Bondholders have to understand that whatever Messrs Wormtongue, Screwem and Sneer (or whatever his lawyers are called) are whispering in Labrats ear is all atuned to HIS benefit, as a perceived sole proprietor. Thus all advice would be aimed at ensuring dictatorial control and the maximum recompense for the littlest "work" possible.

Or in other words, it wasn't about control until the lawyer made loss of control a fear, (With the SEC boogeyman no doubt) and control was attempted to be enforced by a unilateral attempt to change terms, so now it's about control, sorry about your lawyers and your luck. We don't necessarily want control, but will leverage the "share-iness"* to it 's full extent until recompense is restored to expectations.

(*Hey SEC this guy sold us these things what looked like shares....)

I would demand a balance sheet if I was in your position. (hopefully his accountant also doesn't have his head up HIS ass)

Also I would demand my original money back since these were bonds not shares.

No horse in this race .. but I am sad to see this thing going the way it is.