Quote from: runam0k on March 11, 2014, 01:43:22 PM

Quote from: ksenter on March 11, 2014, 12:19:15 PM

No he didn't. He said he'd attempt to find a way to benefit us. Maybe he'll offer us a 25% discount on future bond purchases. That would also qualify as an attempt to benefit us. As of right now he has not once said he would honor the original agreement of our shares growing proportionally with the company's hashrate.

You are right, but he has acknowledged several times that the change made is a temporary fix and that "the specifics of the payout moving forward is being worked on".

LR could turn around and offer us 25% and that's when we, collectively, would take action. There is zero doubt that we all based our investment decision on the promise of proportional BTC returns based on reinvestment and increased hashrate. We know it, LR knows it and his lawyers know it. They just need to work out a compliant way of achieving that and if they can't then something needs to change or the operation needs to be liquidated.

Let's see what they come up with.

I could get behind this statement except for a few lingering problems with it:

Still no expression of what he's fixing. Did he lose some money? Is it a legal problem? or even an external entity?
I have a hard time stomaching that the shares, something he price fixed and sold more shares @ ~$80 in the last several weeks, are now worth $0.36 of hash
I'm sick of the murky communication. I don't just mean this incident alone.
Combine that with the lack of transparency in general (no idea what the assests are, failure to give out mining wallets or self identify on the blockchain for accounting, etc), It does feel like an "investment black hole".

I'd make a longer list, but I'm giving him until friday to get his house of cards in order.