Quote from: Endlessa on March 12, 2014, 08:38:41 PM

Quote from: Endlessa on March 11, 2014, 06:51:08 PM

I could get behind that, especially if we could see the blockchain activity from mining. we would know exactly what was happening.

Some questions that would be nice to have answered concerning Due Diligence LR performed on executing the old bonds/contracts/mining shares (whatever we want to call them now) and the change to new ones:

What is the problem?
Did this problem suddenly happen? (I assume no, since you said you've been working on this for 2-3 months)
If not, why are we addressing it right now with partial solution?
Why didn't we address this earlier?
Why didn't we discuss the problem prior to taking action?
Can we have a copy of what the lawyers had to say on the issue and the solution?
What agency is exerting pressure on LRM, if any?
Why tell us the purchase of new hardware was going to give us 2 gh/s per share, if you already knew there were problems with the shares being legal?
Why sell more shares, if you already knew about this?

bump

While purely speculation, I'd say some state(s) sent labrat some nastygram(s) which required immediate restructuring of the offering to stay on the right side of the law. I'd suspect labrat will be fairly quiet until the final resolution is done. For example, how can he promise you anything if he doesn't know what the end result will be yet? Same goes for the new hardware. When this is all over, I wouldn't be surprised if we get a "Oh by the way, the new hardware arrived and has been mining for a month. He's a back payment of 300 coins!" The "fixed" thing is just to make the suits happy. At the end of the day, labrat will figure out how to ensure we still get the same value while keeping all the suits happy.