Quote from: John122 on April 26, 2014, 11:38:20 PM

Here is my understanding of the situation.

Given that :
1. LabRat has realised that the company is doomed to fail soon with only a 25% reinvestment rate.
2. LabRat has become uneasy about the few people threatening to sue left and right.

The following happened :
3. LabRat needed to change the policy for a bigger reinvestment rate (to avoid the failure of the company).
4. LabRat needed to use a lawyer to craft a new contract which allow for the new reinvestment rate without being at risk of being sued by the few assholes in (2).
5. Everything LabRat has said since then in the new contract and AMA is his lawyer speaking through him, which is obviously going to protect him legally speaking.

I want to say I am from the silent majority/minority (who knows at this point) that have been supporting LabRat in every decision he made before this legal mumbo-jumbo.
LabRat has always been honest with us in his intentions from the beginning (until he lawyered up), even if he never told much detail about what is going on with LRM on a day to day basis.
He always said that he wanted the company to grow and our share to grow with it, and kept this word until now.
The new system allows the company to still be profitable and increase our payout while remaining legally protected.

_________________________________________

My question for LabRat is the following :

Do you intend to keep the same philosophy you always kept until now (for us to profit from the company's growth at your side) or has that changed in any way (since you might have lost respect for the people outlined in (2), for example)? The change could include but is not limited to diluting the shares, preventing us from profiting of the discretionary bonus hashrate.

If your philosophy is still the same, I will be one to go through with the change of contract, since this whole thing has always been trust-based, and I personally think that every decision you took before profited us as investors.

BTW, this question is in no way legal advice and is purely about your personal philosophy/ethics.

And you base this on:

1) nothing
2) absolutely nothing
3) unsubstantiated assumptions
4) all of the above

Assholes? Seriously?
Not everyone can follow others in blind faith buddy. Especially after repeated breaches of trust. Scams happen all the time. How are you so certain you aren't being scammed? I'm rather curious as to if you have even read through this thread...

In your fantastic theory what exactly was stopping labrat from discussing these concerns you assume he had with bondholders? It's not like we have a thread on a forum where the company was started and discussion can occur. In fact the only person not willing to discuss much of anything at all was labrat himself.