Quote from: fredthedog on May 30, 2014, 07:24:01 PM

I doubt customer liabilities are over $10 million, but I don't know how bad it is in total. I'm sure it's bad though. There seemed to be some huge commitments made to appease big customers. As for suppliers... Well... In a bankruptcy context it may not matter, as those suppliers may be ordered to hand over the goods that are already finished and their debts end up treated like any other creditors. That won't make those suppliers very happy though.

The only thing I will flat out deny above is that Amy A was lying.
She came on very late in the game with the best of intentions, and she has taken a lot of flack for a situation she had ZERO part in creating.

She was shown financials that put X value on assets and hadn't accounted for all the liabilities, because those were the numbers that existed at the time. The value of a chip over the last few months has a lot of room for debate. The value of a gigahash has plummeted rapidly. Very few rank and file people at the company had a grasp on the economics of mining. Hell, most people who are miners don't have a grasp on it. For the most part I would say top management and some of the core tech team does have a pretty good grasp on it. But they had a certain overestimation of how strong their lead was and what the company could really pull off with the cash from preorders.

Towards the end top management seemed to be grasping at straws and avoiding elephants in the room. There was always the promise of some huge chip deal that would bring in a bunch of cash. Apparently, from the filings, there still seems to be this possibility.

I have a feeling they are only now finally tallying up how bad the liability situation is. The chapter 11 filing will have to reveal this.

I'm calling BS on you again, Freddie.

First off, I'll take my source on the debt any day of the week over you. Mine has greater credibility, frankly. And I have slightly understated what I was told.

Pretty much everything else you say is ridiculous.

It is possible that Amy was lied to, but you know what? Let's say she was lied to in the way you assert... that is, that Hashfast was only "solvent" based on fake numbers about chips? Guess what? She still knew there was no money to get out of the hole, and that Hashfast was only "solvent" if it realized impossible gains on hypothetical sales. Sorry, if you just parrot what you are being fed, but what you are being fed doesn't pass the simplest smell test, well, that's pretty much lying in my book. If you want to compromise, let's say that she "spread lies and should have known better". That's about as charitable as I can get with her. And your story implicates the temporary CFO, because Amy said that was who showed her the figures.

Hashfast doesn't want to sell up to 1,000 chips as a "huge chip deal that would bring in a bunch of cash". 1000 chips isn't huge anyway. It's quite obvious from the filings that Simon doesn't have enough money to meet payroll, pay the lawyers, pay a CRO, and present a credible plan. No, this "huge chip deal" is just about keeping the phones working, a temp to check the voicemail, and the legal process alive, and that's about it.

And back to those financials you say Amy was shown. You offer as an excuse that "the numbers that existed at the time" were not a proper accounting? What are we to glean from that? That it's okay to lose money and forget liabilities on your balance sheet? That you and Amy were content to toil away at a company with hundreds of irate customers beating down the door and accounting that you knew was falsified? That doesn't sound like an excuse, that sounds like negligence (or worse).

I agree with you that, on the scale of culpability of Hashfast people, and on the basis of what we know, Amy is perhaps the least tainted. But even giving her the benefit of the doubt, I'm not letting her slide on broadcasting obvious falsehoods. There were naive customers that believed that, that still believe that. "Why did you file the bankruptcy suit, they stopped shipping?" Of course, there was no money in the bank, a debt to suppliers, a debt to customers, a payroll to meet, lawsuits to defend against, etc. She gave false hope to people with statements she knew, or should have known, were inaccurate. That's probably why she's catching so much flak. Sure, a few of those naive customers would have gotten (late, money-losing) machines before Hashfast hit the wall at the speed of sound, but they were going to hit the wall, and most of the creditors were not going to get paid.