Even if they agreed with you, where was HF supposed to get the money to pay out 10x their orders, after spending millions to build an amazing chip and some less than amazing boards? It was a start-up, not IBM.
One would think that they would perform some sort of hedging, such as buying special situation insurance, futures, or options. That is what companies do that deal in multiple currencies, anyway. If they could not do this, they should not have made that promise.
Oh good, more Monday Morning Quarterbacking.
Nobody expected $100 BTC to suddenly spike past $1000, even if such hypothetical "hedging services" were available and legal for HF to use.The only reasonable interpretation is that the "refund in BTC" clause always meant "USD purchase price equivalent in BTC." Ask any attorney with even a vague notion of contract law.
But thanks to the lawsuits, HF was required to use USD, AKA 'legal tender.'
This issue was put to bed months ago, why are you dredging it up at this late date, when it doesn't matter at all?
Do please try to keep up with the rest of the class, so we don't have to waste time reviewing.
And RoadStress, if you really think that your lulzy infinite liability creating interpretation is anything but trolling, please give your money to the nearest lawyer so he can explain the facts of common law to you. Ask about the "Equity For Dummies" tutorial.
