@ChazzonKe Anyone have insight into the methodology behind setting the effective date? I've heard conflicting info. Is it set by the NewMiningCo, debtors, court? Is there an actual process that needs to be adhered to. IMO, that now becomes the most important variable on recoveries...
@thefinancer@KrissyMM ahhhh, what a beautiful red and blue tree, kind of like the flashing lights that await the Mashinsky's in 2024... I hope with every glance at their tree they are reminded of that.
@JoePompliano Complains about being paid 50K to be a social media expert for the NBA, a global brand... Also, doesn't know how to log out of a social media account....
@FahrenheitHldg@CelsiusUcc Equities First is paying back about $500m to the estate. Why can't that be used instead of $500m of user assets in funding the NewCo. Overall, I think that the $500m retained will be the sticking point on creditor votes. Improve that to improve your chances of getting this passed
@JohnnyNiceUp@cryptoyolo7@FahrenheitHldg@CelsiusNetwork@CelsiusUcc I'm sure it will change plenty before we get to vote. The courts have to weigh in, and all of the parties will have a chance to file motions and objections. I can only go off of what we have so far. Trust me, I wish BRIC plan was up for a vote on it's own, I prefer the BRIC plan.
@JohnnyNiceUp@cryptoyolo7@FahrenheitHldg@CelsiusNetwork@CelsiusUcc No one is manipulating me. I'm just reading the docs filed with the court and attending all of the hearings. Unless something changes, then a "no" vote rejects the BRICS plan, which would then need to be changed to be voted on again. The judge doesn't order it in place.
@JohnnyNiceUp@cryptoyolo7@FahrenheitHldg@CelsiusNetwork@CelsiusUcc Advocate all you want, I prefer the BRIC plan as well... Just make sure you aren't confusing creditors with wrong information. As it stands currently, the vote will be for both plans. "no" vote will be a rejection of both re-org plans, and a higher chance of chapter 7.
@JohnnyNiceUp@cryptoyolo7@FahrenheitHldg@CelsiusNetwork@CelsiusUcc I listened to the trial (and every trial for this case.) That's not what he said at all. He said he agreed that it was important to have BRIC as a backup and would be more beneficial than chap. 7. That doesn't change that voting "no" means you are voting no to Fahrenheit and BRIC
@cryptoyolo7@FahrenheitHldg@CelsiusNetwork@CelsiusUcc and I'll add, I wish there were a way to vote specifically for the BRIC plan, I think it's the better of the two plans. Less risk and more in-kind returned. No one is looking to risk more of their depleted crypto on Fahrenheit. BRIC also has an equity component for the mining biz
@cryptoyolo7@FahrenheitHldg@CelsiusNetwork@CelsiusUcc I think this is going to have to be reiterated time and time again. So many think that voting "no" means they are voting for the BRIC plan. A "yes" vote is for both plans, and which is used is depends on Fahrenheit getting regulatory approval. Yes vote + No approval = BRIC plan
@booklilifee@cryptoyolo7@FahrenheitHldg@CelsiusNetwork@CelsiusUcc That is not what he is saying at all about the voting. Voting yes is for both Fahrenheit and BRIC. Which plan is used depends on whether the Fahrenheit plan can get court and regulatory approval. If it faces hurdles, then the debtor/UCC/advisors can toggle to the BRIC plan.
@ChazzonKe Take no offense, but I hope you are wrong. 22% of petition date for ETH is basically a little over 10% return. Meanwhile they would keep a bulk of the ETH in the 2.0 contract and in STETH. I can't vote in favor of that.