The recent payment was a current funds discharge to all verified shareholding addresses. It was requested by a major stakeholder and there were no objections.

The current state of affairs is as follows:
- The BTC mine is still running under the 10% guaranteed yield agreement. The funds stored in the BTC mining address are used to cover operating expenses. The remainder is the realized yield, which will eventually make its way into the payout. The cooling units provided with the HF units are continually failing. A request for RMA with CoolIT failed, quoting a "special agreement" with HashFast. We requested a copy of that agreement, but it was not provided and we were referred to HashFast. It must be assumed that CoolIT is not interested in providing a warranty service on their product. The mining operator is working on salvaging third party parts to create low cost solutions to revive some of the HashFast units, which according to the operator is a slow but successful process.
- The Cryptomex database was provided for inspection. The payouts to cryptomex accounts will have to be verified manually using the tracing information contained in the blockchain. Once that is done, we can determine which accounts got paid and we can also associate old accounts with new cryptomex accounts.
- Willem and DeaDTerra filed claims which are currently looked at. They were asked to provide information about the underlying value transaction to establish a proper trail.
- There were no further attempts to establish any other company activity. This is why one of the stakeholder inquired about liquidation and bankruptcy filings.
- Willem and the IceDrill sysadmin have filed expenses last year to account for all major expense items paid out of IceDrill accounts. The expense filings are consistent with normal business expenses.
- I, myself, have limited time left to inspect the materials of the company and nobody is getting paid for this anyway. The problem is some of the items contain sensitive information, so a public release cannot be provided. If we hire a professional to look into this issue, it's likely gonna consume all remaining assets. So we're stuck in a slow processing.

The current mining is still going on, albeit at a reduced rate:
http://eligius.st/~wizkid057/newstats/userstats.php/1J1WB4LxdKwR7Y3cSEYLDbYk16xiHa9ivp

The reduction of hashing power primarily comes from the failure rate of the cooling pumps, which the operator is currently trying to RMA.

The original operator agreement broke when bitcoin crashed below 300 USD, as the equipment couldn't produce a surplus anymore. For the duration of the flash crash below 200 USD the contract got suspended.  The new agreement is more in tune with a gentlemen's agreement of a guaranteed 10% yield. As such the operation had about a 3 BTC surplus in January, with a payment of 23 BTC in operating cost. The equipment is property of Digimex and will run as long as the operator can provide the operation under beneficial conditions (guarantee of surplus).

The last payment was settled directly from the mining address. Future payments will also be settled directly through the mining address.  Only the surplus will be transferred into the multi-sig account from time to time.

Cryptomex was a separate entity and was hosted by Icedrill. Based on available records no significant business transactions have taken place between cryptomex and Icedrill. Theoretically Icedrill could write a bill for hosting to cryptomex, but that would be nitpicking. If there was some wrongdoing by officers or employees of cryptomex, Icedrill was not affected more than a potential dispute arising out of failed payouts, which in total should be less than 30 BTC.

Icedrill will likely completely dissolve all tangible and intangible assets within the next few months. Given the unknown quality of the work and the lack of funding, this means that there will likely be a mix of sales/auctions and open sourcing.

The payment for 1/15 has been compiled and submitted to Willem. The following addresses have confirmed their claim:

If you find your address in the above and you didn't receive a payout, this likely means that your #shares don't meet the payout minimum of 0.01 BTC.

The migration is currently being finalized. ~40 TH/s has been migrated in 10/14. ~100 TH/s has been migrated in 12/14 and is currently being redeployed at its destination. ~13 TH/s (11 units) have been liquidated in the process for 1.2 BTC/unit. Until recently the hashing power has been mining a pool maintained by IceDrill. However, for the time being it's been decided to mine the eligius pool to provide a level of transparency and benchmarking. The mining addresses are:

At the time of this writing the combined hashing power is 44 TH/s stable + 62 TH/s increasing. It is expected that the hashing power increases to at least 120 TH/s within the next few days. The failure rate of the HashFast miners is causing the operator to have a slower than usual deployment. However, he is optimistic that miners can be brought be slowly to maximize value to shareholders. Most of the miners are suffering from thermal issues, some of them have board power failures. The first milestone is to recover the cost of migration. The second one is to recover the opportunity price for the hardware at the time of recommission.

A detailed report on IceDrill has been postponed due to the required focus on getting the migration underway. Other delays are caused by inconsistent book keeping, causing the corresponding items having to be manually verified. Since nobody is actually getting paid for this work, the progress is naturally slow.

There are currently no plans to reinvest any funds into mining equipment. Priorities for the next year is to set the books straight and get the cryptomex payments consolidated with the current payout scheme.

The priority is to get payments underway for accounts which filed a proof of claim via the blockchain. That's currently the fast track to get payouts.

We will look at the stats of the filing this month and see how many accounts are in manual verification - we'll also try to reconcile what happened to the cryptomex payments, as this is also somewhat of a tedious subject (since it adds another layer of complexity).

Due to the upcoming holidays and the traveling schedules I will close the next validation round on 23/12/14 and submit the transaction template to Willem for cosigning and broadcasting. If it works as well as last time, the scheduled 1/15 payout will go through before christmas.

I kindly ask everyone who has an active interest to submit a proof of claim for their account BEFORE 23/12/14, so their claim can be reflected in the next payout. Also I ask for patience from people who for one reason or another cannot file such claim, as their accounts need to be handled in a different way.

You're in the bucket "to be dealt with on a case by case basis". If you want faster processing please use the procedure outlined previously.

Bad timing. The payment, which requires multiple signatures, has been drafted, issued, co-signed and handed over to Willem before that address qualified for a full claim. The coins roll over into the next payout date.

Also note, that accounts who had less than 3334 shares have not received a payout b/c of the minimum payout threshold. It's not been decided on whether to do an advance payout for 12 months on small accounts. For now coins on those accounts accumulate until either the minimum payout (0.01) or the 12 month limit is reached.

Payout dates are scheduled for the beginning of each month (the 1st), and claim verification is closed shortly before (the 30/31). Due to holidays and availabilities of the cosignees delays of a few days are possible. Especially surrounding new years eve.

I will answer to PMs as time allows.

Thank you for pointing these things out.

Here is a current update on the claim process.

Accounts which have been successfully claimed:

Accounts which have recognizable claim transactions but are missing a finalizing output transaction to show the existing capacity to spend funds. If your address is listed here, please withdraw funds to a BTC address of your choice before 12/1.

Should I publish your PM to illustrate everyone on how not to write a message? As I said I can not do 1:1 customer service, and I will not waste time on emotionally charged messages and/or obvious trolling attempts.

Proof by transaction doesn't require you to "put" more money into it, since you as the owner of the address have full control over the funds. It's your BTC address, you should have the private key. If that's not the case you need to either wait for backup authentication methods to be employed in the next few months or if that also fails, need to wait for legacy methods to be available. Also note that the smallest transaction amount I advertised (2x0.00013117) currently has a market value of about 10 UScent. That's less than it would take to write a letter or make a phone call to a bankruptcy attorney.

I'll post a listing with confirmed claimed addresses soon. Also the transactions don't need to be included in the same block. I relaxed the description of how to show "proof by transaction" quite a bit. Within same timeframe means sufficiently close in the block chain to infer correlation between these two transactions. If a bus hits me tomorrow or an external entity needs to review the claims process, they should be able to deduce it from inspecting the transactions on the address either programmatically or manually.

To all which don't receive a reply to a PM I apologize. I simply don't have enough time to perform 1 on 1 customer service. I tried to provide clear instructions for everyone to follow so they can get cleared for receiving payouts and keep them somewhat informed. I am currently consolidating the financials and collecting information about the business practices at ID and compile it in a way for everyone to inspect. Also let me make clear that I am not getting paid for this. I am doing this to provide shareholders with the transparency they need to make an informed assessment of ID after the fact.

There is a lot of data which you don't see and which is hard to communicate given the degree of failure of this fund. Simply put 75% of the fund was destroyed by the actions of HashFast, 10% was wasted on expensive upkeep and a few percent were redirected into refocusing efforts of the business. You may blame current management for failing to serve in the best interest of their shareholders but that doesn't affect the 75% failure.

You'll get numbers and fancy graphics as soon as all transactions are sufficiently annotated. Also sorry for my point-blank tone of conversation - but I don't see any value in sugar coating anything here. Also keep in mind that ID is still involved in recovery actions against HashFast. As long as that process is ongoing it is hard to draw final conclusions.

Ok. Even though I asked for a specific type of transaction, there are many other ways which also fullfill the "purpose". Namely:
a) two transaction outputs (either combined or separate), incoming or outgoing, to/from the bitfunder address of one of the specified amounts (0.13117745, 0.01311774, 0.00131177, 0.00013117)
b) the bitfunder address should at least show one outgoing transaction at the time or after the claim transaction

How you make that work with your particular wallet software should be a matter of personal preference. I hope the above criterium is broad enough to cover all possible wallet behaviors. In its most simplistic version you'd send two 0.13117745 amounts to your bitfunder address within the same timerange and withdraw them afterwards.

Thank you for the open and constructive feedback. Please note that the procedure is not arbitrarily chosen. It features several key characteristics I need: privacy, tamperproof receipt for filing claim, proof of technical skill level to withdraw funds.

Accounts which do not follow the claim procedure will likely have to be handed over to a lawyer and accountant. This is because I do not have proof that the account has shown the ability to withdraw funds, which means that these accounts will have to go through a legacy system to get repaid. Otherwise ID opens itself up to potential liability claims for sending funds to addresses with no counter-proof that the account had the ability to withdraw funds. I hope that clarifies a few question marks.

In simple words the situation is complex. You may have confirmed your claim with willem, but not with me. You can reject this claim process and see what happens during the first payout on 12/1. You will have one year to ponder about what to do after which accounts without payouts are considered dead. Asking for making a transaction from the address you will receive payments on is appropriate. As noted earlier if your wallet software doesn't support multiple outputs, make two transactions within the same timeframe.

If there are missing payouts for cryptomex please send me the corresponding information via PM. All I can offer to make a note and resolve it within a reasonable time and/or let the cryptomex people sort it out.

On the notion of transaction spamming. It's not. Showing proof by an outgoing transaction on the address on which you will receive payments on makes very much sense. With the claim being on the ledger you actually have an automatic receipt of filing the claim. I see that you are one of many who are disgusted by being pushed around to get any payout back from this business. There is nothing I can change about previous procedures or experiences.

I realize now that the native client doesn't support the creation of the transaction I put up as an example. The problem seems that the JSON object kicks out the second argument b/c it is the same address. Wallet software like Armory will allow you to create the specified transaction.
Also: I asked for an OUTGOING transaction FROM the registered address with two outputs. You're free to choose different arbitrary target addresses and thus don't have the problem posed by bitcoind. But unless all inputs in your bitcoind wallets run on the bitfunder address you may pull the BTC from an arbitrary address and thus create and INCOMING transaction with two INPUTS of the specified amount. If you want to use a crude tool like bitcoind to create a qualifying transaction I recommend the following steps:
And please make sure that MYBITFUNDERADDRESS has the necessary balance.  Sorry for the technical hurdle.

Signing a message requires me to do manual verification and doesn't provide you with a confirmed receipt.

Under the rare circumstance that your wallet software doesn't allow to create transactions with multiple outputs, please make two separate transactions with the chosen amount and submit them to the blockchain within the same timeframe.

I get people throwing signatures at me. While I can do some manual verification please be so kind and create the transaction I asked you to if you want to claim your address. You don't even have to contact me as the transaction and the bitfunder address listing is publicly visible.

I have created a sample transaction for everyone to inspect:
https://blockchain.info/tx/b6f8e59b0b21bcb58619c15f19bd7b29c09d0750eaaf43bb4da498ed70cf1447

It contains TWO 0.13117745 outputs. This is the clue for me. As stated before, if you want to submit a lesser amount of BTC I am also looking for a pair of either of the following amounts:
0.01311774,0.01311774
0.00131177,0.00131177
0.00013117,0.00013117

I have two lists, one from bitfunder and one from Willem. Doing an independent claim process allows me to check for consistency while at the same time not having to rely on either list. I understand that this is some additional effort but frankly it's as simple as creating a transaction. EVERYONE CAN CREATE A TRANSACTION - not everyone knows how to sign a message. Apart from that I chose this method because it allows algorithmic analysis of records in a trusted decentralized database.

see above.

We discussed buy backs as an option for small accounts, but the problem is impossible valuation of some of the assets. Paying out in advance for accounts below the minimum threshold would be an option we can discuss. It's a preferential treatment of small accounts though.

the exact numbers are still in the processing, but the digest of the cash flow so far is that ID generated about 1750 BTC in its lifetime. 480 BTC are in the multi-sig address and about 120 BTC are floating around as additional reward reserve and not yet consolidated mining revenues. This is consistent with the fact that between February and May, ID accumulated about 650 BTC in surplus, and operated at break even thereafter. This means that ID upkeep consumed about 1150 BTC, the nature of it will be disclosed as soon as all transactions have been inspected.

I need to see a connection between the bitfunder account and the claim - and the best way for me is to that is to ask you to actually use the address. I can start making exceptions if need be, but please understand that there are >200 potentially active shareholder accounts and I want to keep the accounts as consistent as possible. Please PM me with your bitfunder address and a bitfunder signed message of the new account address you were using for cryptomex. I will then swap your BTC address on file after I verify the signature.

Please send me a PM, listing any details pertaining a cryptomex payout or the lack thereof. I have no information or control about the payout mechanics on cryptomex. These things likely need to be fixed on a case by case basis.

If you're lacking the two 0.13117745 amounts requested for the proof of claim procedure (unless intended as a humorous remark), the following amounts will also be considered valid:
0.01311774
0.00131177
0.00013117

Dear IceDrill shareholders.

As stated previously, the majority of current ID funds are consolidated at 3N9MiKtPiAShS8tJMTpYocXTXRBSkQ2rpg. It provides a sufficient basis for starting regular payouts. The payout schedule is for full payout of the available funds over a period of 12 months. The reason to prolong the process is to retain short term financial flexibility for the ongoing business activities (HashFast bankruptcy proceeding), while at the same time returning funds to investors.

Digimex will undergo a liquidation of the majority of the business assets in the near future. However, the timing will be chosen based on best judgement of current management and representative shareholders to return maximum value to ID shareholders. While the business may continue in some form or another, the current projects will be critically assessed and either shut down, liquidated or restructured. The current hardware is being migrated towards WA state, where it will hopefully retain a positive cash flow to make the move worthwhile. As liquidation makes funds available, these will be added to the payout schedule and either increase the monthly payout proportionally or prolong the payout timeline.

The payout will be done on the blockchain directly. For this I ask every shareholder listed in the final bitfunder shareholder database (http://bitfunder.firstitinc.com/asset-list/assetlist-2013-12-07-01:40.txt) to file a "proof of active claim" on the blockchain ledger. This is done to assess the number of active shareholders and make sure that the target address is viable. Account holders who have lost access to their private keys they used for bitfunder are asked to contact me through a forum private message. These accounts will be marked and further instructions for account validation will be provided before payouts begin.
The first payout is scheduled for 12/1/2014, and subsequent payouts will be paid at the beginning of each of the following months. The payout amount is 300 satoshis per share. At a total of about 13 million outstanding shares this amounts to a depletion of 480 BTC within 12 months. Note that the minimum payout for an account is 0.01 BTC which translates into 3334 shares. Accounts with less shares will accumulate until the minimum is met. Accounts which do not meet the minimum payout after one year of accumulation are paid on a yearly basis (<277 shares). When receiving a payout, check whether the amount is a multiple (300) of the number of shares you claim. If there is a discrepancy the account needs to be inspected.

Accounts which do not file a proof of active claims will accumulate payouts. Proof of active claims must be filed until 11/1/2015 (November next year). Accounts which haven't filed a proof of active claim until 11/1/2015, will be regarded abandoned and the accumulated payout will be redistributed to active account holders.

Cryptomex will not be used to do payouts. Any previous payouts via Cryptomex to users who registered with the site will be consolidated with the future payout on the blockchain by deducing the corresponding amount from the final payouts.

Please write me a PM or respond to this post if something is not clear or needs refinement. This is a human attempt to fix a human problem.

Proof of active claim Procedure
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Create an OUTGOING transaction with two identical outputs with amounts of 0.13117745 using the BTC address in the final bitfunder shareholder database (http://bitfunder.firstitinc.com/asset-list/assetlist-2013-12-07-01:40.txt). Check an example transaction here: https://blockchain.info/tx/b6f8e59b0b21bcb58619c15f19bd7b29c09d0750eaaf43bb4da498ed70cf1447

see https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=269216.msg9522001#msg9522001