Seer Binary Debacle Proposed Solution

Let me be upfront that this is not the official announcement or minutes from Seer Binary, but as an attempt to help bring transparency to Seer Binary so all people know what is going, I will be writing what I observed had occurred at the January 22, 2015 meeting at Seer Binary’s office in Sacramento, CA as we tried to resolve the issue of offering refunds to SVIP members.  My recollection of those people who made the meeting were:  Wang Khue Thao & wife (Tang Thao), Yang Xiong & wife (Mary Xiong), Vaming Xiong & wife (Mycie Xiong), Billy Moua & wife (Kathy Yang), Steven Xiong & wife (Elizabeth Her), Sao Khang, Alue Lee, Dr. Txiaj Ntsim & wife, Sue Xiong, Wa Seng Yang, Yias Vang, & Long Yang.

The meeting began on a stringent note.  There was a disagreement between Long and some members, particularly myself, about whether cameras and voice recordings of the meeting should be permitted.  Long argued that because of company policy and the sensitive nature of the meeting, he doesn’t want it recorded.  Also, it makes him feel like we are being hostile against him.  I argued that the purpose of wanting to record is to be able to share with those who were not able to make the meeting and for record keeping purposes since Seer Binary has not been doing it as evidenced by Long’s emails to everyone.

For example, we held an important four hour long meeting on January 15, 2015, but Long has no written record of it and said nothing about what took place in that meeting to the membership in his recent emails.  It is as if he was censoring and trying to keep information from the membership.  Moreover, I felt that this meeting of January 22, 2015 may have been held at Long’s office, but the meeting was a meeting pushed and called by the membership.  It was not a meeting sponsored by corporate.  It was the members’ meeting; therefore, they have a right to record if they wanted.   Nevertheless, we finally agreed to not record; otherwise, Long would just leave the meeting.

After agreeing to not record, Long proceeded to lay out his refund proposal.  He wrote $5,000 on the board and subtracted $1,250 for commissions that have been paid out yielding $3,750 being what’s left.  He then divided $3,750 in half yielding $1,875.  His explanation for this formula was that since what he heard from the meeting in the previous week was that people wanted 50% back, what he is now doing is exactly that – giving 50% back (Due to lack of record keeping, we have a difference of opinion here; while he heard 50%, the majority of the people present at the meeting wanted 60%).  He then went around the room and asked for people’s perceptions and thoughts on the proposal.  Those who wanted to comment offered their comments in support or in dissent.  In the process, there was an idea thrown out that one way to figure out the refund is to simply take the full amount that Long still have in his bank account and just divide it equally among the 68 SVIPs and Long making him the 69th SVIP so that he would also get a portion.  However, this idea was not really further discussed.

Eventually, my turn came around to offer my thoughts.  I began by explaining that while some members were not able to be present such as those who do not live locally or were tied up with other prior commitments, they also have a say and that they have every right just as anyone at the meeting to contribute to the discussion.  Therefore, I would be presenting the thoughts of those whom I’ve talked to along with mine.  I asked Long about whether he had read our refund demand.  Long did not provide a strong “yes” or “no” answer, but he indicated that he did.  I went on to break down our thought process that our demand was for 60% of the $5,000 which would be $3,000 and that our main purpose was to seek justice for what we felt was a wrong that Seer Binary had committed against us which was false advertising.  If it was not for Seer Binary’s exaggerated claims, then no would put up $5,000 into Seer binary.

In that vein of seeking to do the fair and equitable thing, I explained that we had considered that Long had used $1,250 to pay the sponsor, and we had also considered that while Long was not able to provide service at the SVIP level, he was able to provide it at the 2Stars Level, so we would go ahead and subtract both $1,2500 and $500 from the $5000 to be fair to Seer Binary.  This yields $3,250 left.  With this figure, we would just take $3,000 back leaving Seer Binary $250 X 68 which which meant that $17,000 was what Seer Binary still made from our SVIP purchases.

I then went into the idea that since not every SVIP want their money back, it does look possible that Long can give back $3,000 to each SVIP that want a refund.  However, before I could explain this proposal in more detail, a few people in the room interrupted and made it seemed as if what I was proposing was to just take money from the other SVIPs and give it to just only some SVIP.  I did not get a chance to explain that the proposal of getting $3,000 is open to all SVIP who want a refund but that since we know that some SVIP would not want their money back, it would be a doable solution.  Before we could go into more details, former VP Billy Moua came up to the board and drew out another formula.

Similar to the one I presented, Billy subtracted the $1,250 from $5,000 for commissions paid and also subtracted $500 for services rendered leaving $3,250 left.  Next, he took 60% of $3,250 which comes to be $1,950 and then he calculated 50% of $3,250 giving us $1,625.  These two figures, $1,625 and $1,950, appear to be the low and high for Long’s figure since his figure was $1,875.  Long’s figure is 57.69% of the $3,250.  This new way of calculating was one way that most people in the room had not thought about.  But as people considered the formula, they started agreeing that it appeared to make sense.  I don’t know exactly what went through people’s head, but I eventually also said that at some level it does make sense to me personally.  This, however, does not mean that it would make sense for others as the SVIPs are entitled to their own ways of thinking.  If $1,875 is not acceptable to someone, then Long will still have to deal with those who are not satisfied.

The next step would be for Long to announce it to the membership with additional details by Wednesday, January 28, 2015.  He asked me to start getting the word out to people whom I have contact information to.  I told him that I would do that but that ultimately, it is him as the CEO who would have to address them and that they have the final say on whether they would be in agreement with the proposal.

Yang’s Personal Thoughts

It’s been four days now that the meeting had occurred.  I’ve had a chance to talk to those who felt that false advertising had occurred and I’ve also thought more about the whole situation.  The rest of this posting will focus on my personal thoughts which does not necessarily mean that they are correct and that others would need to agree.  I wholeheartedly expect disagreement as the I feel each of us must be given our own chances to think for ourselves and make our own decisions.  Far too often, when the individual views are not considered appropriately, the phenomenon called “groupthink” occurs.  When groupthink occurs, even though a decision may be entirely wrong, just because the group thinks it is right, then it becomes as if it is the right decision.  In fact, I would say one of the main lessons I learned from this whole Seer Binary experience has to do with this very concept of groupthink among others.

In any event, following the January 22, 2015 meeting, I held a conference call with the members who felt $3,000 should be the appropriate refund amount.  In that meeting, I recapped what had occurred at the meeting for them to have a chance to discuss and I also took a first stab at trying to explain my position.  While I successfully told the group that I would no longer be participating in fighting Seer Binary due to personal reasons, I was not able to succintly explain what was in my mind.  With the passage of time, it seems I can now do it.

Although I would no longer be participating in the fight for $3,000, I still feel strongly that Seer Binary had committed false advertising and therefore, members are entitled to a refund and that refund amount really should be at least $3,000 to be fair.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.