I just slogged thru the 1st doc, and based on the verbiage in the ihub link, I'm pretty safe, I think, in assuming the two are identical. so, I'll get to the second & compare the two later. For now, i'm going to act as though both docs are identical save only for the shares involved.
Basically, MGTI gets to have zero debt in exchange for volume per day & volume per week levels these shares can be dumped into the market. Proly a good thing long run. My guess, although I've not gone back & waded thru the verbiage of the two ORIGINAL docs back in May, for example.... I'm also assuming that the new agreement puts these weekly & daily volume dumpage levels into the equation.
My guess is that the original agreement had no such dumpage limits.
See, my guess is that the original disputed terms did not limit the number of shares per day or per week. So MGTI was facing about a 15% share increase if the shares put into the lenders hands if they converted on the old agreements & then turned around & dumped those new shares. There was no limit on how massive the dumpage could be. Now, there is.
So now, MGTI comes out with about 5% more shares dilution exposure & NO DEBT at all and mining going on & bitcoin prices rising regularly, and equipment on order & LIMITS to the dumpage levels.
They came out a tad disadvantaged but they also did manage to get some things of value in return.
We'll see if this is a dumper delight or not.
IW
And admittedly, until I read all the docs and compare, I'm guessing a lot of things for the moment. And as ever... all just opinions.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
