Quote from: BonTonPlease on August 27, 2015, 11:14:08 AM

I would like to know whether those "alternative arrangements" for delayed payments violate the terms of the motion in any way? If so, I am definitely against those alternative arrangements. We should stick to the motion, no matter what.

No, they do not violate the motion. The last requirement is:

Quote

August 30, 2015 (23:59 UTC) - Any BlockShares remaining that have not been paid for - including those that were requested for purchase but not paid for - will be burned. At this point, all undistributed BlockShares will have been destroyed as per the motion. This date is fourteen days after the motion passed.

We have requested that users make final payment by August 28th to ensure that we are able to comply with the burn on August 30th, as it takes time to verify purchase records and prepare an accurate burn count. Our comment "If this will be a problem for a purchaser due to a lack of access to their funds until August 29 or August 30, please send us an email and BitMessage to work out alternative arrangements" allows users to still pay after Aug 28 but before Aug 31 if they can't access their funds until those days. We just want to minimize the amount of record-keeping we do in the hours prior to the burn.

Requesting an August 28 payment deadline allows us to be certain that we can complete the burn by August 30 23:59 UTC, while still allowing users who may face extenuating circumstances to make payment on August 29 or August 30 if absolutely needed.

We agree that it is important that the terms of motions are upheld, just as we've done with all motions on the Nu network in the past. We have purposely posted the three important dates of the motion multiple times in this thread to ensure there is no ambiguity regarding our commitments.