It's amazing how long this confusion lasts. The blame must lie somewhere between the unorthodox nature of this investment (i.e. self-managed) and the fallout from GLBSE. Normally all equity has to be clearly distributed BEFORE fund-raising, and this was stated in the original contract. That's why in principle 200k shares are associated with the founders (bitfountain) and 200k are associated with the equity ASICMINER.

The fact that not all shares were sold doesn't automatically upgrade the share holdings of the founders. The 35k shares are unsold equity and owned by the "company" bitfountain and can be used in future fund raising. All dividends payed to these 35k shares goes directly into retained earnings, which may make its way into dividend payments again. (Thus in effect the "dividend" payed to the 35k gets redistributed in a 200k:165k fashion between the founders and the ASICMINER shareholders). The recursion here can be a bit confusing at first, but is only important when dividends are payed.

Thus the proper distribution for dividends is 200k:165k, and NOT 235k:165k. However, for simplicity bitfountain may decide to pay dividends according to the 1/400,000 rule, at which the distribution becomes 200k:200k, and the 35k dividends to the unsold equity makes it into the next dividend payment or company financing, because they act as retained earnings...

friedcat may want to clearly make a statement on how he wants to implement this (200k:165k or 200k:200k with delayed dividend), before he prepares the next dividend payments and signs off the financial statements.