Quote from: NotMyFarm on December 07, 2016, 03:16:20 AM

Quote from: jvper on December 07, 2016, 03:00:58 AM

Regardless of Greg's behavior, I believe Synereo should not behave inappropriate as well. In consideration to all second crowdsale investors who decided to invest based on all documentation provided by Synereo at that time, the company should open the possibility of a refund. It means only for those who request it, based on the impossibility of targeting RChain development as stated in the crowdsale documentation.

If necessary, Synereo could do a crowdfund based on this new scenario (and new commitments) and see what happens.

Much fairer with all 2nd crowdsale investors. Otherwise, it would look like a scam (sale of AMPs for a purpose no longer targeted).

no way
- enough people bought paralel to the 2nd ico on open markets as it seemed cheaper than the ico price - how will u refund them ?
- NO MORE FUNDRAISERs !! - the 2nd was already a bad idea - start burning the coins u promised you will - reduce that crazy coin count to something legit and take it from there
another 'fundraiser' will break this project (at least for me)

Whoever bought parallel to the 2nd crowdsale bought from a seller who did not promise him/her anything. On the other hand, who bought directly from Synereo was promised something. That's why Synereo is legally responsible for crowdsale investors only.

If Synereo is not going to deliver what was promised to the crowdsale investors, Synereo must give them the option for a refund. This is plain and simple. We can discuss it all day long, but it will not change Synereo's legal responsibility at all. If Greg is considered responsible for all this pain, it is up to Synereo to request indemnity from him.