I am sure that if I had known before how you treat investors, I would not have participated in this ICO. The explanations that are giving most affected are reasonable, ¿how can you change the rules of the game in the middle of the game? this is not ethical.
It seems good to me if you want to expand your project if you have growth forecasts, but it is not good to reduce our value, you have no logic what excuses you are giving.
Capitolmil,
our assumptions about the project possibillities during presail were lower then in September. We came to presale with a very strong consortoum members, advising board and with the core programm inside. I mean Logismart. That were not the results of preICO, that were the results of hardworking team. We invited the preICO investors to be on the board of big ship with the great potential. And we promissed them 43% interest for being the earlest birds among crypto community. That interest will be realised anyway if ICO gets the volume announced in WP v1. For those who wants to realize it. The rest level of ICO is like the additional emmission. That will give IMMLA the ticket to Asia in 2019. I prefer IMMLA going that way, but you - if you think the token price goes down therefore - could sell your tokens, or - if you believe in IMMLA - can buy more tokens of that emmission. That is the standard market behavior.
Or - if you or other ones don't like such aproach or think it is not fair - can think about the idea to keep the tokens share volume the mirror way in every stage of emmission, either highest level or the lowest one, as I've suggested above. We can discuss such approach and I will suggest it to our Board. According to such approach, the pre-ICO investor will be get more new tokens if ICO going the best way, or they should give tokens to IMMLA back for free if ICO going the worse way.
I'm not quite sure the Board will accept such idea, but I can talk to them about that.