I see some contradiction here. 
100% per year is not bad after all.
As for fees, someone did the math, and due to the 1000 SEM burn, your asking fee of 1-2% would *never* regain the initial burn, it'd be operating at a loss, even if hardware were free... that seems unreasonable?
Yes, Ted has his money back, but Bill has more still from not running a pool
100% per year is not bad after all.
If you think that's a smart move, then by all means please start a pool @ 1-2%!!
I'll vote 1000 for it.
