Quote from: creativex on September 26, 2013, 07:43:32 PM

Quote from: Esh on September 26, 2013, 07:29:03 PM

I think you misunderstand me Creative. My point is simply that issuers moving from BTC-TC have contractual responsibilities to their shareholders, and that shareholders should hold them to those responsibilities. Many many assets will move to Bitfunder in the next two weeks. The details of those migrations matter, and those following this thread who have positions in assets making that migration should be vigilant.

I don't think there's a misunderstanding at all. Determining whether and where to move is an important decision. I'm weighing the options and don't see bitfunder as viable for the reasons I've already stated. I've met my responsibilities to shareholders today by scheduling dividends to be paid at precisely the time of day in which they were scheduled last week before this disaster began.

I'm off the clock now.

I believe you are interpreting my comments as directed towards you and BASIC, or as impugning your trustworthiness unless constrained by a contract. Nothing could be further from my intent. In fact this is the only thread I'm following in which the subject of the contract modification terms on Bitfunder has even come up (to say nothing of the fact that it was you who brought it up, much to your credit). I do, however, mean to defend the possibility of moving to Bitfunder if this issue can be addressed in a satisfactory way (setting aside the reasons I noted earlier that suggest that Havelock is on more solid regulatory ground), while also encouraging those reading to take this same problem up with other issuers. Of course the final decision on migration is yours, and I'm confident that you'll make it with the best interests of shareholders in mind.