Quote from: hd060053 on September 30, 2013, 08:54:24 PM

Quote from: rtt on September 30, 2013, 08:43:03 PM

Quote from: DeaDTerra on September 30, 2013, 09:59:17 AM

Weve decided to lower the investor protection clause from 0.0016 BTC payback to 0.0015 BTC payback as no share has ever been sold (from anyone) for higher than 0.0015 BTC. This is a 6.25% decrease. We believe this remains within the spirit of the clause: to provide 100% principal investment ROI in dividends, before private shares attain value upon entering the market.
...
//DeaDTerra

I don't think you should be making changes to your promises now. You appear to be a decent set of people unlike many in the business.
You are making a mistake massaging the payback number in this manner, and here's why:

I bought into the deal based on the promise of the 0.0016 guaranteed return from these shares.
My decision was not driven by my purchase price.
My decision was not driven by the initial .0014 offer price, nor the next .0015 + exchange fees.
My decision was not driven by the BTC/USD conversion rate at the time or anything else.

I bought into the deal because of this 0.0016 div/share protection clause in the original contract. Clearly stated as such (!)
The 6.5% difference in the guaranteed payback is quite noticeable to those who were weighing risk/reward of this offer.

agreed

0.0016 was guaranteed. Now its too late to change the contract / promises.

It's a gray area, depends on parsing the guaranteed figure as a string variable or integer constant.

0.0016 assumed shares sold higher than 0.0015, which didn't happen.

I'd expect ukyo to side with the shareholders on this one, given his firmness with the terms of ACTM's IPO.