Quote from: rtt on September 30, 2013, 10:02:17 PM

Quote from: Jutarul on September 30, 2013, 09:32:47 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.

Is there a way to validate that claim? If so, a case could be made that the protection clause can be lowered to 0.0015 (since it's a protection clause, not a profit clause).

Here's the quote from the 1st page of this thread:

Quote

Clause added in benefit of public shareholders
No dividends will be paid to the holders of private shares until holders of public shares have received an accumulated dividend of 0.0016 BitCoin per share. After which, proceeds from mining will be distributed proportionally such that there would be no difference between floating shares or private shares.
Private shares can be converted into floating shares after all public shares have received an accumulated dividend of 0.0016 BitCoin per share.

holders of public shares have received an accumulated dividend of 0.0016 -- no mention of any other terms. Pretty clear to me.

I concur. If you take that clause out of context, there is no way to deduce any relationship to ROI, just a target profit. I bet this whole experience has been an educational exercise in contract writing for DeaDTerra. It would be unfair to load the burden of misinterpretation onto public shareholders. However, dependent on the risk/reward schemes the difference between 0.0015 and 0.0016 can be a significant difference for private shareholders, while it is less than 10% for public shareholders. Unfortunately only DeaDTerra and team members can evaluate the fairness of such an adjustment without disclosing more information about the funding structure.