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.
Are we really entertaining the notion that there is any situation in which the breach of terms in a good-faith contract is more "fair" than the execution of those terms? (barring the good-faith agreement of all parties involved)
The private shareholders are not inherently entitled to any particular profits. They are entitled to what was specified in the IPO contract. The relative magnitude of the effect on public shareholders is not relevant. What kind of precedent is being set here?