A few weeks ago, I would have agreed. But at this point, the sunk cost fallacy does not apply. Why? Because the fallacy implies you are stuck in a runt, with all previous investment already gone. Here, we still have shares, and today we know that we have been recieving dividends at a steady rate. Sure, there is still doubt surrounding the validity of this project/investment, but until it goes bust/is proven a scam/does not yield dividends, it is not, per definition, sunk cost.