Would it be more appropriate to allow an exit window for those who want out? e.g. the escrows setup a buy back for a limited period of time where people can voluntarily choose to stay or go. The remaining holders can then follow Imed or Ton by vote.
Wouldn't it be better to just do a complete buyback (or as *complete* as it can be), and then let those people decide whether they want to re-invest in current or future endeavors by Ton or Imed? Both of them could run some sort of crowdsale once the mess is over. This gives everyone involved absolute freedom.
I second this.
Am I getting this tl;dr right by the way?
Nemgun's version: Tonbi changing the modalities of the original whitepaper and ICO proposal to a point where they have to split.
Tonbi's version: Nemgun can't code/doesn't deliver code and needs to deliver or leave.
Also, can someone confirm or deny?
Nemgun took 75 BTC out of his allocated X share.
Tonbi took ~600 BTC out of his allocated Y share. What are X/Y and how much of the paid money is left?
Without trying to jump the gun, sounds like Ton is the twat in this case unless he pays back what he took. If he spent it then he's an even bigger failure for spending funds before delivering, especially on that scale.
Edit: Asking about funds gets immediate kicks from Ton on Telegram. It seems pretty clear what is going on here, a slimy "CEO" with no skills of his own duping a dev with a potentially too grand vision. Correct me if I'm wrong, which I doubt I am as any decent person would admit to their failures without flailing around. In this case one person took millions of funds and either spent or hid them long before delivering without any intention of refunding what he already took (other than what is left in the escrow, how convenient).