I think the loophole is going to be that I didn't buy the tokens. But if that's the excuse, it means apparently some tokens are more equal than others.
I'm just speculating here, and would love to hear the real reason.
I've heard in private from who have bought tokens and lost money, but it's not my place to name them (especially if they are angling to have Dean to privately honor the original terms of their sale).
But I do find it amusing the audacity of saying "no one lost money" after selling millions of dollars worth of tokens that went on to lose ~99% of their value and the majority (supposedly) were bought back at considerably under their sale price (i.e. when it was profitable for Dean to buy them back).
The claims are contradicting each other, if 600 Bitcoin was given back to token holders, a large share if the ico revenue was kept, and the remaining tokens are close to worthless, someone must have lost a lot of money!
Yeah, none of it really makes sense. I wouldn't be surprised that if after canceling the buy-backs, Dean was the one buying large quantities at super-discounted prices on his own exchange. Then as he accumulates large amounts of BKB he can say he bought lots back, but only had to pay a fraction of the "face value". And then he can blame investors for panic selling ("not my fault if they sold for really cheap!")