Why dont we do a mix of the 2 options?

Once the IPO is lifted you let , lets say, 10% of the shares at the IPO prices, so it doesnt becomes a HUGE sell wall and the prices can float once there is enough demand. After 1 month, or some other period, you drop another 10% at the  actual market price or at the the original IPO price(the highest between both), and so on.

I know that this system has its problems but it tries to conciliate both interests.But if we do have to chose one option I think the most helpfull one , at least in the long run, would be to have some shares to be sold to raise money. I dont necessary like this because I could need the money before the shares are sold but at least it brings a prospectus of growth .

I know that it would be better to have sold all the shares, but let's be honest, 50% of shares sold is a HUGE deal. PETA closed IPO with a HUGE HUGE amount of unsold shares, since its IPO closure it started mining and the shares more than doubled in price. I really belive, that the better options would be a escaleted growth: You raise some money, buy some properties investors, see the return, price rises, more share are issued, more properties are bought and so on... Normally this wouldnt , technically, raise the shares price but you said that once we hit a certain level there can be some leverage so share prices could rise.

I do appreciate the quartely audits and everything you said in the last thread and I personally belive that if this is done right and the reports are good it will raise visibility, transparency and trust and when the dividends start to appear(I know it takes some time) the price of the shares will go up and captialization will be easier