RG was well within his rights to sell BitVPS. As non-voting shares, these shares have no rights to any decisions which are made within the company. These rights were reserved explicitly for the managers or directors of the company, in this case RG. RG was the only member who had the right to make the final decision regardless what any of his shareholders wanted.
Every shareholder here invested into the companies profitability at the expense of any and all voting rights. This is a profit share of BitVPS and nothing else.
Every shareholder here invested into the companies profitability at the expense of any and all voting rights. This is a profit share of BitVPS and nothing else.
I suspect that @arij does not understand the distinction between "non-voting share" and "profit-only share". Or perhaps I do not understand it. AFAIK the owner of a non-voting share is still the owner of a slice of the company, not just of its profits. Am I wrong?
However, since these bitcoin companies are intentionally created and operated outside any legal framework, perhaps any word intheir contracts and prospectuses means anything that anyone likes it to mean...
