I don't see how they can't break the deal to be honest. I would appreciate them sticking to their terms, (and might argue loudly for it) but how to iron things out so that people won't feel tricked is going to be difficult.
Not difficult. They announced the rules. Those rules were available for all to see and understand. They must stick to those terms. They cannot change the terms in a material way which cause severe losses to those who relied upon the stated rules. I too will argue quite loudly.
Now everyone can understand the function of regulation. Regulation would put in place the conditions which prevent those raising funds from changing the rules midstream - causing losses for many.
David can't just unilaterally declare the previously promised .2 invalid. This is complete nonsense. He will learn a very hard lesson if he doesn't (within 24 hours) withdraw that change to the scheme which was widely advertised and promoted all last week.
So this is an argument which wants a group of people who have equally invested to be given less - to be disadvantaged, for what...? Why would you
want that? I can't see there being anything fucking 'wrong' that a decent person would object to if;
-nobody gets any less than promised
-btc investor reward is raised to be representatively fair
How could that not be the right way to go forward?
The rules were clearly stated in good time. We didn't set those rules. Whether they were 'fair' or 'unfair' according to you or others doesn't matter. These were the rules set forth by MaidSafe. These were the stated terms of the deal.
Many people relied upon those stated rules. That reliance upon the rules was proximate cause of the damaged suffered by those who relied upon the rules.
You can see where this is going.