Thanks for your swift reply.

Yet up until now if they would have just done nothing, they would have been well off as well.
As in, there is no clear reason for them to start scamming in my humble opinion.

Shares can only be sold to other interested parties, so the risk is shared between the share holders,
the hosting fee is a fee that is payed no matter if the share price should fall, it would just burn out sooner rather than later due to the lacking initial power to keep up.  (hereby already indicating that in my calculations keeping up with the network with reinvestments is simply not possible)

I am interested in your last statement however...

If I would understand how cons worked, they wouldn't ?

Care to enlighten me ? 
What I stated is that if they would really be complete scams they would be better off in just letting the fund 'starve to death' at the 0.45 hosting cost and open up a new one with a new venture instead.
Now they have published their names, addresses, ages, registration numbers out in the open for all of us to see.

Clearly I have missed something from the Danny Brewster story since they are not youngsters, so please do clarify.