I have been researching the UK laws on Public Offering Of Shares and they are pretty damn strict. If you offer shares to more than 99 people in the UK or any EU district (35 in the USA), it is considered a Public Offering. This cannot be done by a Private Company, it is illegal under The Companies Act.
That's what I meant saying that Alpha Technology is run by naive youngsters. I was very surprised by their "shares" offer. Working in finance I know that anything related to "investment" is very highly regulated, particularly if you offer it to laymen. You need proper legal advise to do this. They are very foolish if they didn't get legal advise, as they may end up in prison. I don't think they deserve that (yet), as they genuinely tried to get the product out at the beginning.
I wonder if the best turn out is if Alpha Technology goes bankrupt. I think my CC may have to refund me based on section 75 and/or chargeback protection, although the payment went through paypal. There's some controversy, though:
http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/regulation/section-75-of-the-consumer-credit-actPayments through Paypal
There are some transactions where the company that deals with your credit card payment is not the same as the one that provides the goods or service - such as Paypal.
If you use your credit card to pay for something through PayPal and the funds go direct to the seller, then as long as the company you're buying from has a 'Commercial Entity Agreement' with Paypal you may still be able to claim under Section 75 for any misrepresentation or breach of contract.
PayPal offers its own buyer protection scheme, called PayPal Buyer Protection, so it's worth checking if you'd be covered by that if you have a problem with your purchase.
http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/shopping/section75-protect-your-purchases Goods/services bought through intermediariesIf you buy through a travel agent, PayPal, group-buying sites, etc
You're unlikely to be covered when payments are made to a company that isn't the one providing you with the product or service. In these cases, the credit card company usually says it didn't have a direct relationship with the supplier, so isn't equally liable.
If you stand your ground, it's possible to argue that the indirect relationship constitutes an arrangement to pay. The Court of Appeal decided this was acceptable in 2006, but it's unlikely to be an easy task.
That's 5 MegaHeadache/s of fun for you...