We could break the issue into smaller chunks. If we do give existing stakeholders a top-up then we need to decide:
- how much of the left-over stakes we give them
- who is eligible

IMO if someone was on the original list they were a stakeholder, and if they dumped that was their choice, and their right as an ORA stakeholder, and it's ok with me.

You're not a 'bad guy' if you dumped your stake, and if it let another guy buy ORA who valued them more, then that's the advantage & efficiency of a market mechanism, and I welcome that - it's a win win!

I'm not in favour of carrot & stick incentives to try and make people hold. I want voluntary hodl'ing, and the free market can give us that. If some people instantly dump the top-up, then some other people will buy it, no problem. just don't worry about the price.

I think if we try and exclude original stakeholders based on whether they sold or not we set a bad precedent and it will come back to haunt us. If I choose to go and live overseas should I relinquish my citizenship? No, of course not, my nationality was my birthright, and nobody can take it from me. NXT had 73 stakeholders, QORA had 137, and ORA had ~880! There aren't good stakeholders & bad stakeholders, just rational people making their own decision. That's freedom, and I like it!

It might sound silly, but our initial stakeholder list was based on an honest & fair process, and we should be proud of that, and we shouldn't discriminate against ANY stakeholders who exercised their free choice and sold.

Sockpuppets, if identified, are another story though, and we should eject them if the evidence is conclusive.