You may disregard relevant details, such as the capacity and authority of the respondent, all you like.
Fine, I'll quote Simon. He confirms the same about of BTC refunds:
Now since the only payment option is in BTC Will I get the same ammount of BTC back should you fail to deliver by December 31st?
Orders are taken in BTC, in the unlikely event we get to refunds they will be given in BTC.
Make all the noise you want, it will never change the fact that your expectation for a windfall No Matter WhatTM was unreasonable (based on common sense and common law), impossible (based on financial reality), and harmful (because it led people to lose their chance at 105% refunds by gambling on legally unsound wishful thinking).
Yes, I agree, HashFast was lying from the very beginning about BTC refunds in order to secure more pre-orders.
"Lying?" How was Simon supposed to know on August 9, 2013 that BTC was about to set new records by rising 500-1200%? No reasonable person would expect HF to be culpable for such an outcome, much less actually believe a tiny new start-up could meet impossible obligations.
You violate Occam's Razor by positing a nefarious conspiracy where simple naivete offers sufficient explanatory power.
Also, you should have known better than to believe any interpretation that results in a risk-free, too good to be true, free lunch type outcome. That's on you.
Own it, sucker.
