Quote from: seedcoin on November 05, 2014, 06:20:32 PM

Quote from: twentyseventy on November 05, 2014, 02:43:27 PM

Look, SeedCoin, you can pick one or the other. If you think that the value is far in excess of your buy-back price, then you're doing the unitholders a disservice.

This comment was made as a personal hint to be taken in an ironic way. It could be taken out of context by some and given a more serious meaning. It is not a financial assessment in any way and should not be construed as such, it is a token of personal faith in SF1 since I have been deeply involved with SF1 for now more than a year as I started speaking with entrepreneurs back in Summer 2013. My remark, in case anyone missed this, is meant to draw the attention to the fact that I find IMO a hypocrite would have the audacity of blaming someone to see value where he/she did not only a few weeks ago. There is no 'value' for SF1 to be seen here other than the price of the last seller's price.

In response to your comment I do not agree with your remark about 'doing the unitholders a disservice'. In order to know if unit holders may or may be better off we would need to assess what would happen if no one bought back any units and let these sit at BTC 0.00015 with extremely low levels of trading. We now give the opportunity to unit holders to hold shares in these startups, that may be a better option in the long run for these unit holders. Granted we do not give this opportunity to all unit holders and that is unfortunate; however, unit holders with less than 2,000 units had units which represented at the time of the consultation poll effectively BTC 0.3 (maximum) in bitcoin value, for which they will now get BTC 0.9 (maximum - or 3 times the last selling price). For those holding much less, anywhere from 1 unit to 100 units of SF1 (worth BTC 0.00045 to 0.045 at buy back price) for example and this is a common case among SF1 unit holders the unavailability of the share conversion option may not seem to be a huge problem, as seen during the consultation poll conducted in October.

I've highlighted the part here that really matters with regards to my comment. I do understand that you're converting to real equity for over 2,000 shares but I find it unfair that you're excluding this possibility for smaller shareholders.