Ok thanks for the clarification, it doesn't look as bad as I thought. Although from what I've read initially the people investing in the project were not aware that their investment was a donation, and that the wording "donation" was only added at some point during the ICO. And there is still the question of what happened to these donations, which supposedly disappeared into the wild.
I am also pretty pissed off by this discussion. There was a donation phase at the beginning of the project. A donation phase means that someone has a great idea and wants support to pursue it. This does not mean that anyone offers incentives like revenue sharing or investment opportunities. It's similar to kickstarter, there is an idea, people love this idea, and people donate to make that idea reality!
So my understanding of such donations is, that there is this one point in time where the community or some John Doe says: "It’s finished. Here’s what we created. Enjoy!"
Everything else is irrelevant since it does not matter at all if any of these donations were burned, were used "wisely", were "distributed", got "locked", got spent on a "bling bling lifestyle" or if they themselves were used for academia. And not a single FUDster managed yet to give a conclusive argumentation how the code (the actual "It’s finished. Here’s what we created. Enjoy!" moment) is related to how or how not any donations were spent?
This just makes no sense! It does not matter! If you donate for someone to write some code and someone writes some code, how can you still complain?? To me it looks like a (i must admit, pretty badly planned and performed) try to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt!
