With talk of voter manipulation, assertions of misappropriation of funds, one founder apparently prepared to bring a lawsuit against the other (i.e. Imed vs Ton Bi), and some investors prepared to bring this in front of European boards... I don't see (ethically/logically/etc...) how this could be left to a vote.
Which is just the classic nonsense from self-entitled idiots. Allegedly Yanni is returning (see post above); so let's see what happens.
My recommendation sources from professional ethics applied to this situation.
When serious allegations arise regarding the legality of activities of internal management then all decisions resulting from those activities must either stop or be put on hold until a proper review is performed. Given that there are serious allegations levied in nearly all corners of this project at this point... I can think of no part of it which may continue as normal pursuant to the application of professional ethics.
A proper review requires the clearing of Yanni legally. It is alleged in the complaint that a computer was stolen which contained the DEX software. This makes the legal complaint of property theft relevant to this project ethically and legally. The assertions of fraud may also be relevant (i.e. we don't know at this time) and also require a proper clearing.
A proper review as mentioned above would tie up investor liquidity. All investors I've spoken to oppose the idea of their liquidity being tied up for very long.
From posts and comments I've seen there appears to be a discrepancy in how much the investors should be refunded. I propose that they be refunded the lowest undisputed amount as soon as possible with any discrepancies refunded to them at later date once the details are worked out. e.g. if everyone agrees the refund amount is at least 40% then 40% should be airdropped as soon as reasonably possible with any remainder sent once the details are settled.
