In the end you can call all investors - greed bastards and bad whales, why not? In the end investors want increase their funds, so they are bad and greed.
Only when you need them you smile to them and try to be good, when you have them - you do not care.
Or maybe they are not greedy, just rational? Do not want fo freez funds for 10 weeks, loose even 5x gain during the pause/dilute, and avoid getting dumped price after ICO like usually. Because there are some chances like that. 10 weeks of waiting just to loose more.
What you do not see is you show your new investors that you misstreat the old investors. So you does the FUD yourself promoting the bad approach.OK Pondsea - I can agree with all you say if you can proove JL and the team has 51% of BTCD - in that case you win, I accept democracy.
But if not that case, no voting win, it's just a bad ignoring approach. Why future investors should count on sth better?
This could be another approach - maybe even more fair, but harder to do - ask the BTCD investors for additional money for development.
It's also harder because requires costs estiamtions, to know what we should pay for.
So maybe in the end ICO is best idea, but with lower max, not more then 10k BTC, I think doubling current marketcap would be ok. Still - all investors could buy BTCD already if they wanted to increase share.
What we as the community of BTCD should do is to ask for the ICO funds for ourselves as a DAO and only pay to jl777 for the actual work he does (if any). That way the funds would remain in the hands of the community. In addition, BTCD should still be renamed to Komodo because BTCD needs a better name.
BTCD investors are not going to put BTC into a community fund to pay for a dev if you need even 100 BTC. A lot of the FUDing in here has to do with greed, do you really expect people to be selfless and fund a community project? They never work out on donations alone.