No refunds is the way to go. Keep in mind that the moderators have to get deep inside into an IPO before voting, which costs time. So they should be paid for their time no matter the quality of business they're judging.
But why should they bother spending that time at all? They get paid no matter how many votes they pass or don't pass.
I like the 50% refund idea. I would split it into 25%, 50% and 75% (and maybe 100%) for each week the stock is waiting approval / sufficient votes.
Why can't we just set a date like in any voting process? We don't postpone elections until enough people have voted; we set a date and by that time, whoever has voted gets counted. Those that do not vote do not count.
Workflow like this:
On application, a date is set 14 days into the future. Voters receive information immediately containing the contract and other information sent as one neat package. The final date for voting is listed on the asset seeking application.
12 days after application, voters that have not yet voted gets a reminder to vote.
14 days, and on the due date, a final notification is sent to everyone to remind them to vote or to review their votes if there have been changes to contracts or situation.
15 days after the application, the votes are counted. More Yes votes means application succeeds, More No votes mean application fails.
.b