From an investor's point of view, you have a country that is in deep "that", unable to pay its debts, a gambling wannabe dictator that has managed to catch all the 7 dips to date, and the only reason for these bonds to actually work is a rise in price in Bitcoins and a utopia no property tax, no income tax utopia city to be actually profitable excluding the other 12 billion needed for it to be built.
The path for the Volcano bonds to succeed is narrower and narrower everyday. And this is only partly related to bitcoin.
Of course, even some Excellion statements must be put under scrutiny: how and why, an oversubscribed bonds get delayed because of adverse market conditions?
Some factors might be unsaid.
For example, if the creators and promoters of the bond feel that they can ONLY release the bond in market conditions in which they have a high confidence that BTC prices will be going up, then in that sense they attempt to time the market without really directly saying that is what they are doing.
Of course, we also know that sentiment has a tendency to inversely correlate to where the BTC price is going... so when the BTC price is going up and has been going up for a while bullish sentiment gets pretty high.. but that does not necessarily result in the BTC price continuing to go up. The opposite is true regarding the BTC price going down, and sentiment can stay negative for quite a long time, even when the evidence becomes pretty clear that the "bottom is in."
Sure, maybe something else more nefarious is going on.. but I really doubt it.
By the way, maybe one of the implications that you are making fillippone is that they were asserting that they were not technically ready to release the bond, but the evidence is showing that technically they could have released the bond, so they had been providing technicalities as an excuse rather than their real concerns.. and also you seem to be implying that they had been overly asserting the level of subscription (sentiment towards buying the bond), and even if you are correct that sentiment was never as strong as they were making it out to be, they still might have had been making the better decision to not have had released the bond and to continue to not release the bond, even if they are not completely describing all of their rationale or accurately describing the underlying facts.
The latest failure/refusal to release the bond may well have not even had been nefarious.. even though some people might ascribe nefariousness in terms of telling the truth no matter what or following through no matter what.. yet from my thinking I have my doubts about ascribing nefariousness.. even if it could be true that they ended up coming to some of the wrong balance.. because maybe in the end it would have been the "right thing to do" to just keep the date no matter what the market conditions.. and even if they had pretty strong feelings that they were going to be releasing the bond into a market with likely negative rather than a positive momentum....
oh and another by the way, most of us also realize that some actions take place on the margins, and sometimes what the actors end up doing does end up having a tipping effect in terms of contributing to what direction the market ended up going... but it seems really difficult to have confidence (even after the fact) in knowing those kinds of tipping effect consequential things that might have come from whether the behaviors would have been to do x or to do y or to do z.. even with BIG and influential actors.