I will likely be "freezing" the asset in the next 48 hours. My way of looking at it is these panic sells have nothing to do with the real price. They are just individuals within the US trying to minimize risk. grnbrg, keep a running copy of the asset list just in case, but I should be able to snag the final copy after freezing it without issue.
I strongly disagree with this - freezing the asset is shutting down the trade of something that should be a freely traded asset. If people are "panicking" (which is a judgement on your part) then why shouldn't they be free to panic and reduce their risk at the cost of selling their shares cheaply?
In freezing the asset you are both forcing people to take on more risk than they should be obliged to, and depriving others of the opportunity to buy at a price they think is favourable. I said it before and I'll say it again - any trades made, at any time, are between two consenting parties who both think it's in their best interest, and it's nobody else's call to say that they shouldn't be allowed to do so.
This concept of the "real price" is tricky. It is a combination of the long term growth potential, the dividends over time, and the perceived risk in both long and short term. The perceived short term risk just sky-rocketed and this is being reflected in the price. I don't believe that any true increase in short-term risk has actually occurred and am holding onto my shares happily. Once the migration from BitFunder takes place and people see that dividends are still being paid, this will be reflected in a recovery of the price. However, to deprive people of the opportunity to lessen their exposure at a cost to themselves (and not to you I might add) seems misguided, and will probably cause a lot of resentment, so I would ask you to reconsider this position.
