>>34026157He was punished because he sold shares without selling coins and taking care of everything involved properly, like I said I think he did it out of stupidity and not malice. He was extracting money that didn't exist to gain maximum profit, hence he sent the fund negative. If I had done this I know everyone would be calling for my extermination of course.
ok fine I am pretty sure its all the same guy who posts about meRegardless I personally think he should be given an out this one time, but the key point I wanted to make is that the suggestions so far give fund owners to much power. You will create a system where fund owners cheat the shareholders out of money and walk away scot free,
If you want to fix the system even just a little, rather than making it easy to destroy your shareholders by sending the fund negative then walking away with an easy profit and a sparkling brand new fund, make the funds a little bit stricter. Make the minimum starting shares 10k and have a locked in buffer of 10% liquid that is unspendable, basically it only exists to deal with sold shares. Of course I am sure everyone can come up with even better options, but what we should be looking at is ways to make a proper system, rather than a bunch of exploitable escape options for fund owners that leave shareholders at their mercy.
