I am a voluntaryist.  I believe in a donation culture.  I have no issues donating to good projects.  I could look at this ICO as a donation since there is no explicit guarantee of a return. However, I think the founders (and/or their surrounding "community") are misconstruing it as a chance to speculate on the success of the project (ie. an investment).   

If this ICO is a donation request, say so, if it is an investment, say so (and provide concrete value proposition to the investors).  At least with Ethereum, the coin itself was designed to be useful and necessary to run apps on the platform.  BlockPay coin has no intended use other than to fund BlockPay. 

Mine and others' previous comments requesting explicit agreements regarding a return on investment for token holders were ignored so I think "investors" in this ICO should think of themselves as donors.  However, I think I am the minority in this perception.  I'd be happy if anyone could convince me that this ICO is anything but a donation request.

What makes you so sure the new buyer will "gladly" buyout token holders at a "very handsome multiple"?  They will not be contractually obligated to do so, they could easily interpret token holders as "donors" with no expressed or implied expectation of return.  No contracts were signed.  The shareholders (and legal counsel) of the buyout company would surely not agree with the token holders' expectations of a "very handsome multiple" and would hold their directors accountable to have negotiated little to no reward for those who have no contractual claim on any of blockpay's assets.

So, after almost an hour of research this is the picture of the blockpay ICO I have so far... some prior ico token holders receive 50% of a .5% transaction fee on merchant sales, ambassadors receive 15%, leaving 35% for company expenses and blockpay token holders and token holders will be paid last in this hierarchy with no guarantee or even agreement that any percentage amount will be paid to blockpay token holders. This means any return on investment is up to the personal discretion of the management team, and they and everyone else get paid first. Tokens are not needed to power any app so their value is at the mercy of discretionary dev spending and 'rewards'. I don't see why an investor would make an investment in such a blind pledge without anything written or coded to offer any assurance of getting their money back plus. Titan20 has repeatedly asked for clarification on this and so far just a lot of 'trust us', it's a great idea. I don't dispute that your idea is great and your concepts might work, but I greatly question the risk/reward offered to token buyers with zero hard figures detailing the value proposition to token holders.

Edit: I believe I also picked up somewhere that this first batch of icos will only offer 6.5% of the total amount of tokens, meaning current investors are also subject to dilution risk down the road, the rate of which is also at mgt discretion?

I am only getting about half the MH/s that I should be getting on clevermining.  It just dropped off about 11 hours ago and hasn't recovered.  What are the possible reasons for this?   Any way to fix?  Thanks!