those who ordered first, should be in front of others who ordered later. I am in batch 2 and did not get refund. FIFO method.
alfabitcoin, what you propose would not be fair. Also, if steamboat were to try to implement that...since only those who request refunds are getting them, every time someone new requests a refund, he would be "cutting in line".
Worse, due to the line cutting, that means people in later batches who request refunds would be eligible one minute, but ineligible the next, when someone in an earlier batch requests a refund.
The current implementation is FIFO--based on who requests the refund first, not on who ordered first. And that is fair.
I see your point and you are partially right and not objective. Still I think I said it wrong e.g. not individual chip FIFO order but batch order queue. Like if somebody in early batch request refund they should get it before of those who requested later batch orders.
I don't think your clarification here makes any difference to my points.
There is no waiting list because as soon somebody ask for refund it goes filled from batch 1 to the batch 6, regrdless of which batch is actally refunded from yifu.
Avalon isn't giving partial refunds or sending partial batches, so if I read you right, now you are actually suggesting that steamboat should front the money for the refunds.
But in the end, it seem that most of who requested refund will get it, unless full batch is filled for refund. And then there might we have a problem.....it is a fact that earlier batches wait the longest and I am concerned of those who will end up with chips instead of refund because refund request fifo method!
Do expect the problem of a partial batch refund request to happen. This is a known issue. The only way around it I can think of is if steamboat personally requests a refund for some portion of his chips, the amount of which is dependent on how many other people request refunds.
But what do you mean "earlier batches wait the longest"? There is no correlation. The refunds are completely decoupled from the refund requests, and that is the point.
Unless you mean people in earlier batches wait longer to decide because it's less clear if they will ROI? Too bad, it is their risk in waiting to decide. By allowing them to cut in line as I described, they are offloading their risk onto those who decide sooner. That is most certainly not fair.
There was enough time since refund form to know where majority stands. Do you think its fair of somebody in batch 1 or 2 end up with chips and somebody from batch 6 end up with refund considering waiting period? No, that sound to me unfair, but that is me.
Well, first let's be clear: the situation is not fair, and that's Avalon's fault. So, it's a question of what can we do that is the
least unfair.
With that said: yes, as I've explained, I do think that is the least unfair option.
Besides the implementation problems, you've not presented a compelling case as to why first mover advantage of buying into the group buy should confer the same for getting out. I think your objection is "just you".
Just to solely relie on refund request FIFO is wrong. Many things can make delay with this, not receiving email, signing problems etc and it does not sound fair just for those reason to buyer lost refund posibility.
Now
here you have a point, but your proposed solution has nothing to do with these problems.
I supose you are from batch 5 or 6?
See, everybody has theirown interess and if you were in earlier you might agree with me or vice versa
As it happenes, yes I am in a later batch. However, I also only just requested my refund over the weekend. So, in my estimation, it won't make much difference to me personally.
FWIW, in a completely unrelated (non-Bitcoin) group investment, I recently insisted on taking a smaller portion of the returns personally, because I felt it was the right thing to do. The person running the investment had suggested a larger share for me, and
I told him that I should get less.
I call them like I see them, and I'm saying that my personal financial interest here has no bearing on my argument.
Care to admit your own bias?
Like I said, it would be nice some sort of transparency, to inform us who is eglible for refund pending, order status and how many batches will be refunded and how many will ship.
I dont mind waiting a bit longer or who get refund first, but I would like to know is my refund request in processing state or out!
I completely agree about the transparency, and I'm disappointed at the lack of it. But your proposal of "FIFO by batch order" has no bearing on this, either.
