I've read both your posts, and I can't find what you have a problem with. It seems you don't like the settlement agreement, but it seems to be done in a straightforward, transparent, and fair way.
1) Lenders lend to a Nastyfans.
2) Nastyfans pays back lenders per the original agreement.
3) Nastyfans offers a offer to settle the debt.
4) Lenders accept the offer.
It seems like you didn't like the original agreement. That's fine, you don't have to lend to Nastyfans. And if you don't like that they settled, then don't lend to Nastyfans in the future or make sure that you have favourable terms if you do.
I think this was done in a great way, a win-win for all parties.
The main idea is, that if you take "loan" then your main target is to pay principal back. When you take loan you describe people from what profits you are planing to pay back. And if that fails, you have to find another way. Usually u tell when you are going to pay back. But in case of Nasty, people decided not to worry about this as he "is so gentle and trustful", that he would definitely pay back sooner or later(depends on BFL shipment), but not 100+ years.
In this situation the loan was treated like a business proposition, when parties share risk (and usually profit).But he got low interest loan with huge risk, calling it low risk investment (loan). That is not right to me, because is was called "LOAN", not investment opportunity or etc.
Original agreement didnt`t covered a lot of cases, for instance what if NastyFan stop receiving "donations", or they would start to be called "dividends", so then Nasty wouldnt have to pay anyone anything? That does sounds scamy to me.
Even donations to NastyFans doesn`t have any strict agreement or obligations from anyone.
So its up to OggNasty to choose the way he would treat all of it. And IMHO, he haven`t done it right, so this is warning bell for all Fans and other "investors"/"debtors"/"what ever".
If some one things other way, then this is a right investment for you.