This response confirms the core problem: The change was not mainly due to “community feedback.” It was because Billions told Kaito in March that the 5.6% day-1 launchpad unlock created a major exchange listing obstacle. That means this was a material issue known in March. So the real question is: Why were contributors not informed in March? Why did the Kaito Launchpad page not update immediately? Why were users only presented with refund / lock-up options right before TGE? Also, if Kaito “didn’t agree with it in principle,” why was the amended structure still pushed through Kaito? A platform cannot say: “We disagreed in principle,”but still send out the amended terms,still organize the refund/lock-up process,and still expect users to accept the change. The Polymarket FDV argument is irrelevant to the original commitment. Users did not contribute based on a floating expected-value model. Users contributed based on the displayed term: 100% unlock at TGE. If a major exchange required the change, name the exchange or provide the formal requirement. If it was not a formal exchange requirement, then “exchange listing obstacle” should not be used to justify changing contributor rights. Please provide: The exact March timeline; The exchange-related requirement; The legal basis for changing the terms; The fund custody and transfer records; The final refund completion deadline; Confirmation that refunding does not waive user rights. Refund is not a favor. It is the minimum remedy after changing the original launchpad terms. Kaito's response actually confirmed several crucial issues. Firstly, he acknowledges that the original terms have indeed been modified. It's not a user misunderstanding. Secondly, he admitted that Billions had told Kaito in March that unlocking the 5.6% Day 1 Launchpad would cause a major exchange listing obstruction. That is to say, the real reason for changing the rules is not simply "community feedback", but rather obstacles to listing on the exchange. Thirdly, he acknowledged Kaito's involvement in the negotiation of the plan. This indicates that Kaito is not an observer, but a coordinator involved in the refund/lock up plan. Fourthly, he said Kaito did not agree in principle to change the terms, but ultimately accepted the proposal. That's the question: if you don't agree, why are you still sending out a notice of change of terms and refund through Kaito? Fifthly, the most important thing is: If it was known in March that there were significant issues with unlocking the original 100% TGE, why wasn't the user notified immediately? Why hasn't the Kaito Launchpad page been updated in a timely manner? Why are users not informed until near TGE that they have to choose between a refund, 6-month lock up, or 12-month lock up? The probability of FDV on Polymarket is not a reason to modify user rights. What users see when participating is not the dynamic FDV expected model, but the core terms displayed on the Kaito page: 100% unlock at TGE。 So what Kaito and Billions really need to answer now is: 1) Which exchange raised the listing barrier? 2) Is this an official requirement from the exchange, or is it the project's own judgment? 3) On which specific day in March will Billions notify Kaito? 4) Why wasn't all participants notified immediately? 5) Why hasn't the Kaito page been synchronously modified? 6) If Kaito disagrees in principle, why still follow the process of modifying the terms? 7) When is the latest time for the refund to be completed? 8) Does a refund not mean that the user waives their right to pursue responsibility? 9) Where is the funding now? Is there custody available? 10) What are the liability boundaries of Kaito and Billions in this revised clause? This is no longer an emotional issue. This is a significant issue of information disclosure, platform responsibility, user rights, and compliance with exchange listing. @KaitoAI @Punk9277 @billions_ntwk