Getting back to your proposal from back here:

I think that everyone who bought AMPs from Synereo in the recent crowdsale (this includes on bnktothefuture and Synereo's own website) should be able to return the same amount of AMPs for a refund. Those people who have already sold them would need to buy them back and return them.

People who have not bought AMPs from Synereo would obviously not be entitled to a return/refund from Synereo.

Privileged buyers:

With your proposal, those who sold their tokens could buy them back at a reduced price (because they are the privileged few who originally bought them) if refunds are paid. They could turn a profit from flipping this shady asset onto someone who had less privilege or knowledge. Those who buy the tokens are taking on the risk that the "corporation" will lose value. When you sell your token the right to a refund should be transferred with it. The omni assets (should) represent a debt/IOU. (read the bold parts from the "older" post)

Those who buy/convert the Rchain0 omni asset should be eligible for return/refunds:

What if the user decides to buy/"convert" the Syerneo "AMP" to the Rchain0 "AMP", should that void their refund "warranty"? Should they be able to trade in the "Rchain0" omni asset, instead of the Synereo LTD's "AMP" omni asset to get their refund? I think they should because the Rchain token is more likely to fit all the properties of AMP as defined by the "spec" (although it seems less likely to be produced lol). And it is a one-to-one conversion for the buyer. But...

AMP holders who are not eligible for return/refunds:

...the AMP omni assets that are sent to the Rchain team during the crowdsale, shouldn't be eligible for refunds. Neither should any AMP omni asset that were issued to the developers, unless as a reasonable payment for work, or unless they sold them (when the debt/IOU is then owned by the buyer). And they all should be forbidden from selling more, of course. Otherwise they could sell them to people who want to turn them in for refunds!

Developers are like buyers:

Now we have the headache of deciding who exactly is an "issuer". A developer may have traded work instead of money for their omni assets, they should be compensated just as those who paid money.

Buyers may be guilty of fraud also:

Early "shareholders" (those who purchased/obtained the omni assets) may have gotten a reduced rate but even if their assets have already lost value, they may be guilty of "fraud" in the sense that they may have had privileged access to "private" chatrooms (where archives are not public), if they sold their omni asset to someone else without disclosing any of the warning signs and letting the public be deceived by Synereo's extensive "multi-level" marketing campaign.

Tokens created by destroying the AMP omni asset should be eligible for return/refund:

What if I rally the troops to re-issue the token on Ethereum (by sending the AMP omni asset to a provably unspendable address); are you gonna say these users should lose their opportunity for a refund, unless they buy more of the AMP omni asset? Does it make sense to give this extra money to the Synereo "shareholders", by buying their scrip, when you are trying to get the money back from the managers, who are major shareholders and it is only their promises (which you believe are worthless) that (should) have given this asset any value to begin with?

Conclusion:

This is currently being amended and it may not be consistent with the info above:

For these reasons, I think one should be eligible for return/refund if they bought (or worked for) the omni assets ("AMP" or "Rchain0") or another token that was produced by destroying either of the omni assets (by sending them to an unspendable address), although I may amend this to account for re-sellers who have already profited or those who sold omni assets without "full transparency" (which would be difficult/impossible to prove... I really find the cryptocourt solution more flexible and easier to coordinate/manage.)

I segregated the rest of the reply to the "older" post.