Hi Inelegant,
Didn't realize you wrote that post...thought it was written by someone else and posted to your site.
In terms of your comments:
Also, though it is modest, he is being doubly compensated as funds that he manages own the majority of the company's equity.
This isn't quite correct. Owning a significant amount of a company in the funds is a double-edged sword. He will benefit greatly if things work out well. If things go sideways, he receives no compensation from either the fund or Sitestar. If things work out poorly even though he worked hard and diligently, he will not only have worked for free at Sitestar, but will not receive any compensation from his fund until he reaches his high watermark.
Again, this is based him operating a fund like mine with only an incentive fee and no management fee. If he has a management fee, then this doesn't apply. Also, if there was an agreement with shareholders before the AGM that he would work for free, and then suddenly added a compensation package after the AGM, that isn't ethical either. Is that what happened?
When Mr. Kiel, et. al. were selling themselves shares at $.048, the market bid and ask were each above $.08.
If this is correct also, then I agree that this is completely unethical!
Cheers!