Sounds good. Thanks for understanding! I want everyone to be able to put full faith in
1. the operation side... 
2. the financial side...
3. the admin side...
4. the legal side.
5. the **fun** side!

I have tried to inform all people who are putative officers and have not fulfilled their investment.

I think once officers are elected (or in this case, identified through the blockchain), then voting can take the place of some kinds of administrative issues. For now, the rules that you put into motion stipulated specific, verifiable actions to become an officer.

If you or anyone knows where the missing funds are, or are willing to submit a spreadsheet of accounting for each verified or putative transaction to date, then please do so. In the opinion of this auditor, you mishandled the transfer of 1 Steem for @louiscpt when it came from @beep. I'd love to hear how you calculated 40 Steem when I came up with 34. And of course the @steemstock account transfer... its value, and whether this constitutes a contribution to Phase 1 funding.

Nine users submitted non-integer amounts of Steem, two of which were less than 1.

Tying the officer selection to the blockchain has advantages for accountability, but it doesn't "see" things the way you might see things when your friends and children are signing up for this opportunity, nor does it look at intent.

My audit leans toward the blockchain.

In other words, if someone had accidentally sent 500 instead of 5 Steem, he would have been stuck with 50% of the officer's share and not the 0.5% he intended. The same should be true, e.g., for those who sent just 3.787 SBD, which was a little over 2 Steem. You market-transferred it as 2.358 Steem. He should be able to receive 2 shares and not 3, and the leftover 0.358 should be returned to him.

Because rules.