We must take into consideration that helping to people got scammed by CH will put a blot on IOTA community forever analogically like quasi unfair distribution in Nxt or hardfork in ETH/DAO. Competitor of IOTA probably will blame IOTA also in 5/10 years.

Helping somebody in their failures we could destroy the idea of the IOTA for ever and the company's reputation has created it. This may be the beginning of the end for the ideas of IOTA. Look at the fight on Ethereum/DAO now and you will understand what could happening.

Buying at CH was risky and buyers were aware of the risk. It's not fair to transfer this fail to the IOTA community.

The final decision will make of course CEO.

Why? We're only beta testing, it was always said that during beta test transaction had a chance to be rolled back. Ethereum is live, not beta testing.

I don't see how "helping" may even tarnish the reputation of IOTA (I am sorry if I could not understand well your point).

If centralisation was an issue, then I could easily see "helping (centralised intervention)" as "dangerous". But (if I understood it correctly) as iota is not expected to be decentralised, if there is the (technical) possibility of helping, this solution would actually be very good, not only for IOTA's image, but for the community as a whole.

edit: of course, we would expect the buyers to, at least, prove (without doubts) their right, before taking any iota from the seller.

+1000

This reminds me about moral problems of Clark Kent from "Batman vs Superman: Dawn of Justice"...

Didn't saw it yet ^^

Alright, it's becoming obvious that a lot of people conflate the mess of TheDAO and the community's response with what we are discussing right here. For the last time: WE'RE NOT LIVE YET, thus we are not decentralized yet, whatever I do has no impact whatsoever on IOTA's decentralized nature once it actually goes live, comparing the two is beyond stupid. Ethereum went live and exited beta on March 14th with 'Homestead' release per their own definition, this is why their situation is controversial. To even attempt to make this equivalent to this relatively small decision that is nowhere similar at all just indicates that you need to visit your mental health professional and get a refill of prescriptions.

But even if we forget this obvious aspect of the situation, it seems a lot of people still don't understand the vision of IOTA. It's not to make the world decentralized, the decentralized aspect is only needed because of the ecosystem. Personally I see very little use for crypto in transactions between humans and much more prefer a direct democracy with state issued digital currencies which are auditable by every citizen, but in IoT you need a 'plug and play' ecosystem, which require trust. You can't make a consortium with all the thousands of different companies that will be involved in IoT off and on, thus it needs to be decentralized, but it's not some principle we hold dearly just for the sake of being decentralized. Several things are 100x better in their centralized incarnation.

Anyone still selling?

actually, even after launch, btc has even been hard forked

Doesn't even matter... Satoshi clearly states his motivation for Bitcoin, it tries to address a completely different issue than 'Economy of Things' that IOTA enables, AFAIK no one has tried to actually solve the problems facing the barries to the 'Machine Economy' pre-IOTA, so those who are still stuck in 2009 should get up to date, tons of things change in 7 years.