I understand this, and I understand the reasoning. I've just never seen it turn out well. That can definitely be a sort of survivorship bias, where I haven't

I understand this, and I understand the reasoning. I've just never seen it turn out well. That can definitely be a sort of survivorship bias, where I haven't heard of most the companies that did it and succeeded and that didn't have later problems where it came to light. I just think that once you've accepted money for a good or service and haven't delivered that good or service, and the person wants their money back, you should be giving that money back to the degree you're capable. That it's inconvenient and may actually lead to the dissolution of your company or result in people not getting all their money back isn't really relevant. Make a case to the people and see if they are willing to accept it or alternatives (such as waiting a bit for more of their return), but don't make decisions on their behalf when your duty to return their money is clear.