You're the first I've ever heard claim that refunds need to be "hounded out of them". That was your experience?
When S!K opened the Starter, models were offered at a significant discount with an indefinite delivery time. Pre-order and pre-sale knives had the same indefinite delivery time. HOWEVER, S!K specifically stated that they produce MORE of each model than is actually ordered, anticipating some "seconds", etc. and also producing more for sale to cover operating costs. The Starter orders were to help grow the company, not to sustain it indefinitely.
Survive has only been producing product since 2012 (4 years), and has gone through SIGNIFICANT changes in operation since their inception. The current iteration of the company essentially started in late 2014 / early 2015 when they moved across country. So that criticism is gone.
While "firsts" being distributed as "seconds" might make sense to some, S!K could have priced them much higher... but did not. "Willful intent" to ... deceive? Deceive whom? The customers receiving "firsts" priced as "seconds"?? Or the customers who gave signed consent to an indefinite delivery date? "Willful intent" can only exist IF some "wrong" had been perpetrated, and the "wrong" asserted in this thread is the missing of proposed shipping time-lines, ostensibly due to too many orders accepted and too few employees to inspect and complete them. Which part do you see as "willful intent" on the part of S!K? Which part would you argue to the FTC? That their contractors sent them too many parts requiring hand-finishing or unacceptable as "firsts"? What you are suggesting is that the company DELIBERATELY under-priced product to generate less maintenance funds than they otherwise might have, and then failed to deliver some of those knives on time? Remember, production images show >1000 4.7s alone. How many were offered on a "Monday Sale" or the like and then missed their date? All of them? Most of them? Just some of them? How many indicates "willful intent" on the part of S!K? These sales started with the GSO-5.1s, then the 4.7s and 2.7s, and indeed a number of posters commented on receiving their orders within the previously specified time-frame. Others have commented that their orders were delayed, some substantially so... but no claims of denied refunds.
There is ONE complaint being leveled: S!K published a delivery time-frame at point of sale for "Monday Sales" that it failed to meet in some instances. It has since corrected the wording of the time-frame and has been working hard ever since to fulfill all existing orders. "Willful intent" would be very hard to argue.