Keep lenders and potential LPs warm with a credibility packet: simple story, three past deal snapshots, and your underwriting template.

They bit off more than they can chew and has done a piss poor job of communicating to LPs

LPs if you’re going to complain about performance use deal metrics.  

I have spoken with several FoFs groups that seemingly don't know enough to make them viable LPs, let alone able to vet multiple sponsors and industries to protect the assets of those they are raising for.

Was the change in performance expectations that compromised trust or was it the fact such a basic diligence item went unverified leading the LPs to question all other assumption's/diligence about the acquisition?

Yeah, numbers don't matter if the sponsor can walk away whole while LPs take the loss. 

I am a current LP with them in their Texas UGro BTR fund, which has been halted for years, and is scaring alot of their LPs.

Quote from @Henry Clark: LPs the point of the previous questions is all of us fail.  

Quote from @Chris Germain:  The moment that LPs learn that their GP is actually not so friendly, and that he has somehow decided to replace paid lawyers with free legal advice sourced from clumsy ChatGPT queries I have not invested in their offerings but was responding in general to your comment - I do wonder how many of these GP's have actually sued a LP/investor (in this case they said its not an investor) - but I am curious as the moment a case is filed that opens up discovery and the GP having to prove it wrong, and all of that information then becomes public in the courts.  

They want to do good for their LPs and themselves.