Bitcoin Forum

The accused:
Lauda (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=101872)
And, secondarily, MinerJones (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=346731) and Blazed (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=134378), although their involvement is unclear, and the accusation against them may be more along the lines of "why aren't you doing anything about Lauda?"

The accusation:
Despite being hired as fiduciaries, the escrows are acting in their own best interests during a dispute, have taken escrowed money for themselves, and refuse all calls for accountability and transparency. A significant amount of money is missing from the officially stated escrow balances, which do not reconcile with the initial deposits and authorized distributions, and there has no accounting for those missing funds. Lauda has unilaterally changed the terms of the escrow fees from 2% to 10% to her own benefit and to the detriment of investors.

Amount in question:
Between 300-900 BTC of the ~3050 BTC collected^2,6 into the escrow accounts are unaccounted for as of this post's timestamp.

Background:
There is currently a dispute between the founders of the NVO DEX project that started last year. The NVO project thread is here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1917456.0 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1917456.0)

The escrows for the NVO crowdsale were and continue to be¹:
Lauda (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=101872), MinerJones (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=346731), and Blazed (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=134378)

The specifics of the dispute between the founders is immaterial to the actions of the escrows. It's sufficient to say that the project looks nothing like what was promised in the crowdsale, and a supermajority of token holders, as well as both remaining founders, have asked for the refund process to begin.

The dispute has resulted in two major factions, one following the former CEO, and the other following the former CTO. There is another significant faction that follows neither, which is, from a practical standpoint, unanimous in calling for a refund.

Even with the near unanimous calls for a refund, escrows have decided on taking a weighted vote to determine their next action, although the stated terms and options of the vote are continually changing.

The former CEO controls the original official Slack channel, a secondary Slack channel that was created in an unsuccessful attempt to assert control of the community before it could split, the original Subreddit (https://reddit.com/r/NVO), and a Telegram channel (https://t.me/joinchat/AAAAAEaDtGZfFucHogPU8w). All former CEO-controlled channels are heavily censored. Most activity happens in Telegram, where questions that don't make the former CEO look good are deleted immediately, and the poster is kicked from the channel.

The former CTO has stated a desire not to manipulate any voting and refuses to contol any specific channel. His supporters, among others, are using a Discord channel (https://discord.gg/UxAhxA6) to freely discuss what happens in the channels controlled by the former CEO. Many posters who are kicked from the former CEO's channels end up in the Discord, which is not heavily censored.

Additional claims and supporting statements:
Lauda is the only escrow talking at all, and she's really only in one place, the Telegram channel controlled by the former CEO. She refuses transparency in the refund process, citing a simple unwillingness to cooperate.

Escrow distribution

• Background:
  
  • As per the terms of the crowdsale, four milestones were set¹. At the first three milestones, 30% of the collected funds were to be split 50/50 between the former CEO and the former CTO, at a rate of 15% each. At the last milestone, the remaining 10% would be split 50/50 at a rate of 5% to each party.
  • The first milestone was automatically met at the close of the crowdsale. The former CEO received 15% of the escrowed funds, and the former CTO declined his own distribution on an immediate basis.³
  • The second milestone was met as observed and agreed to by the escrows, and another 15% was distributed to the former CEO. The former CTO again declined his own distribution.³
  • The project founders then became estranged, and so far additional undisputed claims about the escrow arrangement have been made by the former CTO.
• The current claims about escrow fuckery which have so far gone undisputed:
  
  • The original terms of the escrow was 2% of the collected funds, amounting to 60 BTC to be retained by the escrows for their services. Lauda has since unilaterally declared the escrow fee to be 10%, removing up to 300 BTC from the refund pool for her own gain.
  • The undistributed 30% that was supposed to go to the former CTO was retained by the escrows, and is not included in the refund pool
  • The escrows placed escrowed funds into a Bittrex account owned by the former CTO of the project, for the purposes of speculative trading with escrowed funds. Everyone is now locked out of that account because the escrows changed the Bittrex account password and cannot recover it.
  • In coordination with the former CEO, Lauda has decided on a "buyback" scheme, which ensures not all investors will be refunded. Instead of issuing an airdrop of BTC to all token holders, her plan is to require positive action from all token holders in order for them to receive a refund, with no indication as to what will happen to any unclaimed funds. Based on the coordination between herself and the former CEO, it is unclear if Lauda and the others will retain the unclaimed funds for themselves, send them to the former CEO, or if a portion of the unclaimed funds will eventually be distributed to the former CEO in exchange for his support of this scheme while they retain the rest.

Coordination with one side of the dispute, "picking sides" with project management
As with any escrow service, Lauda and her team are responsible for acting impartially and fairly at all times, and in the case of a fundraising dispute, they must act in the best interest of investors at all times. When the dispute between the founders first came to light, Lauda correctly froze all funds available to her, but has since coordinated with the former CEO to concoct the voting scheme, and to decide on the terms of a vote, which at one time included an option to only refund money to accounts that know about the conflict, despite clear communication only taking place with the token holders who are present in a CEO-controlled communications channel.

Missing funds
Several coin forks, including the BCH fork, happened while funds were in escrow. The escrows pocketed that money and are not adding those funds to the refund pool.⁵ A fiduciary is not entitled to take client funds that are under their control.

Out of 3,055 BTC raised at the crowdsale², only about 30% has been distributed.³ An exact number is not available, as the escrows refuse to provide it. 560-600 BTC was distributed to the former CEO, and 75-100 BTC was distributed to the former CTO, so conservatively there should still be ~2300 BTC in escrow, not accounting for altcoin depreciation. The publicly stated refundable balance is ~1400 BTC.⁴ There is no accounting for the discrepancy, so until such time as a full accounting can take place, the funds can only be assumed to be missing.

Additional items
Lauda has publicly stated in the Telegram "hire an accountant if you want to audit me", followed by a statement that she would refuse to cooperate with such an audit if one were to take place.

Lauda has stated the escrow fees are now 10% of the total amount raised, which is, perhaps not coincidentally, almost the same amount as what is unaccounted for. It is unclear if she is acting alone on this change or if she is acting with the cooperation of the former CEO.

This isn't just a dispute about an escrow service. This is a breach of fiduciary duty. In many reasonably legislated jurisdictions, and most certainly in most unreasonably legislated ones, conviction of this type of activity would mean the fat portion of a decade in prison, if not considerably more due to the amount of money in question.

Note: this post will be updated to reflect any changes of fact, such as any possible future release of a 3rd party audit, if and when those changes become known. It will also be updated with specific evidence, such as links to posts, as they are obtained. If you have specific screenshots or links to posts that either prove or disprove any portion of this post, please reply below.

Footnotes
1. See the first post of the NVO project thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1917456.0)
2. Official crowdsale amount raised (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1917456.msg19826834#msg19826834)
3. 30% distribution claim by Ton, former CEO (https://ibb.co/hBGqLp)
4. 1400 BTC remaining in escrow questioned by Ton, former CEO (https://ibb.co/hdLZwU)
5. Lauda's policy on taking custodial funds. First post, under "policies" (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1938190)
6. Original deposit address 354jirex7gkFxMiNmN45SxyMxSUsdGcrsf, see first post in NVO thread

I archived the Bitcointalk footnotes for you so no changes will be made.

Footnotes:

1. http://archive.is/nWFY7
2. http://archive.is/2MIGT


5. http://archive.is/c4Q0c

Good luck with your thread. Usually Lauda gets away with all scams.

What is the multisig address that the escrow funds were being held in?  It should be public, and each withdrawal should be able to be accounted for and described by Lauda as well as the 2nd signer for the multisig wallet.  These are pretty basic requirements for an escrow and the blockchain exists as a public record to check/balance what these individuals are claiming.  There should be no room for questioning, especially when this amount of funds are involved.

Sounds quite serious except some details appear to be speculative / opinion based. Would be nice to have it separated from facts, and to have proof to support the facts - such as TX IDs etc.

How did the funds end up on Bittrex?

Quickly skimming through this nonsense, none of these claims appear to be true especially not the "10% escrow fee" as "allegedly claimed by me".

I'm going to assume mr. Ben and NYR (and/or co.) are behind this thread. Surprise, surprise. ::)

There is no breach of any fictional duty.

Once a liar always a liar. ::)

---

How long is the obligatory wait time until I'm allowed to tag the OP for creating a thread full of lies?

There are next to zero facts in here. We haven't even settled on the method for refunding (been brainstorming for the past week with input from various people), and yet OP makes claims that I plan on embezzling money via the chosen refund scheme (maybe even with the CEO - see 'additional items'). This is just some idiot that I pissed off in the TG channel before I left after a time-wasteful barrage of insinuations. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Funny that I logged onto the the NVO.io page today asn saw nothing has changed.  First time I looked in 6 months and then I remembered this was escrowed with cpaital releases upon milestones.  Since it appears project is dead I searched for the project and found this thread.  So, it appears there will be a refund.  Glad to hear it!  Where do I sign up?  And what happens with the Bitocin Cash that was forked in August last year.  I assume those will be refunded as well.

You don't need to sign up; all you need to do is hold NVST.

Sounds like Laudas exit scam to me

Why do you refuse an audit?

Why do you 3 all talk about how great multi signature is and than not use it

If you support btc like you say you do. You put it all on an exchange instead of cold storage multi signature? Pretty fucking dumb

What precentage of funds was distributed to project?  What about the Bitcoin Cash? 

We are literally moving forward with a vote/refund; how is that an 'exit scam'? Sounds like you're an idiot.  ::)

Audit has been done; the disgruntled parties have received the information that they are entitled to.

It's used.

I'm moving from 'sounds like' to just 'you're an idiot'.

Why isn't the escrow address public?

If an audit was done 300-900 btc wouldn't be missing

How was a multi sig used?

Nothing is missing.

Lauda, Where can I see the accounting for the project?  Or can you post a copy of the accounting here?

Not an accountant. Ask someone from the project to provide it (if they have it).

I am not asking for a complete accounting from them.  I just want to know how much was distributed by you.  Surely this is an easy question for you to answer since you control the BTC funds.  Also, I assume the forks of Bitcoin Cash will be distributed back to members.

That's an entirely different question from 'seeing the accounting'. Follow the first address or wait for me to wake up again; whichever is easier for you.

No. Everything will be sent in BTC.

If you could kindly post the amount when you have a moment I would apprecite it.  Thank you.
So the Bitcoin Cash was converted to BTC?  When was that done?

If nothing is missing why cant you publicly prove that?

Exactly. I haven't had the time too look too deep into it, but I invested Bitcoins because I trusted the escrows. The Bitcoin address was multisig. I do hope to see more transparency at some point but I know there's a lot of personal mudslinging going on so who knows when we'll get the full story.

People think the 1400 BTC in Escrow are not high enough and that lauda stole from the altcoin funds,
But they simply dont wanna do math thats all so i help a bit.

At first i wanna write that these numbers arent 100% accurate becaus i doesnt exactly know how many altcoins really got converted at start its just an estimate with this in mind.
This calculation shows how much Altcoins lost in value compared back than with the value now Left the value in btc when we invested right side the value now.

in BTC

LTC: 131.806919857 now 70.544134084
XRP: 143.421843806 now 59.4388254915
ETH: 792.971309565 now 298.760281758
MAID:149.88903042 now 29.1265901
DASH:136.835085363 now 44.8986655922
WAVES:52.1873061717 now 10.1257557693
DOGE: 25.6991926573 now 8.7235791589
ETC: 31.3899723712 now 8.2679004029

Total: 1464.20066 now 529.885732357

btw. 529btc + 1590(direct BTC Invest) =2119 btc
around 600 btc to tonbi so we are at 1519 btc
75 btc to nemgun we are at 1445 btc
minus the fees for the escrow around 1400 btc
looks completly normal to me..


I repeat the numbers are not 100% precise becaus i dont know the exact number ton got or nemgun or how much fees its just an estimate to show everyone that 1400btc isnt far of.

All the alt coins were converted to BTC last year after the ICO...total investment was 3055 BTC per a post from Lauda.

Please excuse my severe, untreated attention deficit--I did not read the details of this thing, but I want to ask if it was ever made clear what the fate of the bitcoin cash was going to be.  I'm not taking any sides on this one because I don't have enough info yet (though I'm reading these arguments from both sides), but my understanding is that it's controversial at best whether the forked coins stay with the sender or the receiver of the actual bitcoin, unless this was made clear at the beginning.

There was some controversy about this before, IIRC, and I remember aTriz had kept all the bitcoin cash in a campaign that he was running at the time the fork happened, again, if I recall correctly.  I think I remember that happening and that someone made a stink about it, but I believe that either aTriz or the project developer kept the bch and either way that the campaign participants did not receive the bch. 

You could argue that if the terms state that you get XBTC for your participation, that shouldn't include the forked coin.  I get that.  I'm curious as to what the consensus is about this; what Lauda thinks; what other members think; and if it was mentioned in the terms of this thing.  I don't think it's way off-topic.

Nope not true , they did not got converted last year.
The Post from Lauda back than was only the conversion rates so everybody could calculate how much nvst he will get it never states that they directly convert the alts to btc
and they didnt convert them.

I think Lauda is the person to answer that question.  It should be fairly simple question to answer as well as how much is in all of the accounts.  Awaiting that answer.
 

It wouldn't have made sense to claim the BCH at the time of the fork as it would have been a potential security risk to manipulate the private keys holding 1000+ BTC.

It wouldn't make sense for the escrow to keep (or ignore) the BCH after the refunds are issued and the escrow wallet is no longer used. The risk is no longer there and there is a substantial value in BCH and it certainly doesn't belong to the escrow. The escrow could charge a substantial fee for the trouble (and to avoid having to deal with dust forks) but the coins should be distributed.

Thanks. You did indeed help.

Which is nonsensical because I never had access to the other altcoins (exc. used to have for DOGE; now locked on bittrex).

Which is nonsense that I have never said. Unfortunately, they were not all liquidated instantly (had they been, there would be more money to repay).

Here comes the merit party.

Disagreed, as I always have on the fork debate (especially in cases where ToS/policies covers this beforehand). Although discussing the principles of forking would be swaying away from this accusation. The real problem (documentation-wise) is the exchange account. This thread is just a joke, i.e. a distraction by some of the involved parties (in order to delay exchange access, vote, refund).

---

Even though the funds that are on it aren't significant in comparison (mostly part of what was last released to nemgun), they should be pooled back and having access restored would enable us to build a proper chain of events (with little to no vagueness). That said, nemgun keeps delaying this with various excuses. Today is the final day.

Lauda,

Please answer:
How much was distributed?
How much is available to refund?   

Thank you.

As far as the conversion of ALT coins to BTC, I see that the post NEVER stated that they were converted.

So, Lauda, Blazed and Miner Jones.  As the escrow agent of ALL coins, and in the interest of TRANSPARENCY, please answer the following:

How many of each coin are still in escrow?
Were any converted to another coin?, If so, when and how much was converted and the exchange rate.
How much was distributed and to whom (amounts, dates, and coin type)?
What kind of docummnetation did the founders provide to prove that each milestone was achieved that triggered a distribution?
Please provide addresses to verify this information.

As escrow agent you hold a fiduciary responsibility to the investors.  If you continue to not answer these questions that is considered a breach of your fiduciary responsibility.

Thank you.

I think u shud Please read the post Fuck-ur-sis-racist; before jumping in like a paw-licker...

Even if it wasn't; no excuse for the escrows to claim it... I'm not saying they did...

So now Lauda will be going the aTriz way; well I wouldn't be shocked... Way to go Lauda (Not saying s/he will)... But if aTriz did keep so much money; why the fuck ain't he paying snakey any soon and crying about it...

Finally talking sense... But looks like everyone conveniently ignored u...

If you mean ideological (de)merits of bcash etc - that doesn't really matter. There is a significant value in those coins that was not foreseen (I'm assuming) at the time when the escrow took control of the funds and the client(s) want (I'm assuming) to get those coins.

If my assumptions are correct then the client(s) did not have a choice - e.g. to choose an escrow with a more favorable view towards forks - and there was no way to have a ToS reflecting that so the escrow should make a reasonable effort to accommodate the client(s). What would be the reason not to?


It's among the many accusations in the OP and one that seems to have some basis in fact. Other stuff would have to wait for:

I understand how you feel cause it hurt deep like knife when ones invest in a project which is somehow died and yet to collect back the fund invested but you still need to calm either because the forum is watching and interfering into the situations. However, Madam Lauda said they are working on it.

I will answer
How much was distributed?  All the funds that is 3000 BTC
How much is available to refund?    0

It really shocks me that Lauda is major scammer where he lied all that on aTriz accusations, and I believe we should file a case to the Crotian Police.

i would like to know this too. but until now Lauda refused to post this.


OK. not 3091 BTC. But BTC: 1590.919664 + Altcoins => Total BTC raised (at these exchange rates): 3055.120324

Given the available information and claims, I think that is the only reasonable assumption at this time until proven otherwise.  I don't understand why the funds haven't been moved to a multisig address and a message signed proving their existence.  At this point, the lack of transparency appears to be willfully disobedient by the escrow agents claiming to be in control of these funds, and worthy of forfeiture of their escrow fees.



I'm still waiting on answers for the first two questions in this thread.  This appears to be the old 'incompetent or scammer' situation.

regarding the forks i "know" this:

https://s33.postimg.cc/upy5yvnnz/forks.png

https://s33.postimg.cc/upy5yvnnz/forks.png

Even I don't keep track of alts I've sold... (Not saying someone did; just me )  ;D ;D

He will never answer correctly, in the past Lauda told that he don't belong to ALU services, now he seriously tell I don't own Escrow Services.

I havent seen Theymos  who never take care of these forums.

Enough proofs have been provided in the past that Lauda scams or at least practises thing for which all normal users are tagged with negative trust. Unfortunately there are a bunch of high placed members who seem to profit from Lauda's scams and they keep backing him (making themselved fellow scammers).

I have asked Theymos for attention regarding this situation but got ignored. The only thing I read him post is that he was irritated about how DT trust was centralized. However he does not interfere. I also pointed out how this forum is not being ruled by clear principles but by patchwork here and there. I guess it'll be a money thing or otherwise a lack of philosophical insight. But the normal and honest users are being victimized on this forum by this principleless government with its olichargic bunch of scammers, led by Lauda.

I tell you; even when rock hard proof is provided in this thread that Lauda was scamming, other DT members will still refuse to stop supporting him. It happened before. That's why Theymos actually should interfere.

It happened here and happened before? Rock hard proof? Could you please gather and link sources for this? Thanks.

Sure buddy. Here's an example I posted myself: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2829282.

Looking back at that episode it does look weird, but people were doing strange things with merit in the very early days of the system.  People for whatever reason didn't think 50 merit grants were a big deal, and older, well-established members were getting huge amounts of merit regardless of how objectively good their posts were.  That cooled down eventually, but that just isn't how it was right when the merit system was created.

And I'd point out that Lauda has since left aTriz a negative.  That sort of wipes out the usefulness of that merit Lauda left.

By the way I'm not Lauda, regardless of what Quickseller may tell you.  It hasn't gone unnoticed that QS hasn't made that claim lately.  In fact he seems to have stopped making it once there was some money to be lost on a bet that he could produce proof.

I can tell one thing about this Lauda, the person behind this profile has been accused way to many time on this forum. So many times that it is impossible for him/her to deny not being an honest individual. If there was some kind of reward here on the forum for such individuals (like jail in the outside world for criminals), Lauda would definitely be the winner...

Accused mainly by (1) people red-tagged by Lauda, and (2) Quicksy's gang of alts.

BTW in the "outside world" people generally don't go to jail on mere accusations, at least that's not how it's supposed to work. And this forum already has a "reward" system in the form of trust ratings.

This is at best some merit system misuse. Can you show some proof of scamming, or even link to evidence supporting such claims?

Not all scams are direct monetary scams. Of course my example can be called also 'merit system misuse'. But the fact that all other cases of merit misuse are punished by DT members with red trust, but not that of Lauda, justifies my estimation that DT members will not stop supporting Lauda when financial scams are proven.

Simply read how The Pharmacist above tries to justify Lauda's merit misuse. Do you think he would use the same arguments for any random other member? No way; he would tag that member immediately negative. Which also shows that the trust system is abused by DT members, lead by the biggest trust abuser; Lauda. And he gets away with all that abuse because a certain group around him will defend him no matter what he will do, even when he will conduct a monetary scam.

I was talking about the behavior in January.  I never tagged anyone for giving huge merit awards in January.  I rarely tag anyone for merit abuse, only the worst and most obvious cases of it.  Check the feedback I left and tell me when the first time I left a neg for merit abuse was.  Early on it was a weird new system and we were all getting used to it.

Either way I realize there's no way I'm going to convince you of anything, nor is there a point to arguing with you.  You can believe what you want.

Right. 'Only' 63 merit abusers were tagged by you.  ::)


https://i.imgur.com/MGlewnq.png
 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=487418)
Some random shots:


https://i.imgur.com/pwyvEBA.png
https://i.imgur.com/MUWpVwY.png
https://i.imgur.com/VVVr8Wd.png
https://i.imgur.com/UAcCrA0.png
https://i.imgur.com/cHmbwhd.png
https://i.imgur.com/OaSKUBM.png
 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=487418)


Indeed; with such figures opposing your talk you are not going to convince me, nor anyone else outside the group of Lauda defenders.

I'm neither and I accuse Lauda of not doing proper DD and letting a scammer like aTriz run amok on this forum using her/his credentials and trust.

Trust and Merit ratings are not a reward system for anything. It is just a parameter of agreeability and likeability.




P.S. @Deena although I don't agree with quite a few things u have said; I'd suggest that there is no use barking at the dogs of paw-licking coterie...

P.P.S. Especially a sister-fucker operating a pharma... He's simple saddened that his sister died of his fucking and comes here to vent his sexual frustration...



EDIT :


@vlom You are such a positive person.

back to topic please. then still no answers.

well, then. no answer => no multisig address that the escrow funds are in.
the address provided in the ANN is "empty".

Thus why it is a time-wasteful and pointless venture to try discussing baseless accusations against me publicly. If you need any clarification PM me or optimally contact me on Telegram.

The investors are getting answers in appropriate communication channels which are not troll-infested such as this one. Tl;dr: Nothing is missing; the escrows (including coinpayments, who apparently nobody is going after because their name isn't Lauda) have done their job accordingly; there are more funds than what the milestones require.

You don't say Sherlock?

Sign an address with the funds. It is that simple. Failure to do so can only be described as you being incompetent, a liar, or a scammer.

i would appreciate to read something from MinerJones and Blazed. Doing nothing is not doing nothing.

@wtf_is_going_on
You’re forgetting the 4th escrow: Alex Alexandrov, Chairman and CEO of Coinpayments who was put in charge of the maidsafe coins pledged in the crowdsale.
He should also provide an audit of these coins in a public and transparent manner.
It would tell us what happened to the 229,644 MAID he sent from the escrow address 1Mt7MCS6b6hemmL63hZjAdLtbqxCVmh2CZ to Bittrex on Aug 18, 2017.
It might also dispel the rumors that those coins were sold and the proceeds used to partially reimburse Coinpayments users who lost all of their XRP in the “hack” of June 5/17.

Who exactly is spreading these rumors and where? Another shill account spreading nonsense. ::)

I don't believe you.

Never mind the fact that you used the "find" feature and searched for merit to which you would get duplicate results on individual feedback comments. Even if I'm generous and let you have that number of 63, if you compare that to the number of negatives that The Pharmacist has sent out in total, then these instances make up a small amount. Hence, rarely.

I could refute this shaky defense. It are the same members defending each others lies and incoherencies over and over again. But I respect and agree with the quote below:

If he was REALLY Theymos, then he could have taken care of this forums. Lauda not only a scammer, but also extornist from hist past thread.
I don't know why this thread is locked https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4566587.0 and wapinter got positive ratings LOL
https://archive.li/Vhzcv.

Back to the topic and waiting to see Lauda stats.

this is not about Lauda. This is about what happened with the NVO money and what the escrows did. And there where three (four) of them: Lauda, MinerJones, Blazed and (CoinPayments).
This does not change anything. Proof is still needed. But i have to admit that i am loosing faith.

written be Ton:
https://www.reddit.com/r/NVO/comments/9627up/regarding_coinpayments_one_of_the_escrows/

Coming from you, that's rich...  ;D

But yeah still to see a rational response on part of escrows.


BTW Wasn't Blazed a sold account ?

Wapinter used to be tagged red. Do you have a screenshot or an archive about that? It may be handy in other threads. He was probably 'untagged' because he now cooperates with Lauda in bounty campaigns. You can send his former red tag proof to me through PM, otherwise there will be complaints about going off topic here.


This is not about some abstract escrow service either. It is about the escrow service and therefore also about MinerJones, Blazed and Lauda.

Team members of scam projects are also not considered as innocent. Right?

While I was in his bounty seen he was tagged, but now i am not participating because he is major Scammer and don't credit the tokens or stakes.
Here is a link where Digaran was saying about wapinter Tagged
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2768374.msg41055834#msg41055834

Still not seeing stats about the Money that has been escrowed by these 3 plus 1 people.

And there won't be any stats... Ton himself said "if you don't trust us wait for the spreadsheet from escrows..." just for Lauda to tell the investors that she won't release any info or TXID about the released milestones, even if after a question like "will you tell US (the investors) to which addresses the milestones were released" she answered "I didn't plan on compiling that but I can" as you can see in the screenshot...

https://i.imgur.com/qVPD26u.jpg

https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/transaction/282170246#o=1 the milestone released in December... 60BTC for example still sitting in the account of the team...
Plus I've tracked another 30 which probably are/were still in control of the team as a few days ago... https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/transaction/334679638#i=0 (30BTC send a few hours after the first questions about the remaining funds from the team were raised...)

Well, rest asured. Wapinter is red again after suchmoon (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=234771) took proper responsibility. Now Lauda should take responsibility by stopping his cooperation with Wapinter and of course in this thread by posting the requested information.

Cooperation with a scam posting bounty manager and running a scamming escrow service (and a whole lot more). And I get tagged for understandably calling Lauda's nature 'scammy'? This person has so much scam in his aura that he really and finally should be kicked out of DT. Or is he going to post the requested information here proving his escrow innocence?

this has to be posted here too. bump.

Why are you replying to a post that shouldn’t concern you in any way? ::)

Also, do you not see the hypocrisy in your statement which claims that mine is a shill account, while yours is currently shilling 24/7 for “FortuneJack”, an online gambling site?
Tell me something: Do you fully endorse this site and the social harm it causes or do you hold your nose when you count the coins they send you each week?

In any event, pls run along now and finish selling all of the altcoins that you sent to Bittrex more than a year ago.

Just read all four pages of this. There is a simple solution, as @OgNasty stated. Sign a message from the account that controls the escrowed bitcoin.

Why subject yourself to all of this unnecessary "trolling" if you can simply prove that the funds are still there and in control of all or any of the aforementioned escrows?

Seems real simple to me.

@OgNasty, vlom and others who are not yet Legendary.

These are the btc escrow addresses, the dates they were created and the initial btc balances:

Address	Date created	Balance
3AiGej11G8jUXvEBPvQKPLiHXC7ruUCp1Z	2017-05-22 17:43:59	0
3QV4kZtdzE8S2XdYXMbYQrgaJYBfDnypCC	2017-08-03 22:33:41	1497.22346798
354jirex7gkFxMiNmN45SxyMxSUsdGcrsf	2017-08-05 18:38:36	1497.22086451
3ECo88VpXVaYSongyYxTYKLHNw16J1cRLK	2017-11-24 17:05:05	1593.96883892
3Bcy5PXBjHdv5Vh3x3w8Fsi5RFPsuZzfvq	2017-12-14 23:53:50	1313.96466437
3D8LSnVv3DvwkXdmTtAsUzygeQUzpDJcPv	2018-01-07 20:39:11	1313.96255714
38PtcLxfmaNJnYHJR4Kpy2qXUFHkaTq8RX	2018-06-28 16:15:02	1243.96201852
36Uh2ine6UzWGPTDYdENqS6pj6Rzx4Q67R	2018-07-20 19:43:09	1143.96193946

Pls note the unexplained removal of 170 btc from escrow starting on June 28/18, the one year anniversary of the end of the crowdsale.

And these are the altcoin escrow addresses, the dates they were created and the initial balances:

Coin	Address	Date created	Balance
DASH	XvL4uRRnwhwDiCUTSJB4Kp2JeWom9ZBkrC	2017-07-02 04:34:38	1,916.58818631 dash
DOGE	DLN2kTLDiMm6qsGoR1uCgPm1sZqa3ouxzF	2017-07-04 14:36:34	23,580,328.23162458 doge
ETH	0x3EAE795303522b8FBff85bB113E2EE4eabfAce9A	2017-08-08 06:36:20	6,478.235883 eth
ETC	0x00d3B8f4739870D66383e15C4693CEd012178ba1	10 Aug 2017, 10:53	4,126.0107 ETC
LTC	LiUAhNeKWXEC2Kj875QGM4inoPEXiPhw2w	2017-07-01 22:48:07	7,807.37375203 LTC
maidsafecoin	1Mt7MCS6b6hemmL63hZjAdLtbqxCVmh2CZ	11/27/2016 7:42:57 AM	765,482 maid
waves	3PB7m9gLbUs3VVQEKkSuWL4QTvc4xg3UvGC	2017-07-05 11:15:15	31,108.76280603 waves
ripple	rwdLr5vj7tg63FrEN7hdJaVQVPHieXgBAL	2017-08-08 15:45	1,270,586 xrp

Pls note that all of the escrowed altcoins with the exception of ETC and some MAID were sent to Bittrex in July and August of 2017.
Who moved the Dash, Doge and Waves (worth usd $775,000 at the time) is unknown since nvo has never publicly stated which escrow was put in charge of those coins.

In an interesting twist, why “unknown” decided to remove 10 etc from the escrow address earlier today is unknown at this time.

I'm not sure what's more funny, the fact that people think they're entitled to make such a request or that they think that there is a standard for signing messages from multisig. Actually, it's rather sad how ignorant and/or envious you (not directed @you) have to be to do so. ::)
There was absolutely no proof provided for any of these claims, thus there is absolutely no public proof necessary to counter any of these claims. This is QS shenanigans all over again. Some people never seem to learn.

"a secondary Slack channel that was created in an unsuccessful attempt to assert control of the community"

Okay guys, calm down. Like what is this all about.

First of all the second Slack channel was created by me.
Secondary, the slack wasn't an 'unsuccessful' attempt.
It was legitimately 'ended' due to the fact, that the original Slack channel was recovered.

Not really hard to understand.

Isn't it clear why?

Either there is some issue or the self-pompous-entitled bastard pussy is too arrogant and busy to respond.


P.S.: On second thoughts definitely not busy if the individual can come here to mock others.

@Boudali.Miloud
do you mind telling us the source?

You don't get the benefit of the doubt.  You're supposed to be transparent as an escrow.  It is clear that you are acting as escrow for one scam after another, always making sure to have a scapegoat to take the blame for you.  Many people are sick of watching this BS.  Sign an address and prove the funds.



EDIT: Funny how Lauda is the one who hides other people's funds from them and refuses to show them the 3,000 BTC he has claimed, but now he uses this as a reason to leave me negative trust?

So, let’s recap. 

You have 3000 BTC of funds in escrow. 

You have multiple people in this thread, likely people whose funds you are holding in escrow, requesting proof that you have those funds still. 

You claim to have moved those funds to an exchange. (A horrendously irresponsible thing for an escrow to do)

You refuse to sign a message or even provide them with an address where the funds are being held, after numerous requests.

You changed your escrow rules in March, to include that you keep forked coins for yourself, months after you already had these funds in your possession.

Is there anything stated here that is incorrect?

I haven't had a lot of time to look through the details of this specific case, however I cannot say I am surprised money is missing from an escrow being handled by MinerJones and Lauda.

This is not the first time Lauda and MJ have been involved in shady escrow business, in fact I called them out (http://archive.is/yDC3k#selection-1643.139-1643.305) on shady escrow dealings over a year ago when they refused to cover losses due to their alleged incompetence.

Lauda, MJ and blazed were also advertising (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1576799.0) (more proof (http://archive.is/3gD9T#selection-671.1-679.65)) for something that was almost certainly (http://archive.is/6qdPk) a scam, being run by a then brand new account.

I am however very surprised that they were trusted with 3000 BTC of other people's money, even at My 2017 prices. 

Hello newbie account activated after 10 months of inactivity:

https://i.imgur.com/cc393c5.png

And straight to scam accusation board:

https://i.imgur.com/Brgna3D.png

Can you explain us from where did you get this information and can you show us proofs of your claim?

---

---

Looking at trust feedback "alt of.." I suppose this is correct info, right?

@OP who was used to escrow doge, dash and waves?

@lauda
They were sent to exchange in different dates. Were they liquidated as they reached exchange? How many btc are in escrow wallet at the moment?

Ethereum source is here https://www.reddit.com/r/NVO/comments/6w6qsv/ethereum_contributed_to_got_dumped_into_bittrex/

Never claimed this. Out of the 4 escrows, I have held the sole keys to the least amount of coin and yet here you are accusing me of doing what I couldn't do.

Wrong; I have never claimed this.

Asking the impossible. It's no surprise that neither you nor your master understand how Bitcoin works.

Wrong.

---

Why are you asking account OP? Doge -> kitty; Dash -> Blazed; Waves -> nobody IIRC (it wasn't feasible to deploy and the amount invested negligible).

Depends on the alt. I can't restore exact details (just estimates) as you've noticed in that trust rating. 1,151.92087268 BTC.

---

Bonus point: There was never 3k BTC to begin with. By now, if you've spent more than 5 minutes reading into the truth (i.e. via the actual communication channel which is TG) you would know why the conversation post to ~3050 BTC was made and what it was used for.
If necessary, I'll look for an impartial DT member to audit the information that I have. Open to volunteers as well.

The only responses one can expect from Lauda: No/Wrong

No constructive response; feels like talking to a semi-programmed AI that can only channel negatives. :P :P

What about that?

Already handled.

Sure.

For btc,
During the crowdsale, investors were asked to send funds to the escrow address 3AiGej11G8jUXvEBPvQKPLiHXC7ruUCp1Z which was published in post #1 of the main nvo thread.
Lauda updated it to “354jirex7gkFxMiNmN45SxyMxSUsdGcrsf” after the bch fork last year but it hasn’t been updated since then.

blockchain.info tells us that on Aug 3/17, all funds on “3AiGej11G8jUXvEBPvQKPLiHXC7ruUCp1Z” were sent to “3QV4kZtdzE8S2XdYXMbYQrgaJYBfDnypCC” and then to ”354jirex7gkFxMiNmN45SxyMxSUsdGcrsf”.
This was done in order for Lauda to safely claim bch.
Following the money from ”354jirex7gkFxMiNmN45SxyMxSUsdGcrsf” onward will reveal the other addresses I have posted.


For the altcoins, can I PM you the sources?
I have no objections if you decide to make all or part of that information public.

thank you.

you can send it via PM if you like. but i think it would be better to post it here so that everybody has the same info.

Why can't it be posted publicly instead of having to trust yet another person?

This is what's so irritating about this debacle - the OP disappeared after one post (of course) without providing any proof, and you're replying with one-word retorts. So far it looks like the funds are still there but I wouldn't put my neck on the line by going to telegram or some other transient source to get answers that I later wouldn't have any proof of.

If I was one of the NVO bagholders I'd be furious. I think they're entitled to proper communication.

The information about investors was never public (aside of the total raised, but that is needed for token allocation), and it certainly won't be made public because there are a few disgruntled individuals that anonymously wrote some bad words.

And they have been receiving that, via the NVO TG channel. Plus, there is nothing really to convey from my end: Vote is in progress; decision is made by current holders based on the vote (which is currently in favor of a refund using the existing balance). It's as simple as that.

Not really.  Here’s your thread from now and your thread from November 2017.   You decided to change the rules after you had the funds in hand. 

https://imgur.com/gallery/pSfxTSl

Those are policies that apply to CET; it has nothing to do with deals that were already in progress and it has changed in late 2017 IIRC (not March 2018). Assuming that the last thread update definitely corresponds to a policy change just shows how ridiculous the allegations are. As said, not a single claim in this thread is true.

You had funds in escrow.   
Forks happened.
You updated your thread to state that you keep all forked coins. 

I can almost guarantee that you are one of the only people that thinks this allegation is ridiculous.

Again, it had nothing to do with existing escrow deals. Can you stop with the kool-aid and making up your own stories about my services that aren't even remotely based on reality?

I don't think anybody here expects personal/sensitive info about investors. Anything that's on the blockchain is fair game though and you could quash most of the allegations in the OP by showing how those coins moved and where it all resides now.


TG (or any chat contraption) is not a good way to communicate with investors. There are some scraps of info on Reddit and Medium although I was only able to find it by googling "NVO vote". Nothing on NVO website that I can see. How did the bagholders learn about the vote? It seems very short (2 weeks) and on short notice. Did the team or the escrow e-mail registered users?


Does this mean that BCH and other major forks will be distributed to NVO bagholders? Simply stating that plus some blockchain proof of the escrow holding those amounts would be much better than this endless back-and-forth.

In contrast to Bitcoin, alts had unique addresses (which had its own set of pros and cons during the sale). I can welcome a third party to look into the movement of these[1].

You can see this yourself by simply following the original Bitcoin address (it requires only a few jumps). And no, it isn't possible to sign a message from a multisig address especially not from a setup that doesn't display individual keys (it would require compromising all three seeds).

Bitcointalk was never the way for communicating with NVO; it was their Slack and now it is their TG channel.

Reddit, Medium, TG, Slack and some Discord groups made by individuals.

Well, this seems contradicting. A certain side is complaining that refunds are not happening fast enough ("that we are stalling"). It can always be prolonged by a bit if need be.

This is where it gets complicated and out of my hand. Allegedly, nemgun had control of the domain(s?) and email(s) (which includes the investor database) before the dispute between the team members arose due to Yanni's disappearance and other stuff.. Some time after it started, Yanni temporarily appeared and allegedly took back control only to disappear again (temporarily?). There's no real way of knowing what exactly happened down there[2] nor whose story is true (hence the vote). I've sent Ton a message about the email database after I've read your question.

Well, they were already calculated within the releases[3]. Forks were redeemed and released to nemgun as part of his share of the milestones (he barely touched any other coins until one - two months before this disaster) under the claim that they would be used for development purposes. I have the chain data for all of those, including the parts that remain unspent under his control (or yanni's, depending on which side of the story you believe..).
I also have a list of forks that are still within our possession (provided by Anduck); but I'm uncertain of their total value at this time as most of the time available is spent responding and debunking nonsense here and elsewhere.

---

[1] Though I wonder why the attempt at burning me on a stake (by certain individuals), when I only ever held 1 alternative currency.
[2] It's similar to this thread; nemgun claims X happened, Yanni claims Y happened. Ton sides with Yanni (his original co-founder). Neither side has provided something that I would consider absolute evidence of certain events happening. Therefore, as a neutral third party I proposed that holders vote on the outcome (which they currently are).
[3] Based on the complete audit (which includes the forks), there are 50% more funds available than the minimum requirement by the milestones. This kind-of-dispels the 'team exit scam' claims, but I'm sure that certain individuals would disagree.

and if i were an escrow i would have these data. and it much less time consuming to post it than argue with people here. and please dont answer: thats why your are not an escrow....


i am not sure if they collected the addresses at the beginning and i think that they will say no.
and no e-mail was sent.

and the website did not have an update. why? i think they will blame nemgun or say that they have to wait for the return of yanni.


https://s8.postimg.cc/z1d7z5gnp/forks.png

I ask you kindly to stop spreading false (out of context) and outdated information about the forks.

---

This is how a lot of these false rumors came to be; someone stated something somewhere a while ago and it keeps being dragged around despite newer information being available.

You can trivially sign messages from each private key that are associated with the public keys that were combined to create the multisig address...

OK.

We can not. You have no idea about the setup that is being used, thus you should avoid making unsubstantiated claims.

Thanks.

What is the setup being used that prevents the escrows from accessing their individual keys? (not that this would prove anything without the RedeemScript. I'm just curious) Also, is it a possibility to send a trivial amount from the escrow address(es) to a specific BTC address to prove ownership?

Right now, Copay multisig. Plenty of wallets don't allow trivial access to individual keys, which includes hardware wallets. You'd have to derive them using some tool, which IMHO compromises the seed.

This is indeed possible. There is only one BTC escrow address.

Well since you won’t give any information about what is preventing this I guess the only reasonable next step is to blindly trust that nothing shady is going on. ::)

I literally just gave out this information.

---

~Out for a while. Nevermind.

It should be possible to get the individual keys from Copay in a safe, offline manner that does not compromise the keys. (https://github.com/bitpay/copay/issues/5859#issuecomment-294537858) I would presume that those holding such a large number of coins would have an airgapped computer, and thus it should be doable. The redeem script for the address 38PtcLxfmaNJnYHJR4Kpy2qXUFHkaTq8RX (last escrow address that has a spent input) (https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/tx/027d595470434ca0f5f3bc6eac0e954c033f8386096e8bc4d3f475ce9fba71e1) should be


It decodes to the three addresses (https://coinb.in/#verify) 1MkacfqMDASc13aLKw9tPZcT4ThXfRJPAB, 1BbhzqYonS2Uf3Vgv1Qbeq4SBLnq34UFVY and 152tUoW2crEVFh7hfHcEnsMAJCSwB6dddx. A signed message from any of those addresses would signify control of one of the keys. It wouldn't necessarily be trivial to sign a message, but definitely doable with a low difficulty.

It is definitely possible, and I've done derivation on Copay a number of times before although I wouldn't risk this (while the funds are on it) just for the sake of confirming something because some zero-proof allegations were made. This can be done with said wallet after funds are moved to Electrum multisig for the refund (1-to-n capability is lacking in Copay).
The option of sending a trivial amount somewhere seems much safer and easier to do.

Importing the priv. key elsewhere would make it trivial indeed; assuming that every escrow has another wallet on said machine.

Do you have a sense of the current turnout - how many voted? I could probably find that out on the blockchain but maybe you have the number already. If it's on track to achieve 50%+ in 2 weeks then maybe that's not an issue.


Ok, thanks for clarifying that.

@suchmoon
Here's the official announcement from nvo about the bch fork:


How these funds would benefit the "project" but not the team is unclear.

In any event, Lauda did claim BCH.
Look here https://bitinfocharts.com/bitcoin%20cash/address/3AiGej11G8jUXvEBPvQKPLiHXC7ruUCp1Z
3AiGej11G8jUXvEBPvQKPLiHXC7ruUCp1Z was the btc escrow address (which held 1497.22 btc) at the time of the bch fork which occurred on 2017-08-01  12:20 p.m. UTC.
On Aug 7/17, 1497.22 bch were sent from …p1Z to 1AWiFCKWxWHHvvLdvjGHXG3ViiDs8RE5x7 and then on to 1GkXv39S13k9yyDLtyXR8MsaYWKzRB1JLe, an exchange address that held 43K bch on that day.
This sale would have netted about 112 btc.
Then, if you look here https://bitinfocharts.com/bitcoin/address/354jirex7gkFxMiNmN45SxyMxSUsdGcrsf  you will see that later the same day, 93.999 btc arrived on the btc escrow address.
This suggests that Lauda pocketed about 18 btc or usd $60,000 at the time (usd $120k today). Not bad for 30 minutes of work.

You can track that here: https://nvo.party/.

That isn't the official announcement of anything. That's the version of nemgun/yanni, i.e. whoever was posting from that account at the time (it's somewhat safe to assume the CEO also had no say in this statement..). I always considered them as part of release milestones, and they were calculated as such pre-any requests.

That can't be right as it seems way too high[1]. Fees were paid by NVO, and 18 BTC is not what anyone "pocketed". The only way to know with absolute certainty is to look up the history of the account where it was liquidated, but that is deliberately being blocked by nemgun.

Based on the messages that I quickly skimmed over, it took me ~2 days to successfully manage this. Which seems to be correct as BTC moved on 2017-08-05.

---

[1] Update: It isn't right; I just went through thousands of messages. Quoting nemgun: "guys, i would like to ask if we can send 25.623 BTC to Yani"; which was the equivalent of 284.7 BCH or so at the time.

Wow, it looks like you got negatively rated for pointing this out?  Insane...  You even asked for clarity (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4895354.msg44532270#msg44532270) previously and got nothing but deflecting answers and insults.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=289011



Maybe it was due to you pointing out his refusal to sign an address he used for the multisig escrow, which led to the fact that Lauda doesn't understand that signers on a multisig address can still sign messages using the key they used in the multisig address, putting a huge hole in his argument of why he couldn't prove the funds he claimed to hold?

He got neg. rated for intentionally and blatantly slandering me on my trust wall. Not a single thing posted by him is true; not a single sentence[1].

Signing from multisig =/= signing from individual keys used for said multisig. This is clear and you would know why even the latter isn't feasible in our setup had you actually read the thread before posting.

---

[1] Ironically, some of the evidence to debunk the made up stories was posted by someone that I neg. rated.

He even posted evidence...  Again, instead of retaliating to facts with negative trust, why not engage in an actual discussion and explain what people are missing?  The blockchain is there to prove the truth so situations like this don't happen.  You have purposely tried to keep the details secret for some reason, and that isn't acceptable for an escrow.  




Semantics really is the weakest argument.  However, now that you understand what it is people expect of a multisig escrow (proving ownership of funds by signing a message from the key you control in the multisig address) what is the new excuse for why you can't do it?  Why are you purposely being difficult and secretive when you have a public blockchain available to prove funds and explain every transfer made?

What he posted is of no relevance to this thread. The policy change has nothing to do with NVO. If you jump to conclusions when you have: a) No evidence. b) No facts. c) No knowledge of anything that's been going on in the NVO ecosystem for the past 12 months, then you clearly are biased in one way or another. Thus, he intentionally made slanderous statements.

It isn't semantics, it is cryptography. There is no multisig signing standard.

You haven't read anything in the thread, again.

---

The 'you are absolutely required to post proof for me or you're a scammer' argument is a false dilemma anyways. The "proof" will automatically be provided once the refunds start being deployed (which is hopefully next week).

It is not acceptable for an escrow to hide funds you're holding from their owners.  You don't get the benefit of the doubt with other people's money.  Sorry.

Nothing is hidden; you're confusing confidentiality with cryptographic authentication. Those that are actually relevant to the project and/or care to spend 5 minutes of their time know where the funds are.

You're confusing an answer with a deflection.  It's ok though, no honest project would work with you due to how you conduct yourself.  This ICO is a perfect example of what one can expect in future projects involving you.

I still don't understand why you changed your escrow rules about forks after taking these funds, and then claim your escrow thread and escrow services aren't related.  ???

Neither the team nor the 4th independent escrow  has made a single complaint about me. Peculiar indeed.

Care to stop with the intentional spread of lies? This is the 4th time this is being debunked.

The fork went to the escrow address with a part of it being released under the first milestone. I didn't even need to provide any proof, someone else did it for me^.

For real peculiar indeed.  With all the pissed off investors who have been scammed and the failure of the ICO along with the lack of transparency, I'd think they'd be upset with you.  They must have some other reason to be pleased with the situation I'm not aware of.  ::)



How has it been debunked?  It's a fact.  After you received funds for this ICO escrow deal, you changed your escrow terms to state that you get to keep forked funds.  There is evidence you did this.  It happened.  Are you saying that the evidence provided is fraudulent?

A "fact" made up to suite your own vendetta.

Yes; the out-of-context "evidence" is fraudulent in the way that it was presented. The policy change is for CET, in the CET thread for future escrow deals[1]; it has nothing to do with NVO escrow terms which were made before Bcash was a thing.

---

[1] Unless of course you're trying to state that I'm not allowed to change my policies for the future deals that I might accept ???

You keep repeating this after Lauda had already stated numerous times that the rule change did not apply retroactively to the NVO escrow. Stop being an asshole just for the sake of being an asshole.

The BCH fork happened in August of 2017.  You made this change in November of 2017.  Regardless, I will take this as an admission that you had no claim to the forked coins in the NVO escrow.  We're making progress.  Now we just need to see an audit of the non-transparent moves that were made while the funds were not protected by the agreed upon multisig escrow and when you alerted depositors that their funds would be moved to an exchange and would no longer protected by the escrow agreement as the evidence you provided above states that you took 18 BTC for that exchange and the allegations are that users were not aware their funds were being moved from the escrow protection.



The evidence he quoted stated that he took 18 BTC for that transfer.  I'm trying to clear up inconsistencies.  People deserve to know what happened to their money.

Re-read last sentence in paragraph one and then the above post.  :-X

They are not "depositors", and the funds are no longer theirs after they get their tokens (except in refund/buyback cases; but not investors - holders). You seem to be ill-informed as to how ICO escrow works.

Again, read the thread - it was already posted here.


Already debunked to be untrue. Read the thread. Additionally, I've already clarified that I'm paid by NVO (i.e. by the money released to them, and not separate from their milestones) thus the fee (which in case of BCash was not 18 BTC as claimed) is entirely irrelevant to the allegations raised.

I think you forgot to reference where lauda posted where he disclosed this to ICO investors prior to them sending money to the project.

Further this term has no equity for the investors and as such is unenforceable in court.

All of this ignores the fact that it is very unlikely this would be a negotiated term at the time the ANN thread was created.

I like to ask Lauda questions to try and get the real story from the horse's mouth.  I would have loved to have asked my questions in PM, but I've been blocked.  When Lauda doesn't answer my questions and replies with insults, I can only go by the information he has provided that I come across, which is very little and extremely scattered.  The CET page was one central resource where there was info about his escrow services, so people go there to get info on his escrow rules.  Seems reasonable right?  Then when people ask questions about the inconsistencies they're insulted and left negative trust instead of Lauda simply answering the questions.  I'm merely here asking questions for the several members who have been PMing me begging me to look into this as they are fearful of receiving negative default trust and being insulted if they ask the questions, like what just happened to rmcdermott927 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=289011).  I've already marked Lauda a scammer a long time ago. There's no agenda here from me except to find out exactly what happened.  If Lauda can prove that he acted in the best interests of the escrow fund depositors and didn't take additional funds he was not entitled to, I would be happy to remove my most recent trust rating. 

What you need to understand is that I don't care about Lauda.  I don't believe he does any legitimate business for me to effect anyway, so attacking him to tarnish his reputation further is not something I care about wasting time on.  I do care about the newbies who take a first step into Bitcoin only to be scammed and get turned off to crypto.  It is not fair that Lauda walks away with a payday, and they take a haircut on their investment.  When he says things like multisig addresses can't be signed, I immediately know that is a deflection and he can sign his address used for his part of the multisig.  Maybe other people don't know that and need someone to explain these points since they clearly can't trust their escrow agent to not hide behind semantics to dodge their requests.  My hope is that Lauda hasn't stolen any funds, can prove this publicly, and investors get the maximum amount of funds possible returned to them, while those responsible for this scam are held responsible.

This is why you frequently mention me in private channels, because you just don't care. Evidence of such:

https://i.imgur.com/UIDRhLb.png

---

Nobody actively involved in forum disputes would be naive enough to fall for this nonsense. rmcdermott927's vendetta and bias against me is well known since 2017, which is why he proceeded to make these slanderous statements while he had the chance.

---

The clique behavior is notable; half-active accounts that appear at irregular intervals and try to jump me. Goalposts are being moved already, which was expected.

I was clearly responding to a question to summarize what happened...  Believe me, there's nothing I'd like more than to never have to interact with or mention you again.  Stop being tied to ICO scams so I can stop having to while maintaining my conscience.

Looking forward to you signing addresses mapped to those multisigs.

NVO is not a scam. You seem to fail to understand the difference between a scam and a bad investment (scam: Centra; bad investment: NVO, MobileGO, etc.).

It was already clearly stated that this will not happen. You have not read the thread, again (which is the n-th time that I'm notifying you about your failure to do so).

Yes, I saw a screenshot where you said you would never allow an audit as well as a statement where you were open to it.  Apparently some things can change when people want to know what happened to their money.  I thought we were working towards resolving the issue, but apparently I am just wasting my time.

I wouldn't allow individuals such Quicksy and yourself any possibility of an audit, while there are individuals to which I'd be open to share the necessary information with. Thus, both statements are correct.

There is no issue where the word 'we' is applicable. The NVO situation is being resolved: the vote is process which will (based on current results) be followed by the refund. You are actually actively slowing me down with the ridiculous out-of-context claims and allegations that I have to respond to.

---

The last valid post that I responded to was the large one by suchmoon (which took ~20 minutes - post editing time included).

Has anybody offered to do an audit? I would recommend ibminer, he's known to be an unbiased judge of circumstances.

---

From what I can tell, based on what I have read :

The NVO escrow terms and CET terms are different. So the BCH/other forks scam doesn't really apply here.

Yanni and Nemgun are telling different stories.

You can't really sign messages of a multi-sig, even if you can, it may compromise the all 3 seeds along with the money it.

Blazed, minerjones and Coinpayments haven't replied here, so Lauda is taking a lot of blame and accusations/allegations. 

The 1000 btc isn't really missing, its that, the alts were converted into BTC at a specific rate(?) I am confused on this one, Lauda, you said, this (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1917456.msg19826834#msg19826834) was the exchange rate, and how did they suddenly reduce (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4895354.msg44098977#msg44098977)? I am sorry, this thread is a mess, has more of irrelevant info than the relevant and useful one, cite a link, if you have replied to this before. Were the alts exchanged recently?

So the funds are in multi-sig at the moment and not in an exchange, right?

Anything else am I missing?

What are you on about with this pseudo-legalese bullshit? BCH did not exist at the time of the ICO. When the BCH fork happened it triggered a decision and it seems that a reasonable one was made, i.e. to redeem the fork and add it to the escrowed funds.

I highly doubt that Coinpayments will respond here given how high profile ICOs are escrowed (and by this I mean ones which raised a lot more money and used publicly known individuals or services for escrow).[2]

That was the exchange rate @end of ICO to establish a base rate for determining the amount of tokens that you're supposed to get. There were a lot of issues[1] due to investors' lack of due dilligence, so the conversion rate which was going to be used for distribution was fixed at that point.

The individual was trying to elaborate how the 3k BTC rumor was nonsense, and that based on current conversation rates the whole allegation was dead in the water (even though his math is off).

Not really; NVO was never actively using Bitcointalk as its platform. If you want to know things and ask questions, then you really need to join the TG channel.

Some were liquidated before; the remaining ones are being liquidated now (e.g. MAID BTC equivalent arrived today).

Correct.

Nothing much, just a lot of smoke to make my life and the whole refunding process unnecessarily more difficult than it needs to be.

---

[1] Which happens when you ignore "Do not invest from an exchange" times several hundred examples.
[2] Oddly enough, the individual with the sole access to the least amount of coin at any given time and most activity during ICO & this dispute is being blamed the most.

~60% of the funds have been disbursed to the team according to milestones and the remaining ~40% (probably more due to forks) are likely to be refunded pending a vote, which is in progress: https://nvo.party/

Some folks here seem to use a definition of a scam as "anything less than 100%" but the initial 30% distribution was set in stone basically (end if ICO / start of development) and the other 30% seems to be quite straightforward too (availability of beta wallet software IIRC) so there isn't much room for a scam unless the escrow actually runs at takes some or all of the 40% with them.

Actually this is not the case. Up to 60% of the total is (well, was) the amount that the team was allowed to withdraw according to the milestones, but it was never fully taken. Based on my math, if you include forks in the calculations there is about 50% extra left than the minimum defined by the milestones (thus, not 40% left but ~60%).
Bonus 1: I rejected nemgun's request for ~500 BTC in June which was reduced severely and ended with the release of 170 BTC (3 separate transactions) thus saving the investors even more money (even though at that time I didn't even remotely imagine something like this happening in 2 months).
Bonus 2: The CEO is likely going to airdrop his own token to all NVST holders, rebrand the wallet and continue off with his own project.

---

All things considered, the situation (minus the absurd allegations that were made against pretty much everyone, both the team and escrows) isn't as disastrous as it could be especially when you consider things like this:

I don't see these same people screaming 'scam' there, even though the situation is very similar (minus the escrow and plus the more money being raised & washed down the drain part).

I've spent countless hours writing in TG, IRC and here about this, hours that were required elsewhere. Rationally speaking, if this was the plan then there would be already be no signs of anybody as soon as the dispute arose (which was over 20 days ago). Manual refund of the top holders will start ASAP post-vote (regardless of the time required to figure out the quickest way to create 1-to-5xxx (split based on TX size limits) transactions).

^ So if the vote results in a refund, you'll provide the forks back. Also, if I am getting this right, the investors might get more , because the exchange rates of converting were screwed up earlier, so the additonal forks would only benefit the investors. The investors would get ~60% of what they had invested(instead of 40%), plus an airdrop of his(by the new CEO) token to the NVST holders for his project.

I am starting to wonder how quickly people jump to illogical conclusions here and why,never mind scratch that, I know why.  ::)

It wasn't that hard to get proper answers, was it?  :P

Says someone who jumped in on page 6  ;D

But yeah considering that a one-post newbie started the thread and vanished without following up with proof, this is starting to look like a nothingburger.

Nice that you got some answers.  I saw a publicly stated escrow address that was empty.  Users complaining to me of a scam.  Lauda refusing to say where the funds were, refusing to give exchange rate data, refusing to let someone audit the situation, and ignoring questions.  I still don't understand why a simple timeline of events can't be provided.  You would think it would be fun to provide all this data.

I believe it is safe to say the escrow was at the very least mishandled and funds should have never moved from the escrow address (I still have no idea why they did or where they went.  I read to an exchange managed by a single person?) without a transparent transfer to another address and updated signatures.  The blockchain was created exactly so situations like this don't happen.  It is disappointing to see this level of transparency.

You gotta do what you gotta do.  8)

Honestly speaking, the way things were said and the claims and allegations OP had bought in, and with those links and what not, made it seem really bad, and when the amount was that big, it seemed too sketchy, thankfully, the real truth was out, before things got worse, and this accusation will just remain at that, and nothing beyond that.

Edit: The funds were moved from that address to another address, which is also one of the multi-sig address, it wasn't disclosed but is definitely viewable on blockchain. This is the address: https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/36Uh2ine6UzWGPTDYdENqS6pj6Rzx4Q67R

The timeline is pretty simple:

-> NVO escrow terms were agreed before the BCH existed, and were different than the original CET terms.
-> The ICO raised around 3000 BTC, the alts weren't converted immediately. Some were, some still are/were recently converted.
-> There were issues while converting, due to investors lack of due diligence(quoting Lauda's exact words).
-> Fast forward to June(?), some shit happened(didn't read or get enough or any info on that) and it resulted in a vote, whether or not the investors should be refunded or not.
-> Vote is still going on, and if it results in a refund, they will be taken care of by Lauda and team.


From what I can tell, only the alts were moved to an exchange, and most of the bitcoin stayed there only. Some bitcoins were sent to bittrex, and I don't know what happened to that. There's still more than 1000 btc in the escrow address ,plus forks.

~1497 BCH was moved on Aug 7 around 3AM GMT, and around 94 BTC was sent back to an alleged escrow address around 7:45 PM that evening. The low price during that timeframe was 0.07 BTC, and the high was 0.1149 BTC, meaning that BCH was worth between 104.79 and 172 BTC, depending on what it was sold for. This means there is at least 10 BTC unaccounted for, likely substantially higher.

Further, I do not see any account for the bitcoin gold funds, nor bitcoin diamond.

Lauda's statement (http://archive.is/G1wcq#selection-2713.0-2713.9) implies he does not intend on returning the money from the BCH fork, along with his CET "policy (http://archive.is/c4Q0c#selection-827.217-827.285)".

The lack of transparency of course does not do lauda any favors in terms of making it appear he is doing everything honestly, and "by the book".

Presumably, signed messages, txid's and addresses can be provided so anyone can look at the information themselves...

Signed messages can't be provided : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1576803.0

And txid's and addresses are already public. I haven't gotten too deep in it to check between the exact amounts, as I don't have the exchange rates, and the necessary data. I think this info should be private than public, unless there's more to this accusation, which is highly unlikely.

---

Since you said, forked coins were sent to nemgun  (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4895354.msg44565009#msg44565009), how does the total end up to 60%?

How did >3,094 BTC turn into 1169 BTC?  Where did the 10-78 missing BTC from the BCH sale go?  Is there something quoted above that is not true?

This:

---

Only a proper professional audit would help answer that question.

Was a vote ever done to see if the beta wallet and first API Cluster were acceptable?

Are the people who received 60% of the funds also entitled to a share of the refund for tokens they own?

I agree.
This whole topic is one big speculation where no one actually knows anything and everyone is guessing something.

---

It's not the way it works.
I disagree. This is only reason why OgNasty should do it. If something is wrong they will have to post proofs, and with so much hate between you two, I believe if OgNasty say everything is OK than everything is OK.
It is simple as that.

Og can't be trusted with this. Right above he's already moving goalposts from "did Lauda steal money" to "was there a vote for a milestone" even though no such vote was supposed to take place as far as I know. It would have to be someone completely impartial, which probably excludes most people in this thread. Someone mentioned ibminer, seems like a good choice if he would agree. There are other trusted people on this forum. No need to involve someone as blatantly biased as Og.

I can be trusted with this. I wouldn’t touch this dumpster fire, but implying I am somehow untrustworthy is pretty lame suchmoon. This escrow was not handled properly. Asking questions is appropriate.

My question is why were these coins moved? And more importantly, why is there a refusal to say the coins are in fact held in this address?

Each of the escrows also provided signed messages saying the bitcoin would be held in a "2-of-3 multisig" address. I am also curious to know if each of the three escrow agents solely controlled each one of the three keys required to unlock the funds, and if this continues to be the case. The wording of the signed messages certainly implies this is the case, however some statements in the ANN thread makes me be not so sure.

First of all, information regarding the alts needs to be made immidiately public. We need to know the addresses they were received to, when they were sent to an exchange, what exchange rate they were sold for, and where the bitcoin was withdrawn to after the coins were sold.

I calculate the alts to be worth just over 502 BTC at current depressed prices that are significantly lower than what they were when the ICO sale ended. Plus the additional 104 BTC from the sale of BCH, and the 1590 BTC raised in the ICO, and the total BTC comes to about 2200 BTC. All of these numbers are lower bound amounts.

It is unclear as to how the fact that the issues with converting were due to "investors lack of due diligence" as I have no idea how one could lead to another.

I am not sure why several hundred BTC was moved to exchanges. Something appears to be out of order here.

There was no other vote other than the one asking for refund, speaking from the information available here.

The people who received 60% of the funds were the team members, and it was all spent, why would they get a refund. They might get a refund if they themselves were a private investor of the project.

OgNasty and Lauda have had their beef for years, even though Og isn't a scammer, there is major trust issues between them. It'd would be better for both parties to hire a 3rd party unbiased professional auditor, or at least to someone who knows basic accounting and is trustworthy.

From the ANN thread, it was written that Lauda would control the bitcoin payments. I think Nemgun and Yanni also controlled the seeds(?).

For the safety of the parties involved, the escrow , the investors, and the NVO team, it would be better for the exchange info to be private.

The investors lack of due diligence caused problems because of the escrow:

---

Only Lauda would be able to explain why some bitcoins were sent to bittrex.

Not that I care all that much because the people arguing here don't actually seem to be involved with the project, ie I'd care more if it was investors who were complaining about mismanaged funds and not random people with vendettas against each other. But just curious, would the ~10 BTC from the BTCCash to BTC exchange that people say have gone missing happen to be from a fork exchange service fee? As in a service that searches for forks, converts them all to BTC, and then handles the transaction?

puhhh, what a mess.

1. I invested in NVO.
2. I would not have sent BTC into this ICO if the funds would not have been held by an escrow.
3. NVO development is a disaster and it had to be stoped.
4. I thought and still think that escrows have to provide all the information that investors need to know.
a) amount of coins collected
b) addresses that hold these coins
c) show transactions that have been made, e.g. payouts after milestones.
d) explain which alts have been sold for BTC and when.
e) explain if forks have been claimed. and claiming needs a transfer of the escrowed btc and thats why there has to be shown the transaction.

=> i wont take part in stuff escrowed by lauda because this escrow has a completely different understanding of an escrow-service that i have.
=> i dont trust any of the involved people anymore.

The 10 BTC amount is a lower bound amount. Looking at market data and based upon the fact that exchanges were requiring many confirmations at the time, I I think it is more likely that the proceeds were 10-20% higher, making the missing money be closer to 20-30 btc.

Considering that alts were already being handed and converted into bitcoin, the additional work to claim the bitcoin cash was minimal and certainly not worth a hundred grand. There were/are many guides to help people claim their coins and it would really not be equitable to be charging 10% for this, especially considering it wouldn’t be possible to use an alternate service provider. The overwhelming majority of bitcoin companies that were holding customer money provided access without charge.

Probably most importantly, this fee was not disclosed prior to receiving the service and did not have the opportunity to reject the charge.

I believe several people who invested have posted here, including the OP, however they may have abandoned the thread after lauda essentially said to fuck off.

Trust is earned, not declared. You can ask questions, that's not the problem. The problem is that your judgement in this matter can't be trusted due to your past disputes with Lauda and your inability to separate personal quarrels from affecting your perception of facts. You have neg-trusted someone for posting in your thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2337754). You're spreading reprehensible rumours (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3160695.msg32677479#msg32677479) about forum members you're squabbling with. There's a good chance that you'd make something up to get back at Lauda.

This is a serious deal involving thousands of bitcoins. If anyone is to do an audit it has to be a person with integrity and credibility. Not you. Not Quicksy the escrow scammer (oh the irony).

i would do the review for free..... but i think that anybody would trust me.
but as I said: just post the info an everybody can do a review.

There is absolutely no reason to make it so only one person audits the amount of money held. This is just asking for corruption.

yes this is a good point. just because i think that i wont be corrupt nobody should believe it.

What was the txid for the BCH?

I can check my old services records to see if I have any matches.

It doesn't sound like one of our old FreeBitcoins.com digs, but it's likely worth double checking for the sake of peace of mind.

Think of it this way, there is currently possibly 70 btc missing from the bch sale, and much more in dispute, possibly several hundred btc. What would you do if you were offered 10 btc to simply say everything is okay without doing any real due diligence, especially considering you likely won’t be asked to do something similar in the future? What if you were asked to say ‘after reviewing all the information provided you were not able to find anything wrong’ but were provided little information?

There is also the risk that the person who “volunteers” to do the audit is actually a shill, which is very well possible considering laudas history of offering to buy accounts.

 ::)

Og volunteered, so which category he's in? Corrupt or shill?

All information should be made public so anyone interested can review everything themselves.

That's a question you won't get an answer to (& it's 10-78 BTC in question). Maybe because you, "don't actually seem to be involved with the project."



This is why I asked the question about who decided the additional 30% should be released and if there was a vote...  It appears the investors didn't believe the goals were being met.



Dude, you are nuts.  I don't know if you spend too much time drinking the cool-aid or what, but I have earned more trust than anyone else on this site.  I wouldn't risk my reputation to make something up about a documented extortionist who is doing an excellent job of showing his incompetence and inability to be transparent without any assistance from me.  In any event, 2 of the 3 multisig escrows aren't making any comment on the situation, Lauda isn't giving any information about exchange rates or remaining funds he's holding that aren't his, and I think that is enough for me to say that this escrow has been a dumpster fire.  No sense continuing to beat a dead horse.  Everyone can see for themselves how this situation is being handled, who is remaining silent, and who is defending the wrongdoing.

Transparency.  It's not for everyone I guess.  :-\



What part of, "I wouldn't touch this dumpster fire" did you think was me volunteering?  Amazing how this type of situation can happen, and some members want to make it about me.



 ???  How is the trust system self proclaimed?



Misinterpreting seems to be your MO.  It's all good.  Thanks for the apology.

I have provided a couple of examples where your self-proclaimed reputation doesn't mean shit when someone gets under your thin skin.


The part where you insisted that you can be trusted with this. Sorry for misinterpreting that as you willing to do an audit.

Have a look at the amount of ETH.
The amount (6477.095) is the "same" (fees and the amount at this address) as this address (0x3EAE795303522b8FBff85bB113E2EE4eabfAce9A) has sent to Bittrex_2-Wallet.

This address was posted here:

Thats why i think the addresses posted could be the correct ones.

EDIT: outgoing txs made:
380 days 22 hrs ago => August 11th 2017

same for
LTC: 7807.588

https://chainz.cryptoid.info/ltc/address.dws?LiUAhNeKWXEC2Kj875QGM4inoPEXiPhw2w.htm
Received   7,807.37375203 LTC   in 5 transactions
2017-07-03 14:08:03 Sent   7,807.37375203 LTC   in 1 transactions
=> LeAMJhCuZzeSU4ujoFMHvu24XmymaeDiZP BITTREX

and
ETC
4126
http://gastracker.io/addr/0x00d3b8f4739870d66383e15c4693ced012178ba1

transactions made 21 Aug 2018 and 22 Aug 2018.

10 => 0xcf3EEEE335532c8774b7F98B5c91FaE367a09959
Rest => 0xFdD5fCE9CF322b707a3DCC08c166C46dEEcB0767

EDIT:
0xFdD5fCE9CF322b707a3DCC08c166C46dEEcB0767 = exchange?
0xcf3EEEE335532c8774b7F98B5c91FaE367a09959 = wallet of escrow?

You should post the dates of the transfers to an exchange and if you can find it, the /btc price so we can try to calculate the total amount of bitcoin and eventually the amount of missing money.

or somebody could help so that i dont have to take care of all the altcoins.

CryptoID says it's a Bittrex address:

https://chainz.cryptoid.info/dash/address.dws?XvL4uRRnwhwDiCUTSJB4Kp2JeWom9ZBkrC.htm

Perhaps more likely this is the actual ICO address:

https://chainz.cryptoid.info/dash/address.dws?XvapsGYttoTw8PhdfhLYLqfVozWrhMDG2w.htm

Which would mean DASH was moved to Bittrex on July 4, 2017. This doesn't tell us when it was sold.

Coin   Amount   Exchange   Date
LTC   7807.588   Bittrex   03.07.17
DASH   1916.643   bittrex   04.07.17
DOGE   23577240.97   unknown   04.07.17
WAVES   31145.63   unknown   05.07.17
XRP   1325280.39   bittrex   12.08.17
ETH   6477.095   Bittrex   22.08.17
ETC   4116   unknown   22.08.18
maid         

i hope the altcoins have been sold at the same day they has been transferred to an exchange.

and i found this in the https://nvohq.slack.com/

https://s33.postimg.cc/k56vaphin/Alt_Stats.csv.png

LOL, why did you remove it?  :)

Seemed like a list of all users and what they paid in alts and equivalent in BTC/NVST. It doesn't seem to reflect actual conversion rates, but rather the rates that were use to issue the tokens.

i did not remove it.
i thought the slack link would not work: https://nvohq.slack.com/files/U55DUK62U/F62JETMME/altstats.csv
i tried to put the content into pastebin. but it is too large.

Yeah I tried pastebin and paste.ee - too big for either one.

Not sure how the file helps though. It certainly won't tell us the exchange rates. A quick sum over the BTC column shows 1464 BTC, which seems to match the numbers posted earlier (3055-1591).

After reading this topic I got to a few points to say:

1.At first I thought the user Lauda is just using the reputation to get away with the coins.
2.Not offering the coins from any fork, I consider in any way a SCAM.
3.I have realised that Lauda was not the only escrow as so, it is not the person with 3000 BTC, just 1000 (with altcoins also).
4.I have understood and I find normal not to share specifics addresses that might reveal any idendity of investors.
5.There is a complete and continous hate arround the user Lauda.
6.The user OGnasty have no idea how an ICO works, it is just a continous hate towards Lauda.
7.The other "trusted" or older users involved in discussion are not following the logic of any event that happened or what is happening.
8.I joined the ICO telegram and there it seems to be a live and ongoing discussion that makes me to have hope.
9.Probably the problem will find a solution between the Escrows and the Core team.
10.The escrow is here just to offer the coins of the ICO, not to see if it is a success.
11.Using an exchange as escrow, it is a terrible and newbie mistake, I am dissapointed, not for the escrow, for the project owners that they have accepted something like this.

Let's wait for this madness to stop and see the solution, even if the community of the ICO is angry, if they receive the ICO, they have nothing more to complain to the escrow. It's only core team problem to solve the issue. Problems like these are happening everyday, as a developer I heard hundreds of stories but it is the second time someone told about this topic even if personally I DON'T CARE.

The only way to stop the FUD arround, that is getting nowhere and the project itself is hurted is to have public the addresses and the history of the addresses.

BUT AGAIN, I don't find it normal or ok to display any of the personal information of any of the investors, so I beg of you, until certain information or messages are sent from both sides of core team, the CTO and CEO, regarding promoting and sharing investments received information, the investigation of addresses is a bullshit.

Even more, the real ammount raised is under a big question mark and I don't get the real ammount here, regardless the BCH fork or BCI (a few dollars) or Bitcoin Private whatsoever, who had the decission to sell altcoins and why? I find this very strange and no one asked the right question, I never knew that is an escrow job to convert the altcoins to BTC. Why the altcoins were not sent directly to the projects budget?

The idea of transparency is decided in the initial contract with the escrow, if it was not settled why people should cry now about it.

Ethics, that's what is left in this crypto world. Let's not destroy the only thing that matters. Find a solution guys and stop these nonsenses

After reading all your points you come across as a Rolling Stone that has no stand whatsoever.


So?
How did u reach this idea that it was an equal threeway split?

They can share escrow ones. I don't think people are interested in all contribution addresses.
How did u reach this conclusion? From the trust table; s/he has more greens than reds.

How does an ICO work?

I don't think there is a formula; it simply works or doesn't.

IMHO Because the "trusted" escrows failed to engage or haven't tried to engage constructively.

I have read in the thread that most people who had contentious questions were booted; so obviosuly it is a happy orgy out there.


And the investors?

I didn't know OG or anyone else blamed them for failure of ICO.

Ddi the escrows confirm this? I think it was a multisig wallet all along. Do u mean the alts or BTC?

And how will they receive the ICO? They obviously wouldn't complain if they feel that thy have received a fair share.

You wrote a mightly lengthy essay for someone WHO DOESN'T CARE. Bugger off.

Obviously none of the others are demanding cute cat pics of the pussy. People are demanding an audit, which is a one word response to what you are saying.
Most of us have these questions and even OG who doesn't understand things is asking these; so he must be understanding something to ask the right questions of the perpetually hated pussy.  ::)

I can't read aramaic; Can u?
I didn't knew u r a budding politician. Talking things tht have no relevance whatsoever.
In an ethical world; you wouldn't need escrows.


P.S. I'm not an alt.




EDIT:

I dunno about that; but definitely the only Bored one who is apparently very interested in commenting on the go.

I am the only one here that is bored?

So alt coins were personally held and exchanged out of multi-sig by any of the three escrows...
Lauda is saying they had the least amount of alts to personally manage.

The escrow coins were moved from one multi-sig to another for an unknown reason.

Nobody is signing any addresses from anything for seemingly logical and at the same time seemingly illogical reasons.

60% was supposed to go to the devs (2 founders) but one founder ended up not wanting his 15% two times in a row...

There was an extra 50% of remaining funds (20% of total funds) gained from forks as lauda said. This would bring the total to 60%, but the other co-founder sounds like he is contractually titled to 30%, unless he said explicitly that he never wanted to have that money at a later time, to which it would then be refund money. The fork money, particularly BCH, seems to have some discrepancy that isn't accounted for even at the lowest possible price or sale. It appears Lauda said that the guy who is in charge of the exchange account (allegedly), who has locked them out (allegedly), wanted 25 BTC to send to 'yani' from the BCH funds...

And nobody has any solid evidence of anything, so this is all literally he said she said and speculative because allegedly the records of the BCH can't be obtained, which is rather concerning just in itself.

So it's looking like a 60% refund will be issued if the other co founder who delayed/refused their 30% does end up getting their 30% of the total funds.

100% - 60% (co founders) + 20% (forked coin) = 60% gross investment

And these numbers are absolutely huge. Even a 1% discrepancy is like $80,000 at current prices LOL. So I assume the accounting will have to be a lot more precise than 100-60+20 when this thing shakes out.

Let me know if I missed anything. And even multi-sig seems to suck complete ass.

LTC Low - 0.0177 High - 0.0216 Value - 138.194 - 168.643
DASH Low - 0.06548 High - 0.087383 Value - 125.459 - 167.48
DOGE Low - 90SAT High 103 SAT - Value - 21.219 - 24.28
WAVES
XRP Low - 0.00003496 High - 0.00005027 Value - 46.33 - 66.62
ETH Low - 0.0741 High - 0.085 Value 479.95 - 550.55
ETC - Low - 0.0034117 High 0.003994 Value - 14.04 - 16.43
Total: 895.79 - 994.00 BTC

---

---

Above is the low and high prices of the various alts within 7 days of the above stated dates the alts were transferred to an exchange.

A review of the blockchain reveals the BTC likely ended up in this address: 36Uh2ine6UzWGPTDYdENqS6pj6Rzx4Q67R from 3AiGej11G8jUXvEBPvQKPLiHXC7ruUCp1Z originally. There are small amounts of bitcoin beyond what can be traced directly from the original 1590 BTC raised, however they are nowhere near any of the amounts any of the alts would reasonably have been sold for.

So I guess the question becomes, where exactly is the money raised from the altcoins? The deposits appear to be fairly well staggered, so if there was some problem with withdrawals, the deposits would logically have stopped. Further, there appears to be a withdrawal that can account for a portion of the bitcoin cash, although some of this money is also still missing.

None of the escrows have publicly confirmed any information, and have given what is essentially non-answers to questions regarding this situation.

I believe the underlying reason for the lack of transparency is the missing funds from the sale of altcoins. I can somewhat account for the difference between the 1590 in BTC raised and the current 1169 held in 36Uh2ine6UzWGPTDYdENqS6pj6Rzx4Q67R as payments to the founders, as the ICO terms said they would get a certain percentage after the ICO was over, although I would want more evidence and information before saying no bitcoin has been misappropriated.

It depends if all the altcoins went to the same exchange account, then. But that is pretty interesting...

I'm still not sure what has happened with the altcoins and the now locked/changed password exchange account. It may be that the personal owner of the account changed the details after the business was done as well...exchanges need identifying information and bank accounts attached to them.

I'd help if I had time, and more importantly, if I thought it would actually help accomplish something. But I don't think me doing some sort of audit here would accomplish anything in this situation as it would rely on someone trusting me to accept the information and I doubt all of the astute ICO investors here care much about my opinion. And really, I'd rather not be the sole person enveloping myself in any financial matters that Lauda is involved with, or others for that matter.

Generally speaking, I always prefer escrows using methods which allow for public transparency and being able to show and track the amounts, and movements, of all invested funds.

where the money went after the altcoins have been sold for BTC is a question that has to be answered from the escrows before the make the refund.

On page one of this topic I asked how much is left of the coins.  That question has never been answered.  I invested in this project.  So, I have an interest.  I voted for a refund.

Once again.

Lauda, please tell us how much of each coin is currently available for the refund.  A simple accounting of how much was sent to the project (with a date) would be nice.  If alt coins were exchanged into BTC the dates and amounts received would also be nice information to have.  If you can't answer these questions, I have to wonder how your Escrow group (CET) can even exist.  The basic idea of third party escrow is to account for ALL funds. 

If the answer to these questions exists somewhere, please point me in the right direction via a link.

Thank you.

Do you have any quotes or statements from any of the escrows (or anyone else involved in the project) that are discussing the locked exchange account? If coins were sent to an exchange and are now not accessible, this is entirely the fault of the escrow agent who sent the coins to the exchange, and he needs to cover these losses out of his personal funds.

Good luck with getting answers from Lauda&co, I've been for days asking clarifications about the amount of funds left in escrow... I never got an answer...

https://i.imgur.com/nyWfDGs.jpg

We have to be patient though, it's for our own "safety" that's she isn't telling us where the funds are...
https://i.imgur.com/9TVgzOm.jpg

Have any of the escrows publicly stated the amount of recovery that will be refunded?

Nop... or at least not precisely

We just know there should be 1,169.37330367 BTC left on the address 36Uh2ine6UzWGPTDYdENqS6pj6Rzx4Q67R, the escow didn't told us but that's what we found out looking at the blockchain.

Then lauda told us that the amount of left funds should be "~1400BTC" and is an approximate value  since the value of alts is fluctuating... but no exact amount or addresses where the coins are sitting has ever been told to us investors...

quoting for the pictures.

The etherum alone is worth 265BTC,  at current depressed prices. There isn’t any reason to transfer the ETH to an exchange if the intent was not to immediately sell for bitcoin. However with the current value of the raised eth plus the bitcoin, the total amount exceeds 1400, it is 1434 btc.

One you add in the value of the ltc (66 btc), the total is 1500 btc and is no longer “~1400”

Thank you.
I would like to add too that the first quoted message from the CEO "Ton" was "If you believe escrows wait for the spreadsheet from them", together with "Do you believe escrows or random people"...

In my opinion isn't something so risky to tell us exactly how many alts are left, but Lauda wouldn't do that for our "safety"... Is that a logic reason?

https://s33.postimg.cc/nfxktbqsf/photo5773958771100462491.jpg


And the message when we asked Lauda to tell "us" to which address/addresses the milestone were released...
https://i.imgur.com/A4aLCKL.jpg

this "is" the minimum BTC they got when they sold the alt coins: 1016.943816 BTC

COIN   AMOUNT   DATE   EXCHANGE RATE   BTC
ETH   6477.095   11.08.17   0.089   576.461455
LTC   7807.588   03.07.17   0.016   124.921408
ETC   4126   22.Aug.18   0.0019   7.8394
DASH   1916.643   July 4, 2017   0.07   134.16501
DOGE   23577240.97   04.07.17   0.000001   23.57724097
WAVES    31145.63   05.07.17   0.0017   52.947571
XRP    1325280.39   12.08.17   0.000053   70.23986067
maid   765482   23.08.18   0.000035   26.79187

plus the BTC collected: 1590.919664
=> 2'607.86348
PLUS forks.

@ escrows: if you think this is not correct. then for god's sake show us what you have done.

Wow, Viacoin MAN read this while at work

TL;DR Version
>bear market makes investors emotional and impatient
>be 1% and project agrees to refund
>proper steps take time and this sucks so people call Lauda a scam
>blame the escrow for not recklessly proceeding
>everyone pretending they wouldn't rage dump

Investors should have gotten worried when the CTO declined his stake, is he really too good of a guy to take the funds, or was it stage setting?

Who knows.

Facts are, obviously funds are safu and investors have anxiety

I am not sure why you say this. None of the escrow agents have even acknowledged where the bitcoin is being held (it can be reasonably inferred based on the Blockchain). There appears to be about 1,000 btc unaccounted for which is worth nearly 7 million dollars.

Non-sense.



Single line version

You might get merits; try again and harder.

It's funny how 0 merit accounts keep popping here for paw-licking merits and acting like psychophants.

I don’t think this is about merit. I think it is more likely this is trying to create a false narrative about the situation.

Why you talk of yourself in 3rd person? Which kind of problems you have?

Just for your info, it's one month that this charade is going on and we still havent got the amount of BTC we will be entitled to receive...

and now this on telegram "Ton" wrote:

=> Delay.

I have nothing to do with this ICO or escrow.

Just a couple of observations and suggestions that have already been mentioned in this thread:

These escrows must have been chosen for a reason - combined reputation of many trades and escrows.

I understand at least most of the funds are in a multisig account.

Perhaps a time-frame should be set for an audit to be completed. (If one hasn't been set already)

Multiple currencies were involved and some were traded on exchanges. So it is a bit more complex than it sitting in a single account.

Perhaps a list of known values that can be easily verified can be compiled from the information already available in the thread.

Then someone senior could be appointed to audit the rest in the agreed time-frame.

A list of values with edited out details could be provided - that wouldn't involve identifying anyone.

Delays can be annoying but I cannot see these escrow agents risking their long-term reputation.

An Alt of merit abuser, may be he losing his reputation on the original account.

Me Too

True; they do have good rep.
Assumption; not confirmed.

Good point; but escrows don't look to be cooperating on this front as apparently they haven't discussed an audit in this thread even though suchmoon made quite a few good observations on this point.

Very True
None of the info available here is verified by escrows; all is deduction or hearsay. Also, the escrows ain't willing to give any concrete detail; which compounds the suspicion.

Any suggestions? Also, will the escrows agree?


Apparently, the escrows are not in the mood for any transparency on this front. I dunno why or how it can compromise the identity.

They shouldn't be risking their reputation by operating in convoluted secrecy; security of funds is a priority; but an audit wouldn't involve handing over the pvt keys. Dunno why escrows are silent on this. ???

They are silent because they have decided to be shady, to don't make any audit or give us (investors) any proof whatsoever of their behaviour...

it's news from yesterday that Lauda "communicated" the amount we will be entitled to receive... No proof, nothing... just a number that as much as I know can be totally made up, no answers to my question... I just asked politely if it was true that the alts were sent to bittrex and other exchanges within one month from ICO end, no answer...
According to her this thread and accusation is just garbage made up from the NVO discord members...


If you ask questions in the telegram chat, the trolls from Ton and Ton himself will start bashing and insult you like you are some retarded kid... I have been personally called troll by the "CEO" and then banned...
I told him I was gonna give him proof that I hold more than 10k nvst in my wallet... to which he replied insulting me a bit more...
I sign a message from my counterpary wallet with my nvst address attached and sent it to the community manager... I'm still banned in that chat...

well, the refund "will" happen.


what is still missing is the prove that this is the correct amount.

i dont care about the money. telegram is full of messages that you get XX.XX$ and that this is more than you have invested. But in BTC you lost 55%.
and i dont really care about this neither.

i just cant stand the ignorance and the arrogance of the escrows. and what is even worth is that a lot of people just say: "hey, I get some money back. I dont care how this was handled and calculated".

to give some money back is just a loop hole.

Ya, that amount is literally hundreds of BTC away from what has been determined in this thread, correct?

It seems nobody was happy with the development, so no more than 30% of the BTC should have ever been released.  They said that one of the recipients refused their share, so the amount should have actually been lower.  Then you have all the altcoins and forked coins, which made up a hefty sum that should have resulted in most of the BTC if not all being recovered for investors, no?  How they could lose 55% of their BTC while in escrow with no product to show for it is insane.  Escrows walking away with a payday in this scenario is absolutely fraudulent.  I really hope they decide to do the right thing in the end, but as has been stated on Lauda's trust feedback long ago, "Sometimes hope for betterment is wasted."

We are in two vlom... people seems happy to have wasted one year of time in a project that was "supposed" to be revolutionizing... I still like the concept of NVO but saying that it has been poor handled and managed is a compliment...
The investors will get nuts while the escrows and the team are gonna walk away with some thousand USD for free...

Based on the amount of bitcoin missing/unaccounted for, the escrow “fee” is in the millions of dollars and nears 1,000 btc, and exceeds 60% of what is being disbursed.

Correct, but we have no way of proving the calculations here without the collaboration from escrow (or someone tracking the txs trail)... we still haven't a clue about the forks too...
No statement from the "CEO" about the fact that he wrote himself that only 30% of funds have been spent... So why we get a bit more than 40%? Wouldn't be correct to return all the money since this project is a total disaster?

No statement from Ton too about the fact that the team is still in possession of 100 and more BTC from the milestones...
Then he's telling us "I won't do any ICO no more, maybe I will airdrop some token to the holders"... well thank you very much since you are still sitting on our money that you didn't return...
Easy to risk money that they never had to work for...

I don't know if 1000BTC are all being taken from the escrows... what I know is that there is no TXID, no addresses to which the milestone were released, no accounting due to "investors safety" issues, no proof that the numbers from Lauda are correct...  
Only the one I have personally tracked and after following the transactions I can assure that the team got still at least 100BTC that will never be returned...

Yes you do, you wouldn't be here if you don't  ::)
Can you clarify this?
For example, if you invested 1BTC you should get 1BTC refund and forked coins. What is this $ nonsense?

Can you say, if it is not secret, how many bitcoins you had invested and how many bitcoins you will receive back?

I don't know if vlom is an investor or if he holds NVST, if he would he would be just more entitled to an answer from escrow, I am an investor too but nobody gave me an answer...

As I wrote over, I don't know vlom invested something but I will clarify for me at least... at ico end we got (more or less) 1 NVST for 0.00020367 BTC (1.40USD right now)... I invested about 0.10BTC and got a bit more than a 1000NVST back

But what we will get now will be 0.00009292961 about 0.65USD which is yes a bit more than what we invested but in USD, in BTC we got less than the half...
The point here, for me at least, is about clarity and give an account of how the funds were handled by escrow and used by the team...

As I've said many times already, the team still holds more than 100BTC than will never be returned, there is no mention of where and to who the forks went, there is no mention of why the 2nd milestone (which was blocked by the escrows) won't be returned too...

The ceo himself said that 40% of the funds have been used... nonetheless we will get just a bit more than 40% refund while the rest (~20%) will get probably sucked off by the team and escrows...

From what I understand, the refund is not going to 1:1, because 60% was spent of development and other things. The remaining would be 40%+ forks which is ~60%.  This is the rate for the refund:

an other problem is that people get exhausted. Exhausted because you have to try and try and try. but nothing happens. what should i do now? does it change anything if i am asking the same question every day? will i get an answer this way? i expect an answer. and i dont think that something will change. the escrows will get away with it and the so called devs too.

Welcome to bitcointalk. Here you mostly never get answers and you'll ignored 90% of the time. It may seem sad, but that's how things here.

People abuse bounties for a living.

---

^How to make a scam accusation topic into Meta topic.

yes i can clarify this.
if you invested 1 BTC in ICO you paid about 2500$. Nor you get back 0.45 btc in this is 7000*0.45 = 3150$.

and it is not a secret. I only invested 0.1 BTC. maybe thats why I dont care about the money in this case.

I would encourage everyone who cares about the situation to engage in the above quoted thread.

I'm not sure why the "CEO" would be saying they NEED the domain to do anything... because he's worried it 'may' be used as a scam?
I can understand why he would WANT to make sure that the website can't have some blinking message of a new fake ICO or whatever under the website's brand, but you don't NEED that and the refund shouldn't be contingent upon that.


"This is a security risk we cannot overlook" doesn't give the registrar or the person making the complaint the right to take down and seize a website from its "legal" owner because somebody MIGHT do something... what kind of weird and twisted thought crime conspiracy shit is that? Because somebody might decide to break the law in the future with an asset they control?  ???  ???

If the refund is delayed significantly, or indefinitely, by this claim, my suspicion grows even stronger that they can't provide blockchain evidence of funds and transactions to process the 'refund' which has been agreed to.

Is this a refund, or them buying back the coins??? Because it's weird that they don't want the coin to be tradable at all anymore after this, right? Is it a give us the coins and you get your refund type of situation? That seems more like a buy back in technical terms. Then again, double dipping after getting a refund by dumping the coin also seems like an immoral and unethical way to lead the situation. Also, I'm not sure if returning like 40-60% of the original investment asset (Bitcoin) is legal simply because it is worth more in dollars. If somebody takes 2,000 Bitcoin, uses 1,400 of it, then says oops my bad and returns 600 Bitcoin that has a dollar value the same as the original asset years ago, does that make it right? Or did you just lose 1,400 Bitcoin of opportunity cost that is easily proven and documented, that you would then be entitled to? What kind of contracts or writing/Terms of Service were used throughout this? Perhaps the contract has already been fulfilled and nobody is really obligated to do anything? I'd need the contracts to make heads or tales of what was agreed to. Not like any of that really matters because this is likely an unregistered security and therefor immediately illegal regardless. There's like over 10 million dollars on the line as we speak, not even counting what the dollar amount was at the peaks. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if this shit blows up GAW style. If anybody involved on either side of this thinks they can be a slick little grease ball and slide out of this situation and it will all just disappear with time you might want to ask our homeboy Homero how that's going for him ;D

I truly believe this is the next big scandal to send shockwaves through the industry.

You need to stop reading the posts from Vlom. He has failed his own due diligence to the point where he thinks the statements of the CEO regarding the duties of escrows, rather than the statements from the escrows themselves (4), are 'de facto' what will happen. The refund is not being delayed at all.

The dollar value is irrelevant. The release milestones were in place; without them I doubt that there would have been any funds left given the *dispute* that went down in Algeria.

No. Things are going to according to the milestones. As I've said earlier, as far as failed/cancelled/bad ICOs go, this isn't nowhere as bad as it could have gotten. The fallout hasn't been handled as well as it could have been, but that is not in my power.

Apples and oranges.

This is no scandal of any kind[1]. Do you know of any project on this scale that (partially) refunded their investors?

---

[1] Well, some trolls did jump at getting media to use "exit scam" wording which just shows their own lack of research.

I'm just reading what they quoted the CEO said on a public channel, which seemed to suggest and include the thoughts of escrows as well about a barrier for continued processing of the situation and refund. The CEO could indeed be misinformed and/or misspeaking for escrows. What he said is still relevant and perhaps the escrows won't agree with him, although he seems to be an important person in this matter and directly speaking on the behalf of some team, whether it is including the escrows or not. I'm not very concerned with the partial refund, rather how much money was used and taken away from the funds and why.

He does not speak for the escrows; he speaks for himself and the people working with/for him.

Then we are of no use to you in that regard. How exactly the released money was spent is way beyond escrow capabilities and I doubt they would provide 'sufficient' proof for it anyway (where sufficient is debatable depending on the reviewer; most of the things that a person can provide I don't deem sufficient as e.g. no cryptography is involved).

I have read through all 11 pages of this thread. There aren't many questions that haven't been asked and answered, but there definitely seems to be some miscommunication. I can understand not wanting to make an attempt at signing the multisig address for fear of compromising the seed/funds. I can also understand not doing a public audit out of consideration for those that wish to remain anonymous. Innocent until proven guilty should be paramount, and in this moment I have not seen any accusations hold their weight through evidence. In my personal, limited, opinion the negative feedback as a result of this thread is unnecessary, at least as of now. It seems like the NVO situation is moving forward, with a vote and there has been no failure to communicate through official channels or hold to the obligations of the escrow terms. You may disagree with the escrow terms or would personally do things differently, but to attribute malicious intentions may be a mistake.

It would seem reasonable to produce the dates and rates that the alts were exchanged and added to the BTC pool (unless this has already been done, and I missed it). From what I understand the value of the alts has been added to the BTC pool and will be included with the refund, if that's the direction the vote goes.

Are there any investors that have used the official channels of communication and not received an appropriate response?
This thread is 11 pages and it could easily have fit onto 1 without all the smoke and mirrors, but tensions run high with this much coin floating around and that is understandable.

Is there in fact 10+ BTC Missing?

What question has been answered? Can you point to the posts in which actual information was given in an answered question?

It might be more productive if you just read through the thread (again), or present the questions you feel remain unanswered.

This is a scam accusation thread, where no evidence was presented and it resulted in multiple users sending/receiving negative feedback. The focus should primarily be pointing towards evidence-based claims, not summarizing the thread in front of us. This has been a poor example of how a scam-accusation thread should carry itself.

Again, I don't have a dog in this fight, but I see questions and accusations being answered. There could be more transparency, people have the right to keep track of their funds, but I don't see which terms are being violated and the change of escrow terms was not applicable to the NVO escrow (implying that the forks will be included in the BTC total). A distinct lack of evidence is troubling.

Right, this thread is how old, a month? No concrete evidence either way. Just some investors pissed about the lack of transparency and just a CEO claiming to be talking for escrows and the project in general saying there will be a hold up over the domain being in control from somebody he doesn't like that may or may not do something illegal with it. There's most likely a ton going on behind the scenes we don't know about.

How this all shakes out with the refund and accounting is where the real fireworks will spark. There can only be one number they use to issue the refund and the refund depends on how many coins you have (that you probably have to send back to them). That final number is the only evidence we need, and they can try and justify it with all their might, but without blockchain transaction proof, none of it will matter. I think we can all agree that is a big strength of blockchain.

How long is it reasonable to wait? Another month? Another two months?

When does it become unreasonable?

These questions are better answered by everybody in general and not just one person or some biased group of people. Personally I still think they're within a reasonable time frame and won't need to provide transaction details or signed messages.

The refund has already been finished. :-X

Oh shit lol! Any thread or Telegram documentation on that?

Yeah. This was the first post (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1917456.msg44848685#msg44848685) explaining the timeline; this was the second post (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1917456.msg45040940#msg45040940) containing all the batches.

Missing from that information is an accounting of funds released to various parties and the conversation from the car alts to bitcoin.

Very interesting. Both points seem reasonable. Refunds have been issued. There are no explanations of any escrow transactions.

Here are a couple users talking about the starting price of the coin and the refund price.


Which would mean 45.8% refund as he stated ( .0000933 / .0002036 = .458 aka 45.8%). I was under the impression that 60% would be refunded based on previous statements made here... is that true? Not sure, I'm really not looking too deep into this but offering some speculation and questions. What % went to the escrows?

Now despite the low refund percent, Bitcoin has rose to a huge level so the dollar amount of the refund is actually greater than the dollar amount that was used to originally buy the ICO. What would the gain have been if they never deposited money into the ICO? Does the refund mean everybody's reputation is 'cleared' from a scam or does a detailed analysis of the escrow wallet and all its debits and credits still need to be done? (probably a good idea either way)

I find some interest in the "41.78678295 BTC will be set aside until a solution to this issue is found".

Just some thought provoking questions. I and everybody else are working with incomplete information and no evidence from blockchain tracing has been put forth so the presumption would be innocent until proven guilty.

This was never in the original agreement, thus there is no requirement for such.

It is ~60% of the funds, but not 60% of the original rate. I've already explained this several times; the initial ~3050 BTC number was a *balance snapshot*[1] to figure out a distribution rate.

It's higher than it should be.

There's nothing interesting about it. It was already explained: nemgun & co. stole the domain and database, thus the documentation is missing for the unallocated tokens.

This doesn't work when the accuser is Quickseller.

---

[1] Theoretical total BTC balance based on conversation rates at the time of the snapshot.

Yeah that's fine if there is no written requirement for the accounting of funds. I'd say that'd be a pretty annoying requirement personally. A big headache. When were the milestones hit and the funds sent to the CEO? 15% was the agreed amount, so I'm just curious if anybody knows when those milestones may have been hit. Sounds like 15%-15%-5% in terms of dev payment of milestones. The CTO declined all payments of his 15-15-5

I tracked back the original wallet, it appears the several thousands of Bitcoin moved multiple times, but I'm seeing this address as the original.

https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/3AiGej11G8jUXvEBPvQKPLiHXC7ruUCp1Z


3,405 BTC total received. I'm no blockchain detective so I'm not sure what to make of this. Somebody smarter than me will have to make sense of it. I just clicked back on all the large fund transfers until I hit a huge wallet that appears to be the beginning of the ICO. There's like 11 pages of incoming BTC there. (edit: There's WAYYYYY more than 11 pages lol. 63 total pages.)

Double edit: 60% of 3,405 = 2,043.  3,405 - 2,043 = 1,362... Any correlation between that and the "1,393.94415407 - 41.78678295 = 1352.15737112." refund amount?

I thought the CTO wasn't paid? ??? ???? ??? uh.... help? Coincidence? I'm confused lmfao. It looks like the CTO's payment was actually taken out of the final number that was used as a refund...but everybody is saying he wasn't paid.

There is no exact date at which funds were sent (multiple times over smaller amounts). First milestone was unlocked post distribution; 2nd was late 2017.

No. 30% + 30%.

Nemgun is no CTO; and he lied about his payments to the community.

If you have an address that received 1k coins, and you send it to yourself 4 more times it will show 5k BTC total received. The number of received coins on explorers are not a valid metric.

::)

If by everyone you mean his band of paid shills from discord, then yes indeed.

True, maybe that is definitely how it works. Then why wouldn't it be much larger if these 3 transactions of the address sending 1,200 BTC (https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/3d664257ca058c13eb6695237a1c8b878490b877381ad04f1084163da999e739), then 1,689.44357589 (https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/954f4cfcb971ec4501f3e1667440fe0215f852039720f8af5f23a2d624e3b858), then 1,497.22395444 BTC (https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/4c304d4628a67a45d87c5babf46ada74c778a37826dd0f10f90ec88857e91666) all to itself not show up?

Isn't that like 4,386 BTC sent to itself? And yet the blockchain says "Total Received   3,405.40731067 BTC"? I'm genuinely curious about this because if it counted sent bitcoin to itself, with those 3 huge transactions alone sent to itself, it would be over 4,000 Bitcoin easily. Am I getting something wrong lol. I must be reading this transaction shit wrong and causing undue stress. I'll give up and let the pros handle it ;D

I believe it has something to do with the situation in which all inputs and all outputs are the same address. It shouldn't count that as a metric for 'spent' nor 'received'. Someone else might know the details of this without having to look into it. However, the fact that the 'received' metric on blockchain explorers is useless should be well known.

I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around why a multisig escrow wallet would be sending the funds to multiple different addresses and then back to itself.

3AiGej11G8jUXvEBPvQKPLiHXC7ruUCp1Z  ---> 3DkFekKmKXSnL1XmMfQSh2kukKzjr7X44Y
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/21e7f36e1d11fc4283792a9f46f13d1f41d4095dc2507e9335e6cf91fedb9d07

3DkFekKmKXSnL1XmMfQSh2kukKzjr7X44Y ---> 39iTdYPq899u1CVad9rKKQQPJHRVaP7MSo
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/388346e14b28d7862ef3182e5bdefd795f770c84ed27f4292280abfab1ecd9b9

39iTdYPq899u1CVad9rKKQQPJHRVaP7MSo ---> 3AiGej11G8jUXvEBPvQKPLiHXC7ruUCp1Z (ORIGINAL ADDRESS)
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/4c304d4628a67a45d87c5babf46ada74c778a37826dd0f10f90ec88857e91666

That's just one example out of many, and none of it appears to fluff up the "received Bitcoin" number because it was all traced back to the original wallet. Which we've already seen would have a lot more received if it indeed counted those transactions.

No, it is 1488 + 1689 + 100 + 100 + 100 = 3486 BTC (total received) while blockchain.info shows total received 3,405 BTC - my calculation is not correct calculation either, probably because not all funds were moved at some point.

Or better, if you like, 100 + 100 + 100 - 1689 -100 - 100 + 1488 - 1497 = -1598, so approximately 1598 btc was in that address.

Don't break your head too much, if you want correct calculation why it shows 3,405.4 BTC you will have to go trough all 3128 transactions. You can't just pick one which you like and ask questions.

I see the multiple +100 BTC that you're talking about. Yeah my math and analysis is probably bad. I think this transaction (https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/954f4cfcb971ec4501f3e1667440fe0215f852039720f8af5f23a2d624e3b858) is what I messed up about. That's probably not 1,689 BTC

I am not an expert either however this is what I did....

I filtered the address with the Sent transactions
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/3AiGej11G8jUXvEBPvQKPLiHXC7ruUCp1Z?filter=1

Scroll down and...

First sent was on 2017-07-01 19:06:18 Tx: https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/b478196f3a535f8a2a8a250ce1ebe97dabc97055bd1f2fd8798d7742185ad199
Amount 16.04376017 BTC to 34QigSdFmqDNSdCjZs5sSDQYYewDGh5LLd
If you trace the address then you will see Ultimately the fund comes back to the main address. I assume funds were sent to different addresses of the same wallet.
So, total received = 3,405.40731067 - 16.04376017 = 3389.3635505 BTC

2nd sent was on 2017-07-01 19:20:36 Tx: https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/ba568d7cf8c7ea025ad68b16960ac18cb23fc61abd0986ac7181c9d7a8fd02e8
Amount 0.57566755 BTC to 32DMGN7hiEG2gVYZt9gVVPgJTYhndx7GSv
Again after tracing the address the conclusion is sent to different addresses of the same wallet.
3389.3635505 - 0.57566755 = 3388.78788295 BTC

3rd sent was on 2017-07-01 19:31:44 Tx: https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/52b71cce22168c76c354ddbc17c9feb36439ef31ae8b0282e5a67a331bbe0c1d
Amount 0.00228457 BTC to 3KA7s4Nqw1KvksUY2KtpmzCEdxkfjQ22bH and 149ZiYcFKsjcT1S1Ef4WwAihXQxXQds1YA
I can not figure out the end of them so lets say they actually gone out.
So, we still have: 3388.78788295 BTC

4th sent was on 2017-07-01 20:33:40 Tx: https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/32cbb8f451c6129067fb40ac93628e8f6337c699c466a0336a6e5b9da0b38111
Amount 0.42851301 BTC to 36UNCAdXYUditQoyKJKfwszafnkKFCcAwQ
Eventually it came back to the same address
3388.78788295 - 0.42851301 = 3388.35936994 BTC

5th (http://53c12f26b259b6d29b611b80c738e08349c26edc759198f8922e3db582e7dd762017-): 0.18467903 BTC
6th (http://7f0554432d28079dbc62ffbae378692206447ba1d265f4affb2c4c9c4e5190fd): 0.05086859 BTC
7th (http://a9516ebbc95d3777d960e444493220d9b0f9c8bb63eeed025ab02139e2cabd8d): 0.04060566 BTC
8th (https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/547591872a593ffd5185ea85337bfade972c5139fcaddd558f19298d460697ef): 0.05862002 BTC
9th (https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/98901ccde88bd5e9e2e0748bb60286338d1d1db564efd64d68b0c404eb023fa0): 0.0086241 BTC
10th (https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/4c44ce3be02fc0b7227dd4ed2f123dd8082bc54e30010fad5372665894097ed7): 0.03419528 BTC
11th (https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/821d503cab3a3fb2be49a2902898523d25e1949552e1fc60f13a9626020f98fe): 0.00701132 BTC
12th (https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/edb7e814a195a8e12a1685274e9012a7a4688dbccc780fecd3bf9aec2671440c): 0.00927396 BTC
13th (https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/c4df18d77eb1829e7c66ebe7f3e08345e9febad3d8a71c4757275f92845faf08): 0.01638622 BTC
14th (https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/fe423146c06cc9d386d761a5b55445fe4192654e701026ac2176d3a8f9b101d3): 0.01053424 BTC
15th (https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/5c6cb71a889550f0f930cc9786fde20ecc46835b1819aecae32eb9c34731ee34): 0.00536235 BTC
16th (https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/139333b0141c33067b7188a374d4ab24694c75fa0a3b58eba9c04d53c6eaa83b): 0.00096287 BTC
17th (https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/d587a048a8e1a7595c42b84c8ccbcaa1c374d841ef3f1ecf0b8877dbead6e521): 0.00255258 BTC
18th (https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/8e080680f8da8be742a027e05533b0fc7d153b939b67986157b6b8643614c655): 0.00036839 BTC
19th (https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/e054d3bb4962eb37ef1af436bf399e1443886df58b13f860a1caa0619fb39892): 0.01025788 BTC
===================================
Total: 0.44030249 BTC

3388.35936994 - 0.44030249 = 3387.91906745 BTC

After exploring 20th tx (https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/21e7f36e1d11fc4283792a9f46f13d1f41d4095dc2507e9335e6cf91fedb9d07) it seems 1,497.22395444 BTC came back (https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/4c304d4628a67a45d87c5babf46ada74c778a37826dd0f10f90ec88857e91666) to the same address.
3387.91906745 - 1497.22395444 = 1890.69511301 BTC

21st tx (https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/0386e138c9a770496e73bbc66262481a5a632eb37c078502e288c9f43f319b32) eventually adds up to this tx (https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/4c304d4628a67a45d87c5babf46ada74c778a37826dd0f10f90ec88857e91666). So, nothing to deduct.
22nd (https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/ec8e9251f12dfbb2dce7d7677fc9f008cd5f4abb8a0c3a2e98c9bee5e32ecc0c) does the same. Again nothing to deduct.
23rd (https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/a35828857b5851f33f4295235ea105ad31ee55f405861a5f850ac00dffa3242d) assuming it really gone out.
24th (https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/10cd74d31e4763d7d0fe633dc38659668a3ec09a7cd1b69efad0dd8c3c639571) gone out as well.


So, if my manual checking is correct then the address (3AiGej11G8jUXvEBPvQKPLiHXC7ruUCp1Z) actually received 1890.69511301 (+/- 0.00228457) BTC in-total.

---

PS: Guys, since this is a manual checking, I could even miss some of the transactions while I was tracing. So, don't consider it as a solid calculation of the received coins.

Your method and number seems more accurate. I'll wait until other people smarter than me examine that wallet. Anybody can download a csv or xlxs spreadsheet file of the entire wallet on https://blockchain.info/export-history?active=3AiGej11G8jUXvEBPvQKPLiHXC7ruUCp1Z

So, the refund has been completed and the amount distributed seems to make sense and correlate with what was expected to be distributed, is that right? Where is the issue at this point? The only issue I can see a reason for this remaining, is if there is indeed BTC missing from the pool or individuals that were entitled to a refund.

All I'm hearing though is that people want more accountability, but if all the funds agreed to be distributed are there and have been refunded then I'm failing to see where the issue is or why 3+ DT members are leaving this thread with negative reputation from one another. I know it's not even close to my call, but if I were any one of you I would remove the negative(s) I left due to this thread, because it's seemingly pedantic and does not set a good precedent in terms of how trust is used.

What is the accusation?

That's not an accusation, that's a suggestion at best. I am operating with very limited knowledge of the situation, but from what I understand the transparency being requested and subsequently leveled as an accusation (somehow?) was never in the terms agreed to by the escrow(s) or the investor(s).

There are two paths, either terms are being broken or they are not; if so, which terms?
Is there any evidence to suggest that funds have been withheld or gone missing? That is the title of the thread, and I have seen nothing that suggests this.
Is there reason to believe that the altcoin exchange rates/dates have been manipulated for them to pocket funds? I'm just trying to figure out exactly what the finger is being pointed at, and why.

https://media0.giphy.com/media/VXxFEcDnNvxqU/giphy.gif

The accusation is that a portion of the money being held in escrow was stolen or otherwise misappropriated

Forgive me, but what is the evidence for this accusation? If there is solid evidence to suggest this happened, then I would love to hear it. It would go a long way towards convincing more than just myself. So far though, I have just heard baseless speculation and it leaves me unable to come to any conclusion about the situation. If there was substantial evidence that would suggest money was stolen, then I agree that transparency beyond what was previously agreed to could be desirable; at least to get to the bottom of things, and dish out financial justice for those negatively affected.

People couldn't understand how 3000 btc became less than 1500,after converting alts to btc and spending money on "development".

I thought that even the 3,000 BTC amount was speculation. I'm clearly not helping solve anything and very likely missing vital chunks of information. I also thought the alts were forked and exchanged when the value was much more insignificant and that 60% was to be spent on development. I may have read through the entire thread, but my reading comprehension must be beyond salvageable.

I'll just bow this one out.

3000+ was the valuation at the time of ICO, which the token distribution was based on. Actual exchange value was likely lower - perhaps in the 2700 BTC range but I can't say that I know the exact number.

30% was to be distributed to the development team immediately after the ICO (first milestone) and another 30% after the release of beta wallet (2nd milestone), leaving 40% in escrow.

1400 / 3100 is 45% and 1400 / 2700 is 52%, i.e. it passes a basic smell test: the refund covered more than the escrow was supposed to hold. The extra funds have been presumably  gained from forks and the 2nd milestone not being completely distributed due to some internal disputes.

At this point it would seem that whoever wants to accuse Lauda et al of wrongdoing should come up with evidence, not the other way round. Otherwise this could go on for years with random people claiming that the refund should have been 10 BTC or 100 BTC or 1000 BTC higher.

Seems rather stupid to say your last couple sentences. An escrow should have btc/altcoin amounts in something like an excel spreadsheet with proper accounting / tracking. Very easy to press Ctrl C and Ctrl V on their keyboards and post it here. This isn't just about how the ICO is being run, it falls back on the CET ( Crypto Escrow Team ) and how they conduct their business with no transparency. This will effect further business for them.

Your basic smell test just had a 400 bitcoin discrepancy. Nice one. (Guess what? with proper transparency you wouldn't need to be sniffing around, we'd have the exact numbers to talk about and help with this situation.)

It sounds like the "proper" communication channels so far have heavy bias and if you question the wrong founder/other founder/escrow then you are removed from said telegram/slack/other mode of communication. Which is likely why some of the investors only have bitcointalk.org left to find their answers. Aswell the official website has been claimed to have the ability to act nefarious in this situation so that is also not a proper means of communication for most.

If any single investor has no other way to find information about this project and what is happening besides bitcointalk then it is owed to them to be able to find what they need here. The ICO took place here, the Crypto Escrow Team has their roots set in here and was probably chosen based on what the ICO team had seen here. Now you have outsiders that commonly use escrow and members involved in this that are watching this from afar wondering WTF is this the kind of transparency I'm going to get in a dispute?

I sure as hell bet the founders of this failed project have all the information, but guess what.. they're the ones that had an internal problem and failed the people that funded their project. Therefore these escrows now work for the investors. Guess who gets snipped on an lipped off by the escrow when they ask for transparency? The investors.

Let's not forget either that no answers were ever given here and Lauda flipped off most people asking questions until suchmoon entered the fray. This trust system is shit but I can only guess that suchmoon is some sort of default trust and thats what caused Lauda to start answering minor questions. Shows character when a person shows zero respect to everyone until someone with a bit of power steps in.

disclaimer: i am in no way involved in this failed ICO, just a reader and occasional user of escrow.


edit to add: This is the absolute worst case scenario for any escrow to have to deal with. I honestly do wish this never did happen in the real world and this part of the job would not have to come up and even present itself. It is very unfortunate but it is why the fee charged should be substantial enough to put up with this kind of headache. I fully believe the escrows need to be paid just as well during the good times as the bad times. Think of it like car insurance.

As I wrote before. i gave up. I dont have any hope to get the answer I would like to have.
And now I hope that people will realise that this is not the best way to handle stuff like this. And that other escrows will provide the information and that these escrows will be chosen.

They received their answers. This thread was started by no "normal investor". It was very soon after I left the discord channel (which is now apparently used for their *upcoming projects*?).

There is absolutely no dispute about funds; the dispute is entirely related to something else and the details of it are almost non existent over here.

I've replied about 3 hours after this nonsense was posted, even though it was just an attempt to cause issues and delay the refund (which has ultimately failed despite their best efforts).

Again, you need to look up how ICO escrows are done. If full (public) transparency isn't initially agreed upon, then you shall not receive it. Case point, most large(er) ICOs *known* escrows.

Thanks for acknowledging that. It is indeed one of the worst outcomes, especially when some terms are somewhat ambiguous or non-existent. Despite the beauty of simplicity, it did me no favors this time around.

We call this a slide. Zero useful information. You are dragging other people's name through the mud ( your escrow team ). Why did they choose you as spokesperson? Horrible choice.




Guess what. You don't work for the ICO anymore. You work for the people. They want to know. This has been made public, others want to know that aren't even involed, they want to know if they use you guys in the future if this is how you're going to act and show transparency.

If I wanted to do business with an escrow I would negotiate terms before the deal. It doesn't seem that the NVO team or the bagholders (the parties to the transaction) had the requirements that you're alluding to at the time when the ICO was conducted. If they did then they should bring it up. How is that stupid?

Tell me who the escrow team works for now? The NVO team or the bagholders? Is it possible to contact every single one of the investors? If so why hasn't this been done. If they replied back and said " NO I DONT WANT TO KNOW HOW MUCH MONEY DID OR DIDNT GO TO THE TEAM THAT FUCKED OVER MY INVESTMENT " then yea I can see where you're coming from.

Right now we are acting on the presumption that this whole ICO went smooth and everything were delivered that was asked. Reality check.. it didnt.

I'm nobody spokesperson, unless stated otherwise.

Whatever you request and gets agreed upon beforehand is what we deliver.

They did not. As said:

It's the accusation "Lauda is doing pills" all over again; the difference being that this one (surprisingly) isn't from a Quickseller & co. account.

This is Lauda's m.o.  ..  slide the thread with useless drivel until people get so frustrated and confused that they no longer wish to participate because it is a one sided conversation.



Who agreed upon these rules? Escrow and NVO team correct? Did each and every investor enter into conversation with you agreeing to what would be delivered? Or did they trust the NVO team to deliver as expected and feel safer doing it because an escrow team was in place? Like I said before, your terms were discussed with the NVO management, not with each and every investor which is now who YOU work for. This makes your agreements null and void with the founders.

Let's see what the results of "what you request and gets agreed upon beforehand is what we deliver" actually are. Should be fairly easy to copy and paste the original agreement here. And then lets see which of the founders (whom caused this whole problem) agreed to this and whether it becomes null and void due to their inability to fulfill their duty to the investors.

The escrow is an independent third party. It doesn't work work for the team or the bagholders. That would be a major conflict of interest.

If there is a grievance of some sort it's not unreasonable to expect the aggrieved party to come forward with a complaint. As you just illustrated it would be ridiculously difficult to prove a negative (absence of grievances), particularly given the anonymous nature of crypto transactions.

This is fair to say as I have been using the wrong words to express what I meant. I believe most people can understand what I am trying to get at when saying one side has failed to provide their product and this leads to the investor side recouping what is left.
I'm not here to discuss Merriam-Webster's definition of escrow with you suchmoon. What I do believe is that the founders (the problems) hold more information than the investors(the wronged) who deserve better.

Even in a conflict the escrow is not supposed to favor one party over the other.

The only terms that I can find are these:


I don't see where it defines exchange rates or transparency levels or any of these things that are being discussed here.

I don't see where it doesn't say that all funds go directly to me in case of dispute either. You play on a lot of slides too when you were young suchmoon?

Why would it go to you? In case of a dispute the escrow decides if the product has been delivered and the funds go to the seller, or not and the funds go to the buyer (the latter is what happened here). Is that another one of those Merriam-Webster things that you don't want to accept?

I can do ad hominems with the best of them so perhaps let's take it easy with the playground insults.

What funds? The amount that some anonymous 'aliased' escrow promises you is the number? "Just trust me guys".

I'm done here anyways. With your voice actually meaning something here I figured you'd act a little different. Transparency is one of the biggest things in order to establish trust.. especially with the ol "not your keys not your bitcoin". In this case the investors don't even get to see the public key side which is what bitcoin and public decentralized ledgers are used for.

My questions raised have never been whether or not I believe there is theft or fraud happening here, it's been solely about transparency and answers for the less fortunate. The few that have this power have remained silent or continue to talk circles. If this does not raise red flags for you then I'm sorry and I hope the best for you in life.

You seem to be implying that I'm against transparency. That's false. In fact earlier in the thread - before you cared to jump in apparently without reading it - I stated a fairly strong opinion on the subject: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4895354.msg44556605#msg44556605

However I'd be remiss if I didn't admit that if transparency parameters have not been agreed to in advance it might be difficult for the escrow to provide certain information, such as off-chain details of altcoin exchange.

Unfortunately, Suchmoon is known to take the side of those who is in a greater position of power. It is her way to gain power herself.

Obviously it is ridiculous to say that transparency is not required because it was not expressly agreed to ahead of time. 

Another term that was very cleary broken was that Lauda, Blazed and Minerjones would keep the bitcoin at a specific address, however the bitcoin was moved out of the escrow address very early on.

Projecting as usual, Mr. Escrow Scammer ::)

I don't value virtual forum trinkets like you do.


I think it's ridiculous to not require transparency in a 3000 BTC deal. But it was not required by the participants of the deal and I can't turn the clock back and tell them that they're idiots. You on the other hand should keep barking as loud as you can. Every minute you spend baking these shitpretzels is a minute you're not scamming someone, so that's the silver lining.

Agreed. Any movement of funds should have been publicly explained and new messages signed. It is very clear there was wrongdoing here.

They never even acknowledged where the bitcoin was being held. Also, based upon the speee at which transactions were broadcast out of escrow, I think there is a good chance that one person was in effect control of the coins when the three signed messages clearly implied each escrow agent would control one of three keys to the address that requires two signatures.


Multiple people involved in the deal were demanding transparency however the escrow agents were promptly ignoring such demands. Just look at the responses from monerjones and Blazed. All of the responses by lauda were essentially non-answers.

Wrong. That was the escrow address for investment; there were absolutely no statements as to where the coins were going to be held afterwards. Not a single term was broken.

---

You're trying to tackle this from way too many angles which makes it very clear that it is in fact just a vendetta. This must be very tiring to read for outsiders; i.e. you keep shifting the goalposts yet there is absolutely no proof of any kind of intentional, non-intentional or any other form of wrongdoing.

i found two post about the movement of the coins or the change of the address.

Well well well, BitcoinTalk staff accused of stealing.

Trusted members giving each other negative reps.

This place is falling apart lol.

Giving your coins to anybody here (escrow) equals digital suicide + sad violin sounds.

edit: and cause of this post I got another negative rep from another BitcoinTalk staff scammer

LOL, u think this will hurt me?

your shitty forum is dead

I don’t believe anyone is accusing Bitcointalk staff of stealing.

They think Lauda is still a mod lol. I guess they missed the news.

I got my 45% refund in case anyone was questioning whether refund were done properly or not.

If you only got 45%, it sounds like the refund was in fact not done properly...

its hopeless. i think we will never find out. and there are only a few people that think that it was not OK what happened....

if you read the first posts in the ANN that lauda wrote i looks like lauda was part of the team. but maybe lauda was just posting because lauda wanted a lot of people to take part in the ICO to get more money.

Which is nothing other but absolute nonsense.

you helped people with all the questions they had. you explained how the ico works and how to sweep tokens etc pp. but after the ico was over you just write that everything is not our business.

i dont say that you were or are part of the team. but that you had a motivation to help people. because the more money went into ICO the more money the escrows received. and this is a fact. shall i quote the posts i am talking about?

I see that we've moved onto 'Lauda helping people is bad'. What is next? ::)

i did not say that this is or was bad. all i wanted to say: i have the feeling that you are helpful as long as you will profit. but after you got your share your posts changed.

whatever. I will not give up, but I do not want to discuss it here anymore

http://prntscr.com/kyi5dn

Lauda has recently changed his e-mail address.

He also responded to my PM on English, although he spoke Croatian before?

http://prntscr.com/kyi6lr

i just quote this that it is quoted. nothing more. everybody shall make his/her own conclusion.

Isn't ironic when someone is accusing you about scam, you'll give him/her neg tag instead of defending your self.

This happens quite frequently with one of these parties. Unfortunately, in this case, the accusation is quite credible, yet those in power have scared anyone from seriously caring...

Didn't expected this from you Lauda. I wonder where are those people now who got me removed from default trust, ganged up on me when I came back. I have gotten arrested for something I never did but atleast I didn't had a single person who can claim I took a penny from him.
Shame on you.

It seems that group of people almost entirely have their fingerprints on DT and many of them have acted unethically at best and illegally at worst. Calls for them to be removed have been ignored.

Why wonder when you can go and check their accounts ?

See if they are online. Start sending them messages and see if they respond.

BTW did u see who has Lauda on DT2 and tried contacting them ?

Just returned to the forums after a 2-week hiatus. Are there any threads where Lauda explains the purpose of these recent changes to their forum account? Link please.

And after reviewing the past couple of pages that I needed to catch up on, I just want to state some unbiased input:

As defined by Merriam Webster (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/escrow) dictionary, escrow means a deed, a bond, money, or a piece of property held in trust by a third party to be turned over to the grantee only upon fulfillment of a condition.

Based on the terms that were (irresponsibly) set and dictated by the board of NVO, it seems as if the services of the escrows involved were completed according to the terms that were established by the parties involved. The accusations brought forth in this thread are that the escrows were acting in their best interest to imply theft of a portion of the escrowed funds. However, to me (and I hope that it doesn't appear I'm taking sides), it appears that no terms of the original agreement were broken by the escrow(s).

Does that mean that they didn't profit from their holdings? No; I'm sure that they probably did. Is this morally wrong? That's for you to decide, but to me, a responsible escrow is one that fulfills the terms as brought forth upon them at the time the escrow is opened.

In this particular instance, I find most of the fault for this whole ordeal to be due to the shitty unthought terms that were established by NVO.

Anyways, my main reason for this post was to see if there is anyone that can point me to the reason for the changes in Lauda's account lol. Just thought I'd add some input, too.

Carry on.

remove lauda from escrow listing services until this problem fix. pls dont let other people down by loosing their money. staffs should take action on this. there is other thread also about lauda escrow.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5053593.0
yesterday im almost use lauda services but the seller said to me he dont trust lauda, im fee lucky my deal smooth thru bitify or MAYBE i will have the same problem too

This is the best explanation I've seen so far: 


Them's fightin' words!  :(

Which is more than sufficient; if people can't follow PGP chains than that is their own problem. More changes are coming.

I think that is a pretty ridiculous assertion.

The above says two things, 1st it explicitly says that the bitcoin would be held in 3AiGej11G8jUXvEBPvQKPLiHXC7ruUCp1Z, and 2nd, it implied that each of the three above escrows would be the sole custodian of one of the three private keys that can spend funds in the above address, requiring two of those keys.

The bitcoin very much was not held in that address, and there is circumstantial evidence that all of the bitcoin was able to be spent by one person.

The above is a breach of contract.

Further, there is a minimum of 10BTC unaccounted (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4895354.msg44582608#msg44582608) for in regards to the BCH coins being exchanged for bitcoin. If you were to describe this in the most generous of terms, you would say this is a "fee" for exchanging the coins, however this was neither disclosed, nor agreed to before the "fee" was charged. Realistically, this money was stolen, and the amount is most likely to be closer to 30BTC or so, based on trading volumes at the time.

I would make similar statements in regards to the various alts collected, however the amount missing is far greater, in the millions of dollars, and the percentage of money from the sale of the altcoins missing is also far greater.

No, it doesn't say that; this is what happens when a butthurt, pathetic scammer is interpreting the situation. That was that investment address; it has nothing to do with where funds were going to be kept.

There is no contract that implies any such restriction, nor was there any breach of any kind of imaginary contract.

There are no missing funds. When will you stop being upset that I trampled over your shady account-farming business? It's time to forfeit the lies. ::)

My analysts and the underlying facts speak for themselves.

There are no facts (presented by you), and you (nor your accompanying scam buddies) are certainly not qualified to perform any objective analysis. The only fact is as follows: No funds have been lost, and more funds have been returned than was required.

How many scams and still a DT member.I guess i will need to make a collection and forward it to some project owners.

Did this get solved or are these bitcoins just lost in the void?

Post this from your main account and you might get an answer.

I'm a lurker on here, no main. I just thought I'd investigate it myself with the tools I have.

This is not resolved. I don’t think it will ever be resolved.

Ok, Thanks. I'll give my try at following the BTCs final paths.

It resolved itself, unless you want me to cast a couple of spells.