Thanks frank!

LOL.  Ya, except when it comes to the question of where is the 3,000 BTC/BCH they claimed to have.

I guess I'm a scammer now because I called out Lauda's latest scam involvement / refusal to prove control of 3,000 BTC he claimed to raise on behalf of a fraudulent ICO to the users who invested?  This user belongs nowhere near a position of trust.

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?

It does seem to be that way.  Until funds are moved to a public address and the address signed by an escrow agent, I would advise everyone to hold the appropriate parties responsible for this lack of transparency.  The only reasons that Lauda would not move funds to a public address and sign it is 1) he's lying about the amount of funds raised, or 2) he's lying about what he's been using those funds for.  Escrows work for the buyers, not the ICO.  If they are refusing to show your money and account for it, they have effectively already scammed you, regardless of the outcome.

Seems the community is having a hard time parting from their bits at this exchange rate.

Yes, I believe the scam going around is to do a fake ICO with a throw away account (scapegoat) and then have an escrow agent hold the funds and run a bounty campaign. Then take all the ICO funds and pay them out to the escrow, bounty manager, campaign participants, and other promotions. At this point the scam is over, and the coin goes to 0 as the market digests the truth. This leaves the escrow, bounty manager, and advertisers to get the scammed funds without having to bear any responsibility for the scam. They then rinse and repeat with another ICO.

Very nice!  Still a couple of these left for sale

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.

There are more affordable options available at the NastyShop.

Lack of interest.

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.

A $4,000 donation has been sent to NastyFans on behalf of this project.

https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/bd6bfa717fb45b7cffacc707872aee7e6f1aa3124460d20ffb634ebaad8f66ca

(oops - that transaction sent funds to NastyMining instead of NastyFans by accident, here is the correcting tx)

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.

Please PM me your shipping info!  As always, thanks for participating!

Maybe he's asking if you can add a poll to an already started thread.  I've also had a desire for this in the past.

Given the extreme efforts made to try and discredit my name for the benefit of some shady actors on this forum, it is understandable that some who haven't personally interacted with me might succumb to the effects of their misguided slander campaign.  I do appreciate your acknowledgement of my follow through, as the path to get where I am today was not easy and involved a great deal of work in the face of ever-growing criticism.  While a 100 BTC round has become out of reach, it makes me extremely happy to finally be able to produce the first platinum crypto coin after patiently waiting and working towards this goal for more than 6 years.

TODAY ONLY FOR A LIMITED TIME - 8/14/17 - 5 Year Anniversary of the Release - Free NastyFans 1g silver Rounds Available to US addresses!  
(previous rules still apply, 1 username per claim in this thread)

Make me an offer I can't refuse, then don't get upset when I tell you what others are offering to get their hands on one.



Mintage will remain low as there is not a sufficient amount of NastyFans seats available for sale.  I definitely won't be minting more than 10% of the total number of seats on this round.  Price is rising literally by the minute, but a good estimate would be 1/2 a lambo.



Want to make a bet on that?   I can promise you that I will not be raffling one of these beauties.



As far as I am aware, this is the first ever solid .9999 platinum crypto coin.  Even outside of crypto, I'm told this should be extremely rare, if not completely unique.  The tooling for creating these rounds didn't exist and had to be paid for and created just for these rounds.  While this will likely open the door for future 4oz platinum releases (I'm told that Chris Duane is in talks to use the tooling already), being the first and using .9999 instead of .9995 platinum will surely make this a historical coin release for a variety of reasons.



It had better be.  Sunshine Minting was chosen to create these blanks for my mint due to their incredible quality and willingness to create a whole new product to satisfy my needs.  No expense was spared.