Feel free to respond to the scam accusation thread. There are multiple people who have concerns about the money they entrusted you to protect.

I am only saying you should be removed until the dispute is resolved (assuming there are no shenanigans going on). I am sure your response with actual information will be a sigh of relief for many people who invested in the project.

If anything, Cobra brings much needed balance to the forum, more of which is needed.

In April, I speculated that Cobra is either theymos or satoshi, and theymos promptly denied being cobra but did not address him potentially being satoshi.

It appears there is in excess of 900BTC missing/unaccounted for. The bitcoin held was moved out of the stated escrow address, and although the blockchain can reasonably confirm where it is now, none of your team has publicly confirmed the location of the bitcoin being held, nor that the funds are accessible, nor has addressed questions in regards to why the bitcoin was moved.

I don't think it is unreasonable to assume something is amiss when no one has answered questions, addressed concerns or given any kind of accounting for the funds after multiple calls to do so, and well over a week has passed since a scam accusation has been opened.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

There is a scam accusation that has been open for a week or so that has blazed’s name in the title that he has not responded to and the issue has been apparently going on for a while now.

He is free to respond now, but I don’t think it is appropriate to wait additional time for his response, especially considering the amount in dispute.

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.

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.

You need to use good judgment when reviewing blockchain links.

I assume you are referring to people sending ERC20 tokens to a central address. When you have one account sending tokens to an address associated with another account in a single instance, this is very clearly insufficient evidence to support they two accounts are alts of eachother. If one account sends every ERC20 token they ever receive to another account, this is probably still insufficient evidence alone to support the two are alts, although when used in conjunction with other evidence, a connection may be made; however this will show the two accounts likely live in the same time zone, and may know eachother IRL. I would speculate that when you have a very small number of accounts consistently making A --> B transactions, most of the time they probably are friends IRL, and one of them is simply cashing out their earnings. Even if there is one person with two or three accounts "abusing" bounty campaigns, in the grand scheme of things, they probably are not doing very much damage, and are probably not really hurting anyone.

However when you have many accounts, perhaps more than 15 or so, and they are all sending tokens to a single address that does not clearly belong to one of them, this is decent evidence they are part of a single farm. Again, you need to use good judgment when reviewing this, and should try to rule things out such as that the coins are being sent to an exchange, and that the accounts are not receiving any kind of coin shortly after sending their tokens to the central ETH address. I think there are a lot of instances in which there are many more than 15 accounts involved, some people have posted about there being hundreds of accounts, and I would speculate in many cases they are being run by bots of some sort.

I don't think trying to hunt for the above farms is a good use of resources though. I speculate there are tens if not hundreds of thousands of these mass farmed accounts. I also speculate they are often "hired" by those ultimately behind ICOs as a way to increase social media chatter regarding their ICO, and that in many cases, calling these accounts out (including tagging them) will have little/no impact on their ability to continue doing what they have been doing. There was a NY times article a few months ago that talked about how some people were buying up twitter followers in order to improve their twitter presence, and one company they bought from would often buy up twitter accounts from other "suppliers"; the article talked about how it would be possible to spot someone who had purchased many twitter followers by looking at registration data of a person's followers. I would not be surprised if similar shady business is going on around here in regards to ICOs. I think the solution is both remove incentives to farm accounts via shit posts, and to create incentives to not farm accounts via shit posts -- a big part of this would be for theymos to monetize the forum much more than he is currently.

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

~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 implies he does not intend on returning the money from the BCH fork, along with his CET "policy".

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".

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.

Can you prove this?

It now seems that lauda is leaving negative trust to multiple people who are speaking against him in his escrow dispute.

Salty, hilarious....is this something that you approve of?

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.

This one is in regards to Blazed and his status being on DT1, as he is one of the escrow agents. Two of the escrow agents would have moved the bitcoin and blazed could have been one of them.

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