So when should we expect Tokens?
Soon. It depends on the members that entered as well as the party that is paying out these coins (not tokens). Bitcointalk Username : andal02
Vivid Adress: VMicnCtbGu7iwvBAdUn7pNZ5B9sNtpovWw
Campaign: Content
Bitcointalk Username : olitaptapan
Vivid Adress: VKLdWDAoe3FjUXxZFRnsDiM6kWLoPKtSEF
Campaign: Content. Telegram
Telegram (@Arma30f)
Bitcointalk Username : cengsuwi45
Vivid Adress: VRC6E7UqPh8THAwJ769NCVo14kaH53imqE
Campaign: Content
Bitcointalk Username : kahseralpridetroopers04
Vivid Adress: VXsnpDjvXZWinJVM1cQERUh4NDqEH8KNcf
Campaign: Content
Telegram Username: @Mahesa LA
Added. |
|
|
|
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.
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. |
|
|
|
Why did they choose you as spokesperson? Horrible choice.
I'm nobody spokesperson, unless stated otherwise. 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.
Whatever you request and gets agreed upon beforehand is what we deliver. If they did then they should bring it up.
They did not. As said: ...even though it was just an attempt to cause issues and delay the refund (which has ultimately failed despite their best efforts).
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. |
|
|
|
Which is likely why some of the investors only have bitcointalk.org left to find their answers.
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*?). 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?
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. 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.
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). And that other escrows will provide the information and that these escrows will be chosen.
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. 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.
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. |
|
|
|
my new wallet address is VSy1XhT1KdKeqVGCgQubBs52nk8AAu7DMV
Added. Some of us have updated our Ethereum wallet address with our Vivid Address but we have still not received payment. Please i know that the signature payment was done as and when you dropped your wallet address as it is displayed in the spreadsheet. I hope it is going to be done the same way for content writers  It will not be the same for other campaigns, no. |
|
|
|
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.
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 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. |
|
|
|
When were the milestones hit and the funds sent to the CEO?
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. 15% was the agreed amount
No. 30% + 30%. The CTO declined all payments of his 15-15-5
Nemgun is no CTO; and he lied about his payments to the community. 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.
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. I thought the CTO wasn't paid?
 ...but everybody is saying he wasn't paid.
If by everyone you mean his band of paid shills from discord, then yes indeed. |
|
|
|
There are no explanations of any escrow transactions.
This was never in the original agreement, thus there is no requirement for such. 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?
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. 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.
It's higher than it should be. I find some interest in the "41.78678295 BTC will be set aside until a solution to this issue is found".
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. 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 doesn't work when the accuser is Quickseller.
[1] Theoretical total BTC balance based on conversation rates at the time of the snapshot. |
|
|
|
How long is it reasonable to wait? Another month? Another two months?
The refund has already been finished.  Oh shit lol! Any thread or Telegram documentation on that? Yeah. This was the first post explaining the timeline; this was the second post containing all the batches. |
|
|
|
How long is it reasonable to wait? Another month? Another two months?
The refund has already been finished. |
|
|
|
Bitcointalk Username: Rastafarian
Telegram Username: @Benjeero
Thanks Lauda
My telegram username: @Lizzy19
Thank you Sir
You are not in my list. I assume that this is from the first round of the campaign. My Telegram = @DanangWidian
Added. HelloKitty  Bitcointalk Username : TheUltraElite Campaign : Telegram (@TheUltraElite) VIVID Address : VDBgQ7wFCH7piV2i7oV6GTGp9EZv6TmRZ4 Hola senior, you have been added.
I'll be sending out PMs to the content campaign entrees. |
|
|
|
Refund:
Note 1: The post has been finalized. Note 2: Address '1NfmXH8ByfNavw2ZoBTh3erFyTyU7WzSyc' will be excluded. This is due to this being the address that attempted to troll NVO by stealing the original planned asset names and causing confusion. This confusion led to an user mistakenly sending back the wrong tokens to issuer (NVST instead of NVOT). Refund amount will be sent to original user 1AWDLhq1CWLsv6oHKZPqveP5eHHGnoGLhE (verified manually via signed message). Note 3: Transaction contains the above messaged re-allocation as well as a return transaction for the same amount mistakenly sent by someone.
This concludes the general refund.
|
|
|
|
I can't see it those tables the receiving address of my NVST bitcoin wallet. Are there any other addresses listed somewhere else? No; if it isn't listed there it isn't holding NVST. Join the NVO Telegram group or PM me directly and we can look into it. |
|
|
|
Thank you for message. I cant reply u through personal msg so thanking u here for confirmation
No worries, I'm glad that the issue has been resolved. You should receive yours in batch 7. |
|
|
|
My nvst /btc addresss doesnt show in link 1 but i see my address and balance in link 2. Should i have to worry abt getting error into refund process..
Which address is that? That shouldn't be possible as they are essentially a copy of each other. |
|
|
|
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.
He does not speak for the escrows; he speaks for himself and the people working with/for him. I'm not very concerned with the partial refund, rather how much money was used and taken away from the refund and why.
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). |
|
|
|
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.
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. 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.
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. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if this shit blows up GAW style.
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. 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 Apples and oranges. I truly believe this is the next big scandal to send shockwaves through the industry.
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. |
|
|
|
When will you stop with the chronic spread of lies? I am curious to know if theymos is okay with someone with such a large amount of money in dispute being not only directly on his trust list, but on DT1.
No amount whatsoever is in dispute other than the fantasies made up by a band of disgruntled shills and your clique.. It's highly hypocritical to make any baseless accusations given your history with doing escrow. 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%).
The accounting is there; if you can't reproduce it then it is an issue invented by yourself. |
|
|
|
Bitcointalk username: Kelvinikke
Campaigns: Facebook, Telegram and Content
Vivid Address: VNSyquW5ocuYXqHNTwNrk27vExTpAaVFL4
Bitcointalk username: Rastafarian
Campaign: Facebook,Twitter and content
Vivid Address: VTz4GbsW8pydXtNP8Yyi12iP84UrnaZLBW
Added to content campaign. What is your telegram username? bitcointalk username: Aponkye1
Campaign: Content
Vivid Address: VZQ831uBeQeAEnTAHUAxVR3C4JmSbK1USv
BitcoinTalk UserName: Alsem23
Campaigns: Telegram
Vivid Address: VL2RXWCYjX3BrFbQhcj8cpHDR5Jc83DDhj
Bitcointalk username: Odonko
Campaign: Content
Vivid Address: VEmgwM4c5jqqqb5C9sa5iEM6ijSGdqxJw9
Added. Bitcointalk username: Kapee
Campaign: Facebook, twitter,Content
Vivid Address: VPZAnDnz4wKjE6YbM1bhp6eYC1jLqm7Wmp
Telegram username? Quoted for reference.
Please double check your addresses in the sheets. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
