So that's a no then? I don't doubt that you have three forum accounts which have been providing support for your users for several years. I am just concerned that you cannot provide a link showing their existence as people outside of your community. Lilia, for instance, is claimed to be a 'social media and marketing expert' with years of experience, yes? In this day and age it is almost unheard of for such a person to not be found on major social media platforms.

Understand this simple fact - there have been ICO's conducted in the past whereby those running it listed multiple 'team members' who turned out to be either entirely fabricated, or were not who they were being portrayed as. It is unacceptable to be seeking millions of dollars in investment funding for your project and for there to be a question mark over exactly who 'everyone here' at Enjin actually is.

So, I ask you again, please provide links, other than your own virtual community, which show who these people are in RL.

I meant did you have any links external to your own site that show these people as who you claim them to be? You're asking for many millions in investment from the public and yet three of your team slated for a share of the pre-mine are not easily found as actual people on the web. Given their stated roles and experience I would have expected to be able to find them quite easily somewhere on social media. I am asking that you provide a little more to substantiate your claims regarding who your team are.

That isn't the point. You are still structuring your ICO in such a way that investors are facing a 50% 'tax' on their investment as a result of the 34% pre-mine being retained by you. Citing that other ICO's have done worse is not a rebuttal. You're still requiring that the investor pay both for the project to be funded directly as well as accept said 'tax' in order to pay both for the team 'bonuses' (which isn't unreasonable, per se), AND for making payments to collaborators and communities. Why are you not simply budgeting for the collaborators/community costs through the main token sale funds?

Either you have people who form your team, in which case they need to be listed in order for the public to know where that 18% allocation is to go - in that you're not requiring they simply trust your word that it'll be disbursed to legitimate team members only, or you have other people, those who 'collaborate' and are part of the community, who are supposed to be being paid from the other part of the pre-mine, as mentioned above. You can't just say that 18% is going to go to 'everyone here' and not actually define what and who is meant by that.

Also, with regards to the holding of these many millions, are you intending on having the ICO funds and pre-mine tokens held in trusted third-party escrow, for release as and when required or as milestones are reached? It would add a much-needed layer of oversight to the process.

I have some questions:

You're conducting an ICO in order to earn funds for the project, yet are withholding 34% of the total coin supply as a form of 'pre-mine', why is this?

Your infographic states it is 18% for the team and 16% for bounties etc. (Although I do note your somewhat dishonest use of the assertion that 66% are to be "distributed to the Public Contributors", when you really mean 'sold to the public'). So if the team and other expenses are to be paid by this 'pre-mine', what are the ICO funds you collect to be used for?

I don't see why they would come back.

Unless, perhaps, we're going to witness the usual 'we wuz haxxored so we're not allowing withdrawals right now' excuse, followed by attempts to convince people to make deposits under the guise of various promises to 'prioritise' their withdrawal requests etc. Given they are supposed to have many millions in bitcoin on their books, I don't see how they'd be bothered to go through that effort just to skim a few more from the desperate and gullible.

No, I think this is pretty much the end of the exchange and the best anyone can hope for is that they might be able to, eventually, file a claim to whichever legal authority has control of seized funds.

FFS, they are reaching now. This basically means they are asking you to provide a notarised copy of an undefined 'declaration' (Bank statement?) which supposedly shows where the original fiat funds came from before they were used to buy bitcoin. It appears they actually want to see the transaction details of the original deposit amount they were sent.

Yet another prime example of how there is clearly a concerted effort at BTC-E to deny people access to their funds under the guise of onerous, and largely arbitrary, AML and KYC rules which are not being applied correctly or evenly.

As has been mentioned already, it is entirely possible that this procedure whereby they keep requesting more and more details and ID documentation from their customers, is both a way to deny access to those locked out of their accounts and accumulate a lot of valuable Identity data.

These people are not Kraken, they do not have a public presence anywhere outside of electronic company registers and virtual offices. There is every reason to suspect nefarious intent with regards to the collection of so much information from customers they likely have little intention of making whole.

The fuck? Utter bullshit.

The limit on funds transfers shortly following the 2013 incident which saw the banks close for several days did not apply IN ANY WAY to incoming payments and, even in the case of outgoing transfers, if the money had originated from outside of Cyprus in the first place then the limits did not apply.

In any event, by the time he'd conducted his bitcoin IPO for Neo & Bee in September of 2013, six months after the banking crisis, the financial transaction system was largely back to normal.

Even his claims towards justifying purchasing these luxury cars as a supposed means for NEO & BEE to hold assets of value is bullshit, too, given how their sale proceeds weren't used to pay N&B's debts.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/23lt4p/neo_bee_the_full_picture/

Good luck, perhaps this site really is a genuine attempt by BTC-E to address this account recovery problem after all.

If things go well and this matter is properly resolved I'll remove my negative rating for them.

Was that before or after he bought himself the Bentley?

Where did you find that website address and instruction for you to register there?

Given that you're handing over ID documentation and more, you should make sure it isn't a phishing scam.

Well, firstly, I don't have to do anything of the sort. If my focus is on exposing the dishonesty of this operation it does not require me to then expose that of all the other anonymous operations. Unless you're willing to provide me with the evidence I would need to do so, in which case I would be happy to negatively rate any platform for which evidence exists of their untrustworthy behaviour.

Secondly, however, if you'd actually bothered to check you'd see I have already tagged BTC-E a number of times.

What point are you trying to make with that question? All anonymous exchanges are sketchy as fuck and should be avoided.

So is Mr Peter Smith going to be the name you give as the Director and Shareholder for that incorporation, too?

Because his Linkedin profile seems to lack any evidence that he is a real person.

Jesus Henry Fucking Christ, are you out of your mind or perhaps you are 'Marcello' and are just desperately hoping the authorities don't catch up with you.

It is very clear what happened, mathematics proved that Scrypt.cc did not have the hash power they were selling to people.

This was absolutely proven to be a scam and your repeated defence of it even now is highly suspect. Your negative trust rating from back then is still correct now:

What, pray tell, does such a process actually look like in reality? Does it look like a valid route towards verifying that your company and its officers are legitimate or, as is usually the case with these things, is it a system which can be easily manipulated to give you what you want without you giving it what it wants?

Let's start by looking at your domain registration details:

I've highlighted two important points there, firstly, that is the 'registered office' address for the company, as well as the given 'correspondence address' for 'Mr Peter Smith', the 'CryptoDAO Limited' sole director and shareholder.

Trouble is, there are a lot of other companies registered to that address, too. In fact it is quite obviously an address being used by a corporate service provider, whose nominee director is a 'Stefano Rossini':

So, we know you're using a company formation agent to provide your registered office/correspondence address. But the lack of other appointments for 'Mr Peter Smith' suggest that you didn't opt for a nominee because you'd still need to provide your details for the 'persons with significant control' section, as a nominee shareholder issues a Declaration of Trust document to the actual beneficial owner of the share and it is the B.O. who is legally recognised as having significant control over the company even when nominee directors and shareholders are used.

Still with me? I do hope so because I will now explain how you have played the system in order to fool your users into believing you have been validated and legitimised by it.

But, before I do, I'll just mention the relevance of the second item I highlighted in your domain reg info:
That phone number is not a UK phone network number, it is a VOIP line.

On to the EV SSL Certificate 'validation' of your company or, rather, how you gamed the system to get your EV SSL Certificate:
https://www.instantssl.com/ssl-certificate-products/ssl/ssl-ev-validation.html

The bold components, utilising your anonymous structure, are gamed as follows:
Domain name - Yep, you have a domain name.
Individual's authorization - Yes, you have 'an individual' you have authorised (well, you have a name)
Legal existence and identity - Yes, you paid roughly twenty quid to get a UK company incorporated, so it definitely exists on the register.
Physical existence - Yes, the address you gave does actually exist. For your company and many many others registered to the same place.
Telephone number - You gave a VOIP number because that way you can receive calls to your 'Mr Peter Smith' who, no doubt, dutifully verifies that you are so totally legit, right?

So, in actuality, none of the process which you claim verifies the legitimacy of your operation actually proves anything about you, other than proving that you have taken the trouble to game the system without releasing any of your identity information, in order to lie to your users about the significance of an EV SSL Cert being issued in your twenty-quid UK incorp's name.

I see your 'Electronic Web Filing' link which supposedly 'proves' the legitimacy of 'Mr Peter Smith', and raise you another 'Electronic Web Filing' link which explains what that actually means.
https://ewf.companieshouse.gov.uk/help/en/stdwf/faqHelp.html

You either gave the incorporation agent the name to register as Director and Shareholder, which means the agent 'authenticated' the name 'Mr Peter Smith' (which simply means he confirms it to have been legitimately filed, not that it authenticates the identity of the person named), or you could have had your own authentication code sent to the 'registered office' (which is actually that of a formation agent) and they send it to you for you to 'authenticate' the details yourself.

As for your Dun & Bradstreet 'DUNS' number, well that is just self-selected registration again so it doesn't legitimise you either.

Absolutely none of what you claim proves your operation is legitimate actually does anything of the sort. In fact, given the lengths you have gone to in order to game the system as you have, it pretty much proves just how untrustworthy you are and how nobody should be sending their cryptocurrency to your exchange.

So because there were identifiable people behind Mt.Gox and Cryptsy, and they ultimately went on to scam, then there is no justification for calling for centralised exchange operators to be run by identifiable people?

Mark Karpeles and Paul Vernon are being dealt with by the legal system, so these are ongoing cases which both offer investors a chance of recovering some of their lost funds. Fully anonymous exchanges where the operators cannot be identified yet they control their users' funds are absolutely not legitimate exchange platforms and should be hounded out of this industry before they have a chance to establish themselves and fool newbies into believing they are legit.

If he is anonymous how do you claim to know this to be true?

Bitcoin is a decentralised p2p trustless system, we do not need to trust in Satoshi Nakamoto to look after our bitcoin.

Crypto DAO is a centralised exchange run by anonymous people who are in control of the funds their users send them.

In that this requires their users trust them not to steal their money, which part of the repeated instances of dishonesty from the operators of this exchange suggests that they are not only trustworthy but sufficiently trustworthy to be in control of other people's money?

Let's see, on the one hand we have your claim that the developer is honest, which is simply your arbitrary opinion and, on the other, we have repeated instances of dishonesty from the developer evidenced by their attempts to falsely claim legitimacy-through-association by way of registering a UK company only after having been exposed for not even being a legal entity and with false registration details, as well as falsely claiming an EV SSL being issued meant that COMODO CA had validated their company:
So, do tell me how you reach the conclusion that the developer is honest, especially considering that everybody behind this operation is anonymous.

Asides from the @rzrmind Facebook page changing their profile picture, again, the only 'Razormind' update on social media has Jawad, in all his pompous, self-absorbed, narcissistic glory, posting this on the @razormind Twitter account:

Still no news on either DEOS or DeOS.

A character from Battlestar Galactica. Sure, Jawad, because posting your opinion about how much fun it is to drive a Lambo, after having fraudulently conned people into sending you millions of dollars in bitcoin, doesn't look suspicious if you do it under another name, right?

BTW, 'William', your twenty-quid UK incorp is slated for strike-off:

Pay attention to that last paragraph. Your creditors will.

Which part of their negative trust ratings describes this as a 'trusted exchange'? Is it the part where they tried to bullshit people into believing that a Komodo SSL certificate being issued meant that it proved they were a legit operation and that they were insured for millions?

Or is it the part where they use the term 'DAO' when they absolutely are not a DAO in any way whatsoever?

Or perhaps it is the fake registration details they used for their GBP20.00 online incorporation UK company?