Show Posts
Hello
Blah Blah Blah
Blah Blah Blah
Blah Blah Blah
Give me refund
Blah Blah Blah
Blah Blah Blah
Blah Blah Blah
Thank you
Oh look... someone decides to delete an unimportant post just before locking it. Perhaps it hit a little closer to home? Doesnt this "dev" realize that he's shooting his own foot by doing such nonsense? I'm sure it was to keep the thread tidy and organized
Here.... let me post it a little bigger and bolder then... Quote from: Bitcoin Forum
A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by the starter of a self-moderated topic. There are no rules of self-moderation, so this deletion cannot be appealed. Do not continue posting in this topic if the topic-starter has requested that you leave.
You can create a new topic if you are unsatisfied with this one. If the topic-starter is scamming, post about it in Scam Accusations.
Who have request the refund on right time and terms was refunded. So what a scam? Please
In something like an IPO (especially with an exchange on launch), the timing of the payout is crucial. You can't simply "extend" the IPO closing time after launch on a whim and in addition to saying after launch that it will be given out slowly to "prevent dumpings". That is simply BS on the dev's part. Any conditions like that needs to be announced sufficiently ahead of the launch time for investors to make an informed decision whether or not to invest. In fact, I believe only 3 BTC was raised because of the 12 hr delay that was originally announced. The few people who thought it was still a fair gamble to wait the announced 12 hour delay got screwed when it was delayed even further. There was no question of a refund because it was clearly stated that no refunds will be given once the coin is launched.
Now please understand that everyone here knew this was not your call and you did relatively well as an escrow in ensuring payouts and the transfer of coins went without any cheating. I say relatively well because in my experiences, the terms of an escrow is binding in that the "rules" are set between you and the dev before you announce yourself as the escrow. These rules are read by teh investors before investing and cannot be changed when the dev tells you to change them (after investments are made). Your obligations to the investor is not just to make sure the exchange happens in the right amounts, but also to ensure that the coins are delivered in the agreed upon time between the dev and investors. In this case its was 12 hours for IPO to close plus an additional 1-2 hours to process the payments.
So basically you had no right to consent to delaying the transfer of coins, without adding another statement that those not happy with the delay can opt out of the IPO. It does not matter that the coin is already launched. The contract was breached when the delay was announced. In this particular situation, I believe you did not keep the expected neutrality that is expected out of an escrow and had your bias skewed towards the dev.
You can create a new topic if you are unsatisfied with this one. If the topic-starter is scamming, post about it in Scam Accusations.
Quote
I think this wins first prize as most elaborate scam on this forum. Congratulations!
Who have request the refund on right time and terms was refunded. So what a scam? Please
In something like an IPO (especially with an exchange on launch), the timing of the payout is crucial. You can't simply "extend" the IPO closing time after launch on a whim and in addition to saying after launch that it will be given out slowly to "prevent dumpings". That is simply BS on the dev's part. Any conditions like that needs to be announced sufficiently ahead of the launch time for investors to make an informed decision whether or not to invest. In fact, I believe only 3 BTC was raised because of the 12 hr delay that was originally announced. The few people who thought it was still a fair gamble to wait the announced 12 hour delay got screwed when it was delayed even further. There was no question of a refund because it was clearly stated that no refunds will be given once the coin is launched.
Now please understand that everyone here knew this was not your call and you did relatively well as an escrow in ensuring payouts and the transfer of coins went without any cheating. I say relatively well because in my experiences, the terms of an escrow is binding in that the "rules" are set between you and the dev before you announce yourself as the escrow. These rules are read by teh investors before investing and cannot be changed when the dev tells you to change them (after investments are made). Your obligations to the investor is not just to make sure the exchange happens in the right amounts, but also to ensure that the coins are delivered in the agreed upon time between the dev and investors. In this case its was 12 hours for IPO to close plus an additional 1-2 hours to process the payments.
So basically you had no right to consent to delaying the transfer of coins, without adding another statement that those not happy with the delay can opt out of the IPO. It does not matter that the coin is already launched. The contract was breached when the delay was announced. In this particular situation, I believe you did not keep the expected neutrality that is expected out of an escrow and had your bias skewed towards the dev.
not going to last IMO. Can we do a poll maybe?
