[ANN][CrowdSale Ended]🌟🌟🌟🌟 NVO Decentralized Exchange | MultiWallet 🌟🌟🌟🌟

[hornetsnest]

Not my project, not my glasshouse. Read the milestones newbie.

Yeah sure.Thanks for the condecending advice.You have a nice day now.

[crypt0kid]

So, how do we go about getting our BTC refunded? Can someone link the page with the information?

[jumperjump]

Note that this was a suggestion by some community member. All options considered, it seems to be the best one.

I've been thinking a lot about this.

Would it be more appropriate to allow an exit window for those who want out? e.g. the escrows setup a buy back for a limited period of time where people can voluntarily choose to stay or go. The remaining holders can then follow Imed or Ton by vote.

As has been pointed out the powerful hand of a single individual could force everyone involuntarily down a blind alley and subsequently into something they did not sign up for. Pure democracies have historically been suicidal and it's one of the reasons the US was setup as a republic with some hybrid functions of a democracy. I feel that's worth mentioning if for no other reason than to point out that pure democratic vote (especially one that would force everyone onto or off of something) isn't always the best way.

[MackTheKnife]

For those wondering, there is another communication medium for this project. Myself (NYR), TSWR and RadiumSoup run this discord.

https://discord.gg/YvB5HXp

Considering loads of people are banned each day from telegram for no reason, it is good to have a second way of receiving information.

All we ask is keep the discussion respectful. Come join us!!

[centersmissing]

For those wondering, there is another communication medium for this project. Myself (NYR), TSWR and RadiumSoup run this discord.

https://discord.gg/YvB5HXp

Considering loads of people are banned each day from telegram for no reason, it is good to have a second way of receiving information.

All we ask is keep the discussion respectful. Come join us!!

I support this message.  Telegram appears to be the most popular chat room now, and it is unfortunate that frequent censorship is going on there.  Messages are being deleted and people are being banned left and right, often just for stating opinions with civility that threaten Ton’s narrative and image.  If he is telling the truth and is right in his accusations of nemgun, he shouldn’t act like a paranoid dictator but instead have faith in the integrity of his campaign.  Discord is not controlled by him and is a place to freely discuss facts in the quest for clarity.

[jumperjump]

Note that this was a suggestion by some community member. All options considered, it seems to be the best one.

I've been thinking a lot about this.

Would it be more appropriate to allow an exit window for those who want out? e.g. the escrows setup a buy back for a limited period of time where people can voluntarily choose to stay or go. The remaining holders can then follow Imed or Ton by vote.

As has been pointed out the powerful hand of a single individual could force everyone involuntarily down a blind alley and subsequently into something they did not sign up for. Pure democracies have historically been suicidal and it's one of the reasons the US was setup as a republic with some hybrid functions of a democracy. I feel that's worth mentioning if for no other reason than to point out that pure democratic vote (especially one that would force everyone onto or off of something) isn't always the best way.

I wanted to follow up on this.

So...

I've talked to people that support Imed and they want a refund & freedom to reinvest.
I've talked to the people that support Ton and they want a refund & freedom to reinvest.
And naturally there are the people that want out completely.

This is so much so that it appears (I'm getting information second hand) Ton is actively working on a mechanism to help the escrows perform the refunds.

I have yet to meet a vested person that wants to be forced into an unpredictable direction on this... including both of the founders.

So my question would be: Why are we voting?

Wouldn't a vote only add some unpredictable risk to everyone? e.g. a person with a large holding forces everyone to support one founder who subsequently backs out of their "refund but continue" narrative.

What's worse is there were murmurs of airdropping new tokens to people who show their support in the vote. I haven't heard as much about it anymore... but this casts a shadow of doubt over the legitimacy of deciding this with a vote. If people are voting one way or the other out of a fear of missing out on airdropped tokens it amounts to voter manipulation. Further... it also casts some concern into the mind of voters of if their investment addresses will be singled out in the future should either co-founder be privy to which address voted for what.

It looks like even coinpayments (post on NVO reddit by Ton) has backed the idea that the only right course of action is a refund of remaining escrow.

And if all paths/parties agree on the correctness of a refund I'm unclear as to why we're bothering with a vote. It would seem to me that this would only cause unnecessary risk, confusion, and voter doubt (i.e. the risks associated with voting that I mentioned above). If there were disputes over whether refunds should happen or not I could see some sort of consensus mechanism being needed (e.g. voting) but that doesn't appear to be the case here.

[MackTheKnife]

Note that this was a suggestion by some community member. All options considered, it seems to be the best one.

I've been thinking a lot about this.

Would it be more appropriate to allow an exit window for those who want out? e.g. the escrows setup a buy back for a limited period of time where people can voluntarily choose to stay or go. The remaining holders can then follow Imed or Ton by vote.

As has been pointed out the powerful hand of a single individual could force everyone involuntarily down a blind alley and subsequently into something they did not sign up for. Pure democracies have historically been suicidal and it's one of the reasons the US was setup as a republic with some hybrid functions of a democracy. I feel that's worth mentioning if for no other reason than to point out that pure democratic vote (especially one that would force everyone onto or off of something) isn't always the best way.

I wanted to follow up on this.

So...

I've talked to people that support Imed and they want a refund & freedom to reinvest.
I've talked to the people that support Ton and they want a refund & freedom to reinvest.
And naturally there are the people that want out completely.

This is so much so that it appears (I'm getting information second hand) Ton is actively working on a mechanism to help the escrows perform the refunds.

I have yet to meet a vested person that wants to be forced into an unpredictable direction on this... including both of the founders.

So my question would be: Why are we voting?

Wouldn't a vote only add some unpredictable risk to everyone? e.g. a person with a large holding forces everyone to support one founder who subsequently backs out of their "refund but continue" narrative.

What's worse is there were murmurs of airdropping new tokens to people who show their support in the vote. I haven't heard as much about it anymore... but this casts a shadow of doubt over the legitimacy of deciding this with a vote. If people are voting one way or the other out of a fear of missing out on airdropped tokens it amounts to voter manipulation. Further... it also casts some concern into the mind of voters of if their investment addresses will be singled out in the future should either co-founder be privy to which address voted for what.

It looks like even coinpayments (post on NVO reddit by Ton) has backed the idea that the only right course of action is a refund of remaining escrow.

And if all paths/parties agree on the correctness of a refund I'm unclear as to why we're bothering with a vote. It would seem to me that this would only cause unnecessary risk, confusion, and voter doubt (i.e. the risks associated with voting that I mentioned above). If there were disputes over whether refunds should happen or not I could see some sort of consensus mechanism being needed (e.g. voting) but that doesn't appear to be the case here.

Because I believe this refund will go different than people are expecting it to. Just give it time.

[nemgun]

I am hiring a legal advisor to assist with the creation of a foundation, which will help establish proper governance in order to protect the remainder of the DEX project from future actions like what happened this last week with NVO. The board of this new foundation will be made up of myself and some existing NVO community members to be named at a later date.

A secondary purpose of the foundation will be to explore the possibility of filing a civil action against the CEO of this project, known here and elsewhere as Ton Bi, for his apparent misappropriation of project funds, for his lack of financial transparency as CEO of the project, and to compel him to finally commit to a full refund of investor funds as is appropriate in this situation. Of course, in the event a full refund is executed, this action would become moot.

If it is ultimately determined that legal action is warranted, it will be brought on behalf and for the benefit of the previous project's NVO investors. After the foundation has been created, I will invite members of the community who wish to be part of this action to apply for membership to the board and represent their fellow NVO investors.

There has been significant discussion about the current status of the DEX code, and those discussions include many false statements and accusations. For the immediate future, and to protect third parties, I will not release the code under any circumstances. If legal action is brought by the foundation against the CEO, the code and its associated history will be given to the court, under seal, as part of the evidence.

As the CTO and as a co-founder of NVO, my role in the project has been to select the technology of the DEX and then produce it. That is exactly what I have been doing since the project began. Until now, I have been keeping this technology secret in order to protect the project. For the first time publicly, and only because development has already reached a point where the technology of the DEX is well established, I am willing to describe some aspects of the DEX implementation. The DEX is based on Blockstream technology, with integral support for smart contracts, sidechains, and peer-to-peer communication services to keep latency low and throughput high for each node of the network. Sidechains enable the plugin system, and smart contracts enable the trade validator. This multi-chain Blockstream-based technology is highly superior to slow and expensive atomic swap systems used in technologies such as Komodo, and was chosen at the beginning of the NVO project for its speed, flexibility, and extensibility. That is all I am willing to say on the subject of the DEX at this time.

Now to the subject of the pending investor vote. Ton is the CEO and is responsible for representing the investors' best interests in all matters. Unfortunately, vote manipulation was evident in several public Telegram announcements where he promised to airdrop tokens only to people who voted in his favor. This manipulation is not in the interests of investors at all, and creates a conflict between his own interests and the interests of investor funds. Any vote that includes an option that benefits only one or the other remaining team member cannot be an option on the ballot. The only question for investors should be "Should a refund be made or not?"  If the vote returns "yes", then all funds should be pooled and a snapshot should be announced at a specific future bitcoin block height to allow trading of the token to halt at that time. After the snapshot has been taken, the pooled funds should be distributed proportionally to all addresses that hold NVST as of that snapshot. If the vote returns "no", then the project must be completed as outlined in the crowdsale agreement.

To prevent dragging this along further, I hereby call for and agree to a full refund to all investors, just as Ton has publicly stated several times in writing and on recorded calls. Because we are not being treated equally right now, we will make it equal and I will return the bitcoin that I earned and received from the milestones we have already completed, and Ton will also return all of the bitcoin he earned and received from the milestones. In addition, any coin forks that were created while the funds were in the escrow accounts will be redeemed and returned to investors as well. This method ensures investors are credited with the maximum possible amount, which is in their best interest. The only permissible alternative is to finish the project with a neutral 3rd party mediator in charge of all distributions and payments going forward, and who will be approved by both parties. Completion of the project as stated during the crowdsale is what the investors paid for, and unless the original terms of the crowdsale are followed, investors will have been defrauded, which is unacceptable to me. For the benefit of the investors, I am willing to work with a mediator as a go-between for all matters between myself and Ton, but only under the strict condition that there be full transparency and a complete audit of all funds held by the escrows, including deposits, trades, and distributions made to date, a full account of all remaining funds and their current addresses, and the status of all forked coins for the duration of the escrow accounts' lifetime.

Regardless of the outcome of any investor vote or decisions by the escrows, I will continue to support the future of the DEX that I have been developing over the past year. In a matter of months, I expect the DEX testnet to be up and running, and the first public testnet trades can begin. At that time, I will announce a plan to further benefit all, I repeat, all NVST holders, regardless of how they voted (if a vote is necessary.)

[tonnvo]

The DEX is based on Blockstream technology, with integral support for smart contracts, sidechains, and peer-to-peer communication services to keep latency low and throughput high for each node of the network. Sidechains enable the plugin system, and smart contracts enable the trade validator.

You can do anything you want once you have proven live through video call you are capable of coding even a "calculator". You are not a developer so what are you doing in my project. Remove yourself and tell escrows to do a buyback/refund.

[centersmissing]

The DEX is based on Blockstream technology, with integral support for smart contracts, sidechains, and peer-to-peer communication services to keep latency low and throughput high for each node of the network. Sidechains enable the plugin system, and smart contracts enable the trade validator.

You can do anything you want once you have proven live through video call you are capable of coding even a "calculator". You are not a developer so what are you doing in my project. Remove yourself and tell escrows to do a buyback/refund.

With a complete screen of all funds spent and future accounting, I see no reason why we cannot continue.  Whether or not he can code is irrelevant if we can see where the money is going.  He would have no ability to scam if distributions are only allowed through a trusted third party.  This is the best solution.  Unless you have something to hide?

[Lauda]

Would it be more appropriate to allow an exit window for those who want out? e.g. the escrows setup a buy back for a limited period of time where people can voluntarily choose to stay or go. The remaining holders can then follow Imed or Ton by vote.

Wouldn't it be better to just do a complete buyback (or as *complete* as it can be), and then let those people decide whether they want to re-invest in current or future endeavors by Ton or Imed? Both of them could run some sort of crowdsale once the mess is over. This gives everyone involved absolute freedom.

[bkbirge]

Would it be more appropriate to allow an exit window for those who want out? e.g. the escrows setup a buy back for a limited period of time where people can voluntarily choose to stay or go. The remaining holders can then follow Imed or Ton by vote.

Wouldn't it be better to just do a complete buyback (or as *complete* as it can be), and then let those people decide whether they want to re-invest in current or future endeavors by Ton or Imed? Both of them could run some sort of crowdsale once the mess is over. This gives everyone involved absolute freedom.

Yes, this please. The public way this has collapsed shows lack of stable leadership and I'm not particularly keen on investing resources with either faction at this point.

[didnottell]

Would it be more appropriate to allow an exit window for those who want out? e.g. the escrows setup a buy back for a limited period of time where people can voluntarily choose to stay or go. The remaining holders can then follow Imed or Ton by vote.

Wouldn't it be better to just do a complete buyback (or as *complete* as it can be), and then let those people decide whether they want to re-invest in current or future endeavors by Ton or Imed? Both of them could run some sort of crowdsale once the mess is over. This gives everyone involved absolute freedom.

Would be perfect!

[hopguide]

Impressive, Cool4y and some other guys were basically right since the beginning. The promises were too good to be true and there were so many red flags. I was so naive to trust them.

A refund of barely 40 % (in BTC I hope? Not just in USD) is disappointing, but still better than 0 %. Let's be refunded soon and forget that disaster.

[jumperjump]

Would it be more appropriate to allow an exit window for those who want out? e.g. the escrows setup a buy back for a limited period of time where people can voluntarily choose to stay or go. The remaining holders can then follow Imed or Ton by vote.

Wouldn't it be better to just do a complete buyback (or as *complete* as it can be), and then let those people decide whether they want to re-invest in current or future endeavors by Ton or Imed? Both of them could run some sort of crowdsale once the mess is over. This gives everyone involved absolute freedom.

I completely agree.

I didn't want to push for that at the time given that everyone was set on a vote.

The problems with a vote only became more obvious to me afterward.

[BTCMILLIONAIRE]

Would it be more appropriate to allow an exit window for those who want out? e.g. the escrows setup a buy back for a limited period of time where people can voluntarily choose to stay or go. The remaining holders can then follow Imed or Ton by vote.

Wouldn't it be better to just do a complete buyback (or as *complete* as it can be), and then let those people decide whether they want to re-invest in current or future endeavors by Ton or Imed? Both of them could run some sort of crowdsale once the mess is over. This gives everyone involved absolute freedom.

I second this.



Am I getting this tl;dr right by the way?

Nemgun's version: Tonbi changing the modalities of the original whitepaper and ICO proposal to a point where they have to split.

Tonbi's version: Nemgun can't code/doesn't deliver code and needs to deliver or leave.

Also, can someone confirm or deny?
Nemgun took 75 BTC out of his allocated X share.
Tonbi took ~600 BTC out of his allocated Y share. What are X/Y and how much of the paid money is left?




Without trying to jump the gun, sounds like Ton is the twat in this case unless he pays back what he took. If he spent it then he's an even bigger failure for spending funds before delivering, especially on that scale.



Edit: Asking about funds gets immediate kicks from Ton on Telegram. It seems pretty clear what is going on here, a slimy "CEO" with no skills of his own duping a dev with a potentially too grand vision. Correct me if I'm wrong, which I doubt I am as any decent person would admit to their failures without flailing around. In this case one person took millions of funds and either spent or hid them long before delivering without any intention of refunding what he already took (other than what is left in the escrow, how convenient).

[hornetsnest]

Impressive, Cool4y and some other guys were basically right since the beginning. The promises were too good to be true and there were so many red flags. I was so naive to trust them.

A refund of barely 40 % (in BTC I hope? Not just in USD) is disappointing, but still better than 0 %. Let's be refunded soon and forget that disaster.

It will be a 100% refund or no refund at all.Milestones are meaningless as are the words of unqualified bystanders and self proclaimed experts.

[thesavoyard]

Someone want to explain to me, why an ICO that raised more than $7,000,000 can't find programmers?

How is this refund going to happen? I doubt I can access myetherwallet anymore.

[notanvstwhale]

Since it's probably based on current holders, it will be restored to the addresses on counterparty maybe?

[stoicphoenix]

It will be a 100% refund or no refund at all.Milestones are meaningless as are the words of unqualified bystanders and self proclaimed experts.

But you are an unqualified bystander so your words are meaningless too