[ANN][ICO] «Envion» Most Profitable Self-Expanding Crypto Infrastructure

[o48o]

If they were already established business and were producing money from mining containers in that case it was lot more easier to control the company to give it under new management. I understand your point of view but installing mining equipment and controlling the project is not solution anymore. It is too complicated to give happy ending. Without fresh capital project will not see success and who will dare to put money in a project which was rolling in courts. There is no chance of recovery for this project anymore.

even with new capital, they've got so much debt because of legal fees and insurance that it would take a miracle to make it work. Also, with cloud and fog mining growing daily, traditional miners will no longer be profitable in a year or two

Why do you think that the legal fees would be taken from Envion? Why wouldn't the persons that are charged be responsible themselves? Why would the Finma risk the investors money even more?

[1713953411]

1713953411

[1713953411]

1713953411

[1713953411]

1713953411

[1713953411]

1713953411

[1713953411]

1713953411

[1713953411]

1713953411

[investrating]

Envion chronology ,,,, if you have not read it yet

https://global.handelsblatt.com/finance/envion-cryptocurrency-catastrophe-958979

[Zabivelli]

Fresh news from telegram!

ABO+05:39:00 GMT+0800 (PHT)

Envion-Gründer werfen dem Geschäftsführer unredliche Absichten vor

Die Gründer des Blockchain-Start-ups Envion sagen, der Geschäftsführer habe versucht, die Anleger um ihr Geld zu prellen. Dieser widerspricht.

Michael Luckow möchte das Blockchain-Start-up Envion vor dem Konkurs bewahren. Foto: Thomas Egli

Bernhard Kislig

Der Fall um Envion mit Sitz in Zug ist ein prominentes Beispiel, das zeigt, was bei Start-ups in der noch jungen Blockchain-Technologie alles schiefgehen kann. Anfang Jahr legte Envion einen Start hin, von dem andere Jungunternehmen nur träumen können: Bis Mitte Januar investierten Anleger innerhalb eines Monats 100 Millionen Dollar, obwohl nicht mehr als eine Geschäftsidee vorhanden war. Bis damals war es weltweit erst fünf Unternehmen gelungen, in einem Initial Coin Offering (ICO) mehr Kapital aufzunehmen.

Envion wollte Container produzieren, die mit leistungsstarken Rechnern ausgerüstet nahe bei Stromkraftwerken platziert werden. Dort sollten sie mit überschüssiger Energie kostengünstig Kryptowährungen wie Bit-coin «schürfen». Doch das Unternehmen ist nie operativ tätig geworden. Weltweit bangen mehr als 30000 Investoren um Ersparnisse, die sie einbezahlt haben.

Blockierte Geschäfte

Was die Idee taugt, konnte Envion nie beweisen, da ein interner Konflikt das Geschäft von Beginn an lahmlegte. Es kam zu Prozessen, einer feindlichen Übernahme, Morddrohungen und Einbrüchen. Auf der einen Seite steht Michael Luckow. Der schlaksige und meist leger gekleidete Zweimetermann vertritt die Gründergruppe, die über das technische Know-how der Umsetzung verfügt. Auf der anderen Seite ist Matthias Woestmann. Der ehemalige ARD-Korrespondent wurde von den Gründern zum Geschäftsführer und Verwaltungsratspräsidenten ernannt. Er tritt elegant auf, ist rhetorisch versiert und in der Energiebranche bestens vernetzt. Er sollte – so die Idee der Gründer – Envion gegen aussen ein Gesicht geben, während die Gründer das operative Geschäft umsetzen. Dafür erhielt Woestmann viel Einfluss: Um in der turbulenten Startphase unbürokratisch handeln zu können, durfte er den Aktienanteil der Gründer von 81 Prozent an Envion treuhänderisch verwalten.

Der Streit beginnt mit einer Lappalie, wie beide Seiten heute unisono feststellen: Luckow hat bei einer China-Reise mit Herstellern einen zusätzlichen Termin vereinbart, von dem Woestmann nichts wusste. Woestmann reiste mit dem bereits gebuchten Flug allein und verärgert zurück nach Deutschland. Das war Mitte Januar, nur wenige Tage nach dem ICO. Ab diesem Moment ist das Vertrauensverhältnis zwischen Gründern und Geschäftsleitung angeschlagen.

Am 27. Januar folgt ein Paukenschlag: Am Ende einer Sitzung erwähnt Woestmann, dass er die Zahl der Aktien des Unternehmens erhöht hat. Mit diesem Schachzug werden die Aktien der Gründer derart verwässert, dass ihr Anteil von 81 auf 31 Prozent sinkt. Die Mehrheit besitzt neu Thomas van Aubel – ein Wirtschaftsanwalt, der bereits in mehrere feindliche Übernahmen involviert war (Balda, Q-Cells). Van Aubel ist ein langjähriger Freund Woestmanns und wurde von ihm zuvor schon als Rechtsberater zu Envion geholt. Woestmann macht für diesen Schritt hehre Gründe geltend: Er verweist auf Unregelmässigkeiten beim ICO – ihm gehe es um den Schutz der Anleger.

Die Gründer suchen darauf das Gespräch. Gerichtsverfahren wollen sie vermeiden, da diese zu viel Zeit und Geld kosteten. Doch wie Luckow erzählt, war es schwierig, eine Lösung zu finden: «Ich habe um Termine gebettelt.» Und wenn es doch einmal zu einer Aussprache gekommen sei, habe Woestmann zwar Kompromissbereitschaft signalisiert, aber anschliessend den Worten nie Taten folgen lassen.

So kam es, dass die Anleger über Monate im Ungewissen gelassen wurden. Aus Verunsicherung entstanden Frust und Wut. Eine kleinere Gruppe von Investoren begann sich in Internet-Channels intensiv auszutauschen. In Gesprächsprotokollen, die dieser Zeitung vorliegen, wurden auch Morddrohungen ausgesprochen. Verantwortliche erhielten auch per Mail Drohungen, teils mit Bildern von verstümmel
en Menschen. Bei Gründern wurde mehrmals eingebrochen. Bei Luckow nahmen die Diebe nur die Festplatte aus dem Computer und das iPhone mit, während sie Bargeld auf dem Schreibtisch liegen liessen. Mitglieder des Gründerteams wurden bei Arbeitgebern mit Schmutzkampagnen verunglimpft.

Unlautere Pläne?

Luckow hat die Hoffnung aufgegeben, gemeinsam mit Woestmann eine Lösung finden zu können. Deshalb erzählt er erstmals von zweifelhaften Angeboten Woestmanns. Ein Vorschlag sei gewesen, Envion an ein kanadisches Unternehmen zu verkaufen. «Dieses sollte zu überteuerten Preisen die Hardware liefern und Woestmann ein Aktienpaket von zwei Millionen kanadischen Dollar geben.» In einem weiteren Gespräch habe Woestmann angeboten, Envion aufzulösen und den Investoren ihr Geld in Kryptowährungen zurückzuzahlen. Das Problem dabei: Die Kurse von Kryptowährungen sind stark eingebrochen. Envion hat das Kapital der Anleger grösstenteils in relativ stabilen Dollars angelegt. Wird das Geld zum tieferen Kurs in Kryptowährungen an Investoren zurückerstattet, bliebe ein zweistelliger Millionenbetrag zurück. «Woestmann schlug vor, dass wir diesen unter uns aufteilen», sagt Luckow. «Ich habe beide Vorschläge abgelehnt, da sie moralisch verwerflich und wahrscheinlich auch rechtlich problematisch wären.»

Inzwischen hat die Finanzmarktaufsicht die Kontrolle über Envion übernommen undWoestmann die Geschäftsleitung entzogen. Er betont deshalb, dass er nur als Aktionär und «nicht als Organ der Gesellschaft» sprechen könne. Als Aktionär habe er mehrere Angebote anderer Unternehmen erhalten. «Grundsätzlich hätte man mit einem Verkauf die Konfliktstellung in der Envion AG entschärfen können, deshalb habe ich das mit den Gründern auch so diskutiert.» Aber alle Angebote seien so gestrickt gewesen, dass die Investoren indirekt den Übernahmepreis bezahlt hätten. Deshalb habe er alle abgelehnt.

Den zweiten Vorwurf Luckows weist Woestmann entschieden zurück: «Die Vorstellung, dass ein Verwaltungsrat unter den Augen der Schweizer Behörden ein überschuldetes Unternehmen auflöst und einen Grossteil des Kapitals an die Aktionäre verteilt, ist völlig realitätsfern.» Die Verteilung von Geldern an Anleger bei einem ICO sei Neuland, weshalb es da offene Fragen gebe. Darauf habe er Luckow hingewiesen.

Doch keine Liquidation?

Woestmann geht davon aus, dass das Zuger Konkursamt Envion demnächst liquidiert. Der Grund: Die Wirtschaftsprüfer PWC und BDO lehnten es ab, als Revisionsstelle einzuspringen. Diesen Fehler konnte Envion nicht beheben, weil es Konflikte um die Aushändigung von Daten zum ICO gab. Nun liefern die Gründer der Finanzmarktaufsicht alle gewünschten Informationen und hoffen, die drohende Liquidation im letzten Moment noch abwenden zu können.

Gründer erzielen vor Gericht Zwischenerfolg

Die Envion-Gründer schürten unter Anlegern Unsicherheit, weil sie diese nicht informierten. Für die Zurückhaltung gab es zwei Gründe. Erstens hofften sie zuerst auf eine rasche einvernehmliche Lösung und mieden deshalb die öffentliche Auseinandersetzung. Zweitens untersagte es die Gegenpartei per Verfügung,dass sich Gründer im Namen von Envion äussern dürfen. Als Folge drohte dem Gründer Michael Luckow bei jeder Kommunikation mit Anlegern eine Geldstrafe oder Inhaftierung. In einem bisher nicht veröffentlichten Urteil hat das Landgericht Berlin nun beschlossen, diese Verfügung aufzuheben. Das Urteil ist sofort wirksam, kann aber angefochten werden.

Bereits im Juni gab es für die Gründer einen Erfolg: Das Landgericht Berlin verbot Geschäftsführer Matthias Woestmannund Mehrheitsaktionär Thomas van Aubel Anteile von Envion an Dritte zu verkaufen oder massgebliche Geschäfte ohne Zustimmung der Gründer zu tätigen. Die feindliche Übernahme durch van Aubel und Woestmann kritisierte das Gericht ungewöhnlich scharf als «besonders verwerflich» und «sittenwidrig». Dieses Urteil wird angefochten. (ki)

[Zabivelli]

Laurent:

There is news of a court decision the founders won last week.

Laurent:

Main points:

Woestmann has made multiple offers to settle which enrich him at the expense of investors. Including:

* Kickback scheme with Canadian company which would have made profits for investors impossible
* Liquidation and paying out shareholders with cash leftover after refunding crypto investments at lower exchange rates

Founders are complying with Finma requests to avoid liquidation.

Founders have been threatened and had their homes broken into.

Berlin court lifted injunction against founders. Woestmann’s only court win was built on false pretenses. (More on this later.)

Laurent:

We have not yet received the full judgement and we are not yet sure what the full legal consequences are, but it demonstrates that Woestmann was wrong and trying to intimidate the founders at the investors’ expense.

Investors will pay the full cost of the court and Trado’s legal fees as well as Trado’s legal fees and van Aubel’s legal fees for lawsuit against Trado for violating injunction.

Laurent:

I can’t imagine how exhausting it is to have to keep track of all the lies. That’s one reason the founders have no problem talking to the press whenever they ask or communicating here.

It’s very easy to tell the truth over and over again. Nobody will ever mix you up. There is no liability in telling the truth.

Laurent:

You seem very confused. I do indeed know exactly how the founders have been targeted.

The point of these crimes is not the phones.  The point is that the thefts are not related to money—they are to intimidate, delay, and hurt the ability of the foudners to pursue their case against Woestmann.  They follow a patter used in other instances where the same criminal parties were involved.

[Odeoke]

Somebody should translate this news into English than people could understand what are going to happen next. Looking forward to know if there is some good news for investors who didn't get chance to exit from this project.

[Zabivelli]

Somebody should translate this news into English than people could understand what are going to happen next. Looking forward to know if there is some good news for investors who didn't get chance to exit from this project.

I will post the translation when available.

[o48o]

Umm....

Investors will pay the full cost of the court and Trado’s legal fees as well as Trado’s legal fees and van Aubel’s legal fees for lawsuit against Trado for violating injunction.

What do you mean with investors paying? And with what? Are the money taken from the invested funds or is there something i am not getting?

[Zabivelli]

Umm....

Investors will pay the full cost of the court and Trado’s legal fees as well as Trado’s legal fees and van Aubel’s legal fees for lawsuit against Trado for violating injunction.

What do you mean with investors paying? And with what? Are the money taken from the invested funds or is there something i am not getting?

It seems that any legal fees are to be paid with investors money.. Everyone is getting paid with our money, except us investors.

[Zabivelli]

Question to Laurent if the project will still go on after a positive FINMA decision and of the team is still around:

Laurent:

The founders have not gone anywhere.  There's no need for outrage. I'm not active for envion. I work for the founders' entity, Trado.  The founders intend to pursue the concept according to the whitepaper when ownership is restored to them. It is not possible to do work for operations. Michael is engaged with legal work.  The others support that effort, but are mostly engaged elswhere.

[XCNP]

There are running to save themselves from legal issues and are coming out with different solutions. This last post from telegram which is translated here to me doesn't impress at all. It was fight between two parties and still is their issue. Bitter reality is investors have lost their money and accept the facts and move on as nothing will good for investors here.

[MOAMiner]

everyone investing in envion would've been better of buying a mining rig instead back in last november - the rig would've been paid off and would still generate money for you (like our testrig is doing right now it was built last november and already paid itself) - highly automated software makes it a true passive income.

Guys - you really need to think about it - why would something like envion share the profits with you? They already had one container ready, they could've scaled up on their own with the earnings - why would they need your money? They weren't able to built the units in time anyway, so there was absolutely no reason to get investors money, when their operation would've been perfectly selfsustaining.

It was the same with Affinity-Mining - they just took your money, bought the hardware, tells you it fails and will slowly pay back (they basically got a free credit from investors and are now mining with them, while slowly paying back the "credit")

[Zabivelli]

There are running to save themselves from legal issues and are coming out with different solutions. This last post from telegram which is translated here to me doesn't impress at all. It was fight between two parties and still is their issue. Bitter reality is investors have lost their money and accept the facts and move on as nothing will good for investors here.

I still believe as soon as the project is in founders hands, that it will go on. Otherwise they would not get all the shit over them, day in and day out, on Telegram.

[zahidmoon]

There are running to save themselves from legal issues and are coming out with different solutions. This last post from telegram which is translated here to me doesn't impress at all. It was fight between two parties and still is their issue. Bitter reality is investors have lost their money and accept the facts and move on as nothing will good for investors here.

I still believe as soon as the project is in founders hands, that it will go on. Otherwise they would not get all the shit over them, day in and day out, on Telegram.

well i think they can run the project still but need to resolves some serious issues.
also right now look at the prices of crypto. prices are too much down
so in this situation mining is not profitable by my point of view.
if we have faith in crypto then mine and hold mining rewards in our wallets. why we spend money on mining its better directly buy them cheap from exchange instead of mining

[nobytes]

There are running to save themselves from legal issues and are coming out with different solutions. This last post from telegram which is translated here to me doesn't impress at all. It was fight between two parties and still is their issue. Bitter reality is investors have lost their money and accept the facts and move on as nothing will good for investors here.

I still believe as soon as the project is in founders hands, that it will go on. Otherwise they would not get all the shit over them, day in and day out, on Telegram.

Soon as it is in founders hands? Quite an optimistic view. But i share that because imho all other options would be poor choices. But it's all in Finma's hands and who knows what they think is for the best.

[Zabivelli]

There are running to save themselves from legal issues and are coming out with different solutions. This last post from telegram which is translated here to me doesn't impress at all. It was fight between two parties and still is their issue. Bitter reality is investors have lost their money and accept the facts and move on as nothing will good for investors here.

I still believe as soon as the project is in founders hands, that it will go on. Otherwise they would not get all the shit over them, day in and day out, on Telegram.

well i think they can run the project still but need to resolves some serious issues.
also right now look at the prices of crypto. prices are too much down
so in this situation mining is not profitable by my point of view.
if we have faith in crypto then mine and hold mining rewards in our wallets. why we spend money on mining its better directly buy them cheap from exchange instead of mining

The price is something the companies can't control. Even if the project was going on, they would still mine.

Everything from mining would be a profit anyway.

[Zabivelli]

There are running to save themselves from legal issues and are coming out with different solutions. This last post from telegram which is translated here to me doesn't impress at all. It was fight between two parties and still is their issue. Bitter reality is investors have lost their money and accept the facts and move on as nothing will good for investors here.

I still believe as soon as the project is in founders hands, that it will go on. Otherwise they would not get all the shit over them, day in and day out, on Telegram.

Soon as it is in founders hands? Quite an optimistic view. But i share that because imho all other options would be poor choices. But it's all in Finma's hands and who knows what they think is for the best.

In founders hands indeed. That would be the best option for us all. In case of liquidation we won't get our full investment anyway.

[Untomabur]

There are running to save themselves from legal issues and are coming out with different solutions. This last post from telegram which is translated here to me doesn't impress at all. It was fight between two parties and still is their issue. Bitter reality is investors have lost their money and accept the facts and move on as nothing will good for investors here.

I still believe as soon as the project is in founders hands, that it will go on. Otherwise they would not get all the shit over them, day in and day out, on Telegram.

Soon as it is in founders hands? Quite an optimistic view. But i share that because imho all other options would be poor choices. But it's all in Finma's hands and who knows what they think is for the best.

it's useless to hope for a dead project, and I'm confused why today's Envion price has risen to 9%, is there hope?

[MOAMiner]

so in this situation mining is not profitable by my point of view.

They got free hardware (inverstors paid), they have extremely cheap electricity. Mining IS profitable for them, and I am pretty sure they do it anyway, there are lots of units ready (as they said) - don't think they will just stand around and collect dust ..

[mcfom]

I would like to be proven wrong in future but based on my observation there is no chance of recovery as business after what has been here. Both parties hurt their investors badly and anyone would mind will not let his money in their hands or would want to trust again if they receive money back. Under same team and same banner they have done with the future of this already. Mining is profitable but mining farm as business has lot of question marks on it.

[naska21]

I would like to be proven wrong in future but based on my observation there is no chance of recovery as business after what has been here. Both parties hurt their investors badly and anyone would mind will not let his money in their hands or would want to trust again if they receive money back. Under same team and same banner they have done with the future of this already. Mining is profitable but mining farm as business has lot of question marks on it.

Frankly  I'm already on point to bid farewell to  my Envion investments. My painful experience with Envion has taught me that reckless investment comes at a price.