Lauda, MinerJones, Blazed | Missing escrow funds

[pugman]

How did >3,094 BTC turn into 1169 BTC without this being a scam?  

This:

~60% of the funds have been disbursed to the team according to milestones and the remaining ~40% (probably more due to forks) are likely to be refunded pending a vote, which is in progress: https://nvo.party/

Some folks here seem to use a definition of a scam as "anything less than 100%" but the initial 30% distribution was set in stone basically (end if ICO / start of development) and the other 30% seems to be quite straightforward too (availability of beta wallet software IIRC) so there isn't much room for a scam unless the escrow actually runs at takes some or all of the 40% with them.

Where did the 10-78 missing BTC from the BCH sale go?  Is there something quoted above that is not true?

Only a proper professional audit would help answer that question.

[OgNasty]

How did >3,094 BTC turn into 1169 BTC without this being a scam?  

This:

~60% of the funds have been disbursed to the team according to milestones and the remaining ~40% (probably more due to forks) are likely to be refunded pending a vote, which is in progress: https://nvo.party/

Some folks here seem to use a definition of a scam as "anything less than 100%" but the initial 30% distribution was set in stone basically (end if ICO / start of development) and the other 30% seems to be quite straightforward too (availability of beta wallet software IIRC) so there isn't much room for a scam unless the escrow actually runs at takes some or all of the 40% with them.

Where did the 10-78 missing BTC from the BCH sale go?  Is there something quoted above that is not true?

Only a proper professional audit would help answer that question.

Was a vote ever done to see if the beta wallet and first API Cluster were acceptable?

Are the people who received 60% of the funds also entitled to a share of the refund for tokens they own?

[marlboroza]

Where did the 10-78 missing BTC from the BCH sale go?  Is there something quoted above that is not true?

Only a proper professional audit would help answer that question.

I agree.
This whole topic is one big speculation where no one actually knows anything and everyone is guessing something.

I'll look for an impartial DT member to audit the information that I have. Open to volunteers as well.

It's not the way it works.

I wouldn't allow individuals such Quicksy and yourself any possibility of an audit, while there are individuals to which I'd be open to share the necessary information with. Thus, both statements are correct.

I disagree. This is only reason why OgNasty should do it. If something is wrong they will have to post proofs, and with so much hate between you two, I believe if OgNasty say everything is OK than everything is OK.
It is simple as that.

[suchmoon]

I disagree. This is only reason why OgNasty should do it. If something is wrong they will have to post proofs, and with so much hate between you two, I believe if OgNasty say everything is OK than everything is OK.
It is simple as that.

Og can't be trusted with this. Right above he's already moving goalposts from "did Lauda steal money" to "was there a vote for a milestone" even though no such vote was supposed to take place as far as I know. It would have to be someone completely impartial, which probably excludes most people in this thread. Someone mentioned ibminer, seems like a good choice if he would agree. There are other trusted people on this forum. No need to involve someone as blatantly biased as Og.

[OgNasty]

I disagree. This is only reason why OgNasty should do it. If something is wrong they will have to post proofs, and with so much hate between you two, I believe if OgNasty say everything is OK than everything is OK.
It is simple as that.

Og can't be trusted with this. Right above he's already moving goalposts from "did Lauda steal money" to "was there a vote for a milestone" even though no such vote was supposed to take place as far as I know. It would have to be someone completely impartial, which probably excludes most people in this thread. Someone mentioned ibminer, seems like a good choice if he would agree. There are other trusted people on this forum. No need to involve someone as blatantly biased as Og.

I can be trusted with this. I wouldn’t touch this dumpster fire, but implying I am somehow untrustworthy is pretty lame suchmoon. This escrow was not handled properly. Asking questions is appropriate.

[Quickseller]

The funds were moved from that address to another address, which is also one of the multi-sig address, it wasn't disclosed but is definitely viewable on blockchain. This is the address: https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/36Uh2ine6UzWGPTDYdENqS6pj6Rzx4Q67R

My question is why were these coins moved? And more importantly, why is there a refusal to say the coins are in fact held in this address?

Each of the escrows also provided signed messages saying the bitcoin would be held in a "2-of-3 multisig" address. I am also curious to know if each of the three escrow agents solely controlled each one of the three keys required to unlock the funds, and if this continues to be the case. The wording of the signed messages certainly implies this is the case, however some statements in the ANN thread makes me be not so sure.

The funds were moved from that address to another address, which is also one of the multi-sig address, it wasn't disclosed but is definitely viewable on blockchain. This is the address: https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/36Uh2ine6UzWGPTDYdENqS6pj6Rzx4Q67R

The timeline is pretty simple:

-> NVO escrow terms were agreed before the BCH existed, and were different than the original CET terms.
-> The ICO raised around 3000 BTC, the alts weren't converted immediately. Some were, some still are/were recently converted.
-> There were issues while converting, due to investors lack of due diligence(quoting Lauda's exact words).
-> Fast forward to June(?), some shit happened(didn't read or get enough or any info on that) and it resulted in a vote, whether or not the investors should be refunded or not.
-> Vote is still going on, and if it results in a refund, they will be taken care of by Lauda and team.

From what I can tell, only the alts were moved to an exchange, and most of the bitcoin stayed there only. Some bitcoins were sent to bittrex, and I don't know what happened to that. There's still more than 1000 btc in the escrow address ,plus forks.

~1497 BCH was moved on Aug 7 around 3AM GMT, and around 94 BTC was sent back to an alleged escrow address around 7:45 PM that evening. The low price during that timeframe was 0.07 BTC, and the high was 0.1149 BTC, meaning that BCH was worth between 104.79 and 172 BTC, depending on what it was sold for. This means there is at least 10 BTC unaccounted for, likely substantially higher.

Further, I do not see any account for the bitcoin gold funds, nor bitcoin diamond.

Lauda's statement implies he does not intend on returning the money from the BCH fork, along with his CET "policy".

The lack of transparency of course does not do lauda any favors in terms of making it appear he is doing everything honestly, and "by the book".

How did >3,094 BTC turn into 1169 BTC?  Where did the 10-78 missing BTC from the BCH sale go?  Is there something quoted above that is not true?

First of all, information regarding the alts needs to be made immidiately public. We need to know the addresses they were received to, when they were sent to an exchange, what exchange rate they were sold for, and where the bitcoin was withdrawn to after the coins were sold.

I calculate the alts to be worth just over 502 BTC at current depressed prices that are significantly lower than what they were when the ICO sale ended. Plus the additional 104 BTC from the sale of BCH, and the 1590 BTC raised in the ICO, and the total BTC comes to about 2200 BTC. All of these numbers are lower bound amounts.

It is unclear as to how the fact that the issues with converting were due to "investors lack of due diligence" as I have no idea how one could lead to another.

I am not sure why several hundred BTC was moved to exchanges. Something appears to be out of order here.

[pugman]

Was a vote ever done to see if the beta wallet and first API Cluster were acceptable?

Are the people who received 60% of the funds also entitled to a share of the refund for tokens they own?

There was no other vote other than the one asking for refund, speaking from the information available here.

The people who received 60% of the funds were the team members, and it was all spent, why would they get a refund. They might get a refund if they themselves were a private investor of the project.

I disagree. This is only reason why OgNasty should do it. If something is wrong they will have to post proofs, and with so much hate between you two, I believe if OgNasty say everything is OK than everything is OK.
It is simple as that.

OgNasty and Lauda have had their beef for years, even though Og isn't a scammer, there is major trust issues between them. It'd would be better for both parties to hire a 3rd party unbiased professional auditor, or at least to someone who knows basic accounting and is trustworthy.

My question is why were these coins moved? And more importantly, why is there a refusal to say the coins are in fact held in this address?

Each of the escrows also provided signed messages saying the bitcoin would be held in a "2-of-3 multisig" address. I am also curious to know if each of the three escrow agents solely controlled each one of the three keys required to unlock the funds, and if this continues to be the case. The wording of the signed messages certainly implies this is the case, however some statements in the ANN thread makes me be not so sure.

From the ANN thread, it was written that Lauda would control the bitcoin payments. I think Nemgun and Yanni also controlled the seeds(?).

First of all, information regarding the alts needs to be made immidiately public. We need to know the addresses they were received to, when they were sent to an exchange, what exchange rate they were sold for, and where the bitcoin was withdrawn to after the coins were sold.

I calculate the alts to be worth just over 502 BTC at current depressed prices that are significantly lower than what they were when the ICO sale ended. Plus the additional 104 BTC from the sale of BCH, and the 1590 BTC raised in the ICO, and the total BTC comes to about 2200 BTC. All of these numbers are lower bound amounts.

It is unclear as to how the fact that the issues with converting were due to "investors lack of due diligence" as I have no idea how one could lead to another.

I am not sure why several hundred BTC was moved to exchanges. Something appears to be out of order here.

For the safety of the parties involved, the escrow , the investors, and the NVO team, it would be better for the exchange info to be private.

The investors lack of due diligence caused problems because of the escrow:

The Investors will have to provide a personal Bitcoin address they control in order
to receive the NVO Tokens. This is very important as NVO Token will be a counter party
asset, the investors have to provide a PERSONAL bitcoin address, not a pool or.............
exchange address because they would be stuck into these addresses...............................

Only Lauda would be able to explain why some bitcoins were sent to bittrex.

[SaltySpitoon]

Not that I care all that much because the people arguing here don't actually seem to be involved with the project, ie I'd care more if it was investors who were complaining about mismanaged funds and not random people with vendettas against each other. But just curious, would the ~10 BTC from the BTCCash to BTC exchange that people say have gone missing happen to be from a fork exchange service fee? As in a service that searches for forks, converts them all to BTC, and then handles the transaction?

[vlom]

puhhh, what a mess.

1. I invested in NVO.
2. I would not have sent BTC into this ICO if the funds would not have been held by an escrow.
3. NVO development is a disaster and it had to be stoped.
4. I thought and still think that escrows have to provide all the information that investors need to know.
a) amount of coins collected
b) addresses that hold these coins
c) show transactions that have been made, e.g. payouts after milestones.
d) explain which alts have been sold for BTC and when.
e) explain if forks have been claimed. and claiming needs a transfer of the escrowed btc and thats why there has to be shown the transaction.

=> i wont take part in stuff escrowed by lauda because this escrow has a completely different understanding of an escrow-service that i have.
=> i dont trust any of the involved people anymore.

[Quickseller]

Not that I care all that much because the people arguing here don't actually seem to be involved with the project, ie I'd care more if it was investors who were complaining about mismanaged funds and not random people with vendettas against each other. But just curious, would the ~10 BTC from the BTCCash to BTC exchange that people say have gone missing happen to be from a fork exchange service fee? As in a service that searches for forks, converts them all to BTC, and then handles the transaction?

The 10 BTC amount is a lower bound amount. Looking at market data and based upon the fact that exchanges were requiring many confirmations at the time, I I think it is more likely that the proceeds were 10-20% higher, making the missing money be closer to 20-30 btc.

Considering that alts were already being handed and converted into bitcoin, the additional work to claim the bitcoin cash was minimal and certainly not worth a hundred grand. There were/are many guides to help people claim their coins and it would really not be equitable to be charging 10% for this, especially considering it wouldn’t be possible to use an alternate service provider. The overwhelming majority of bitcoin companies that were holding customer money provided access without charge.

Probably most importantly, this fee was not disclosed prior to receiving the service and did not have the opportunity to reject the charge.

I believe several people who invested have posted here, including the OP, however they may have abandoned the thread after lauda essentially said to fuck off.

[suchmoon]

I can be trusted with this. I wouldn’t touch this dumpster fire, but implying I am somehow untrustworthy is pretty lame suchmoon. This escrow was not handled properly. Asking questions is appropriate.

Trust is earned, not declared. You can ask questions, that's not the problem. The problem is that your judgement in this matter can't be trusted due to your past disputes with Lauda and your inability to separate personal quarrels from affecting your perception of facts. You have neg-trusted someone for posting in your thread. You're spreading reprehensible rumours about forum members you're squabbling with. There's a good chance that you'd make something up to get back at Lauda.

This is a serious deal involving thousands of bitcoins. If anyone is to do an audit it has to be a person with integrity and credibility. Not you. Not Quicksy the escrow scammer (oh the irony).

[vlom]

i would do the review for free..... but i think that anybody would trust me.
but as I said: just post the info an everybody can do a review.

[Quickseller]

i would do the review for free..... but i think that anybody would trust me.
but as I said: just post the info an everybody can do a review.

There is absolutely no reason to make it so only one person audits the amount of money held. This is just asking for corruption.

[vlom]

i would do the review for free..... but i think that anybody would trust me.
but as I said: just post the info an everybody can do a review.

There is absolutely no reason to make it so only one person audits the amount of money held. This is just asking for corruption.

yes this is a good point. just because i think that i wont be corrupt nobody should believe it.

[BayAreaCoins]

Not that I care all that much because the people arguing here don't actually seem to be involved with the project, ie I'd care more if it was investors who were complaining about mismanaged funds and not random people with vendettas against each other. But just curious, would the ~10 BTC from the BTCCash to BTC exchange that people say have gone missing happen to be from a fork exchange service fee? As in a service that searches for forks, converts them all to BTC, and then handles the transaction?

What was the txid for the BCH?

I can check my old services records to see if I have any matches.

It doesn't sound like one of our old FreeBitcoins.com digs, but it's likely worth double checking for the sake of peace of mind.

[Quickseller]

i would do the review for free..... but i think that anybody would trust me.
but as I said: just post the info an everybody can do a review.

There is absolutely no reason to make it so only one person audits the amount of money held. This is just asking for corruption.

yes this is a good point. just because i think that i wont be corrupt nobody should believe it.

Think of it this way, there is currently possibly 70 btc missing from the bch sale, and much more in dispute, possibly several hundred btc. What would you do if you were offered 10 btc to simply say everything is okay without doing any real due diligence, especially considering you likely won’t be asked to do something similar in the future? What if you were asked to say ‘after reviewing all the information provided you were not able to find anything wrong’ but were provided little information?

There is also the risk that the person who “volunteers” to do the audit is actually a shill, which is very well possible considering laudas history of offering to buy accounts.

[DarkStar_]

There is also the risk that the person who “volunteers” to do the audit is actually a shill, which is very well possible considering laudas history of offering to buy accounts.

 

[suchmoon]

Think of it this way, there is currently possibly 70 btc missing from the bch sale, and much more in dispute, possibly several hundred btc. What would you do if you were offered 10 btc to simply say everything is okay without doing any real due diligence, especially considering you likely won’t be asked to do something similar in the future? What if you were asked to say ‘after reviewing all the information provided you were not able to find anything wrong’ but were provided little information?

There is also the risk that the person who “volunteers” to do the audit is actually a shill, which is very well possible considering laudas history of offering to buy accounts.

Og volunteered, so which category he's in? Corrupt or shill?

[Quickseller]

Think of it this way, there is currently possibly 70 btc missing from the bch sale, and much more in dispute, possibly several hundred btc. What would you do if you were offered 10 btc to simply say everything is okay without doing any real due diligence, especially considering you likely won’t be asked to do something similar in the future? What if you were asked to say ‘after reviewing all the information provided you were not able to find anything wrong’ but were provided little information?

There is also the risk that the person who “volunteers” to do the audit is actually a shill, which is very well possible considering laudas history of offering to buy accounts.

Your buddy Og volunteered, so which category he's in? Corrupt or shill?

All information should be made public so anyone interested can review everything themselves.

[OgNasty]

Not that I care all that much because the people arguing here don't actually seem to be involved with the project, ie I'd care more if it was investors who were complaining about mismanaged funds and not random people with vendettas against each other. But just curious, would the ~10 BTC from the BTCCash to BTC exchange that people say have gone missing happen to be from a fork exchange service fee? As in a service that searches for forks, converts them all to BTC, and then handles the transaction?

That's a question you won't get an answer to (& it's 10-78 BTC in question). Maybe because you, "don't actually seem to be involved with the project."

puhhh, what a mess.

1. I invested in NVO.
2. I would not have sent BTC into this ICO if the funds would not have been held by an escrow.
3. NVO development is a disaster and it had to be stoped.

This is why I asked the question about who decided the additional 30% should be released and if there was a vote...  It appears the investors didn't believe the goals were being met.

I can be trusted with this. I wouldn’t touch this dumpster fire, but implying I am somehow untrustworthy is pretty lame suchmoon. This escrow was not handled properly. Asking questions is appropriate.

Trust is earned, not declared. You can ask questions, that's not the problem. The problem is that your judgement in this matter can't be trusted due to your past disputes with Lauda and your inability to separate personal quarrels from affecting your perception of facts. You have neg-trusted someone for posting in your thread. You're spreading reprehensible rumours about forum members you're squabbling with. There's a good chance that you'd make something up to get back at Lauda.

Dude, you are nuts.  I don't know if you spend too much time drinking the cool-aid or what, but I have earned more trust than anyone else on this site.  I wouldn't risk my reputation to make something up about a documented extortionist who is doing an excellent job of showing his incompetence and inability to be transparent without any assistance from me.  In any event, 2 of the 3 multisig escrows aren't making any comment on the situation, Lauda isn't giving any information about exchange rates or remaining funds he's holding that aren't his, and I think that is enough for me to say that this escrow has been a dumpster fire.  No sense continuing to beat a dead horse.  Everyone can see for themselves how this situation is being handled, who is remaining silent, and who is defending the wrongdoing.

Transparency.  It's not for everyone I guess.  

Og volunteered, so which category he's in? Corrupt or shill?

What part of, "I wouldn't touch this dumpster fire" did you think was me volunteering?  Amazing how this type of situation can happen, and some members want to make it about me.

your self-proclaimed reputation

   How is the trust system self proclaimed?

Sorry for misinterpreting that

Misinterpreting seems to be your MO.  It's all good.  Thanks for the apology.