Lauda, MinerJones, Blazed | Missing escrow funds

[Lauda]

How long is it reasonable to wait? Another month? Another two months?

The refund has already been finished.

Oh shit lol! Any thread or Telegram documentation on that?

Yeah. This was the first post explaining the timeline; this was the second post containing all the batches.

[1713992737]

1713992737

[1713992737]

1713992737

[1713992737]

1713992737

[1713992737]

1713992737

[Quickseller]

How long is it reasonable to wait? Another month? Another two months?

The refund has already been finished.

Oh shit lol! Any thread or Telegram documentation on that?

Yeah. This was the first post explaining the timeline; this was the second post containing all the batches.

Missing from that information is an accounting of funds released to various parties and the conversation from the car alts to bitcoin.

[WaffleMaster]

Very interesting. Both points seem reasonable. Refunds have been issued. There are no explanations of any escrow transactions.

Here are a couple users talking about the starting price of the coin and the refund price.

Thanks for the detailed explanation. If we are somewhere near .0000933 then from my initial BTC investment only around 1 out of 6 would be returned.

Not sure where you get that?  Initial rate was .0002036 BTC / NVST

So it is a 46% refund against btc value.  Now if you count the bcash fork it is a bit less.

If someone invested in ETH, for every 1 ETH they sent they are getting the equivalent of 1.22 back.  Not too bad for a consolation prize.

Which would mean 45.8% refund as he stated ( .0000933 / .0002036 = .458 aka 45.8%). I was under the impression that 60% would be refunded based on previous statements made here... is that true? Not sure, I'm really not looking too deep into this but offering some speculation and questions. What % went to the escrows?

Now despite the low refund percent, Bitcoin has rose to a huge level so the dollar amount of the refund is actually greater than the dollar amount that was used to originally buy the ICO. What would the gain have been if they never deposited money into the ICO? Does the refund mean everybody's reputation is 'cleared' from a scam or does a detailed analysis of the escrow wallet and all its debits and credits still need to be done? (probably a good idea either way)

I find some interest in the "41.78678295 BTC will be set aside until a solution to this issue is found".

Just some thought provoking questions. I and everybody else are working with incomplete information and no evidence from blockchain tracing has been put forth so the presumption would be innocent until proven guilty.

[Lauda]

There are no explanations of any escrow transactions.

This was never in the original agreement, thus there is no requirement for such.

Which would mean 45.8% refund as he stated ( .0000933 / .0002036 = .458 aka 45.8%). I was under the impression that 60% would be refunded based on previous statements made here... is that true? Not sure, I'm really not looking too deep into this but offering some speculation and questions. What % went to the escrows?

It is ~60% of the funds, but not 60% of the original rate. I've already explained this several times; the initial ~3050 BTC number was a *balance snapshot*[1] to figure out a distribution rate.

Now despite the low refund percent, Bitcoin has rose to a huge level so the dollar amount of the refund is actually greater than the dollar amount that was used to originally buy the ICO.

It's higher than it should be.

I find some interest in the "41.78678295 BTC will be set aside until a solution to this issue is found".

There's nothing interesting about it. It was already explained: nemgun & co. stole the domain and database, thus the documentation is missing for the unallocated tokens.

I and everybody else are working with incomplete information and no evidence from blockchain tracing has been put forth so the presumption would be innocent until proven guilty.

This doesn't work when the accuser is Quickseller.
[1] Theoretical total BTC balance based on conversation rates at the time of the snapshot.

[WaffleMaster]

Yeah that's fine if there is no written requirement for the accounting of funds. I'd say that'd be a pretty annoying requirement personally. A big headache. When were the milestones hit and the funds sent to the CEO? 15% was the agreed amount, so I'm just curious if anybody knows when those milestones may have been hit. Sounds like 15%-15%-5% in terms of dev payment of milestones. The CTO declined all payments of his 15-15-5

I tracked back the original wallet, it appears the several thousands of Bitcoin moved multiple times, but I'm seeing this address as the original.

https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/3AiGej11G8jUXvEBPvQKPLiHXC7ruUCp1Z


3,405 BTC total received. I'm no blockchain detective so I'm not sure what to make of this. Somebody smarter than me will have to make sense of it. I just clicked back on all the large fund transfers until I hit a huge wallet that appears to be the beginning of the ICO. There's like 11 pages of incoming BTC there. (edit: There's WAYYYYY more than 11 pages lol. 63 total pages.)

Double edit: 60% of 3,405 = 2,043.  3,405 - 2,043 = 1,362... Any correlation between that and the "1,393.94415407 - 41.78678295 = 1352.15737112." refund amount?

1,393.94415407 - 41.78678295 = 1352.15737112. This represents a rate of 0.00009292961 BTC/NVST. Example ~ refund amounts:

I thought the CTO wasn't paid? ? uh.... help? Coincidence? I'm confused lmfao. It looks like the CTO's payment was actually taken out of the final number that was used as a refund...but everybody is saying he wasn't paid.

[Lauda]

When were the milestones hit and the funds sent to the CEO?

There is no exact date at which funds were sent (multiple times over smaller amounts). First milestone was unlocked post distribution; 2nd was late 2017.

15% was the agreed amount

No. 30% + 30%.

The CTO declined all payments of his 15-15-5

Nemgun is no CTO; and he lied about his payments to the community.

3,405 BTC total received. I'm no blockchain detective so I'm not sure what to make of this. Somebody smarter than me will have to make sense of it.

If you have an address that received 1k coins, and you send it to yourself 4 more times it will show 5k BTC total received. The number of received coins on explorers are not a valid metric.

I thought the CTO wasn't paid?

...but everybody is saying he wasn't paid.

If by everyone you mean his band of paid shills from discord, then yes indeed.

[WaffleMaster]

If you have an address that received 1k coins, and you send it to yourself 4 more times it will show 5k BTC total received. The number of received coins on explorers are not a valid metric.

True, maybe that is definitely how it works. Then why wouldn't it be much larger if these 3 transactions of the address sending 1,200 BTC (https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/3d664257ca058c13eb6695237a1c8b878490b877381ad04f1084163da999e739), then 1,689.44357589 (https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/954f4cfcb971ec4501f3e1667440fe0215f852039720f8af5f23a2d624e3b858), then 1,497.22395444 BTC (https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/4c304d4628a67a45d87c5babf46ada74c778a37826dd0f10f90ec88857e91666) all to itself not show up?

Isn't that like 4,386 BTC sent to itself? And yet the blockchain says "Total Received   3,405.40731067 BTC"? I'm genuinely curious about this because if it counted sent bitcoin to itself, with those 3 huge transactions alone sent to itself, it would be over 4,000 Bitcoin easily. Am I getting something wrong lol. I must be reading this transaction shit wrong and causing undue stress. I'll give up and let the pros handle it

[Lauda]

If you have an address that received 1k coins, and you send it to yourself 4 more times it will show 5k BTC total received. The number of received coins on explorers are not a valid metric.

True, maybe that is definitely how it works. Then why wouldn't it be much larger if these 3 transactions of the address sending 1,200 BTC (https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/3d664257ca058c13eb6695237a1c8b878490b877381ad04f1084163da999e739), then 1,689.44357589 (https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/954f4cfcb971ec4501f3e1667440fe0215f852039720f8af5f23a2d624e3b858), then 1,497.22395444 BTC (https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/4c304d4628a67a45d87c5babf46ada74c778a37826dd0f10f90ec88857e91666) all to itself not show up?

Isn't that like 4,386 BTC sent to itself? And yet the blockchain says "Total Received   3,405.40731067 BTC"? I'm genuinely curious about this because if it counted sent bitcoin to itself, with those 3 huge transactions alone sent to itself, it would be over 4,000 Bitcoin easily. Am I getting something wrong lol. I must be reading this transaction shit wrong and causing undue stress. I'll give up and let the pros handle it

I believe it has something to do with the situation in which all inputs and all outputs are the same address. It shouldn't count that as a metric for 'spent' nor 'received'. Someone else might know the details of this without having to look into it. However, the fact that the 'received' metric on blockchain explorers is useless should be well known.

[WaffleMaster]

If you have an address that received 1k coins, and you send it to yourself 4 more times it will show 5k BTC total received. The number of received coins on explorers are not a valid metric.

True, maybe that is definitely how it works. Then why wouldn't it be much larger if these 3 transactions of the address sending 1,200 BTC (https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/3d664257ca058c13eb6695237a1c8b878490b877381ad04f1084163da999e739), then 1,689.44357589 (https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/954f4cfcb971ec4501f3e1667440fe0215f852039720f8af5f23a2d624e3b858), then 1,497.22395444 BTC (https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/4c304d4628a67a45d87c5babf46ada74c778a37826dd0f10f90ec88857e91666) all to itself not show up?

Isn't that like 4,386 BTC sent to itself? And yet the blockchain says "Total Received   3,405.40731067 BTC"? I'm genuinely curious about this because if it counted sent bitcoin to itself, with those 3 huge transactions alone sent to itself, it would be over 4,000 Bitcoin easily. Am I getting something wrong lol. I must be reading this transaction shit wrong and causing undue stress. I'll give up and let the pros handle it

I believe it has something to do with the situation in which all inputs and all outputs are the same address. It shouldn't count that as a metric for 'spent' nor 'received'. Someone else might know the details of this without having to look into it. However, the fact that the 'received' metric on blockchain explorers is useless should be well known.

I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around why a multisig escrow wallet would be sending the funds to multiple different addresses and then back to itself.

3AiGej11G8jUXvEBPvQKPLiHXC7ruUCp1Z  ---> 3DkFekKmKXSnL1XmMfQSh2kukKzjr7X44Y
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/21e7f36e1d11fc4283792a9f46f13d1f41d4095dc2507e9335e6cf91fedb9d07

3DkFekKmKXSnL1XmMfQSh2kukKzjr7X44Y ---> 39iTdYPq899u1CVad9rKKQQPJHRVaP7MSo
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/388346e14b28d7862ef3182e5bdefd795f770c84ed27f4292280abfab1ecd9b9

39iTdYPq899u1CVad9rKKQQPJHRVaP7MSo ---> 3AiGej11G8jUXvEBPvQKPLiHXC7ruUCp1Z (ORIGINAL ADDRESS)
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/4c304d4628a67a45d87c5babf46ada74c778a37826dd0f10f90ec88857e91666

That's just one example out of many, and none of it appears to fluff up the "received Bitcoin" number because it was all traced back to the original wallet. Which we've already seen would have a lot more received if it indeed counted those transactions.

[marlboroza]

~
Isn't that like 4,386 BTC sent to itself? And yet the blockchain says "Total Received   3,405.40731067 BTC"?

No, it is 1488 + 1689 + 100 + 100 + 100 = 3486 BTC (total received) while blockchain.info shows total received 3,405 BTC - my calculation is not correct calculation either, probably because not all funds were moved at some point.

Or better, if you like, 100 + 100 + 100 - 1689 -100 - 100 + 1488 - 1497 = -1598, so approximately 1598 btc was in that address.

Don't break your head too much, if you want correct calculation why it shows 3,405.4 BTC you will have to go trough all 3128 transactions. You can't just pick one which you like and ask questions.

[WaffleMaster]

~
Isn't that like 4,386 BTC sent to itself? And yet the blockchain says "Total Received   3,405.40731067 BTC"?

No, it is 1488 + 1689 + 100 + 100 + 100 = 3486 BTC (total received) while blockchain.info shows total received 3,405 BTC - my calculation is not correct calculation either, probably because not all funds were moved at some point.

Or better, if you like, 100 + 100 + 100 - 1689 -100 - 100 + 1488 - 1497 = -1598, so approximately 1598 btc was in that address.

Don't break your head too much, if you want correct calculation why it shows 3,405.4 BTC you will have to go trough all 3128 transactions. You can't just pick one which you like and ask questions.

I see the multiple +100 BTC that you're talking about. Yeah my math and analysis is probably bad. I think this transaction (https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/954f4cfcb971ec4501f3e1667440fe0215f852039720f8af5f23a2d624e3b858) is what I messed up about. That's probably not 1,689 BTC

[mdayonliner]

~

I am not an expert either however this is what I did....

I filtered the address with the Sent transactions
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/3AiGej11G8jUXvEBPvQKPLiHXC7ruUCp1Z?filter=1

Scroll down and...

First sent was on 2017-07-01 19:06:18 Tx: https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/b478196f3a535f8a2a8a250ce1ebe97dabc97055bd1f2fd8798d7742185ad199
Amount 16.04376017 BTC to 34QigSdFmqDNSdCjZs5sSDQYYewDGh5LLd
If you trace the address then you will see Ultimately the fund comes back to the main address. I assume funds were sent to different addresses of the same wallet.
So, total received = 3,405.40731067 - 16.04376017 = 3389.3635505 BTC

2nd sent was on 2017-07-01 19:20:36 Tx: https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/ba568d7cf8c7ea025ad68b16960ac18cb23fc61abd0986ac7181c9d7a8fd02e8
Amount 0.57566755 BTC to 32DMGN7hiEG2gVYZt9gVVPgJTYhndx7GSv
Again after tracing the address the conclusion is sent to different addresses of the same wallet.
3389.3635505 - 0.57566755 = 3388.78788295 BTC

3rd sent was on 2017-07-01 19:31:44 Tx: https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/52b71cce22168c76c354ddbc17c9feb36439ef31ae8b0282e5a67a331bbe0c1d
Amount 0.00228457 BTC to 3KA7s4Nqw1KvksUY2KtpmzCEdxkfjQ22bH and 149ZiYcFKsjcT1S1Ef4WwAihXQxXQds1YA
I can not figure out the end of them so lets say they actually gone out.
So, we still have: 3388.78788295 BTC

4th sent was on 2017-07-01 20:33:40 Tx: https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/32cbb8f451c6129067fb40ac93628e8f6337c699c466a0336a6e5b9da0b38111
Amount 0.42851301 BTC to 36UNCAdXYUditQoyKJKfwszafnkKFCcAwQ
Eventually it came back to the same address
3388.78788295 - 0.42851301 = 3388.35936994 BTC

5th: 0.18467903 BTC
6th: 0.05086859 BTC
7th: 0.04060566 BTC
8th: 0.05862002 BTC
9th: 0.0086241 BTC
10th: 0.03419528 BTC
11th: 0.00701132 BTC
12th: 0.00927396 BTC
13th: 0.01638622 BTC
14th: 0.01053424 BTC
15th: 0.00536235 BTC
16th: 0.00096287 BTC
17th: 0.00255258 BTC
18th: 0.00036839 BTC
19th: 0.01025788 BTC
===================================
Total: 0.44030249 BTC

3388.35936994 - 0.44030249 = 3387.91906745 BTC

After exploring 20th tx it seems 1,497.22395444 BTC came back to the same address.
3387.91906745 - 1497.22395444 = 1890.69511301 BTC

21st tx eventually adds up to this tx. So, nothing to deduct.
22nd does the same. Again nothing to deduct.
23rd assuming it really gone out.
24th gone out as well.

If you have an address that received 1k coins, and you send it to yourself 4 more times it will show 5k BTC total received. The number of received coins on explorers are not a valid metric.

So, if my manual checking is correct then the address (3AiGej11G8jUXvEBPvQKPLiHXC7ruUCp1Z) actually received 1890.69511301 (+/- 0.00228457) BTC in-total.

PS: Guys, since this is a manual checking, I could even miss some of the transactions while I was tracing. So, don't consider it as a solid calculation of the received coins.

[WaffleMaster]

So, if my manual checking is correct then the address (3AiGej11G8jUXvEBPvQKPLiHXC7ruUCp1Z) actually received 1890.69511301 (+/- 0.00228457) BTC in-total.

PS: Guys, since this is a manual checking, I could even miss some of the transactions while I was tracing. So, don't consider it as a solid calculation of the received coins.

Your method and number seems more accurate. I'll wait until other people smarter than me examine that wallet. Anybody can download a csv or xlxs spreadsheet file of the entire wallet on https://blockchain.info/export-history?active=3AiGej11G8jUXvEBPvQKPLiHXC7ruUCp1Z

[bill gator]

So, the refund has been completed and the amount distributed seems to make sense and correlate with what was expected to be distributed, is that right? Where is the issue at this point? The only issue I can see a reason for this remaining, is if there is indeed BTC missing from the pool or individuals that were entitled to a refund.

All I'm hearing though is that people want more accountability, but if all the funds agreed to be distributed are there and have been refunded then I'm failing to see where the issue is or why 3+ DT members are leaving this thread with negative reputation from one another. I know it's not even close to my call, but if I were any one of you I would remove the negative(s) I left due to this thread, because it's seemingly pedantic and does not set a good precedent in terms of how trust is used.

What is the accusation?

[bill gator]

That's not an accusation, that's a suggestion at best. I am operating with very limited knowledge of the situation, but from what I understand the transparency being requested and subsequently leveled as an accusation (somehow?) was never in the terms agreed to by the escrow(s) or the investor(s).

There are two paths, either terms are being broken or they are not; if so, which terms?
Is there any evidence to suggest that funds have been withheld or gone missing? That is the title of the thread, and I have seen nothing that suggests this.
Is there reason to believe that the altcoin exchange rates/dates have been manipulated for them to pocket funds? I'm just trying to figure out exactly what the finger is being pointed at, and why.

[Quickseller]

What is the accusation?

Transparency?

The accusation is that a portion of the money being held in escrow was stolen or otherwise misappropriated

[bill gator]

The accusation is that a portion of the money being held in escrow was stolen or otherwise misappropriated

Forgive me, but what is the evidence for this accusation? If there is solid evidence to suggest this happened, then I would love to hear it. It would go a long way towards convincing more than just myself. So far though, I have just heard baseless speculation and it leaves me unable to come to any conclusion about the situation. If there was substantial evidence that would suggest money was stolen, then I agree that transparency beyond what was previously agreed to could be desirable; at least to get to the bottom of things, and dish out financial justice for those negatively affected.

[pugman]

The accusation is that a portion of the money being held in escrow was stolen or otherwise misappropriated

Forgive me, but what is the evidence for this accusation? If there is solid evidence to suggest this happened, then I would love to hear it. It would go a long way towards convincing more than just myself. So far though, I have just heard baseless speculation and it leaves me unable to come to any conclusion about the situation. If there was substantial evidence that would suggest money was stolen, then I agree that transparency beyond what was previously agreed to could be desirable; at least to get to the bottom of things, and dish out financial justice for those negatively affected.

People couldn't understand how 3000 btc became less than 1500,after converting alts to btc and spending money on "development".

[bill gator]

I thought that even the 3,000 BTC amount was speculation. I'm clearly not helping solve anything and very likely missing vital chunks of information. I also thought the alts were forked and exchanged when the value was much more insignificant and that 60% was to be spent on development. I may have read through the entire thread, but my reading comprehension must be beyond salvageable.

I'll just bow this one out.

[suchmoon]

I thought that even the 3,000 BTC amount was speculation. I'm clearly not helping solve anything and very likely missing vital chunks of information. I also thought the alts were forked and exchanged when the value was much more insignificant and that 60% was to be spent on development. I may have read through the entire thread, but my reading comprehension must be beyond salvageable.

I'll just bow this one out.

3000+ was the valuation at the time of ICO, which the token distribution was based on. Actual exchange value was likely lower - perhaps in the 2700 BTC range but I can't say that I know the exact number.

30% was to be distributed to the development team immediately after the ICO (first milestone) and another 30% after the release of beta wallet (2nd milestone), leaving 40% in escrow.

1400 / 3100 is 45% and 1400 / 2700 is 52%, i.e. it passes a basic smell test: the refund covered more than the escrow was supposed to hold. The extra funds have been presumably  gained from forks and the 2nd milestone not being completely distributed due to some internal disputes.

At this point it would seem that whoever wants to accuse Lauda et al of wrongdoing should come up with evidence, not the other way round. Otherwise this could go on for years with random people claiming that the refund should have been 10 BTC or 100 BTC or 1000 BTC higher.