Lauda, MinerJones, Blazed | Missing escrow funds

[teeGUMES]

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.

Seems rather stupid to say your last couple sentences. An escrow should have btc/altcoin amounts in something like an excel spreadsheet with proper accounting / tracking. Very easy to press Ctrl C and Ctrl V on their keyboards and post it here. This isn't just about how the ICO is being run, it falls back on the CET ( Crypto Escrow Team ) and how they conduct their business with no transparency. This will effect further business for them.

Your basic smell test just had a 400 bitcoin discrepancy. Nice one. (Guess what? with proper transparency you wouldn't need to be sniffing around, we'd have the exact numbers to talk about and help with this situation.)

It sounds like the "proper" communication channels so far have heavy bias and if you question the wrong founder/other founder/escrow then you are removed from said telegram/slack/other mode of communication. Which is likely why some of the investors only have bitcointalk.org left to find their answers. Aswell the official website has been claimed to have the ability to act nefarious in this situation so that is also not a proper means of communication for most.

If any single investor has no other way to find information about this project and what is happening besides bitcointalk then it is owed to them to be able to find what they need here. The ICO took place here, the Crypto Escrow Team has their roots set in here and was probably chosen based on what the ICO team had seen here. Now you have outsiders that commonly use escrow and members involved in this that are watching this from afar wondering WTF is this the kind of transparency I'm going to get in a dispute?

I sure as hell bet the founders of this failed project have all the information, but guess what.. they're the ones that had an internal problem and failed the people that funded their project. Therefore these escrows now work for the investors. Guess who gets snipped on an lipped off by the escrow when they ask for transparency? The investors.

Let's not forget either that no answers were ever given here and Lauda flipped off most people asking questions until suchmoon entered the fray. This trust system is shit but I can only guess that suchmoon is some sort of default trust and thats what caused Lauda to start answering minor questions. Shows character when a person shows zero respect to everyone until someone with a bit of power steps in.

disclaimer: i am in no way involved in this failed ICO, just a reader and occasional user of escrow.


edit to add: This is the absolute worst case scenario for any escrow to have to deal with. I honestly do wish this never did happen in the real world and this part of the job would not have to come up and even present itself. It is very unfortunate but it is why the fee charged should be substantial enough to put up with this kind of headache. I fully believe the escrows need to be paid just as well during the good times as the bad times. Think of it like car insurance.

[vlom]

As I wrote before. i gave up. I dont have any hope to get the answer I would like to have.
And now I hope that people will realise that this is not the best way to handle stuff like this. And that other escrows will provide the information and that these escrows will be chosen.

[Lauda]

Which is likely why some of the investors only have bitcointalk.org left to find their answers.

They received their answers. This thread was started by no "normal investor". It was very soon after I left the discord channel (which is now apparently used for their *upcoming projects*?).

Now you have outsiders that commonly use escrow and members involved in this that are watching this from afar wondering WTF is this the kind of transparency I'm going to get in a dispute?

There is absolutely no dispute about funds; the dispute is entirely related to something else and the details of it are almost non existent over here.

Let's not forget either that no answers were ever given here and Lauda flipped off most people asking questions until suchmoon entered the fray. This trust system is shit but I can only guess that suchmoon is some sort of default trust and thats what caused Lauda to start answering minor questions. Shows character when a person shows zero respect to everyone until someone with a bit of power steps in.

I've replied about 3 hours after this nonsense was posted, even though it was just an attempt to cause issues and delay the refund (which has ultimately failed despite their best efforts).

And that other escrows will provide the information and that these escrows will be chosen.

Again, you need to look up how ICO escrows are done. If full (public) transparency isn't initially agreed upon, then you shall not receive it. Case point, most large(er) ICOs *known* escrows.

edit to add: This is the absolute worst case scenario for any escrow to have to deal with. I honestly do wish this never did happen in the real world and this part of the job would not have to come up and even present itself.

Thanks for acknowledging that. It is indeed one of the worst outcomes, especially when some terms are somewhat ambiguous or non-existent. Despite the beauty of simplicity, it did me no favors this time around.

[teeGUMES]

Which is likely why some of the investors only have bitcointalk.org left to find their answers.

They received their answers. This thread was started by no "normal investor". It was very soon after I left the discord channel (which is now apparently used for their *upcoming projects*?).

Now you have outsiders that commonly use escrow and members involved in this that are watching this from afar wondering WTF is this the kind of transparency I'm going to get in a dispute?

There is absolutely no dispute about funds; the dispute is entirely related to something else and the details of it are almost non existent over here.

Let's not forget either that no answers were ever given here and Lauda flipped off most people asking questions until suchmoon entered the fray. This trust system is shit but I can only guess that suchmoon is some sort of default trust and thats what caused Lauda to start answering minor questions. Shows character when a person shows zero respect to everyone until someone with a bit of power steps in.

I've replied about 3 hours after this nonsense was posted, even though it was just an attempt to cause issues and delay the refund (which has ultimately failed despite the best efforts); clear bias.

And that other escrows will provide the information and that these escrows will be chosen.

Again, you need to look up how ICO escrows are done. If full (public) transparency isn't initially agreed upon, then you shall not receive it. Case point, most large(er) ICOs *known* escrows.

edit to add: This is the absolute worst case scenario for any escrow to have to deal with. I honestly do wish this never did happen in the real world and this part of the job would not have to come up and even present itself.

Thanks for acknowledging that. It is indeed one of the worst outcomes, especially when some terms are somewhat ambiguous or non-existent. Despite the beauty of simplicity, it did me no favors this time around.

We call this a slide. Zero useful information. You are dragging other people's name through the mud ( your escrow team ). Why did they choose you as spokesperson? Horrible choice.

Again, you need to look up how ICO escrows are done. If full (public) transparency isn't initially agreed upon, then you shall not receive it. Case point, most large(er) ICOs *known* escrows.

Guess what. You don't work for the ICO anymore. You work for the people. They want to know. This has been made public, others want to know that aren't even involed, they want to know if they use you guys in the future if this is how you're going to act and show transparency.

[suchmoon]

Seems rather stupid to say your last couple sentences. An escrow should have btc/altcoin amounts in something like an excel spreadsheet with proper accounting / tracking. Very easy to press Ctrl C and Ctrl V on their keyboards and post it here. This isn't just about how the ICO is being run, it falls back on the CET ( Crypto Escrow Team ) and how they conduct their business with no transparency. This will effect further business for them.

If I wanted to do business with an escrow I would negotiate terms before the deal. It doesn't seem that the NVO team or the bagholders (the parties to the transaction) had the requirements that you're alluding to at the time when the ICO was conducted. If they did then they should bring it up. How is that stupid?

[teeGUMES]

Seems rather stupid to say your last couple sentences. An escrow should have btc/altcoin amounts in something like an excel spreadsheet with proper accounting / tracking. Very easy to press Ctrl C and Ctrl V on their keyboards and post it here. This isn't just about how the ICO is being run, it falls back on the CET ( Crypto Escrow Team ) and how they conduct their business with no transparency. This will effect further business for them.

If I wanted to do business with an escrow I would negotiate terms before the deal. It doesn't seem that the NVO team or the bagholders (the parties to the transaction) had the requirements that you're alluding to at the time when the ICO was conducted. If they did then they should bring it up. How is that stupid?

Tell me who the escrow team works for now? The NVO team or the bagholders? Is it possible to contact every single one of the investors? If so why hasn't this been done. If they replied back and said " NO I DONT WANT TO KNOW HOW MUCH MONEY DID OR DIDNT GO TO THE TEAM THAT FUCKED OVER MY INVESTMENT " then yea I can see where you're coming from.

Right now we are acting on the presumption that this whole ICO went smooth and everything were delivered that was asked. Reality check.. it didnt.

[Lauda]

Why did they choose you as spokesperson? Horrible choice.

I'm nobody spokesperson, unless stated otherwise.

This has been made public, others want to know that aren't even involed, they want to know if they use you guys in the future if this is how you're going to act and show transparency.

Whatever you request and gets agreed upon beforehand is what we deliver.

If they did then they should bring it up.

They did not. As said:

...even though it was just an attempt to cause issues and delay the refund (which has ultimately failed despite their best efforts).

It's the accusation "Lauda is doing pills" all over again; the difference being that this one (surprisingly) isn't from a Quickseller & co. account.

[teeGUMES]

Why did they choose you as spokesperson? Horrible choice.

I'm nobody spokesperson, unless stated otherwise.

This has been made public, others want to know that aren't even involed, they want to know if they use you guys in the future if this is how you're going to act and show transparency.

Whatever you request and gets agreed upon beforehand is what we deliver.

If they did then they should bring it up.

They did not. As said:

...even though it was just an attempt to cause issues and delay the refund (which has ultimately failed despite their best efforts).

It's the accusation "Lauda is doing pills" all over again; the difference being that this one (surprisingly) isn't from a Quickseller & co. account.

As I wrote before. i gave up. I dont have any hope to get the answer I would like to have.
And now I hope that people will realise that this is not the best way to handle stuff like this. And that other escrows will provide the information and that these escrows will be chosen.

This is Lauda's m.o.  ..  slide the thread with useless drivel until people get so frustrated and confused that they no longer wish to participate because it is a one sided conversation.

Whatever you request and gets agreed upon beforehand is what we deliver.

Who agreed upon these rules? Escrow and NVO team correct? Did each and every investor enter into conversation with you agreeing to what would be delivered? Or did they trust the NVO team to deliver as expected and feel safer doing it because an escrow team was in place? Like I said before, your terms were discussed with the NVO management, not with each and every investor which is now who YOU work for. This makes your agreements null and void with the founders.

Let's see what the results of "what you request and gets agreed upon beforehand is what we deliver" actually are. Should be fairly easy to copy and paste the original agreement here. And then lets see which of the founders (whom caused this whole problem) agreed to this and whether it becomes null and void due to their inability to fulfill their duty to the investors.

[suchmoon]

Seems rather stupid to say your last couple sentences. An escrow should have btc/altcoin amounts in something like an excel spreadsheet with proper accounting / tracking. Very easy to press Ctrl C and Ctrl V on their keyboards and post it here. This isn't just about how the ICO is being run, it falls back on the CET ( Crypto Escrow Team ) and how they conduct their business with no transparency. This will effect further business for them.

If I wanted to do business with an escrow I would negotiate terms before the deal. It doesn't seem that the NVO team or the bagholders (the parties to the transaction) had the requirements that you're alluding to at the time when the ICO was conducted. If they did then they should bring it up. How is that stupid?

Tell me who the escrow team works for now? The NVO team or the bagholders? Is it possible to contact every single one of the investors? If so why hasn't this been done. If they replied back and said " NO I DONT WANT TO KNOW HOW MUCH MONEY DID OR DIDNT GO TO THE TEAM THAT FUCKED OVER MY INVESTMENT " then yea I can see where you're coming from.

The escrow is an independent third party. It doesn't work work for the team or the bagholders. That would be a major conflict of interest.

If there is a grievance of some sort it's not unreasonable to expect the aggrieved party to come forward with a complaint. As you just illustrated it would be ridiculously difficult to prove a negative (absence of grievances), particularly given the anonymous nature of crypto transactions.

[teeGUMES]

Seems rather stupid to say your last couple sentences. An escrow should have btc/altcoin amounts in something like an excel spreadsheet with proper accounting / tracking. Very easy to press Ctrl C and Ctrl V on their keyboards and post it here. This isn't just about how the ICO is being run, it falls back on the CET ( Crypto Escrow Team ) and how they conduct their business with no transparency. This will effect further business for them.

If I wanted to do business with an escrow I would negotiate terms before the deal. It doesn't seem that the NVO team or the bagholders (the parties to the transaction) had the requirements that you're alluding to at the time when the ICO was conducted. If they did then they should bring it up. How is that stupid?

Tell me who the escrow team works for now? The NVO team or the bagholders? Is it possible to contact every single one of the investors? If so why hasn't this been done. If they replied back and said " NO I DONT WANT TO KNOW HOW MUCH MONEY DID OR DIDNT GO TO THE TEAM THAT FUCKED OVER MY INVESTMENT " then yea I can see where you're coming from.

The escrow is an independent third party. It doesn't work work for the team or the bagholders. That would be a major conflict of interest.

If there is a grievance of some sort it's not unreasonable to expect the aggrieved party to come forward with a complaint. As you just illustrated it would be ridiculously difficult to prove a negative (absence of grievances), particularly given the anonymous nature of crypto transactions.

This is fair to say as I have been using the wrong words to express what I meant. I believe most people can understand what I am trying to get at when saying one side has failed to provide their product and this leads to the investor side recouping what is left.
I'm not here to discuss Merriam-Webster's definition of escrow with you suchmoon. What I do believe is that the founders (the problems) hold more information than the investors(the wronged) who deserve better.

[suchmoon]

This is fair to say as I have been using the wrong words to express what I meant. I believe most people can understand what I am trying to get at when saying one side has failed to provide their product and this leads to the investor side recouping what is left.
I'm not here to discuss Merriam-Webster's definition of escrow with you suchmoon. What I do believe is that the founders (the problems) hold more information than the investors(the wronged) who deserve better.

Even in a conflict the escrow is not supposed to favor one party over the other.

The only terms that I can find are these:

The funds will be released using milestones defined as follow:

- 30% release at the end of the crowdsale.
- 30% at the delivery of the beta wallet and first API Cluster
- 30% At the delivery of the Beta Validator
- 10% At the delivery of the plugin system

The funds won't be released until the escrows
agree that a milestone has been reached.

I don't see where it defines exchange rates or transparency levels or any of these things that are being discussed here.

[teeGUMES]

This is fair to say as I have been using the wrong words to express what I meant. I believe most people can understand what I am trying to get at when saying one side has failed to provide their product and this leads to the investor side recouping what is left.
I'm not here to discuss Merriam-Webster's definition of escrow with you suchmoon. What I do believe is that the founders (the problems) hold more information than the investors(the wronged) who deserve better.

Even in a conflict the escrow is not supposed to favor one party over the other.

The only terms that I can find are these:

The funds will be released using milestones defined as follow:

- 30% release at the end of the crowdsale.
- 30% at the delivery of the beta wallet and first API Cluster
- 30% At the delivery of the Beta Validator
- 10% At the delivery of the plugin system

The funds won't be released until the escrows
agree that a milestone has been reached.

I don't see where it defines exchange rates or transparency levels or any of these things that are being discussed here.

I don't see where it doesn't say that all funds go directly to me in case of dispute either. You play on a lot of slides too when you were young suchmoon?

[suchmoon]

I don't see where it doesn't say that all funds go directly to me in case of dispute either. You play on a lot of slides too when you were young suchmoon?

Why would it go to you? In case of a dispute the escrow decides if the product has been delivered and the funds go to the seller, or not and the funds go to the buyer (the latter is what happened here). Is that another one of those Merriam-Webster things that you don't want to accept?

I can do ad hominems with the best of them so perhaps let's take it easy with the playground insults.

[teeGUMES]

I don't see where it doesn't say that all funds go directly to me in case of dispute either. You play on a lot of slides too when you were young suchmoon?

Why would it go to you? In case of a dispute the escrow decides if the product has been delivered and the funds go to the seller, or not and the funds go to the buyer (the latter is what happened here). Is that another one of those Merriam-Webster things that you don't want to accept?

I can do ad hominems with the best of them so perhaps let's take it easy with the playground insults.

What funds? The amount that some anonymous 'aliased' escrow promises you is the number? "Just trust me guys".

I'm done here anyways. With your voice actually meaning something here I figured you'd act a little different. Transparency is one of the biggest things in order to establish trust.. especially with the ol "not your keys not your bitcoin". In this case the investors don't even get to see the public key side which is what bitcoin and public decentralized ledgers are used for.

My questions raised have never been whether or not I believe there is theft or fraud happening here, it's been solely about transparency and answers for the less fortunate. The few that have this power have remained silent or continue to talk circles. If this does not raise red flags for you then I'm sorry and I hope the best for you in life.

[suchmoon]

What funds? The amount that some anonymous 'aliased' escrow promises you is the number? "Just trust me guys".

I'm done here anyways. With your voice actually meaning something here I figured you'd act a little different. Transparency is one of the biggest things in order to establish trust.. especially with the ol "not your keys not your bitcoin". In this case the investors don't even get to see the public key side which is what bitcoin and public decentralized ledgers are used for.

My questions raised have never been whether or not I believe there is theft or fraud happening here, it's been solely about transparency and answers for the less fortunate. The few that have this power have remained silent or continue to talk circles. If this does not raise red flags for you then I'm sorry and I hope the best for you in life.

You seem to be implying that I'm against transparency. That's false. In fact earlier in the thread - before you cared to jump in apparently without reading it - I stated a fairly strong opinion on the subject: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4895354.msg44556605#msg44556605

However I'd be remiss if I didn't admit that if transparency parameters have not been agreed to in advance it might be difficult for the escrow to provide certain information, such as off-chain details of altcoin exchange.

[Quickseller]

I don't see where it doesn't say that all funds go directly to me in case of dispute either. You play on a lot of slides too when you were young suchmoon?

Why would it go to you? In case of a dispute the escrow decides if the product has been delivered and the funds go to the seller, or not and the funds go to the buyer (the latter is what happened here). Is that another one of those Merriam-Webster things that you don't want to accept?

I can do ad hominems with the best of them so perhaps let's take it easy with the playground insults.

What funds? The amount that some anonymous 'aliased' escrow promises you is the number? "Just trust me guys".

I'm done here anyways. With your voice actually meaning something here I figured you'd act a little different. Transparency is one of the biggest things in order to establish trust.. especially with the ol "not your keys not your bitcoin". In this case the investors don't even get to see the public key side which is what bitcoin and public decentralized ledgers are used for.

My questions raised have never been whether or not I believe there is theft or fraud happening here, it's been solely about transparency and answers for the less fortunate. The few that have this power have remained silent or continue to talk circles. If this does not raise red flags for you then I'm sorry and I hope the best for you in life.

Unfortunately, Suchmoon is known to take the side of those who is in a greater position of power. It is her way to gain power herself.

Obviously it is ridiculous to say that transparency is not required because it was not expressly agreed to ahead of time. 

Another term that was very cleary broken was that Lauda, Blazed and Minerjones would keep the bitcoin at a specific address, however the bitcoin was moved out of the escrow address very early on.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Hello.

I am one of the escrows for the NVO-ICO. The 2-of-3 multi-signature address for this project will be:
3AiGej11G8jUXvEBPvQKPLiHXC7ruUCp1Z

Lauda,
17/05/2017
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJZHJdIAAoJEPTjrTxS+ZrbuQcH/ia4aFdQQe9+p6EnuuYed7gY
eubk16Pkzx21l8JcljJYadIDYW51TI76IukSFwYmoLfG3HoRTexwD02ZYa0bA4oO
cm4kaikbf3U9CU32uJ6jklthpc8HbrLs2H+BJMrcA/1dofQKhXntDHUqPQFuTqlR
JitQ3uzLlJ1OFyiRXOpO5kvSD1lGLUS2rXugULZrXZExT0xcA39j+du9QfdC/26N
lFl9y/HA+XSRgf618dSPmxpv6JtORtERvS4kklZvVFIjIxuNy/+kwE2t1qO1Xz1Q
x2UBkbGATrw3MYPbck5TLdcbLNOdX3321r2K8YY7K2CKNCe4zbP0td+gKTPQLEc=
=n++w
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[suchmoon]

Unfortunately, Suchmoon is known to take the side of those who is in a greater position of power. It is her way to gain power herself.

Projecting as usual, Mr. Escrow Scammer

I don't value virtual forum trinkets like you do.

Obviously it is ridiculous to say that transparency is not required because it was not expressly agreed to ahead of time.

I think it's ridiculous to not require transparency in a 3000 BTC deal. But it was not required by the participants of the deal and I can't turn the clock back and tell them that they're idiots. You on the other hand should keep barking as loud as you can. Every minute you spend baking these shitpretzels is a minute you're not scamming someone, so that's the silver lining.

[OgNasty]

Another term that was very cleary broken was that Lauda, Blazed and Minerjones would keep the bitcoin at a specific address, however the bitcoin was moved out of the escrow address very early on.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Hello.

I am one of the escrows for the NVO-ICO. The 2-of-3 multi-signature address for this project will be:
3AiGej11G8jUXvEBPvQKPLiHXC7ruUCp1Z

Lauda,
17/05/2017
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJZHJdIAAoJEPTjrTxS+ZrbuQcH/ia4aFdQQe9+p6EnuuYed7gY
eubk16Pkzx21l8JcljJYadIDYW51TI76IukSFwYmoLfG3HoRTexwD02ZYa0bA4oO
cm4kaikbf3U9CU32uJ6jklthpc8HbrLs2H+BJMrcA/1dofQKhXntDHUqPQFuTqlR
JitQ3uzLlJ1OFyiRXOpO5kvSD1lGLUS2rXugULZrXZExT0xcA39j+du9QfdC/26N
lFl9y/HA+XSRgf618dSPmxpv6JtORtERvS4kklZvVFIjIxuNy/+kwE2t1qO1Xz1Q
x2UBkbGATrw3MYPbck5TLdcbLNOdX3321r2K8YY7K2CKNCe4zbP0td+gKTPQLEc=
=n++w
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Agreed. Any movement of funds should have been publicly explained and new messages signed. It is very clear there was wrongdoing here.

[Quickseller]

Another term that was very cleary broken was that Lauda, Blazed and Minerjones would keep the bitcoin at a specific address, however the bitcoin was moved out of the escrow address very early on.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Hello.

I am one of the escrows for the NVO-ICO. The 2-of-3 multi-signature address for this project will be:
3AiGej11G8jUXvEBPvQKPLiHXC7ruUCp1Z

Lauda,
17/05/2017
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJZHJdIAAoJEPTjrTxS+ZrbuQcH/ia4aFdQQe9+p6EnuuYed7gY
eubk16Pkzx21l8JcljJYadIDYW51TI76IukSFwYmoLfG3HoRTexwD02ZYa0bA4oO
cm4kaikbf3U9CU32uJ6jklthpc8HbrLs2H+BJMrcA/1dofQKhXntDHUqPQFuTqlR
JitQ3uzLlJ1OFyiRXOpO5kvSD1lGLUS2rXugULZrXZExT0xcA39j+du9QfdC/26N
lFl9y/HA+XSRgf618dSPmxpv6JtORtERvS4kklZvVFIjIxuNy/+kwE2t1qO1Xz1Q
x2UBkbGATrw3MYPbck5TLdcbLNOdX3321r2K8YY7K2CKNCe4zbP0td+gKTPQLEc=
=n++w
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Agreed. Any movement of funds should have been publicly explained and new messages signed. It is very clear there was wrongdoing here.

They never even acknowledged where the bitcoin was being held. Also, based upon the speee at which transactions were broadcast out of escrow, I think there is a good chance that one person was in effect control of the coins when the three signed messages clearly implied each escrow agent would control one of three keys to the address that requires two signatures.


Multiple people involved in the deal were demanding transparency however the escrow agents were promptly ignoring such demands. Just look at the responses from monerjones and Blazed. All of the responses by lauda were essentially non-answers.

[Lauda]

Another term that was very cleary broken was that Lauda, Blazed and Minerjones would keep the bitcoin at a specific address, however the bitcoin was moved out of the escrow address very early on.

Wrong. That was the escrow address for investment; there were absolutely no statements as to where the coins were going to be held afterwards. Not a single term was broken.
You're trying to tackle this from way too many angles which makes it very clear that it is in fact just a vendetta. This must be very tiring to read for outsiders; i.e. you keep shifting the goalposts yet there is absolutely no proof of any kind of intentional, non-intentional or any other form of wrongdoing.