RingWallet - Wearable Hardware Wallet

[Ringwallet]

1.First of all, again, the only restriction is literally taking the code and using it as-is to launch a for-profit company the next day. Furthermore, it will be time-limited, so something like 2 years from each release. Literally the same as Uniswap v3 did. And to answer the question of why, sure.

I really don't care what Uniswap is doing, especially when knowing who is behind them, how they are getting funded, and how they are doing their business.
Hardware wallet manufacturer should never be compared with uniswap exchange.

I don't find anything wrong with that.

It is wrong when you are claiming to have open source code sometimes in future, but in reality this will never happen.
Be honest to yourself, to everyone else, and don't ever mention words ''open source'' in connection with RingWallet.

Edit: I read some more as well and it seems you are correct, adding a restriction for commercial use cases makes the code not respect open-source rules anymore. I was genuinely not aware of this beforehand. I will give this some more thought and see if we want to go the source available vs fully open source route. My fear is exactly the one described above; i.e. someone forking it the next day and launching a competitor.

No problem, you can release it with any code you want, just learn what FOSS and open source really is.
Just imagine if Satoshi was scared that someone will copy and fork his project called Bitcoin...  

List of Hardware wallets with Open Source firmware who are NOT scared of someone forking their code:

• Trezor One; model T; Safe 3
• Bitbox
• Passport
• Jade
• Satochip
• Keepkey
• BitHD*
• Prokey
• OneKey Classic; Mini, Touch
• HyperMate
• Cypherock X1
• Hito (pre-sale)
• Bitlox
• Keystone3
• BitKey
• Portal
• SeedSigner DIY Wallet
• Krux DIY Wallet

Thanks for the answer. I'll answer in parts.

Re Uniswap; I used it as an example so you could understand what I meant. I also don't know who they're supported by and whatnot to be honest.
Re Open source:
1. I genuinely didn't know the difference between open-source and source-available at the time. That's my mistake and I apologise for it.
2. As mentioned in my previous message, you, as well as some other people we are talking to privately have expressed opinions in regards to why go open source vs source-available so we haven't made a final decision as of right now. At the very minimum, the code will be made source-available and we are still debating whether it will be under a trully open source license or a commons clause one. I will update here after we make a final decision.

Re Satoshi & Bitcoin; I don't have such delusions of grandeur. I think ringwallet is a cool nifty product but it will never be even 0.1% of bitcoin, so not sure it's a fair comparison. With that said, I do understand where you're coming from, and just to be clear, the difference between the license we initially planed to use and a commons license is that ours was/is time-limited; meaning anyone would've been able to use the code for whatever commercial purposes they wanted to after a period of 2 years, as opposed to commons clause, which as far as I understand, is permanent.

So back to your theoretical example, if Satoshi published bitcoin under a 2-year limited license, people would've just forked bitcoin 2 years later, so not really the end of the world to be honest. Because again, we didn't want to gatekeep the code forever but rather just have a 2-year headstart. Anyway. I am genuinely considering just publishing it completely as open-source when the time of launch comes, but the launch is still a few months away and until then we are still wrapping up what is left and will be making a final decision in regards to this as well.

Lastly, regarding your list; that's an awesome list and thanks for sharing. I actually went through the list myself, and since you seem to care a lot about open-source, which I appreciate, I just want to make some mentions to you regarding the list. Just to be clear, not trying to be a dickhead, but I genuinely went through the repos, so I figured some of the things I will list below should be of interest to you.

https://github.com/proto-at-block/bitkey -> commons clause license. It's combined with MIT, but it's the same as it being source-available because it also has commons clause license.
https://github.com/Cypherock -> commons clause license. Again, combined with MIT but same as above, it's source-avaialble in reality not open-source.
https://github.com/hito-xyz -> they say open source but as you can see the github is completely empty bar from some documentation; the software you're supposed to download is completely closed-source, not even source-available. Also, apparently they've been in pre-sale mode for about 2 years now and as far as I've been able to see, not much if anything has been shipped out. There's even a thread (and apparently a telegram group) of people complaining about it. Here's the thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5487572.0
https://github.com/bithd -> literal complete copy-paste fork of trezor, not sure if it's worth including in such a list, because a lot of the people on that list have actually done real heavy work and should be praised for it. This is just ctrl+c / ctrl+v.
https://github.com/digitalbitbox -> completely empty github so not even source-available
https://github.com/bitlox -> most of it is forked from bitpay, hive and multibit. The repos which are not forked have no discernible license of any kind and have not been updated in 7-8 years at a minimum, so again, not sure it qualifies as open-source or that it deserves to be on that list.

I think that's a really cool list and just wanted to let you know about these because I figured you just didn't have the time to actually check and that's why you haven't removed them yet. Some of those guys on that list have really done an incredible amount of work and I figured they shouldn't be bundled with things like the above. Anyway, thanks for the feedback and the information, I'll give this some proper thought and we will in either case announce our decision here once it's made.

[moneystery]

i knew that this was a great idea, where one could take their hard wallet anywhere they wanted, and it was stylish and quite compact. but what concerns me here is what happens when criminals start to get to know this product and start linking people with black rings to using this product? that would definitely be quite dangerous. and more, even though this product has a waterproof feature, it still makes me feel anxious. i know that this ringwallet is a good breakthrough innovation in terms of hard wallets, but it just doesn't suit users like me.

[dkbit98]

Lastly, regarding your list; that's an awesome list and thanks for sharing. I actually went through the list myself, and since you seem to care a lot about open-source, which I appreciate, I just want to make some mentions to you regarding the list. Just to be clear, not trying to be a dickhead, but I genuinely went through the repos, so I figured some of the things I will list below should be of interest to you.

You obviously don't know anything about licenses like you confirmed publicly, so I would be genuinely concerned purchasing any product from you.
And now all of the sudden you know how to correctly read licenses for list of wallets I posted before...

Note that most of the Common Clause licenses you mentioned don't allow selling of code, but it can still be forked and reproduced, much different than what you plan to do.
Hito is only pre-sale so it can't have code released, and Bitbox changed their github page, I can't follow all the changes and some links might be outdated, but I will update soon.
I don't know why you hate and fear forked code...it's open source, learn more about it.

cypherockx1:
https://walletscrutiny.com/hardware/cypherockx1/

bitbox02 is clearly open source:
https://walletscrutiny.com/hardware/bitBox2/
https://github.com/BitBoxSwiss

[Vod]

I don't know why you hate and fear forked code...it's open source, learn more about it.

One reason to avoid open source is to make claims the open code cannot complete.  Closed source is "magic" and you can promise anything.

[Synchronice]

I would really buy one as a souvenir

You are doing something similar like coldcard wallet, and that is NOT Open Source.
Don't make your own restricted code and put open source sticker on it, because you are deceiving customers like this.
It's even worse that you only planning to do that sometime in future, and I really don't understand why some hardware wallet manufacturers are scared of forking and potential contribution to their code.

It's a business and their ACE is the code. ColdCard put too much work to create the code that they have right now (they also copied others to be completely honest) and then The Passport wallet was creating using the ColdCard's open-source code. It's a commercial business, so it doesn't surprise me why they are scared.

This is my main grip (amongst others) with "wearable" cold wallet devices - once it gets mass marketed and known to the general audience, the user will have a mark on his/her back from ill intended individuals. I easily see users of the device being victims of the famous $5 wrench attack.

The society is not ready to flex with Bitcoin wallets. It depends on the country and neighborhood but overall, you are right, it's dangerous to wear this ring and walk outside if many people discover the existence of this ring, as it should be since the company wants to sell as many as possible.

Closed source is "magic" and you can promise anything.

That's how people get fooled.

[dkbit98]

I would really buy one as a souvenir

I have a bunch of souvenir-devices collecting dust in old boxes...
Open source alternative ring hardware wallet is around the corner so stay tuned

It's a business and their ACE is the code. ColdCard put too much work to create the code that they have right now (they also copied others to be completely honest) and then The Passport wallet was creating using the ColdCard's open-source code. It's a commercial business, so it doesn't surprise me why they are scared.

I can argue that Passport made a much better hardware wallet and their code was totally rewritten in different language.
But I have nothing against people who still prefer coldcard that comes as a package deal with ego-maniac NKV, and list obsolete junk unusable unsafe coldcard devices is getting bigger every day... just sayin.

[Vod]

It's a business and their ACE is the code. ColdCard put too much work to create the code that they have right now

Agreed!  I am not against open source.   The OP could release a proprietary product with private code, and offer some really cool features to go with it.   But that requires trust that needs to be built up over time.

Hi! Not sure what you mean by vapourware - we spent a lot of time developing unique and security centric features for RingWallet that improve the overall UX and I can assure you none of it is vapourware.

I called this product vapourware for this exact reason.   Product is still in design phase and they/you are looking for development funding.  


P.S!!

When you incorporate as a US entity and provide the (expensive) documentation, I will remove the Trustpilot report and the negative trust.   You must understand that all you have right now are words.  I have been here long enough to see people convince naive others to do almost anything.

[Ringwallet]

Lastly, regarding your list; that's an awesome list and thanks for sharing. I actually went through the list myself, and since you seem to care a lot about open-source, which I appreciate, I just want to make some mentions to you regarding the list. Just to be clear, not trying to be a dickhead, but I genuinely went through the repos, so I figured some of the things I will list below should be of interest to you.

You obviously don't know anything about licenses like you confirmed publicly, so I would be genuinely concerned purchasing any product from you.
And now all of the sudden you know how to correctly read licenses for list of wallets I posted before...

Note that most of the Common Clause licenses you mentioned don't allow selling of code, but it can still be forked and reproduced, much different than what you plan to do.
Hito is only pre-sale so it can't have code released, and Bitbox changed their github page, I can't follow all the changes and some links might be outdated, but I will update soon.
I don't know why you hate and fear forked code...it's open source, learn more about it.

cypherockx1:
https://walletscrutiny.com/hardware/cypherockx1/

bitbox02 is clearly open source:
https://walletscrutiny.com/hardware/bitBox2/
https://github.com/BitBoxSwiss

1. I did some more reading on licenses after our discussion.
2. You gave them as examples, and you seemed to care a lot about open-source so I was curious to see what these guys were doing. When I noticed some of them aren't really that, I figured you'd like to know, genuinely have no idea why you're trying to misconstrue what I said.
3. Common clause license isn't different to what I was saying at all, I even used the specific term in one of my posts. You can go and read my previous posts; I specifically people would be able to see/copy the code for whatever non-commercial purpose they want, the only restriction was not using it commercially for a period of 2 years. Whereas common clause restricts you from using it commercially in a perpetual manner. So not sure why you're against it when I said it but for it when you say it. (By definiton, common clause license is a source-available license and not an open-source license).

Hito has been in presale for 2 years so being open-source is just a claim at this point. But regardless, I'm not even sure why you got so upset about me checking the list. I was genuinely trying to help and you somehow took it as a personal attack.

[Ringwallet]

It's a business and their ACE is the code. ColdCard put too much work to create the code that they have right now

Agreed!  I am not against open source.   The OP could release a proprietary product with private code, and offer some really cool features to go with it.   But that requires trust that needs to be built up over time.

Hi! Not sure what you mean by vapourware - we spent a lot of time developing unique and security centric features for RingWallet that improve the overall UX and I can assure you none of it is vapourware.

I called this product vapourware for this exact reason.   Product is still in design phase and they/you are looking for development funding.  


P.S!!

When you incorporate as a US entity and provide the (expensive) documentation, I will remove the Trustpilot report and the negative trust.   You must understand that all you have right now are words.  I have been here long enough to see people convince naive others to do almost anything.

Hey Vod, the US company should be out next week and I will share it.

As for the other things you mentioned; it's not in design phase, we're currently in production phase. As for funding; yes we are looking to raise VC funds but I don't see anything wrong with that. First of all, with the exception of Trezor most hardware wallet go and raise funding rounds because to be able to run a hardware business you need to be able to manufacture large amounts or price becomes very prohibitive on a per item cost; and making even 20,000 devices is more than $1M so that's the main reason. Beyond that we want to be able to get some proper licenses since the end goal is to allow people to use the ring at a POS which is dependent on that. Second of all, we're not raising money from random people on the internet but from professional investment funds that do due diligence so again I don't really see anything wrong with that.

Anyway, I will share the US company details when it's done.

[Vod]

and feel free to screenshot this or whatever

Do I have your permission to post our PMs?   You wrote different things there than you are here.

[Ringwallet]

and feel free to screenshot this or whatever

Do I have your permission to post our PMs?   You wrote different things there than you are here.

Is this what you're referring to?

That's pretty much the reason I ended up deciding to go the VC route and try to raise money and then just do a normal pre-sale like the other wallet startups. Tangem is about to do one for their ring as well in the coming months I believe.

Anyway, again, I'm happy to provide any form of verification or etc, and on the topic, initially I wanted to run a kickstarter campaign but the reality is it's not really made for crypto products and rather than make a bad launch with little success I figured it's better to just do it like this. Regardless, you have my word (and feel free to screenshot this or whatever - you now also have my socials as well) that we will not be opening any form of contribution/sale/etc whatsoever before 1. We finish a fundraise and 2. We already send an initial batch of products to influencers/youtubers etc for them to review on a camera.

And it's not for any other reason than because I don't really think it would have many chances of being successful without the above 2 points to be honest so yeah, that was the plan regardless. We've already ordered the 200 rings and corresponding 800 Ace Cards that we plan to send to youtubers/influencers; they'll probably arrive around 15th of June which is why I said that earliest is probably late July to launch anything so I have some time to finish the fundraise and so the rings actually arrive to the youtubers etc and they can make video reviews beforehand.

That still stands. We're not opening any sort of contribution/sale/etc. We're raising VC funds, as I stated in our dms as well.

If you're refering to the fact that I said we're in production phase, it's the same as in our dms, when I said that we're already waiting on a batch that we can send over to people for review.

Or maybe you're refering to this?

we haven't done that because I'm in the process of trying to raise funds from some VCs in order to give some legitimacy to the project and wanted to finish this first before we launch any sort of pre-sale or etc.

Actually the main reason why we opened up the waitlist was so we could get an idea of potential interest and just generally be able to get some feedback from potential users in order to maybe make some last-minute adjustments before release.

I can also give you an approximate schedule as of right now; we're probably looking at opening a presale for an initial batch of rings sometime late July and ship them by the end of September but the launch itself might get a bit delayed, because before actually launching the presale I want to make sure that 1. We managed to raise a round and 2. Send out like 100-200 rings to some youtubers or people who would be open to do a video unboxing / review of the product so people can actually see how it works and etc, especially since the whole Ace Card concept is still a bit new and it might be a bit hard for people to figure it out without any examples so I figured making the sure there's some videos of people unboxing / using the ring would help people have a better idea.

But it's the same thing as above. We're raising from VCs as I said in our dms as well. We're not launching a sale.

If you're referring to the comment about giving some legitimacy to the project; both are true. I'm sure having some VCs who back us and did due diligence will probably put some worries at rest.

[Vod]

Do I have permission to post our PMs?

[Ringwallet]

Do I have permission to post our PMs?

I doxxed myself to you and while I will dox publicly as well, would prefer to do that personally.

If you want to post any of the dms without the doxxing info feel free to. But I already quoted the dms that related to the above discussion myself.

Also why do you ignore my question?

edit: or the doxxing of other people I mentioned. I want to be able to do that myself when we announce various things, not through you posting our dms.

[Ringwallet]

Here, I'll make it easier for you by posting all dms without doxxing info.

First dm:

I'd like to resolve the issue of anonymity.  Can you send me your personal Facebook link?  I will not share it.

Hey Vod, sure, I actually don't have a Facebook, haven't had one in many years but here's my Linkedin instead: [edited doxxing info]

I don't have it listed as a position yet because to be perfectly honest we hadn't gotten around to creating a Linkedin page for the company yet since as mentioned we were and still are only looking to get some user feedback for now, but you can find the link in my bio either way. Anyway, we'll be creating a page for the company over the next week or so as well and I'll get everyone on the team to also add it on their profiles but the entire process might take 1-2 weeks (i.e. for everyone to add it on their profiles).

Anyway, as mentioned, I really do understand your skepticism and I know for a fact you've protected members from a lot of different things over the years (it's not my first time on Bitcointalk, been around since late 2016 - early 2017) so I know a couple of things, but yeah I don't know, it's just something I wanted to build because I figured less tech-savvy people would like it.

Feel free to add me on Linkedin and/or send me a message. We will also be sharing the entire team publicly and etc in a couple weeks but for now we haven't done that because I'm in the process of trying to raise funds from some VCs in order to give some legitimacy to the project and wanted to finish this first before we launch any sort of pre-sale or etc.

Actually the main reason why we opened up the waitlist was so we could get an idea of potential interest and just generally be able to get some feedback from potential users in order to maybe make some last-minute adjustments before release.

I can also give you an approximate schedule as of right now; we're probably looking at opening a presale for an initial batch of rings sometime late July and ship them by the end of September but the launch itself might get a bit delayed, because before actually launching the presale I want to make sure that 1. We managed to raise a round and 2. Send out like 100-200 rings to some youtubers or people who would be open to do a video unboxing / review of the product so people can actually see how it works and etc, especially since the whole Ace Card concept is still a bit new and it might be a bit hard for people to figure it out without any examples so I figured making the sure there's some videos of people unboxing / using the ring would help people have a better idea.

Anyway, to give you some more info about myself, though you can also see it on Linkedin [edited doxxing info]

So yeah, that's kinda it. Send me a message on Linkedin and we can connect. I'll also get back with the US entity details after its done. Cheers

P.S. I'd genuinely love to hear your actual thoughts on the product, MSRP price etc.

Second dm:

Sorry, I am not interested in LinkedIn.   Would you consider launching a Kickstarter?   They will verify you by birthdate and government records - that will certainly prove you are not a scammer.   That is where you should be anyway, instead of suggesting a price reduction with a time limit. 

I had considered launching a kickstarter, but there's several problems with it which is why we in the end we decided against it. We may still reconsider it but 1. It's not a decision I can take alone and 2. I can't take that decision just for this reason alone.

Just to be clear though, [edited doxxing info] (the project I already founded and which is live) that I linked in my previous message is listed on Kucoin, Gate, MEXC etc; they all verified my government records if that's what you're referring to. It's been listed for 2+ years actually.

And in any case, the Linkedin profile is not something created yesterday, it's made almost 10 years ago and there's even other people that gave me reviews there etc.

Again, I'm happy to do a video call or anything else to prove that's actually me. I don't know what time limit you're reffering to but I'm guessing you're talking about the discount for the waitlist and we honestly offered it so people would have an incentive to sign up.

Regardless, as mentioned in my previous message, before we launch any sort of sale, we will first finish a fundraiser and announce with whom we raised it and then send at least 100 or so rings to various people to make reviews of the actual product; so it would be quite impossible for anything to be a scam at that point is I guess what I'm trying to say.

I can also give you my twitter though I'm not very active there, it's [edited doxxing info]. Anyway yeah I just don't have a facebook, like you can check yourself you don't need to take my word for it. I just don't see the point of having one.

Third dm:

I had considered launching a kickstarter, but there's several problems with it which is why we in the end we decided against it.

What were the problems with the kickstarter?

First of all, they charge a 10% fee on all funds. Second of all, they don't accept Romania; neither does Indiegogo. Third of all to be successful on it you have to hire one of the many agencies that help with running such a campaign since around 80%+ of kickstarter contributions come from repeat kickstarter users, and we tried talking to them but they were all asking for tens of thousands of dollars + another 5-10% of the raise itself. All of that is secondary though.

The most important reason is they are not very crypto-friendly, I know that recently they are starting to warm up to it  after the last investment but I've been following the news on it and until now it's been just talk, to give you my experience with it: 1. All the large marketing agencies for kickstarter, even when we agreed to pay the fees and etc; specifically mentioned they don't accept crypto products - even when hardware and they basically refused us unless we change the product 2. The reason they gave was because they're not successful in general so they didn't recommend we run it as well and 3. They don't actually accept any form of crypto as payment, only credit cards; which basically eliminates almost our entire audience, since it's a hardware wallet for crypto.

(btw, feel free to reach out yourself to basically any of the large kickstarter agenices and just say you're building a crypto wallet and want to get them involved and I'm willing to bet you'll get the same answer. They're just not very friendly towards this for some reason.)

I also looked at other hardware wallets that were startups like safepal and tangem and etc and none of them launched a campaign, probably for a mix of the same reasons.

That's pretty much the reason I ended up deciding to go the VC route and try to raise money and then just do a normal pre-sale like the other wallet startups. Tangem is about to do one for their ring as well in the coming months I believe.

Anyway, again, I'm happy to provide any form of verification or etc, and on the topic, initially I wanted to run a kickstarter campaign but the reality is it's not really made for crypto products and rather than make a bad launch with little success I figured it's better to just do it like this. Regardless, you have my word (and feel free to screenshot this or whatever - you now also have my socials as well) that we will not be opening any form of contribution/sale/etc whatsoever before 1. We finish a fundraise and 2. We already send an initial batch of products to influencers/youtubers etc for them to review on a camera.

And it's not for any other reason than because I don't really think it would have many chances of being successful without the above 2 points to be honest so yeah, that was the plan regardless. We've already ordered the 200 rings and corresponding 800 Ace Cards that we plan to send to youtubers/influencers; they'll probably arrive around 15th of June which is why I said that earliest is probably late July to launch anything so I have some time to finish the fundraise and so the rings actually arrive to the youtubers etc and they can make video reviews beforehand.

Extra dms I sent, no answer

Btw, here's the 2 most successful crypto projects ever funded on kickstarter: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/ryder-wallet/ryder-one-secure-wallet-strong-device-simple-transactions?ref=discovery_most_funded?ref=discovery_most_funded and https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/opolo-sarl/opolo-secure-crypto-wallet-for-the-eternal-peace-of-mind?ref=discovery_most_funded?ref=discovery_most_funded.

The second one I don't know much about, but Ryder I actually followed personally a lot. Leaving aside that as the most successful crypto project on kickstarter ever they only raised about $100K USD ($140K SGD), that's not even the issue; the issue is they had previously raised $1.2M from reputable VCs, had like 50 already established partnerships, went to podcasts, conferences, spent tens of thousands in marketing (by their claims not my assumption) and pre-marketed the launch with about 45 days in advance plus the sale itself was open for another 45-50 days or so and yet the end result was basically that if they subtract the fees and the marketing spend I don't even think they're at breakeven. So yeah.

Anyway, if it's ok with you I'll keep you updated as we progress with various things. I'm currently working on a partnership with a larger project in the space which could be good since it's a very good fit for both products and will update you as more things happen.

Either way, thanks for taking so much of your time to spend on this. I imagine it's not great being in your shoes either. Maybe a year later we'll even end up being friends and laughing over this. Anyway, if there's anything else you'll think of that you want me to share just let me know.

I'll also send you updates as I have them if that's ok with you. Cheers, I'll be going to sleep now.

So there you go, I literally copy-pasted our entire PMs without actual doxxing links and/or details/names of projects that can dox.

It's the same as I said above. We're raising a round from VCs. I considered running a kickstarter but decided it's a bad idea for the above reasons.

Lastly, just so we're clear
1. I will dox myself along with the entire team but much rather prefer that I do it myself, at most it will be a maximum of 2 weeks before I do. I know in the dms it says it should've been done by now. It's not because we had more things to do besides this. We will doxx soon either way.
2. The US entity should be out by the end of the coming week and I will share it.

With that said, I genuinely don't understand why you're so against us. Even when I try to answer to your questions you either ignore me or find some new way to attack me.

[Vod]

If you want to post any of the dms without the doxxing info feel free to. But I already quoted the dms that related to the above discussion myself.

Thank you for the permission; I promise to only use what's necessary to correct any "inconsistencies".    Such as paying "15%" because you can't do a Kickstarter.  

Even with implied permission to post PMs, I always remove personal info.   I won't make you a PII victim.     Nothing in your PMs contained any PII, so your noble proclamation to protect is a waste of breath.

In fact, you have no personal info anywhere.   The [edited doxing info] you wrote covers ambiguous information anyway.  Nothing you sent me identified you as a person, it was just lists of things you did in the past.  As a seasoned scam buster, how can I trust any of those past events identified you as a person?    Plus, you claim you were doxxed in your home country, but provide no information more on that.

Also why do you ignore my question?

Which question?  I see two "?" in your post.  Literally, both responses would be "no" - my concern is in the inconsistencies of your post history as a whole.  I cannot say one specific part had the only lie.

The hypocrisy of you asking why I ignored your question in the same post you ignored my question.  Instead of answering my question, you implied I was doxxing you?  

[Ringwallet]

If you want to post any of the dms without the doxxing info feel free to. But I already quoted the dms that related to the above discussion myself.

Thank you for the permission; I promise to only use what's necessary to correct any "inconsistencies".    Such as paying "15%" because you can't do a Kickstarter.  

Even with implied permission to post PMs, I always remove personal info.   I won't make you a PII victim.     Nothing in your PMs contained any PII, so your noble proclamation to protect is a waste of breath.

In fact, you have no personal info anywhere.   The [edited doxing info] you wrote covers ambiguous information anyway.  Nothing you sent me identified you as a person, it was just lists of things you did in the past.  As a seasoned scam buster, how can I trust any of those past events identified you as a person?    Plus, you claim you were doxxed in your home country, but provide no information more on that.

Also why do you ignore my question?

Which question?  I see two "?" in your post.  Literally, both responses would be "no" - my concern is in the inconsistencies of your post history as a whole.  I cannot say one specific part had the only lie.

I removed three things from the PMs, one: the link to my linkedin, two: the list of what I did before which is also on my linkedin and three: the name of a project I built. I won't talk about the others but I'm pretty sure the linkedin link which has my name counts as personal info. What do you mean I claim I was doxxed in my home country?

Regarding the Kickstarter, 10% is the kickstarter fee and the other 5% you are probably refering to is the fee that marketing agencies that do kickstarter campaign take, which I also mentioned in my dms.

My question was what specifically where you refering to when you said

and feel free to screenshot this or whatever

You wrote different things there than you are here.

I was asking what exactly you were referring to when you said I wrote different things in our dms than I did here, so I assumed you were talking about my comments regarding VC funding since that was what we were talking about and what you quoted. So I quoted those messages and asked. You said the answer is no so then what is the inconsistency?

Also why do you ignore my question?

Which question?  I see two "?" in your post.  Literally, both responses would be "no" - my concern is in the inconsistencies of your post history as a whole.  I cannot say one specific part had the only lie.

The hypocrisy of you asking why I ignored your question in the same post you ignored my question.  Instead of answering my question, you implied I was doxxing you?  

1. I directly quoted from our dms the parts that were related to what we were discussing, which was VC funds.
2. I didn't imply you were doxxing me, you said you want to post our dms and I said sure as long as you remove the doxxing info. And then I just posted our entire dm convo without the doxxing info.

Edit: I see you just added this as a trust to my profile: "This user has not provided any PII. By claiming I know who he is, he hopes to gain trust. We do not know who this user is. His claims of being doxxed in his home country are unproven."

1. I don't hope to gain trust by claiming you know who I am.
2. What do you mean claim of being doxxed in my home country?
3. The Linkedin literally has my full name.

[Vod]

Our team is doxxed. We are incorporated in Romania (Europe) and we are also establishing an entity in the US.

I would imagine when I called the Romania police to tell them of your scam, they wouldn't be able to help me with just your "literal name" on Linkedin.

I therefore suggest everyone wait until they see proof this is not vapourware before they take anything this account says seriously.  

[Ringwallet]

Our team is doxxed. We are incorporated in Romania (Europe) and we are also establishing an entity in the US.

I would imagine when I called the Romania police to tell them of your scam, they wouldn't be able to help me with just your "literal name" on Linkedin.

I therefore suggest everyone wait until they see proof this is not vapourware before they take anything this account says seriously.  

I will update when the US entity is out. We will also doxx the team in the coming weeks.

With that said, we are not selling anything so not sure how we can scam someone. People can only sign up with an email.

Regardless, I won't go over this again as it's already been discussed. I'll just get back when I have more updates.

[dkbit98]

Hito has been in presale for 2 years so being open-source is just a claim at this point.

New ledger stax devices got sold over a year ago and they just started shipping recently, this is not uncommon thing for a new products.
I always put wallets on the list when they claim to be open source, but this needs to be confirmed later.

But regardless, I'm not even sure why you got so upset about me checking the list. I was genuinely trying to help and you somehow took it as a personal attack.

I am not really upset about you for checking the list I posted, I even thanked you for that in another topic, and I made some updates and corrections with the list.

[Ringwallet]

Hito has been in presale for 2 years so being open-source is just a claim at this point.

New ledger stax devices got sold over a year ago and they just started shipping recently, this is not uncommon thing for a new products.
I always put wallets on the list when they claim to be open source, but this needs to be confirmed later.

But regardless, I'm not even sure why you got so upset about me checking the list. I was genuinely trying to help and you somehow took it as a personal attack.

I am not really upset about you for checking the list I posted, I even thanked you for that in another topic, and I made some updates and corrections with the list.

My apologies, I misunderstood. I'm happy that was helpful. After our discussion I also asked for some more feedback and opinions from advisors and team members and we're currently debating internally whether to just publish everything as open-source or source available. We honestly haven't taken a final decision yet but we should make one soon and I will update here.