Topic: [ANN] 📁 novusphere.io 📁 atmos (ATMS) 📁 Censorship Resistant Media Sharing 📁 - page 76. (Read 120206 times)

The fault lies with them not withdrawing their coins and with Pure Vidz. I understand people hate taking responsibility for their own actions but don't shift the responsibility to me just because I'm sitting here and actually communicating. In might be in poor taste to say, but I guess I gave you too much credit? Let me spell out the problem for you, it's not trustless information. I have no way of verifying that database data hasn't been tampered with be it by PV or someone else he may have given access to after my access was revoked. It's very easy for someone in the right position to abuse what you're proposing I do.

It does not effect me personally really... I just hate to see this kind of attitude.

IF PV is not this guy and IF he ever does return. I wonder what you will say if he get's doxed as the same person.

I agree on one thing. You are an escrow are given the terms you uphold the terms end of story as far as your responsibility goes.

However, knowing now at this point that PV or this guy if they are one and the same may never release the vidz people paid for and never got to withdraw even though there was no deadline is nothing other than a scam. You can not charge people for things and then not let them have them.

I am sorry but I think it is in bad taste to make light of this fact and call it a good lesson.

Why will this dev not accept the vidz people have paid HIM for in this new rendition of the original ICO if they had over the account details if they are only getting burned anyway??

I want to hear why not. This is asking to keep the money they paid HIM again for something he had partial responsibility for them to receive in the first place. There is strong argument to say his announcement and decision led to them not getting their coins in the first place.

I will be branding him a scammer for this because there is no good reason for him NOT to accept these accounts that he has been paid for already.

Are you saying he should not be made to accept these account details so he can reset these accounts to his own control and count them against this new version of the ICO? Yes or no.

Do you think he should do this in all fairness or not? I will await answer and explanation. If you think he is totally correct not to accept these frozen accounts as fair trade in for the new tokens in this ICO please explain why. Imagine if someone bought the ICO and just was away for a couple of weeks on holiday why should he come back and face this scenario? I mean it seems the only way to scam people and come back and ask for more money all over again. Is there any evidence at all this is not the very same scammer.

I don't say you have any power here except as and escrow to uphold the terms. However, I want to know your opinion on this matter and reasons behind it.

To me there is not 1 good reason that people should have to pay twice for the same thing.

PV returns unlocks the funds on the ico site = this dev gets to burn them
PV does not return they are lost forever anyway and the first PV ico was a scam.

Hard to see that good seeming escrows give their good name to such a scam. First time ok they dont know better but now the second time.
Really hard that those staff members do that.

Consider it as tuition; hope they learn their lesson for next time. You, of all people, having been around, should know this.


I don't think this is personal, but I also don't think you are honest, or shocked. I get a contract, I fulfill the terms. That's what escrows do.

The rest of your post has been addressed by others.


You've watched "The Transporter" ?
You are free to do so. It is good to warn people about possible scams. Just make sure you back up what you say, and you actually make sense, otherwise not too many will take it seriously.


If you don't have the private key, you don't own the coins. That has been true since 2009.


If your example were to become true, then it would make sense for you to only participate in the second round, since you would get more. Everyone else will probably be thinking the same thing.

It is unlikely that your scenario, as you explain it, will happen that way. It is more likely that the first round will get 10 people, and the second round will get 20 people.

so there is price discovery in both rounds? this is exciting stuf, to invest btc, buy and swap vidz, wait and see. Nice twist dev, I'll be watching closely

That's how price discovery works.
The atmos aren't being sold at a fixed rate, but being distributed amongst ICO participants.
Whether you receive the most atmos per invested value by burning VIDZ or investing BTC in round 1 or 2 will only be clear once the rounds are over.
A calculator doesn't help here. You need a crystal sphere to foresee what will happen.

If you want to have a prediction about the price, you can read this, but I urge you to make up your own mind:
In later rounds there will be more information about this project available. Parts of the first product will be ready by then. That means risk of the investment is lower. It can be expected that the price per atmos in round two is higher than in round one, because of the reduce risk.

These answers didnt made sense tbh.. There should be some kind of calculator to see what is better and what is worse, ofc this depends on the end of the ICO.

you can't imagine it will take long.. Well I was asking the plans of the dev, not a guess. Guessing gets you bankrupt..

the last question I'll explain why its so off..  lets say everybody contributes in the ICO with the same amount..
First round 30% is devided and 10 people contributed.. Means that 30% is devided over 10 people.
Second round only 2 people contribute, now this 20% will be devided over 2 person, which is more then the early investors got for their coins in the first round..

So the ICO is not for early investors beneficial its for people who want the take guesses and hope for the best.. Hence I think this round system with 30% and 20% is wrong and should be changed..  If there are way less people in the second round they will get more coins for less investment, but they were able to wait and sit back for way longer and are not the earliest people who helped the project.

I left the team almost a month after the crowdfund ended and I feel it's almost a standard in crypto for people to know not to leave all their BTC on exchange so I would figure the same principal applies here. To say it's some how partially my fault that they're having this issue is shifting the responsibility because I have not had any control over the project since I left. Regardless of who's responsible I have no method of trustless validation of the amount of VIDZ on their accounts so even if I wanted to I can't do anything about this, sorry.


The swap is set up the same as how most crowdfunds typically have their bonus system for "early investors" it's not exactly something new. While I disagree with your views, you're entitled to whatever opinion you want to hold over the project. I'm sure the results shown before we're ready to begin round 2 of crowdfunding will speak for themselves.

Well said.

I don't like any of this... to many coincidences at perfect timing( btc released and dev leaves right after a huge pump and massive community support, the other dev has disappeared from planet earth, this new coin swap has a funky stages design)

Seems wacky and I am nearly close to calling scam of this whole project, but atleast I will give credit as to being a clever, well played one.
Meanwhile, I will hang on the sidelines until this project hits the exchanges and actual development takes place.
Good luck

You keep mentioning he got part of the ICO money from the Vidz which no one can deny.  however he got them by helping to provide what was required for them to be released. This also cannot be denied (the API was there to see).

You also keep going on about him causing a market crash which is wrong, his departure caused a drop in price. this would have rectified and stabilized if the other dev had kept working and providing information as to how the changes affected the project and how further development was progressing.  The crash was caused through panic when the remaining Vidz dev seemed to drop off the face the earth and the fudders which I will not name but those who have looked at the Vidz thread will know.

You say these trapped Vidz if proven to be real should be eligible to swap but no they should not, those being swapped are being taken out of circulation.  Until such time as the coins stuck are destroyed they are still a viable commodity and if the Vidz dev does return and release them the owners they have gained Atmos at absolutely zero cost and still have the Vidz to sell even if it is at 1 sat.

No-one said those who left their coins on the ICO website should have placed them on a exchange, there was a wallet available where you could stake those coins and in turn earn more for doing nothing more than just holding them.

This is of course good council. However in this does not help those that did not do that.

If they can prove they have vidz locked down on the ICO site they should be viable for swapping them since they are going getting burned anyway.

To be honest I am shocked you are still touching any of this since this person is at least half of the initial PV. He left at a critical time causing market crash and the old dev to stop work on the project as far as we know. This is without doubt. Now with people not only burned on this well timed exit (after the btc was released) there is now people burned hard who have provable vidz left trapped on the ICO site.

These trapped vidz were bought from this dev and the last dev. It is okay saying he left and left all responsibility but he kept 40 btc. That btc comes from the sale of those vidZ that are now trapped on HIS original PV site. This was orignially half his ICO right?

If I were the holders of these vidz i would either demand back 50% of my BTC he hold or else I would demand 50% of my trapped vidz are counted toward this new ICO. I would want 100% counted personally but i guess there is argument for only 50% being counted if they can never be retrieved or 100 if they can be.

He took half the BTC raised from the sale of those vidz he needs to make sure they are delivered from the old ICO site to the holders since his actions led to them being locked there and he still has the BTC those people paid.

Failure to do this will lead to a big issue down the road with this project. Do not be held back by this in the future.

I would expect you as and escrow and staff member to uphold this without question.

There was not deadline and besides this website was supposed to be where the coins would be eventually used so you could argue those that left their coins there were supporting the project and not just withdrawing to the exchanges like the others just wanting to dump and trade.

I would be creating a huge scam topic in the main section about this and keeping it on the first page if i had 100k+ vids trapped on this original ico site that i could prove were there and this second ico whilst retaining the btc i paid for them would not accept them swapped in for the second ico from half of the same team of breakaway product of the first ico.

To be fair I have not heard this devs alter ego say he will not accept accounts handed to him as burnable vidz for this vidz2 ico.

So let's here it right now will people with trapped vidz be able to hand over control of their accounts toward novus or not? yes or no

Nobody knows the price of Novus that is yet to be determined.

I can't imagine it will take long to get on an exchange.

Read the OP mate, if it reaches 80btc then it would be a fail and people will be refunded. Let's say it raises more than 100k like it states, or 100btc. That would make the price 333sat so the second round would be for 333sat or I could be missing something.

Got a few questions:

1. So where can you see or calculate what is better? Throwing in BTC for the ICO or burning VIDZ?

2. When is the plan that this is hitting any exchanges?

3. The rounds of the ICO seems very weird.. If the first round brings up 70 BTC and the second round only brings up 10 BTC, then people in the second round will get more coins for less BTC? Care to explain or am i missing something?!

Perhaps it would be wise to withdraw your ICO funds as soon as you can, to your own wallet. There should be a deadline. It's the same as leaving money on an exchange or online wallet. You never know when it bitcoinica's or gox's or insta-wallet's or cryptsy's on you.

I understand your unhappy with what has happened to Vidz (I too was hoping for more from it) but I'm afraid this dev has no liability for what has happened over there.

Yes his leaving had a effect on the price but he is not responsible for the following fallout and price crash (a crap load of FUD from certain individuals and a disappearing dev did that im afraid) .  the dev left running Vidz has decided to walk away and not post anything since 9th Feb, be it due to working on the site or just walking away no one knows and that is something this dev has no control over.

Your asking him to give something away for free whilst others are having to pay for their shares in this new scheme, how is that fair?  You say they should be able to donate accounts on the Vidz ICO site they have no access to, meaning this dev most likely cannot access them either and so as I say he is giving away part of this crowdfund for free whilst others are having to pay BTC/trade in their Vidz for what they are getting.

I know you are saying those people cannot access them and he was part of the ICO team but think about it for a moment. When this dev left Vidz, the other dev was still active. They could have took those vidz from the other ICO at any time but chose not to. Now the other dev is AWOL you expect this dev to make up for that one.


When Did people stop having access to the coins held on the ICO account, was it before this dev left or was it after?

If its before then I agree this dev has questions to answer, if it was after however then I'm sorry but from my point of view all responsibility lies with the person in charge of that project and unfortunately they haven't posted since 9th Feb.

What about those with vidz stuck on the vidz ico site?

How about those vidz? what if people donate their accounts to novus i mean hand the user and pass over to novus?

They are only getting burned later anyway right?

I know some people with 100k plus stuck on there and no way to withdraw.

These were part of the ICO you sold so in theory since you left you are liable for half still what is there in my view since you are 50% of the PV ico itself. To be fair you announcing you were leaving probably caused them to have this issue since the other guy (if it is not your other personality) has since you statement saying you are leaving to set up a competitive project based on his idea flipped out and abandoned your joint initial project.

I would say you are 50% liable minimum for their stranded coins.

Don't use my estimate and we will get on swimmingly.

Thanks for the link/thread Dabs it looks interesting.

So many eyes on Novus and Vidz theres even a lotto burn.... I'm going to have to get some predictions ready i think.

Want to bet on that? Someone is doing a "burn lotto" here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/vidz-burn-lotto-atmos-swap-1790494

 


830,000 vidz burned so far. Any ideas on total amount of vidz to be burned people?

I say 35million, give or take a mill.