Topic: [ANN][CrowdSale Ended]🌟🌟🌟🌟 NVO Decentralized Exchange | MultiWallet 🌟🌟🌟🌟 - page 18. (Read 170178 times)

With a complete screen of all funds spent and future accounting, I see no reason why we cannot continue.  Whether or not he can code is irrelevant if we can see where the money is going.  He would have no ability to scam if distributions are only allowed through a trusted third party.  This is the best solution.  Unless you have something to hide?

You can do anything you want once you have proven live through video call you are capable of coding even a "calculator". You are not a developer so what are you doing in my project. Remove yourself and tell escrows to do a buyback/refund.

I am hiring a legal advisor to assist with the creation of a foundation, which will help establish proper governance in order to protect the remainder of the DEX project from future actions like what happened this last week with NVO. The board of this new foundation will be made up of myself and some existing NVO community members to be named at a later date.

A secondary purpose of the foundation will be to explore the possibility of filing a civil action against the CEO of this project, known here and elsewhere as Ton Bi, for his apparent misappropriation of project funds, for his lack of financial transparency as CEO of the project, and to compel him to finally commit to a full refund of investor funds as is appropriate in this situation. Of course, in the event a full refund is executed, this action would become moot.

If it is ultimately determined that legal action is warranted, it will be brought on behalf and for the benefit of the previous project's NVO investors. After the foundation has been created, I will invite members of the community who wish to be part of this action to apply for membership to the board and represent their fellow NVO investors.

There has been significant discussion about the current status of the DEX code, and those discussions include many false statements and accusations. For the immediate future, and to protect third parties, I will not release the code under any circumstances. If legal action is brought by the foundation against the CEO, the code and its associated history will be given to the court, under seal, as part of the evidence.

As the CTO and as a co-founder of NVO, my role in the project has been to select the technology of the DEX and then produce it. That is exactly what I have been doing since the project began. Until now, I have been keeping this technology secret in order to protect the project. For the first time publicly, and only because development has already reached a point where the technology of the DEX is well established, I am willing to describe some aspects of the DEX implementation. The DEX is based on Blockstream technology, with integral support for smart contracts, sidechains, and peer-to-peer communication services to keep latency low and throughput high for each node of the network. Sidechains enable the plugin system, and smart contracts enable the trade validator. This multi-chain Blockstream-based technology is highly superior to slow and expensive atomic swap systems used in technologies such as Komodo, and was chosen at the beginning of the NVO project for its speed, flexibility, and extensibility. That is all I am willing to say on the subject of the DEX at this time.

Now to the subject of the pending investor vote. Ton is the CEO and is responsible for representing the investors' best interests in all matters. Unfortunately, vote manipulation was evident in several public Telegram announcements where he promised to airdrop tokens only to people who voted in his favor. This manipulation is not in the interests of investors at all, and creates a conflict between his own interests and the interests of investor funds. Any vote that includes an option that benefits only one or the other remaining team member cannot be an option on the ballot. The only question for investors should be "Should a refund be made or not?"  If the vote returns "yes", then all funds should be pooled and a snapshot should be announced at a specific future bitcoin block height to allow trading of the token to halt at that time. After the snapshot has been taken, the pooled funds should be distributed proportionally to all addresses that hold NVST as of that snapshot. If the vote returns "no", then the project must be completed as outlined in the crowdsale agreement.

To prevent dragging this along further, I hereby call for and agree to a full refund to all investors, just as Ton has publicly stated several times in writing and on recorded calls. Because we are not being treated equally right now, we will make it equal and I will return the bitcoin that I earned and received from the milestones we have already completed, and Ton will also return all of the bitcoin he earned and received from the milestones. In addition, any coin forks that were created while the funds were in the escrow accounts will be redeemed and returned to investors as well. This method ensures investors are credited with the maximum possible amount, which is in their best interest. The only permissible alternative is to finish the project with a neutral 3rd party mediator in charge of all distributions and payments going forward, and who will be approved by both parties. Completion of the project as stated during the crowdsale is what the investors paid for, and unless the original terms of the crowdsale are followed, investors will have been defrauded, which is unacceptable to me. For the benefit of the investors, I am willing to work with a mediator as a go-between for all matters between myself and Ton, but only under the strict condition that there be full transparency and a complete audit of all funds held by the escrows, including deposits, trades, and distributions made to date, a full account of all remaining funds and their current addresses, and the status of all forked coins for the duration of the escrow accounts' lifetime.

Regardless of the outcome of any investor vote or decisions by the escrows, I will continue to support the future of the DEX that I have been developing over the past year. In a matter of months, I expect the DEX testnet to be up and running, and the first public testnet trades can begin. At that time, I will announce a plan to further benefit all, I repeat, all NVST holders, regardless of how they voted (if a vote is necessary.)

Because I believe this refund will go different than people are expecting it to. Just give it time.

I wanted to follow up on this.

So...

I've talked to people that support Imed and they want a refund & freedom to reinvest.
I've talked to the people that support Ton and they want a refund & freedom to reinvest.
And naturally there are the people that want out completely.

This is so much so that it appears (I'm getting information second hand) Ton is actively working on a mechanism to help the escrows perform the refunds.

I have yet to meet a vested person that wants to be forced into an unpredictable direction on this... including both of the founders.

So my question would be: Why are we voting?

Wouldn't a vote only add some unpredictable risk to everyone? e.g. a person with a large holding forces everyone to support one founder who subsequently backs out of their "refund but continue" narrative.

What's worse is there were murmurs of airdropping new tokens to people who show their support in the vote. I haven't heard as much about it anymore... but this casts a shadow of doubt over the legitimacy of deciding this with a vote. If people are voting one way or the other out of a fear of missing out on airdropped tokens it amounts to voter manipulation. Further... it also casts some concern into the mind of voters of if their investment addresses will be singled out in the future should either co-founder be privy to which address voted for what.

It looks like even coinpayments (post on NVO reddit by Ton) has backed the idea that the only right course of action is a refund of remaining escrow.

And if all paths/parties agree on the correctness of a refund I'm unclear as to why we're bothering with a vote. It would seem to me that this would only cause unnecessary risk, confusion, and voter doubt (i.e. the risks associated with voting that I mentioned above). If there were disputes over whether refunds should happen or not I could see some sort of consensus mechanism being needed (e.g. voting) but that doesn't appear to be the case here.

I support this message.  Telegram appears to be the most popular chat room now, and it is unfortunate that frequent censorship is going on there.  Messages are being deleted and people are being banned left and right, often just for stating opinions with civility that threaten Ton’s narrative and image.  If he is telling the truth and is right in his accusations of nemgun, he shouldn’t act like a paranoid dictator but instead have faith in the integrity of his campaign.  Discord is not controlled by him and is a place to freely discuss facts in the quest for clarity.

For those wondering, there is another communication medium for this project. Myself (NYR), TSWR and RadiumSoup run this discord.

https://discord.gg/YvB5HXp

Considering loads of people are banned each day from telegram for no reason, it is good to have a second way of receiving information.

All we ask is keep the discussion respectful. Come join us!!

I've been thinking a lot about this.

Would it be more appropriate to allow an exit window for those who want out? e.g. the escrows setup a buy back for a limited period of time where people can voluntarily choose to stay or go. The remaining holders can then follow Imed or Ton by vote.

As has been pointed out the powerful hand of a single individual could force everyone involuntarily down a blind alley and subsequently into something they did not sign up for. Pure democracies have historically been suicidal and it's one of the reasons the US was setup as a republic with some hybrid functions of a democracy. I feel that's worth mentioning if for no other reason than to point out that pure democratic vote (especially one that would force everyone onto or off of something) isn't always the best way.

So, how do we go about getting our BTC refunded? Can someone link the page with the information?

Yeah sure.Thanks for the condecending advice.You have a nice day now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nybZdW6kgEs

On reading the past few pages; I can only say that

Holier than Thou!

This attitude really helps... 

this is really the worst time to be quiet and not answer questions. if you are a trustworthy escrow then you have to answer these questions.

Here is a breakdown of the milestones per original post.

----
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.
---

There was a beta version of the wallet delivered but I don't think the API Cluster was ever finished so the question would be whether 30% or 60% is disbursed already. A question for the escrows to answer.

Thank you for the clarification. Does liquidated in this case mean turned into BTC and added to the ICO funds, spent, disbursed to the founders, or something else? Further clarification is appreciated.

Hey Lauda, do you know approx. the % of funds compared to original remaining that would be used for refunds? Sad to see this project implode after so long but glad there are still some resources in escrow.

I'm an iNVSTor that believed in the project. I had nothing to do with Tom, Imed or Yanni. I've never even had a one on one conversation with any of them.

Feel free to prove me wrong with any shred of evidence coolie.


Just got off the phone with interpol they said they don't speak to halfwits. Catch 22 am I right?

They've have been long liquidated. There are no forked coins in our possession, maybe only Bitcoin Private and some other random ones that I do not keep track of.

Unless you can produce Bitcoin out of thin air, it will.

Not my project, not my glasshouse. Read the milestones newbie.

It's been a really difficult 12months plus being an investor from the NVO crowdsale and the recent events have probably shed a bright light on why the project has not actually progressed as originally planned. I think we should all count our blessings that the money was handled the entire time by the escrows, had that not been the case we would be far worse off.

https://steemit.com/scam/@moonjelly/how-to-create-an-ico-scam-in-5-simple-steps Take a look at this article, do you find anything familiar? NVO is the perfect case study and live example of this article