"sonysasankan" i agree with you in every single words you wrote. But im not like a new user on this forum? Trustabily is important.
"maryjoanah" Of course you will get your answer.
Im answering to you only now simply because yesterday i was out. I see this post just now.
Now, r u tell me history and trusted people doesnt count?
I have refunded all the people who have made the request.
I was responsable untill the coin is in the market, and is it.
I never changed the rules, i'm not part of ERC DEV TEAM, my role was to make sure the devs team launch the coin on market before they get the btc's ipo.
i have release the btc only after they made the payout!
No one refund was denied, and by the way only 3 request refund
I don't think you understood completely what I was trying to convey. I'm not saying you are untrustworthy or that you did not give the refund for those who requested. Of course you did. I'm not saying you changed the rules either. I'm saying the dev changed the rules and you did not announce that since the rules are changed, the old rule is invalidated. The old rule here is that refunds will not be given once the coin is launched. The dev changed the rules by deciding to delay the payout after the launch... see where I'm getting at?
Imagine this scenario: If you were asked to be an escrow for Xcoin and the IPO was like for every .1 BTC paid by investor, 200 Xcoins would be given in return. So the investors filled in and some BTC was collected by you. Now Imagine after the coin launched, the dev decided to announce that he feels that 200 would be unfair and reduce the 200 Xcoin to 130 Xcoin for every .1 BTC. It would be ridiculous of you to
NOT announce that since the reward system has changed, the original investors can rethink their investment and those that wish to withdraw from the IPO can do so. Ideally this would be in big bold letters on the OP as well as in your comments and announcements and it would not matter that the coin has already launched.
It is not any different at all in the case of announcing after launch that there will be an intentional delay of closing the IPO and the subsequent giving out of the ERC coins. The investors had a right to withdraw their investments. But no announcement was made on the OP or by you that they could. In fact the rules still read the standard "Refund available if the coin does not launch". I can understand that nonsense of a dev not too keen on announcing the availability of refunds... he would lose money after all. But as the escrow, I fail to understand your lack of neutrality by not announcing in big red letters that refunds are available to any investor even though the coin is launched.
If I were to be blunt, I would say it
looked like you were (unintentionally) cooperating with that fellow in screwing over the investors. Technically you are right.... you did your job by handing out the coins to the investors after launch. The line gets blurred here because when something as obvious as this happens, you need to take a stand and are expected to be neutral. And I can say with a fair amount of certainty that not a single investor in this venture will be able to vouch for your being neutral.
@europecoin. First of all, try to understand what I'm saying. Use Google translate if you are in doubt. You should get an accurate translation back in Italian or French or whatever your native language. Don't look at key words and start your wall of text with quotes. You seem to miss phrases like "Imagine this scenario", "looked like" and a few others. When the fuck did I say anything about halving of the ERC coins after launch being unfair or wrong? The post was entirely about the escrow agreeing to do nothing when you announced the delay in sending out the ERC to investors. That action screwed over the investors and was made possible by the escrow siding with you instead of being neutral. You conveniently seem to avoid that topic all together.
