Some crazy guesses:
The investors are all huge blackcoin bagholders.
Blackcoin will only be followed with the absolute minimum and will die.
The delievered wallet and working smart contracts, just to get released the funds from bter, will be an exact copy of blackcoin and blackhalo. So investors pay 1,3 Mio$, but not for a new coin. They pay that blackcoin will continue development under a new name.
The reason why this project is not just Blackcoin: The devs have no money left.
So far so good, understandable situation, BUT it is not transparent. We don´t know the other holders, we don´t know how much they have invested. AND if you buy into your own ICO, nobody knows if you just take your invested BTC back. I don´t wanna say they will, but it is possible and very easy.
A few corrections perhaps...
Unless BTC hits $500 soon... it won't be $1.3M but more along the lines of $800K or so.
If previous tech/code weren't used in new concepts/projects then every single alt-coin would not exist... for that matter even Bitcoin itself would be nothing more than a math experiment most likely.
Undoubtedly there are many from the Blackcoin camp that are investors (I am and I'm sure many others as well). However, that does not mean anything nefarious - at least not necessarily. All of us are enthusiastic about cryptocurrency in general or we wouldn't be here. Anyone that has been around for more than a year remembers the highs and lows of BC very well. Many, like myself, are able to invest in ventures like this
because of BC's massive pump initially.... I know I would not have been able to profit significantly on DRK, BTM, etc... if it weren't for being able to gamble BTC that I sold BC for at a significant profit during that pump.
In almost everything (but especially in unregulated investments) there are winners and losers. Some losers return to 'redeem themselves' by pursuing gains in other areas to compensate for losses in the past. Some winners return to continue/extend their profitability. Transparency is nice - but considering we're dealing with an unregulated marketplace, started and largely perpetuated by unknown and in many cases inexperienced enthusiasts/entrepreneurs (and a good number of scammers too, of course)... full disclosure will mostly only provide increased risk for the parties involved... and mitigate absolutely none of the risks accepted by investors.
We've 'known' the identities of nearly all of the biggest scammers in this market... and it hasn't helped. On the other hand we've also profited massively as a result of a concept started by someone that was nothing other than a handle (and whose identity remains in question to this day).
Or maybe you actually live next-door to Satoshi and it's never been an issue for you.
Edit: On the "BC devs have no money" point... no correction necessary - except to point out that the actual 'dev' (singular-rat4) of BC itself, never had much money at all. On the other point you actually answered your question right there. If Blackcoin had a 'fundraiser' to crowdsource capital to create a decentralized marketplace... how successful would it have been - and how likely to become viable as a result would it be? It's the same as a company that had corruption in management early on... you can fire everyone and rehire honest people... but you'll still be that 'corrupt company'. On the other hand if you simply do the exact same thing (fire/rehire) but also change your name and move locations... suddenly everyone is willing to give you a chance again.
Do you think no one from Enron is still working in the only sector they have experience in? How about Worldcomm? Did everyone from Bear Stearns, Fannie/Freddy, etc. involved in the subprime crisis stop working in finance? The reality is that if you are an investor of any kind that at least some of the people involved in these scandals are
currently managing some aspect of something in which you are invested. It might not be 'fair' or 'right' - but it is reality and you either have to face it or go hide in the closet.