Topic: [Donated $2k+ To Charity] Clean Water Coin: A Crypto Charity (Pure PoS) - page 144. (Read 195732 times)

Just out of pure clarification here, no other altcoin has done what we are doing with our coin. Charitycoin takes 10% of each block payout -- whereas we take a 0.1% transaction fee of the coin movement and donate that into the Charity Wallet.

Here is what is stated on our website & OP to save you some time

This exactly. Why would we try and put in 13 btc at the last moment? I'm sorry but it is so illogical and idiotic. Time to move on, we've wasted enough effort arguing with people who only want to cause chaos.

Basically, someone watched how much was being invested at launch, decided to put a percentage of his or her stash in CWC. All of the BTC made from the coins will go towards keeping the project going, which makes perfect sense. That is how this non-profit works. Once you have the coin up and running, the charity donation come from the volume of sales.

Non-profits will be required to keep detailed public records of all financial transactions. The app for non-profit status puts them under the eye of regulators (who may or may not be effective in policing non-profit start-ups dealing with currency swaps). Buying a portion of the PLC makes no sense, since they (the devs) have all the BTC from the PLC "sales", but lost half their pre-mined coins to people at bargain basement prices compared to what they could have got just from doing what they already said they were going to do, then selling all 10MIL when they were at the peak of the media attention and community fervor. There is no reason for them to have bought 13 BTC of their own coins, at least no reason that makes it worthwhile.

If this coin performs half as well as some others that didn't have the image potential this coin has, I will have made a good investment choice, regardless of my heavily BTC-laden friend who got in under the line.

Moving forward!

agree. think the best thing now is get to get the coin off the ground.  it's in the interest of the founders to deliver on the charitable aspects as this returns value on their investment in the long run

I don't see a conflict here like some people have suggested, because the more value of the coin, the more charity it can do, and if it doesn't deliver on charity the price will drop so the incentives are built in.  

Can't help myself, using charitable causes to cover shady moves put me in rage mode. Money involved or not.
Don't get me wrong, i really wish too see more crypto project involving charity, but they must be 100% transparent.

If you are unable to do that, go create another city, animal, "slidebelt", or whatever coin, that doesn't involve Charity.

so what if an IPO payment was made slightly after the launch

if you invested why aren't you trying to protect your investment now by not trashing the thread?  why contact the founders privately and try to resolve - what invester publically tries to trash their own investment?

also the team behind water obviously need funding to get the project off the ground, suggesting they are trying to make a quick buck is a bit much at this stage i think

this seems like a great project in the making, give them a break

cheers

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjAAC13al9s

Who said that? Your arguments are so asinine.

This is from the OP:


I feel like Frodo right now and the PLC is the ring. I wish it had never come to me.

The dev means that they need money for the charity. He never talk about personal usage.
Are you drunk?

This is not the first altcoin to innovate sending percentages of block rewards or tx fees to a charity address. Charitycoin has been doing this for months.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/new-walletcha-charitycoin-supporting-charities-one-coin-at-a-time-448269

I have no affiliation with Charitycoin or CWC but at least Charitycoin is not mixed up in this pre-investment scandal.  Their launch was unprofessional but they seem to have their hearts in the right place and are transparent without controversy now.  While I agree that making profit is a good incentive for people to donate to charity, this coin seems to have focused on it too much and if this "NPO" is making a profit off charity... that speaks for itself.

So in other words, you are saying that the IPO is here to cover your personal need. Self charity, nice concept indeed, so much for the Nonprofit... .

Edit: BTW i archived the 43 pages in one PDF and forward it to charity water, curious to read what they think about it now. cheers.

1) You said all investments must be made before launch.
2) You allowed an investment after launch.

If you want to keep your Mega-Investor anonymous, you could at least name the Escrow service that was used? That might at least give us something we can check..

I don't know what to say other than we already explained exactly what happened:


We don't have 48 BTC, I wish we did. If that was the case we wouldn't have offered any Pre-Launch Coins because we wouldn't have needed any. It's a sad moment to have people drag your name through the mud and make false accusations because of greed. I'm sorry that someone investing caused you to receive less coins but that doesn't make us liars.

+100,000,000

ya'll are trippen like maniacs

No PhattyBanks, that is the TX id FROM the supposed Escrow service.

I have checked the blockchain and the 13 BTC came from address 1KCRoV48QzxeXbshRoERhisVy2pD5pPitd at 00:11 on launch day (over 2 hours after the launch)

If this was an Escrow service address, the funds should have been sent to this address a couple of hours earlier from the investor, just before the launch as the devs claim.

The process would look like this:

1) Investor sends TX of 13 BTC to escrow service at (Launch Time minus 30-45 minutes) on March 31st as Devs claim
2) Escrow service confirms with both parties that transaction can proceed
3) Escrow service sends TX of 13 BTC to Clean Water PLC

However, 1KCRoV48QzxeXbshRoERhisVy2pD5pPitd has only ever been used for 2 transactions and the first one was on the 7th of March when address 1L7ncAj9DdQ6gFAykoxsTF8N5whjEvB9G1 sent it 48.36 BTC.

In other words, a wallet with 48.36 BTC made a DIRECT PAYMENT of 13 BTC to the PLC address WITHOUT THE USE OF ANY ESCROW SERVICE.

To make it simpler:

1) 'Anonymous Investor' (Devs) had 48.36 BTC sent to their wallet on 7th March
2) 'Anonymous Investor' (Devs) scammed everyone out of half their coins by sending themselves 13 BTC on 31st March.

If the Devs would like to comment how this could be possible if an Escrow service was in fact used I will be most interested to have it explained to me how funds that HAVEN'T MOVED SINCE MARCH 7TH can be sent DIRECTLY to the PLC without going through any third party address.

Or they could just STOP BULLSHITTING and send everyone the coins they are owed.

If they were smart, they could have moved the funds to another address half an hour before launch, then sent them to the PLC. This would have looked like an Escrow service had been used. Obviously they thought we were all too stupid to catch them out.

Everyone can check this here: https://blockchain.info/address/1KCRoV48QzxeXbshRoERhisVy2pD5pPitd

Blockchain doesn't lie.

I have just received my funds from the official pool. Thx for fixing that issue and good luck!

Nobody will support a charity that says one thing and does another.