True, those 13M ICN could be transferred to different address earlier. The thing is that it's not a 5 min effort. This has to be configured (smart contract, multi-sig and stuff like that, you know), tested, and retested. Or in other words - shifting focus from core development into this.
Priority was releasing the platform for beta testers, which will lead to earlier public release (so you can finally buy ICNX and perhaps be a little bit less bitter).
Call me crazy, but I have the feeling that if they would do that you or someone else would complain about loosing focus on the main goal.
13M ICN will removed from ICO address, I still can't see how this is less transparent doing it before the vesting starts.
What gives it the most weight is that it was stated it would happen, by a representative of the team. If you hadn't asked, and Jaka never gave you that answer, I doubt I would have came up with the idea myself.
...
So your concern is with the way it was communicated, and not with them actually secretly trading?
Otherwise it would make no sense to even state something. If they wanted to do that, why not just saying that the addresses will be created short time before the vesting starts? Much easier to trade them locked ICN, no?
You aren't addressing the point I'm making. Just focused on one line, too.
Let's say I find it unlikely they would be secretly trading. But I don't KNOW that. I have to just believe it and trust it.
You're right... if you planned to do that, you would be less likely to tell the investors about moving it to a new address. But that assumption proves nothing. E.g. Jaka may have slipped up there. Or they may have decided to mess with their ICN weeks after that AMA. It doesn't matter, because you - as an investor - still have nothing to prove it one way or the other. You must revert to trust/faith.
I'm not saying any of that ACTUALLY happened, but the fact remains... they stated this move would be made, for investor peace of mind, and then didn't follow through. Same with the expense reports.
My way of approaching this is "If they have nothing to hide, then let us see that info"... the info that was promised. Then nobody loses. We have the transparency that was promised, and nothing changes for them.
Your way is like "But do we really need to see that right now? I'm pretty sure there's no funny business going on, so it's not a big concern"
That's the sort of "looking the other way" that people can take advantage of.
I'm not drawing any solid conclusions, except maybe "the team don't stick to what they say"
If they'd said "Our ICN will be locked on the ICO site" at the start, at least I wouldn't be able to argue about it now. But they said something that sounded better. Investors like to hear things like that, yes? ... So when it's not followed through, it is worth pursuing.
Your response doesn't address that. You might as well say "If they were up to no good, why didn't they just take all the funds and run?" ... It's more compicated than that.
Why would you fight this? If I got my way right now, and they put 13 million ICN into a new address, would that be a bad thing for you? Or for anyone?
Like I say, it's just about doing the things you said you'd do.
People are disappointed in things like this. Poor communication. Details not being fleshed out properly. Lack of transparency. None of it necessarily means they don't trust the team. But it is disappointing.
Don't you find it strange that I'm one of the few that is putting things like this into words, amid a sea of hype and moon talk? There's very few people on here capable of discussing things in this way. Same with the Slack.
Basically: I feel like there's a lot of leniency being given to this team, and that is a bad thing in business. Not enough people are holding the team to account. You see maybe one new person every 2 weeks or so, with genuine concerns. They get ignored, or called a troll, then back to the hype and everybody forgets about that person. This isn't a good thing.
