Topic: Is theymos okay with Blazed being on DT1 when he refuses to account for x00 btc - page 2. (Read 852 times)

Giving the investors a chance to vote on the resolution of the situation is a stall tactic. Got it.

Because that's all that this is, a fantasy story made by up Quicksy. Attempt number XYZ to get Blazed removed.

---

Any evidence can be supplied to a trustworthy third party in private, on demand, without compromising several thousand people (as mentioned already). If necessary, I'll look for an impartial DT member to audit the information that I have. Open to volunteers as well.

Yes, moving the coins to an exchange account means one person had control over the coins (via the exchange account), and the money was being used to speculate on the price of altcoins (which have taken a major dump in recent months, which may have resulted in there being losses to the ICO investors). I would note, this is an allegation and haven't been able to look at the blockchain to substantiate this claim.

The signed statement from each of the escrow agents said the BTC would be held in a 2-of-3 multisig address, specifically the following address: 3AiGej11G8jUXvEBPvQKPLiHXC7ruUCp1Z and makes no mention of not holding it at that address. It would not be unreasonable to say the coins needed to be moved for one reason or another, however if this happened, the escrow agents should promptly declare the new escrow address. To my knowledge, there is not a claimed address where the coins are being held.

isn't the main point of keeping the funds safe, the whole point of holding them in an escrow account? Then again shouldn't the funds be kept in an account visible at all time?

really baffle me hearing these stories, fucking unbelievable 

Blazed, who was handling a multisig escrow for an ICO project, that allegedly disbursed some money to the founders (although the exact amount is apparently in dispute), as per the terms of the ICO, however there is an alleged near unanimous consensus (including by those who would normally receive disbursements if the ICO had been successful) that investors should be refunded from the BTC held in escrow.

There are two other escrow agents, handling the escrow that should have been held in a 2-of-3 multisig address, both of which are on his trust list, MinerJones, and extortionist Lauda.

In addition to the apparent dispute regarding how much money was released to the founders/creators of the coin, the escrow agents are apparently engaging in stall tactics in releasing the Bitcoin back to investors.

There was over 3,000BTC raised as part of the ICO, and although some of the money has been released, based on available information, there is a lower bound of 1,400BTC held by the escrow agents, which is $3 million based on prices at the time the ICO was complete. Although the current valuation is much higher. Some investors are claiming there should be an additional ~1,000BTC held by the escrow agents that is unaccounted for.

There are disputes in regards to the amount of money being charged for the escrow fee, and the status of the forked coins.

There are allegations that some of the bitcoin was sent to an exchange to be used for speculative trading.

Although signed messages have been requested (by the signing keys that can sign a transaction), none have been provided to even prove possession of the claimed coins being held.

Blazed has not commented on the situation in the past month.

I would propose that Blazed be removed from DT1 while this issue plays out.

More information regarding the allegations of impropriety can be found here.