Topic: Is theymos okay with Blazed being on DT1 when he refuses to account for x00 btc (Read 858 times)

You are so desperate for this to somehow be a scam it is pathetic. What funds are missing according to your blockchain analytics?

It is too bad funds were not paid out according to the milestones considering one of the founders declined a portion of his share.

Further a review of the Blockchain reveals how much was paid out and money is in fact missing.

When will you stop with the chronic spread of lies?

No amount whatsoever is in dispute other than the fantasies made up by a band of disgruntled shills and your clique.. It's highly hypocritical to make any baseless accusations given your history with doing escrow.

The accounting is there; if you can't reproduce it then it is an issue invented by yourself.

It appears as if the escrow agents are going to refund about 1400 btc to investors. The problem with this is that there is a lower band of 600BTC missing from this amount. All of the escrow agents have refused to address any concerns that anyone has brought up, even after acknowledging being aware of said concerns. Further none of the escrow agents are providing even a basic accounting of the funds.

Based on the above, it appears the escrow agents are engaging in a similar scam that TF likely pulled in regards to inputs.io, meaning refunding a majority of funds held, while keeping substantial amounts for themselves to which they are not entitled to.

I am curious to know if theymos is okay with someone with such a large amount of money in dispute being not only directly on his trust list, but on DT1.

I would encourage everyone reading this thread to make the following changes to their trust list:

they just dont care. as long as they are able to do "business" in the future they wont.

Still no response beyond “I didn’t see the scam accusation thread because I don’t frequent that section”? Nothing about the underlying concerns?

i sent you a PM.
nvo escrow
« Sent to: Blazed on: August 06, 2018, 06:56:46 PM »

but no answer until today.
maybe I am just not "important" enough to talk with...

Feel free to respond to the scam accusation thread. There are multiple people who have concerns about the money they entrusted you to protect.

I am only saying you should be removed until the dispute is resolved (assuming there are no shenanigans going on). I am sure your response with actual information will be a sigh of relief for many people who invested in the project.

I only recently discovered the thread and do understand why there are concerns (rightfully so). Why not ask me directly before jumping to conclusions and wanting me removed? I am not nearly as active lately due to working a lot so sometimes I am not responsive for a few days.  I also do not check meta and scam sections often...mainly collectibles.

It appears there is in excess of 900BTC missing/unaccounted for. The bitcoin held was moved out of the stated escrow address, and although the blockchain can reasonably confirm where it is now, none of your team has publicly confirmed the location of the bitcoin being held, nor that the funds are accessible, nor has addressed questions in regards to why the bitcoin was moved.

I don't think it is unreasonable to assume something is amiss when no one has answered questions, addressed concerns or given any kind of accounting for the funds after multiple calls to do so, and well over a week has passed since a scam accusation has been opened.

Its not "who". Its(What) this: Blazed == marijuana.

---

That thread is a mess, you could actually make some things clear, at least to defend your(team's) reputation. There's a few a lot of misunderstandings, and allegations.

This thread is pointless as no scams have been committed. This is merely you wanting me removed due to people I have added into my trust list that you disagree with. The escrow has had funds sitting for 1.5 years and only 2 weeks back there was talk of a refund. Why all the rush when the vote is still several days from being done?

There is a scam accusation that has been open for a week or so that has blazed’s name in the title that he has not responded to and the issue has been apparently going on for a while now.

He is free to respond now, but I don’t think it is appropriate to wait additional time for his response, especially considering the amount in dispute.

Oh FFS, another thread? And who is "Blazed pot"? What about his kettle, also involved?

At the very least you should have waited until the end of the vote to see if the escrows refund or not. But then it wouldn't make sense to create this thread if they do, right? Never let a good rumour go to waste.

We should at least hear the side of Blazed until we know if it is right that we remove his DT status, I mean he might be handling the issue outside the forum or the funds must be somehow misplaced. Until now it still looks like a big allegation to me. This issue must also be decided until we confirmed that Blazed is really one of the guilty party, and if you are really concerned if he will be transacting with someone temporarily tagging him by another DT might be enough if that satisfies anyone.

This one is in regards to Blazed and his status being on DT1, as he is one of the escrow agents. Two of the escrow agents would have moved the bitcoin and blazed could have been one of them.

Just been watching/reading the show between this thread and the one in the right section, regarding Lauda.

Any reason this one was opened in Meta?

Edit:


Still seems more a reputation thing to me; but that's my question answered.  I'll let you all get back to the topic at hand.

I agree. The complete lack of transparency of blazed, MJ and yourself is proof that the three of you are merely engaging in a “sting operation” attempting to catch the investors breaking the law, and that the three of you are entirely in the right. Further the dispute regarding how much money is left over after disbursements should in no way be addressed and it is entirely unreasonable for anyone to ask for transparency.

I wasn't talking about the Bitcoin address. That one is public, as it always has been. Just follow the trail via blockchain.

Random individuals were making demands for information that they are not entitled to. I ran and finished an audit myself (which is the 2nd audit in the last 3 months) just a few days ago. By those calculations (forks included), there are ~50% more funds that will be refunded than what the escrow milestones demand. Jumping to conclusions based on allegations made by sock puppets, allegations which were not supported by a single piece of evidence, and calling me a scammer based on said allegations isn't helping anyone.

---

The sad part about this is that we saved them from losing all the invested money.

The BTC refunds will be made public on the blockchain, presumably to the same address they made payments from and/or from the same address they should have received their tokens to. To argue that the address you are holding BTC on behalf of "thousands" of people must be kept secret, despite your promise to keep it at a specific address, for "privacy" is hogwash.

Further, there are allegations you stated you would refuse to corporate with any kind of audit.   

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.