Topic: Lauda, MinerJones, Blazed | Missing escrow funds - page 3. (Read 26053 times)

I don't see where it doesn't say that all funds go directly to me in case of dispute either. You play on a lot of slides too when you were young suchmoon?

Even in a conflict the escrow is not supposed to favor one party over the other.

The only terms that I can find are these:


I don't see where it defines exchange rates or transparency levels or any of these things that are being discussed here.

This is fair to say as I have been using the wrong words to express what I meant. I believe most people can understand what I am trying to get at when saying one side has failed to provide their product and this leads to the investor side recouping what is left.
I'm not here to discuss Merriam-Webster's definition of escrow with you suchmoon. What I do believe is that the founders (the problems) hold more information than the investors(the wronged) who deserve better.

The escrow is an independent third party. It doesn't work work for the team or the bagholders. That would be a major conflict of interest.

If there is a grievance of some sort it's not unreasonable to expect the aggrieved party to come forward with a complaint. As you just illustrated it would be ridiculously difficult to prove a negative (absence of grievances), particularly given the anonymous nature of crypto transactions.

This is Lauda's m.o.  ..  slide the thread with useless drivel until people get so frustrated and confused that they no longer wish to participate because it is a one sided conversation.



Who agreed upon these rules? Escrow and NVO team correct? Did each and every investor enter into conversation with you agreeing to what would be delivered? Or did they trust the NVO team to deliver as expected and feel safer doing it because an escrow team was in place? Like I said before, your terms were discussed with the NVO management, not with each and every investor which is now who YOU work for. This makes your agreements null and void with the founders.

Let's see what the results of "what you request and gets agreed upon beforehand is what we deliver" actually are. Should be fairly easy to copy and paste the original agreement here. And then lets see which of the founders (whom caused this whole problem) agreed to this and whether it becomes null and void due to their inability to fulfill their duty to the investors.

I'm nobody spokesperson, unless stated otherwise.

Whatever you request and gets agreed upon beforehand is what we deliver.

They did not. As said:

It's the accusation "Lauda is doing pills" all over again; the difference being that this one (surprisingly) isn't from a Quickseller & co. account.

Tell me who the escrow team works for now? The NVO team or the bagholders? Is it possible to contact every single one of the investors? If so why hasn't this been done. If they replied back and said " NO I DONT WANT TO KNOW HOW MUCH MONEY DID OR DIDNT GO TO THE TEAM THAT FUCKED OVER MY INVESTMENT " then yea I can see where you're coming from.

Right now we are acting on the presumption that this whole ICO went smooth and everything were delivered that was asked. Reality check.. it didnt.

If I wanted to do business with an escrow I would negotiate terms before the deal. It doesn't seem that the NVO team or the bagholders (the parties to the transaction) had the requirements that you're alluding to at the time when the ICO was conducted. If they did then they should bring it up. How is that stupid?

We call this a slide. Zero useful information. You are dragging other people's name through the mud ( your escrow team ). Why did they choose you as spokesperson? Horrible choice.




Guess what. You don't work for the ICO anymore. You work for the people. They want to know. This has been made public, others want to know that aren't even involed, they want to know if they use you guys in the future if this is how you're going to act and show transparency.

They received their answers. This thread was started by no "normal investor". It was very soon after I left the discord channel (which is now apparently used for their *upcoming projects*?).

There is absolutely no dispute about funds; the dispute is entirely related to something else and the details of it are almost non existent over here.

I've replied about 3 hours after this nonsense was posted, even though it was just an attempt to cause issues and delay the refund (which has ultimately failed despite their best efforts).

Again, you need to look up how ICO escrows are done. If full (public) transparency isn't initially agreed upon, then you shall not receive it. Case point, most large(er) ICOs *known* escrows.

Thanks for acknowledging that. It is indeed one of the worst outcomes, especially when some terms are somewhat ambiguous or non-existent. Despite the beauty of simplicity, it did me no favors this time around.

As I wrote before. i gave up. I dont have any hope to get the answer I would like to have.
And now I hope that people will realise that this is not the best way to handle stuff like this. And that other escrows will provide the information and that these escrows will be chosen.

Seems rather stupid to say your last couple sentences. An escrow should have btc/altcoin amounts in something like an excel spreadsheet with proper accounting / tracking. Very easy to press Ctrl C and Ctrl V on their keyboards and post it here. This isn't just about how the ICO is being run, it falls back on the CET ( Crypto Escrow Team ) and how they conduct their business with no transparency. This will effect further business for them.

Your basic smell test just had a 400 bitcoin discrepancy. Nice one. (Guess what? with proper transparency you wouldn't need to be sniffing around, we'd have the exact numbers to talk about and help with this situation.)

It sounds like the "proper" communication channels so far have heavy bias and if you question the wrong founder/other founder/escrow then you are removed from said telegram/slack/other mode of communication. Which is likely why some of the investors only have bitcointalk.org left to find their answers. Aswell the official website has been claimed to have the ability to act nefarious in this situation so that is also not a proper means of communication for most.

If any single investor has no other way to find information about this project and what is happening besides bitcointalk then it is owed to them to be able to find what they need here. The ICO took place here, the Crypto Escrow Team has their roots set in here and was probably chosen based on what the ICO team had seen here. Now you have outsiders that commonly use escrow and members involved in this that are watching this from afar wondering WTF is this the kind of transparency I'm going to get in a dispute?

I sure as hell bet the founders of this failed project have all the information, but guess what.. they're the ones that had an internal problem and failed the people that funded their project. Therefore these escrows now work for the investors. Guess who gets snipped on an lipped off by the escrow when they ask for transparency? The investors.

Let's not forget either that no answers were ever given here and Lauda flipped off most people asking questions until suchmoon entered the fray. This trust system is shit but I can only guess that suchmoon is some sort of default trust and thats what caused Lauda to start answering minor questions. Shows character when a person shows zero respect to everyone until someone with a bit of power steps in.

disclaimer: i am in no way involved in this failed ICO, just a reader and occasional user of escrow.


edit to add: This is the absolute worst case scenario for any escrow to have to deal with. I honestly do wish this never did happen in the real world and this part of the job would not have to come up and even present itself. It is very unfortunate but it is why the fee charged should be substantial enough to put up with this kind of headache. I fully believe the escrows need to be paid just as well during the good times as the bad times. Think of it like car insurance.

3000+ was the valuation at the time of ICO, which the token distribution was based on. Actual exchange value was likely lower - perhaps in the 2700 BTC range but I can't say that I know the exact number.

30% was to be distributed to the development team immediately after the ICO (first milestone) and another 30% after the release of beta wallet (2nd milestone), leaving 40% in escrow.

1400 / 3100 is 45% and 1400 / 2700 is 52%, i.e. it passes a basic smell test: the refund covered more than the escrow was supposed to hold. The extra funds have been presumably  gained from forks and the 2nd milestone not being completely distributed due to some internal disputes.

At this point it would seem that whoever wants to accuse Lauda et al of wrongdoing should come up with evidence, not the other way round. Otherwise this could go on for years with random people claiming that the refund should have been 10 BTC or 100 BTC or 1000 BTC higher.

I thought that even the 3,000 BTC amount was speculation. I'm clearly not helping solve anything and very likely missing vital chunks of information. I also thought the alts were forked and exchanged when the value was much more insignificant and that 60% was to be spent on development. I may have read through the entire thread, but my reading comprehension must be beyond salvageable.

I'll just bow this one out.

Don't mind me. I am just a newcomer.  I do not know any of these people. I read some of the comments on the post and thought transparency can be a reason. There should be a clear accounting since the amount of money sounds few millions if not billions. Come on guys, when handling millions of funds there should be an accountant. Who is missing double entry accounting system? There are several types of accounting for several purpose. You don't have any? Talking about privacy? Data protection? Sounds excuses.

I am out to explore other posts.

People couldn't understand how 3000 btc became less than 1500,after converting alts to btc and spending money on "development".

Forgive me, but what is the evidence for this accusation? If there is solid evidence to suggest this happened, then I would love to hear it. It would go a long way towards convincing more than just myself. So far though, I have just heard baseless speculation and it leaves me unable to come to any conclusion about the situation. If there was substantial evidence that would suggest money was stolen, then I agree that transparency beyond what was previously agreed to could be desirable; at least to get to the bottom of things, and dish out financial justice for those negatively affected.

The accusation is that a portion of the money being held in escrow was stolen or otherwise misappropriated

Transparency?

That's not an accusation, that's a suggestion at best. I am operating with very limited knowledge of the situation, but from what I understand the transparency being requested and subsequently leveled as an accusation (somehow?) was never in the terms agreed to by the escrow(s) or the investor(s).

There are two paths, either terms are being broken or they are not; if so, which terms?
Is there any evidence to suggest that funds have been withheld or gone missing? That is the title of the thread, and I have seen nothing that suggests this.
Is there reason to believe that the altcoin exchange rates/dates have been manipulated for them to pocket funds? I'm just trying to figure out exactly what the finger is being pointed at, and why.