So, the refund has been completed and the amount distributed seems to make sense and correlate with what was expected to be distributed, is that right? Where is the issue at this point? The only issue I can see a reason for this remaining, is if there is indeed BTC missing from the pool or individuals that were entitled to a refund.
All I'm hearing though is that people want more accountability, but if all the funds agreed to be distributed are there and have been refunded then I'm failing to see where the issue is or why 3+ DT members are leaving this thread with negative reputation from one another. I know it's not even close to my call, but if I were any one of you I would remove the negative(s) I left due to this thread, because it's seemingly pedantic and does not set a good precedent in terms of how trust is used.
What is the accusation?
Topic: Lauda, MinerJones, Blazed | Missing escrow funds - page 4. (Read 26066 times)
So, if my manual checking is correct then the address (3AiGej11G8jUXvEBPvQKPLiHXC7ruUCp1Z) actually received 1890.69511301 (+/- 0.00228457) BTC in-total.
PS: Guys, since this is a manual checking, I could even miss some of the transactions while I was tracing. So, don't consider it as a solid calculation of the received coins.
So, if my manual checking is correct then the address (3AiGej11G8jUXvEBPvQKPLiHXC7ruUCp1Z) actually received 1890.69511301 (+/- 0.00228457) BTC in-total.
PS: Guys, since this is a manual checking, I could even miss some of the transactions while I was tracing. So, don't consider it as a solid calculation of the received coins.
https://blockchain.info/export-history?active=3AiGej11G8jUXvEBPvQKPLiHXC7ruUCp1Z
~
I am not an expert either however this is what I did....I filtered the address with the Sent transactions
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/3AiGej11G8jUXvEBPvQKPLiHXC7ruUCp1Z?filter=1
Scroll down and...
First sent was on 2017-07-01 19:06:18 Tx: https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/b478196f3a535f8a2a8a250ce1ebe97dabc97055bd1f2fd8798d7742185ad199
Amount 16.04376017 BTC to 34QigSdFmqDNSdCjZs5sSDQYYewDGh5LLd
If you trace the address then you will see Ultimately the fund comes back to the main address. I assume funds were sent to different addresses of the same wallet.
So, total received = 3,405.40731067 - 16.04376017 = 3389.3635505 BTC
2nd sent was on 2017-07-01 19:20:36 Tx: https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/ba568d7cf8c7ea025ad68b16960ac18cb23fc61abd0986ac7181c9d7a8fd02e8
Amount 0.57566755 BTC to 32DMGN7hiEG2gVYZt9gVVPgJTYhndx7GSv
Again after tracing the address the conclusion is sent to different addresses of the same wallet.
3389.3635505 - 0.57566755 = 3388.78788295 BTC
3rd sent was on 2017-07-01 19:31:44 Tx: https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/52b71cce22168c76c354ddbc17c9feb36439ef31ae8b0282e5a67a331bbe0c1d
Amount 0.00228457 BTC to 3KA7s4Nqw1KvksUY2KtpmzCEdxkfjQ22bH and 149ZiYcFKsjcT1S1Ef4WwAihXQxXQds1YA
I can not figure out the end of them so lets say they actually gone out.
So, we still have: 3388.78788295 BTC
4th sent was on 2017-07-01 20:33:40 Tx: https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/32cbb8f451c6129067fb40ac93628e8f6337c699c466a0336a6e5b9da0b38111
Amount 0.42851301 BTC to 36UNCAdXYUditQoyKJKfwszafnkKFCcAwQ
Eventually it came back to the same address
3388.78788295 - 0.42851301 = 3388.35936994 BTC
5th: 0.18467903 BTC
6th: 0.05086859 BTC
7th: 0.04060566 BTC
8th: 0.05862002 BTC
9th: 0.0086241 BTC
10th: 0.03419528 BTC
11th: 0.00701132 BTC
12th: 0.00927396 BTC
13th: 0.01638622 BTC
14th: 0.01053424 BTC
15th: 0.00536235 BTC
16th: 0.00096287 BTC
17th: 0.00255258 BTC
18th: 0.00036839 BTC
19th: 0.01025788 BTC
===================================
Total: 0.44030249 BTC
3388.35936994 - 0.44030249 = 3387.91906745 BTC
After exploring 20th tx it seems 1,497.22395444 BTC came back to the same address.
3387.91906745 - 1497.22395444 = 1890.69511301 BTC
21st tx eventually adds up to this tx. So, nothing to deduct.
22nd does the same. Again nothing to deduct.
23rd assuming it really gone out.
24th gone out as well.
If you have an address that received 1k coins, and you send it to yourself 4 more times it will show 5k BTC total received. The number of received coins on explorers are not a valid metric.
So, if my manual checking is correct then the address (3AiGej11G8jUXvEBPvQKPLiHXC7ruUCp1Z) actually received 1890.69511301 (+/- 0.00228457) BTC in-total.
PS: Guys, since this is a manual checking, I could even miss some of the transactions while I was tracing. So, don't consider it as a solid calculation of the received coins.
~
Isn't that like 4,386 BTC sent to itself? And yet the blockchain says "Total Received 3,405.40731067 BTC"?
No, it is 1488 + 1689 + 100 + 100 + 100 = 3486 BTC (total received) while blockchain.info shows total received 3,405 BTC - my calculation is not correct calculation either, probably because not all funds were moved at some point.Isn't that like 4,386 BTC sent to itself? And yet the blockchain says "Total Received 3,405.40731067 BTC"?
Or better, if you like, 100 + 100 + 100 - 1689 -100 - 100 + 1488 - 1497 = -1598, so approximately 1598 btc was in that address.
Don't break your head too much, if you want correct calculation why it shows 3,405.4 BTC you will have to go trough all 3128 transactions. You can't just pick one which you like and ask questions.
~
Isn't that like 4,386 BTC sent to itself? And yet the blockchain says "Total Received 3,405.40731067 BTC"?
No, it is 1488 + 1689 + 100 + 100 + 100 = 3486 BTC (total received) while blockchain.info shows total received 3,405 BTC - my calculation is not correct calculation either, probably because not all funds were moved at some point.Isn't that like 4,386 BTC sent to itself? And yet the blockchain says "Total Received 3,405.40731067 BTC"?
Or better, if you like, 100 + 100 + 100 - 1689 -100 - 100 + 1488 - 1497 = -1598, so approximately 1598 btc was in that address.
Don't break your head too much, if you want correct calculation why it shows 3,405.4 BTC you will have to go trough all 3128 transactions. You can't just pick one which you like and ask questions.
If you have an address that received 1k coins, and you send it to yourself 4 more times it will show 5k BTC total received. The number of received coins on explorers are not a valid metric.
Isn't that like 4,386 BTC sent to itself? And yet the blockchain says "Total Received 3,405.40731067 BTC"? I'm genuinely curious about this because if it counted sent bitcoin to itself, with those 3 huge transactions alone sent to itself, it would be over 4,000 Bitcoin easily. Am I getting something wrong lol. I must be reading this transaction shit wrong and causing undue stress. I'll give up and let the pros handle it
3AiGej11G8jUXvEBPvQKPLiHXC7ruUCp1Z ---> 3DkFekKmKXSnL1XmMfQSh2kukKzjr7X44Y
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/21e7f36e1d11fc4283792a9f46f13d1f41d4095dc2507e9335e6cf91fedb9d07
3DkFekKmKXSnL1XmMfQSh2kukKzjr7X44Y ---> 39iTdYPq899u1CVad9rKKQQPJHRVaP7MSo
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/388346e14b28d7862ef3182e5bdefd795f770c84ed27f4292280abfab1ecd9b9
39iTdYPq899u1CVad9rKKQQPJHRVaP7MSo ---> 3AiGej11G8jUXvEBPvQKPLiHXC7ruUCp1Z (ORIGINAL ADDRESS)
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/4c304d4628a67a45d87c5babf46ada74c778a37826dd0f10f90ec88857e91666
That's just one example out of many, and none of it appears to fluff up the "received Bitcoin" number because it was all traced back to the original wallet. Which we've already seen would have a lot more received if it indeed counted those transactions.
If you have an address that received 1k coins, and you send it to yourself 4 more times it will show 5k BTC total received. The number of received coins on explorers are not a valid metric.
Isn't that like 4,386 BTC sent to itself? And yet the blockchain says "Total Received 3,405.40731067 BTC"? I'm genuinely curious about this because if it counted sent bitcoin to itself, with those 3 huge transactions alone sent to itself, it would be over 4,000 Bitcoin easily. Am I getting something wrong lol. I must be reading this transaction shit wrong and causing undue stress. I'll give up and let the pros handle it
If you have an address that received 1k coins, and you send it to yourself 4 more times it will show 5k BTC total received. The number of received coins on explorers are not a valid metric.
Isn't that like 4,386 BTC sent to itself? And yet the blockchain says "Total Received 3,405.40731067 BTC"? I'm genuinely curious about this because if it counted sent bitcoin to itself, with those 3 huge transactions alone sent to itself, it would be over 4,000 Bitcoin easily. Am I getting something wrong lol. I must be reading this transaction shit wrong and causing undue stress. I'll give up and let the pros handle it
When were the milestones hit and the funds sent to the CEO?
There is no exact date at which funds were sent (multiple times over smaller amounts). First milestone was unlocked post distribution; 2nd was late 2017.15% was the agreed amount
No. 30% + 30%.The CTO declined all payments of his 15-15-5
Nemgun is no CTO; and he lied about his payments to the community.3,405 BTC total received. I'm no blockchain detective so I'm not sure what to make of this. Somebody smarter than me will have to make sense of it.
If you have an address that received 1k coins, and you send it to yourself 4 more times it will show 5k BTC total received. The number of received coins on explorers are not a valid metric.I thought the CTO wasn't paid?
...but everybody is saying he wasn't paid.
If by everyone you mean his band of paid shills from discord, then yes indeed.
Yeah that's fine if there is no written requirement for the accounting of funds. I'd say that'd be a pretty annoying requirement personally. A big headache. When were the milestones hit and the funds sent to the CEO? 15% was the agreed amount, so I'm just curious if anybody knows when those milestones may have been hit. Sounds like 15%-15%-5% in terms of dev payment of milestones. The CTO declined all payments of his 15-15-5
I tracked back the original wallet, it appears the several thousands of Bitcoin moved multiple times, but I'm seeing this address as the original.
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/3AiGej11G8jUXvEBPvQKPLiHXC7ruUCp1Z
3,405 BTC total received. I'm no blockchain detective so I'm not sure what to make of this. Somebody smarter than me will have to make sense of it. I just clicked back on all the large fund transfers until I hit a huge wallet that appears to be the beginning of the ICO. There's like 11 pages of incoming BTC there. (edit: There's WAYYYYY more than 11 pages lol. 63 total pages.)
Double edit: 60% of 3,405 = 2,043. 3,405 - 2,043 = 1,362... Any correlation between that and the "1,393.94415407 - 41.78678295 = 1352.15737112." refund amount?
? uh.... help? Coincidence? I'm confused lmfao. It looks like the CTO's payment was actually taken out of the final number that was used as a refund...but everybody is saying he wasn't paid.
I tracked back the original wallet, it appears the several thousands of Bitcoin moved multiple times, but I'm seeing this address as the original.
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/3AiGej11G8jUXvEBPvQKPLiHXC7ruUCp1Z
3,405 BTC total received. I'm no blockchain detective so I'm not sure what to make of this. Somebody smarter than me will have to make sense of it. I just clicked back on all the large fund transfers until I hit a huge wallet that appears to be the beginning of the ICO. There's like 11 pages of incoming BTC there. (edit: There's WAYYYYY more than 11 pages lol. 63 total pages.)
Double edit: 60% of 3,405 = 2,043. 3,405 - 2,043 = 1,362... Any correlation between that and the "1,393.94415407 - 41.78678295 = 1352.15737112." refund amount?
1,393.94415407 - 41.78678295 = 1352.15737112. This represents a rate of 0.00009292961 BTC/NVST. Example ~ refund amounts:
I thought the CTO wasn't paid? ? uh.... help? Coincidence? I'm confused lmfao. It looks like the CTO's payment was actually taken out of the final number that was used as a refund...but everybody is saying he wasn't paid. There are no explanations of any escrow transactions.
This was never in the original agreement, thus there is no requirement for such. Which would mean 45.8% refund as he stated ( .0000933 / .0002036 = .458 aka 45.8%). I was under the impression that 60% would be refunded based on previous statements made here... is that true? Not sure, I'm really not looking too deep into this but offering some speculation and questions. What % went to the escrows?
It is ~60% of the funds, but not 60% of the original rate. I've already explained this several times; the initial ~3050 BTC number was a *balance snapshot*[1] to figure out a distribution rate. Now despite the low refund percent, Bitcoin has rose to a huge level so the dollar amount of the refund is actually greater than the dollar amount that was used to originally buy the ICO.
It's higher than it should be.I find some interest in the "41.78678295 BTC will be set aside until a solution to this issue is found".
There's nothing interesting about it. It was already explained: nemgun & co. stole the domain and database, thus the documentation is missing for the unallocated tokens. I and everybody else are working with incomplete information and no evidence from blockchain tracing has been put forth so the presumption would be innocent until proven guilty.
This doesn't work when the accuser is Quickseller. [1] Theoretical total BTC balance based on conversation rates at the time of the snapshot.
Very interesting. Both points seem reasonable. Refunds have been issued. There are no explanations of any escrow transactions.
Here are a couple users talking about the starting price of the coin and the refund price.
Thanks for the detailed explanation. If we are somewhere near .0000933 then from my initial BTC investment only around 1 out of 6 would be returned.
Not sure where you get that? Initial rate was .0002036 BTC / NVST
So it is a 46% refund against btc value. Now if you count the bcash fork it is a bit less.
If someone invested in ETH, for every 1 ETH they sent they are getting the equivalent of 1.22 back. Not too bad for a consolation prize.
Which would mean 45.8% refund as he stated ( .0000933 / .0002036 = .458 aka 45.8%). I was under the impression that 60% would be refunded based on previous statements made here... is that true? Not sure, I'm really not looking too deep into this but offering some speculation and questions. What % went to the escrows?
Now despite the low refund percent, Bitcoin has rose to a huge level so the dollar amount of the refund is actually greater than the dollar amount that was used to originally buy the ICO. What would the gain have been if they never deposited money into the ICO? Does the refund mean everybody's reputation is 'cleared' from a scam or does a detailed analysis of the escrow wallet and all its debits and credits still need to be done? (probably a good idea either way)
I find some interest in the "41.78678295 BTC will be set aside until a solution to this issue is found".
Just some thought provoking questions. I and everybody else are working with incomplete information and no evidence from blockchain tracing has been put forth so the presumption would be innocent until proven guilty.
Here are a couple users talking about the starting price of the coin and the refund price.
Thanks for the detailed explanation. If we are somewhere near .0000933 then from my initial BTC investment only around 1 out of 6 would be returned.
Not sure where you get that? Initial rate was .0002036 BTC / NVST
So it is a 46% refund against btc value. Now if you count the bcash fork it is a bit less.
If someone invested in ETH, for every 1 ETH they sent they are getting the equivalent of 1.22 back. Not too bad for a consolation prize.
Which would mean 45.8% refund as he stated ( .0000933 / .0002036 = .458 aka 45.8%). I was under the impression that 60% would be refunded based on previous statements made here... is that true? Not sure, I'm really not looking too deep into this but offering some speculation and questions. What % went to the escrows?
Now despite the low refund percent, Bitcoin has rose to a huge level so the dollar amount of the refund is actually greater than the dollar amount that was used to originally buy the ICO. What would the gain have been if they never deposited money into the ICO? Does the refund mean everybody's reputation is 'cleared' from a scam or does a detailed analysis of the escrow wallet and all its debits and credits still need to be done? (probably a good idea either way)
I find some interest in the "41.78678295 BTC will be set aside until a solution to this issue is found".
Just some thought provoking questions. I and everybody else are working with incomplete information and no evidence from blockchain tracing has been put forth so the presumption would be innocent until proven guilty.
How long is it reasonable to wait? Another month? Another two months?
The refund has already been finished. 
How long is it reasonable to wait? Another month? Another two months?
The refund has already been finished. How long is it reasonable to wait? Another month? Another two months?
The refund has already been finished. How long is it reasonable to wait? Another month? Another two months?
The refund has already been finished. A distinct lack of evidence is troubling.
Right, this thread is how old, a month? No concrete evidence either way. Just some investors pissed about the lack of transparency and just a CEO claiming to be talking for escrows and the project in general saying there will be a hold up over the domain being in control from somebody he doesn't like that may or may not do something illegal with it. There's most likely a ton going on behind the scenes we don't know about.How this all shakes out with the refund and accounting is where the real fireworks will spark. There can only be one number they use to issue the refund and the refund depends on how many coins you have (that you probably have to send back to them). That final number is the only evidence we need, and they can try and justify it with all their might, but without blockchain transaction proof, none of it will matter. I think we can all agree that is a big strength of blockchain.
How long is it reasonable to wait? Another month? Another two months?
When does it become unreasonable?
These questions are better answered by everybody in general and not just one person or some biased group of people. Personally I still think they're within a reasonable time frame and won't need to provide transaction details or signed messages.
It might be more productive if you just read through the thread (again), or present the questions you feel remain unanswered.
This is a scam accusation thread, where no evidence was presented and it resulted in multiple users sending/receiving negative feedback. The focus should primarily be pointing towards evidence-based claims, not summarizing the thread in front of us. This has been a poor example of how a scam-accusation thread should carry itself.
Again, I don't have a dog in this fight, but I see questions and accusations being answered. There could be more transparency, people have the right to keep track of their funds, but I don't see which terms are being violated and the change of escrow terms was not applicable to the NVO escrow (implying that the forks will be included in the BTC total). A distinct lack of evidence is troubling.
This is a scam accusation thread, where no evidence was presented and it resulted in multiple users sending/receiving negative feedback. The focus should primarily be pointing towards evidence-based claims, not summarizing the thread in front of us. This has been a poor example of how a scam-accusation thread should carry itself.
Again, I don't have a dog in this fight, but I see questions and accusations being answered. There could be more transparency, people have the right to keep track of their funds, but I don't see which terms are being violated and the change of escrow terms was not applicable to the NVO escrow (implying that the forks will be included in the BTC total). A distinct lack of evidence is troubling.
I have read through all 11 pages of this thread. There aren't many questions that haven't been asked and answered,
What question has been answered? Can you point to the posts in which actual information was given in an answered question? Jump to: