Topic: Lauda, MinerJones, Blazed | Missing escrow funds - page 7. (Read 26053 times)

So alt coins were personally held and exchanged out of multi-sig by any of the three escrows...
Lauda is saying they had the least amount of alts to personally manage.

The escrow coins were moved from one multi-sig to another for an unknown reason.

Nobody is signing any addresses from anything for seemingly logical and at the same time seemingly illogical reasons.

60% was supposed to go to the devs (2 founders) but one founder ended up not wanting his 15% two times in a row...

There was an extra 50% of remaining funds (20% of total funds) gained from forks as lauda said. This would bring the total to 60%, but the other co-founder sounds like he is contractually titled to 30%, unless he said explicitly that he never wanted to have that money at a later time, to which it would then be refund money. The fork money, particularly BCH, seems to have some discrepancy that isn't accounted for even at the lowest possible price or sale. It appears Lauda said that the guy who is in charge of the exchange account (allegedly), who has locked them out (allegedly), wanted 25 BTC to send to 'yani' from the BCH funds...

And nobody has any solid evidence of anything, so this is all literally he said she said and speculative because allegedly the records of the BCH can't be obtained, which is rather concerning just in itself.

So it's looking like a 60% refund will be issued if the other co founder who delayed/refused their 30% does end up getting their 30% of the total funds.

100% - 60% (co founders) + 20% (forked coin) = 60% gross investment

And these numbers are absolutely huge. Even a 1% discrepancy is like $80,000 at current prices LOL. So I assume the accounting will have to be a lot more precise than 100-60+20 when this thing shakes out.

Let me know if I missed anything. And even multi-sig seems to suck complete ass.

I am the only one here that is bored?

After reading all your points you come across as a Rolling Stone that has no stand whatsoever.


So?

I dunno about that; but definitely the only Bored one who is apparently very interested in commenting on the go.

After reading this topic I got to a few points to say:

1.At first I thought the user Lauda is just using the reputation to get away with the coins.
2.Not offering the coins from any fork, I consider in any way a SCAM.
3.I have realised that Lauda was not the only escrow as so, it is not the person with 3000 BTC, just 1000 (with altcoins also).
4.I have understood and I find normal not to share specifics addresses that might reveal any idendity of investors.
5.There is a complete and continous hate arround the user Lauda.
6.The user OGnasty have no idea how an ICO works, it is just a continous hate towards Lauda.
7.The other "trusted" or older users involved in discussion are not following the logic of any event that happened or what is happening.
8.I joined the ICO telegram and there it seems to be a live and ongoing discussion that makes me to have hope.
9.Probably the problem will find a solution between the Escrows and the Core team.
10.The escrow is here just to offer the coins of the ICO, not to see if it is a success.
11.Using an exchange as escrow, it is a terrible and newbie mistake, I am dissapointed, not for the escrow, for the project owners that they have accepted something like this.

Let's wait for this madness to stop and see the solution, even if the community of the ICO is angry, if they receive the ICO, they have nothing more to complain to the escrow. It's only core team problem to solve the issue. Problems like these are happening everyday, as a developer I heard hundreds of stories but it is the second time someone told about this topic even if personally I DON'T CARE.

The only way to stop the FUD arround, that is getting nowhere and the project itself is hurted is to have public the addresses and the history of the addresses.

BUT AGAIN, I don't find it normal or ok to display any of the personal information of any of the investors, so I beg of you, until certain information or messages are sent from both sides of core team, the CTO and CEO, regarding promoting and sharing investments received information, the investigation of addresses is a bullshit.

Even more, the real ammount raised is under a big question mark and I don't get the real ammount here, regardless the BCH fork or BCI (a few dollars) or Bitcoin Private whatsoever, who had the decission to sell altcoins and why? I find this very strange and no one asked the right question, I never knew that is an escrow job to convert the altcoins to BTC. Why the altcoins were not sent directly to the projects budget?

The idea of transparency is decided in the initial contract with the escrow, if it was not settled why people should cry now about it.

Ethics, that's what is left in this crypto world. Let's not destroy the only thing that matters. Find a solution guys and stop these nonsenses

Yeah I tried pastebin and paste.ee - too big for either one.

Not sure how the file helps though. It certainly won't tell us the exchange rates. A quick sum over the BTC column shows 1464 BTC, which seems to match the numbers posted earlier (3055-1591).

i did not remove it.
i thought the slack link would not work: https://nvohq.slack.com/files/U55DUK62U/F62JETMME/altstats.csv
i tried to put the content into pastebin. but it is too large.

LOL, why did you remove it?  

Seemed like a list of all users and what they paid in alts and equivalent in BTC/NVST. It doesn't seem to reflect actual conversion rates, but rather the rates that were use to issue the tokens.

and i found this in the https://nvohq.slack.com/

Coin   Amount   Exchange   Date
LTC   7807.588   Bittrex   03.07.17
DASH   1916.643   bittrex   04.07.17
DOGE   23577240.97   unknown   04.07.17
WAVES   31145.63   unknown   05.07.17
XRP   1325280.39   bittrex   12.08.17
ETH   6477.095   Bittrex   22.08.17
ETC   4116   unknown   22.08.18
maid         

i hope the altcoins have been sold at the same day they has been transferred to an exchange.

CryptoID says it's a Bittrex address:

https://chainz.cryptoid.info/dash/address.dws?XvL4uRRnwhwDiCUTSJB4Kp2JeWom9ZBkrC.htm

Perhaps more likely this is the actual ICO address:

https://chainz.cryptoid.info/dash/address.dws?XvapsGYttoTw8PhdfhLYLqfVozWrhMDG2w.htm

Which would mean DASH was moved to Bittrex on July 4, 2017. This doesn't tell us when it was sold.

or somebody could help so that i dont have to take care of all the altcoins.

You should post the dates of the transfers to an exchange and if you can find it, the /btc price so we can try to calculate the total amount of bitcoin and eventually the amount of missing money.

same for
LTC: 7807.588

https://chainz.cryptoid.info/ltc/address.dws?LiUAhNeKWXEC2Kj875QGM4inoPEXiPhw2w.htm
Received   7,807.37375203 LTC   in 5 transactions
2017-07-03 14:08:03 Sent   7,807.37375203 LTC   in 1 transactions
=> LeAMJhCuZzeSU4ujoFMHvu24XmymaeDiZP BITTREX

and
ETC
4126
http://gastracker.io/addr/0x00d3b8f4739870d66383e15c4693ced012178ba1

transactions made 21 Aug 2018 and 22 Aug 2018.

10 => 0xcf3EEEE335532c8774b7F98B5c91FaE367a09959
Rest => 0xFdD5fCE9CF322b707a3DCC08c166C46dEEcB0767

EDIT:
0xFdD5fCE9CF322b707a3DCC08c166C46dEEcB0767 = exchange?
0xcf3EEEE335532c8774b7F98B5c91FaE367a09959 = wallet of escrow?

I have provided a couple of examples where your self-proclaimed reputation doesn't mean shit when someone gets under your thin skin.


The part where you insisted that you can be trusted with this. Sorry for misinterpreting that as you willing to do an audit.

That's a question you won't get an answer to (& it's 10-78 BTC in question). Maybe because you, "don't actually seem to be involved with the project."



This is why I asked the question about who decided the additional 30% should be released and if there was a vote...  It appears the investors didn't believe the goals were being met.



Dude, you are nuts.  I don't know if you spend too much time drinking the cool-aid or what, but I have earned more trust than anyone else on this site.  I wouldn't risk my reputation to make something up about a documented extortionist who is doing an excellent job of showing his incompetence and inability to be transparent without any assistance from me.  In any event, 2 of the 3 multisig escrows aren't making any comment on the situation, Lauda isn't giving any information about exchange rates or remaining funds he's holding that aren't his, and I think that is enough for me to say that this escrow has been a dumpster fire.  No sense continuing to beat a dead horse.  Everyone can see for themselves how this situation is being handled, who is remaining silent, and who is defending the wrongdoing.

Transparency.  It's not for everyone I guess.  



What part of, "I wouldn't touch this dumpster fire" did you think was me volunteering?  Amazing how this type of situation can happen, and some members want to make it about me.



   How is the trust system self proclaimed?



Misinterpreting seems to be your MO.  It's all good.  Thanks for the apology.

All information should be made public so anyone interested can review everything themselves.

Og volunteered, so which category he's in? Corrupt or shill?

 

Think of it this way, there is currently possibly 70 btc missing from the bch sale, and much more in dispute, possibly several hundred btc. What would you do if you were offered 10 btc to simply say everything is okay without doing any real due diligence, especially considering you likely won’t be asked to do something similar in the future? What if you were asked to say ‘after reviewing all the information provided you were not able to find anything wrong’ but were provided little information?

There is also the risk that the person who “volunteers” to do the audit is actually a shill, which is very well possible considering laudas history of offering to buy accounts.