Pages:
Author

Topic: Lauda, MinerJones, Blazed | Missing escrow funds - page 8. (Read 26053 times)

legendary
Activity: 3934
Merit: 1248
Owner at AltQuick.com
Not that I care all that much because the people arguing here don't actually seem to be involved with the project, ie I'd care more if it was investors who were complaining about mismanaged funds and not random people with vendettas against each other. But just curious, would the ~10 BTC from the BTCCash to BTC exchange that people say have gone missing happen to be from a fork exchange service fee? As in a service that searches for forks, converts them all to BTC, and then handles the transaction?

What was the txid for the BCH?

I can check my old services records to see if I have any matches.

It doesn't sound like one of our old FreeBitcoins.com digs, but it's likely worth double checking for the sake of peace of mind.
legendary
Activity: 1498
Merit: 1113
i would do the review for free..... but i think that anybody would trust me.
but as I said: just post the info an everybody can do a review.
There is absolutely no reason to make it so only one person audits the amount of money held. This is just asking for corruption.

yes this is a good point. just because i think that i wont be corrupt nobody should believe it.
copper member
Activity: 2926
Merit: 2348
i would do the review for free..... but i think that anybody would trust me.
but as I said: just post the info an everybody can do a review.
There is absolutely no reason to make it so only one person audits the amount of money held. This is just asking for corruption.
legendary
Activity: 1498
Merit: 1113
i would do the review for free..... but i think that anybody would trust me.
but as I said: just post the info an everybody can do a review.
legendary
Activity: 3654
Merit: 8909
https://bpip.org
I can be trusted with this. I wouldn’t touch this dumpster fire, but implying I am somehow untrustworthy is pretty lame suchmoon. This escrow was not handled properly. Asking questions is appropriate.

Trust is earned, not declared. You can ask questions, that's not the problem. The problem is that your judgement in this matter can't be trusted due to your past disputes with Lauda and your inability to separate personal quarrels from affecting your perception of facts. You have neg-trusted someone for posting in your thread. You're spreading reprehensible rumours about forum members you're squabbling with. There's a good chance that you'd make something up to get back at Lauda.

This is a serious deal involving thousands of bitcoins. If anyone is to do an audit it has to be a person with integrity and credibility. Not you. Not Quicksy the escrow scammer (oh the irony).
copper member
Activity: 2926
Merit: 2348
Not that I care all that much because the people arguing here don't actually seem to be involved with the project, ie I'd care more if it was investors who were complaining about mismanaged funds and not random people with vendettas against each other. But just curious, would the ~10 BTC from the BTCCash to BTC exchange that people say have gone missing happen to be from a fork exchange service fee? As in a service that searches for forks, converts them all to BTC, and then handles the transaction?
The 10 BTC amount is a lower bound amount. Looking at market data and based upon the fact that exchanges were requiring many confirmations at the time, I I think it is more likely that the proceeds were 10-20% higher, making the missing money be closer to 20-30 btc.

Considering that alts were already being handed and converted into bitcoin, the additional work to claim the bitcoin cash was minimal and certainly not worth a hundred grand. There were/are many guides to help people claim their coins and it would really not be equitable to be charging 10% for this, especially considering it wouldn’t be possible to use an alternate service provider. The overwhelming majority of bitcoin companies that were holding customer money provided access without charge.

Probably most importantly, this fee was not disclosed prior to receiving the service and did not have the opportunity to reject the charge.

I believe several people who invested have posted here, including the OP, however they may have abandoned the thread after lauda essentially said to fuck off.
legendary
Activity: 1498
Merit: 1113
puhhh, what a mess.

1. I invested in NVO.
2. I would not have sent BTC into this ICO if the funds would not have been held by an escrow.
3. NVO development is a disaster and it had to be stoped.
4. I thought and still think that escrows have to provide all the information that investors need to know.
a) amount of coins collected
b) addresses that hold these coins
c) show transactions that have been made, e.g. payouts after milestones.
d) explain which alts have been sold for BTC and when.
e) explain if forks have been claimed. and claiming needs a transfer of the escrowed btc and thats why there has to be shown the transaction.

=> i wont take part in stuff escrowed by lauda because this escrow has a completely different understanding of an escrow-service that i have.
=> i dont trust any of the involved people anymore.
legendary
Activity: 2590
Merit: 2156
Welcome to the SaltySpitoon, how Tough are ya?
Not that I care all that much because the people arguing here don't actually seem to be involved with the project, ie I'd care more if it was investors who were complaining about mismanaged funds and not random people with vendettas against each other. But just curious, would the ~10 BTC from the BTCCash to BTC exchange that people say have gone missing happen to be from a fork exchange service fee? As in a service that searches for forks, converts them all to BTC, and then handles the transaction?
legendary
Activity: 2383
Merit: 1551
dogs are cute.
Was a vote ever done to see if the beta wallet and first API Cluster were acceptable?

Are the people who received 60% of the funds also entitled to a share of the refund for tokens they own?
There was no other vote other than the one asking for refund, speaking from the information available here.

The people who received 60% of the funds were the team members, and it was all spent, why would they get a refund. They might get a refund if they themselves were a private investor of the project.

I disagree. This is only reason why OgNasty should do it. If something is wrong they will have to post proofs, and with so much hate between you two, I believe if OgNasty say everything is OK than everything is OK.
It is simple as that.
OgNasty and Lauda have had their beef for years, even though Og isn't a scammer, there is major trust issues between them. It'd would be better for both parties to hire a 3rd party unbiased professional auditor, or at least to someone who knows basic accounting and is trustworthy.

My question is why were these coins moved? And more importantly, why is there a refusal to say the coins are in fact held in this address?

Each of the escrows also provided signed messages saying the bitcoin would be held in a "2-of-3 multisig" address. I am also curious to know if each of the three escrow agents solely controlled each one of the three keys required to unlock the funds, and if this continues to be the case. The wording of the signed messages certainly implies this is the case, however some statements in the ANN thread makes me be not so sure.
From the ANN thread, it was written that Lauda would control the bitcoin payments. I think Nemgun and Yanni also controlled the seeds(?).

First of all, information regarding the alts needs to be made immidiately public. We need to know the addresses they were received to, when they were sent to an exchange, what exchange rate they were sold for, and where the bitcoin was withdrawn to after the coins were sold.

I calculate the alts to be worth just over 502 BTC at current depressed prices that are significantly lower than what they were when the ICO sale ended. Plus the additional 104 BTC from the sale of BCH, and the 1590 BTC raised in the ICO, and the total BTC comes to about 2200 BTC. All of these numbers are lower bound amounts.

It is unclear as to how the fact that the issues with converting were due to "investors lack of due diligence" as I have no idea how one could lead to another.

I am not sure why several hundred BTC was moved to exchanges. Something appears to be out of order here.
For the safety of the parties involved, the escrow , the investors, and the NVO team, it would be better for the exchange info to be private.

The investors lack of due diligence caused problems because of the escrow:

The Investors will have to provide a personal Bitcoin address they control in order
to receive the NVO Tokens. This is very important as NVO Token will be a counter party
asset, the investors have to provide a PERSONAL bitcoin address, not a pool or.............
exchange address because they would be stuck into these addresses...............................

Only Lauda would be able to explain why some bitcoins were sent to bittrex.
copper member
Activity: 2926
Merit: 2348
The funds were moved from that address to another address, which is also one of the multi-sig address, it wasn't disclosed but is definitely viewable on blockchain. This is the address: https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/36Uh2ine6UzWGPTDYdENqS6pj6Rzx4Q67R
My question is why were these coins moved? And more importantly, why is there a refusal to say the coins are in fact held in this address?

Each of the escrows also provided signed messages saying the bitcoin would be held in a "2-of-3 multisig" address. I am also curious to know if each of the three escrow agents solely controlled each one of the three keys required to unlock the funds, and if this continues to be the case. The wording of the signed messages certainly implies this is the case, however some statements in the ANN thread makes me be not so sure.

The funds were moved from that address to another address, which is also one of the multi-sig address, it wasn't disclosed but is definitely viewable on blockchain. This is the address: https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/36Uh2ine6UzWGPTDYdENqS6pj6Rzx4Q67R

The timeline is pretty simple:

-> NVO escrow terms were agreed before the BCH existed, and were different than the original CET terms.
-> The ICO raised around 3000 BTC, the alts weren't converted immediately. Some were, some still are/were recently converted.
-> There were issues while converting, due to investors lack of due diligence(quoting Lauda's exact words).
-> Fast forward to June(?), some shit happened(didn't read or get enough or any info on that) and it resulted in a vote, whether or not the investors should be refunded or not.
-> Vote is still going on, and if it results in a refund, they will be taken care of by Lauda and team.

From what I can tell, only the alts were moved to an exchange, and most of the bitcoin stayed there only. Some bitcoins were sent to bittrex, and I don't know what happened to that. There's still more than 1000 btc in the escrow address ,plus forks.

~1497 BCH was moved on Aug 7 around 3AM GMT, and around 94 BTC was sent back to an alleged escrow address around 7:45 PM that evening. The low price during that timeframe was 0.07 BTC, and the high was 0.1149 BTC, meaning that BCH was worth between 104.79 and 172 BTC, depending on what it was sold for. This means there is at least 10 BTC unaccounted for, likely substantially higher.

Further, I do not see any account for the bitcoin gold funds, nor bitcoin diamond.

Lauda's statement implies he does not intend on returning the money from the BCH fork, along with his CET "policy".

The lack of transparency of course does not do lauda any favors in terms of making it appear he is doing everything honestly, and "by the book".


How did >3,094 BTC turn into 1169 BTC?  Where did the 10-78 missing BTC from the BCH sale go?  Is there something quoted above that is not true?
First of all, information regarding the alts needs to be made immidiately public. We need to know the addresses they were received to, when they were sent to an exchange, what exchange rate they were sold for, and where the bitcoin was withdrawn to after the coins were sold.

I calculate the alts to be worth just over 502 BTC at current depressed prices that are significantly lower than what they were when the ICO sale ended. Plus the additional 104 BTC from the sale of BCH, and the 1590 BTC raised in the ICO, and the total BTC comes to about 2200 BTC. All of these numbers are lower bound amounts.

It is unclear as to how the fact that the issues with converting were due to "investors lack of due diligence" as I have no idea how one could lead to another.

I am not sure why several hundred BTC was moved to exchanges. Something appears to be out of order here.
donator
Activity: 4760
Merit: 4323
Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform
I disagree. This is only reason why OgNasty should do it. If something is wrong they will have to post proofs, and with so much hate between you two, I believe if OgNasty say everything is OK than everything is OK.
It is simple as that.

Og can't be trusted with this. Right above he's already moving goalposts from "did Lauda steal money" to "was there a vote for a milestone" even though no such vote was supposed to take place as far as I know. It would have to be someone completely impartial, which probably excludes most people in this thread. Someone mentioned ibminer, seems like a good choice if he would agree. There are other trusted people on this forum. No need to involve someone as blatantly biased as Og.

I can be trusted with this. I wouldn’t touch this dumpster fire, but implying I am somehow untrustworthy is pretty lame suchmoon. This escrow was not handled properly. Asking questions is appropriate.
legendary
Activity: 3654
Merit: 8909
https://bpip.org
I disagree. This is only reason why OgNasty should do it. If something is wrong they will have to post proofs, and with so much hate between you two, I believe if OgNasty say everything is OK than everything is OK.
It is simple as that.

Og can't be trusted with this. Right above he's already moving goalposts from "did Lauda steal money" to "was there a vote for a milestone" even though no such vote was supposed to take place as far as I know. It would have to be someone completely impartial, which probably excludes most people in this thread. Someone mentioned ibminer, seems like a good choice if he would agree. There are other trusted people on this forum. No need to involve someone as blatantly biased as Og.
legendary
Activity: 1932
Merit: 2272
Where did the 10-78 missing BTC from the BCH sale go?  Is there something quoted above that is not true?
Only a proper professional audit would help answer that question.
I agree.
This whole topic is one big speculation where no one actually knows anything and everyone is guessing something.

I'll look for an impartial DT member to audit the information that I have. Open to volunteers as well.
It's not the way it works.
I wouldn't allow individuals such Quicksy and yourself any possibility of an audit, while there are individuals to which I'd be open to share the necessary information with. Thus, both statements are correct.
I disagree. This is only reason why OgNasty should do it. If something is wrong they will have to post proofs, and with so much hate between you two, I believe if OgNasty say everything is OK than everything is OK.
It is simple as that.
donator
Activity: 4760
Merit: 4323
Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform
How did >3,094 BTC turn into 1169 BTC without this being a scam?  
This:
~60% of the funds have been disbursed to the team according to milestones and the remaining ~40% (probably more due to forks) are likely to be refunded pending a vote, which is in progress: https://nvo.party/

Some folks here seem to use a definition of a scam as "anything less than 100%" but the initial 30% distribution was set in stone basically (end if ICO / start of development) and the other 30% seems to be quite straightforward too (availability of beta wallet software IIRC) so there isn't much room for a scam unless the escrow actually runs at takes some or all of the 40% with them.

Where did the 10-78 missing BTC from the BCH sale go?  Is there something quoted above that is not true?
Only a proper professional audit would help answer that question.

Was a vote ever done to see if the beta wallet and first API Cluster were acceptable?

Are the people who received 60% of the funds also entitled to a share of the refund for tokens they own?
legendary
Activity: 2383
Merit: 1551
dogs are cute.
How did >3,094 BTC turn into 1169 BTC without this being a scam?  
This:
~60% of the funds have been disbursed to the team according to milestones and the remaining ~40% (probably more due to forks) are likely to be refunded pending a vote, which is in progress: https://nvo.party/

Some folks here seem to use a definition of a scam as "anything less than 100%" but the initial 30% distribution was set in stone basically (end if ICO / start of development) and the other 30% seems to be quite straightforward too (availability of beta wallet software IIRC) so there isn't much room for a scam unless the escrow actually runs at takes some or all of the 40% with them.

Where did the 10-78 missing BTC from the BCH sale go?  Is there something quoted above that is not true?
Only a proper professional audit would help answer that question.
donator
Activity: 4760
Merit: 4323
Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform
The funds were moved from that address to another address, which is also one of the multi-sig address, it wasn't disclosed but is definitely viewable on blockchain. This is the address: https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/36Uh2ine6UzWGPTDYdENqS6pj6Rzx4Q67R

The timeline is pretty simple:

-> NVO escrow terms were agreed before the BCH existed, and were different than the original CET terms.
-> The ICO raised around 3000 BTC, the alts weren't converted immediately. Some were, some still are/were recently converted.
-> There were issues while converting, due to investors lack of due diligence(quoting Lauda's exact words).
-> Fast forward to June(?), some shit happened(didn't read or get enough or any info on that) and it resulted in a vote, whether or not the investors should be refunded or not.
-> Vote is still going on, and if it results in a refund, they will be taken care of by Lauda and team.

From what I can tell, only the alts were moved to an exchange, and most of the bitcoin stayed there only. Some bitcoins were sent to bittrex, and I don't know what happened to that. There's still more than 1000 btc in the escrow address ,plus forks.

~1497 BCH was moved on Aug 7 around 3AM GMT, and around 94 BTC was sent back to an alleged escrow address around 7:45 PM that evening. The low price during that timeframe was 0.07 BTC, and the high was 0.1149 BTC, meaning that BCH was worth between 104.79 and 172 BTC, depending on what it was sold for. This means there is at least 10 BTC unaccounted for, likely substantially higher.

Further, I do not see any account for the bitcoin gold funds, nor bitcoin diamond.

Lauda's statement implies he does not intend on returning the money from the BCH fork, along with his CET "policy".

The lack of transparency of course does not do lauda any favors in terms of making it appear he is doing everything honestly, and "by the book".


How did >3,094 BTC turn into 1169 BTC?  Where did the 10-78 missing BTC from the BCH sale go?  Is there something quoted above that is not true?
legendary
Activity: 2383
Merit: 1551
dogs are cute.
Has anybody offered to do an audit?
Presumably, signed messages, txid's and addresses can be provided so anyone can look at the information themselves...
Signed messages can't be provided : https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/is-it-possible-to-sign-a-message-from-a-multisig-address-1576803

And txid's and addresses are already public. I haven't gotten too deep in it to check between the exact amounts, as I don't have the exchange rates, and the necessary data. I think this info should be private than public, unless there's more to this accusation, which is highly unlikely.
Actually this is not the case. Up to 60% of the total is (well, was) the amount that the team was allowed to withdraw according to the milestones, but it was never fully taken. Based on my math, if you include forks in the calculations there is about 50% extra left than the minimum defined by the milestones (thus, not 40% left but ~60%).
Since you said, forked coins were sent to nemgun , how does the total end up to 60%?
copper member
Activity: 2926
Merit: 2348
Has anybody offered to do an audit?
Presumably, signed messages, txid's and addresses can be provided so anyone can look at the information themselves...
copper member
Activity: 2926
Merit: 2348
I still don't understand why you changed your escrow rules about forks after taking these funds, and then claim your escrow thread and escrow services aren't related.  Huh

You keep repeating this after Lauda had already stated numerous times that the rule change did not apply retroactively to the NVO escrow. Stop being an asshole just for the sake of being an asshole.

I think you forgot to reference where lauda posted where he disclosed this to ICO investors prior to them sending money to the project.

Further this term has no equity for the investors and as such is unenforceable in court.

All of this ignores the fact that it is very unlikely this would be a negotiated term at the time the ANN thread was created.

What are you on about with this pseudo-legalese bullshit? BCH did not exist at the time of the ICO. When the BCH fork happened it triggered a decision and it seems that a reasonable one was made, i.e. to redeem the fork and add it to the escrowed funds.
~1497 BCH was moved on Aug 7 around 3AM GMT, and around 94 BTC was sent back to an alleged escrow address around 7:45 PM that evening. The low price during that timeframe was 0.07 BTC, and the high was 0.1149 BTC, meaning that BCH was worth between 104.79 and 172 BTC, depending on what it was sold for. This means there is at least 10 BTC unaccounted for, likely substantially higher.

Further, I do not see any account for the bitcoin gold funds, nor bitcoin diamond.

Lauda's statement implies he does not intend on returning the money from the BCH fork, along with his CET "policy".

The lack of transparency of course does not do lauda any favors in terms of making it appear he is doing everything honestly, and "by the book".

legendary
Activity: 2383
Merit: 1551
dogs are cute.
Says someone who jumped in on page 6  Grin
You gotta do what you gotta do.  Cool

But yeah considering that a one-post newbie started the thread and vanished without following up with proof, this is starting to look like a nothingburger.
Honestly speaking, the way things were said and the claims and allegations OP had bought in, and with those links and what not, made it seem really bad, and when the amount was that big, it seemed too sketchy, thankfully, the real truth was out, before things got worse, and this accusation will just remain at that, and nothing beyond that.

Edit:
Nice that you got some answers.  I saw a publicly stated escrow address that was empty.  Users complaining to me of a scam.  Lauda refusing to say where the funds were, refusing to give exchange rate data, refusing to let someone audit the situation, and ignoring questions.  I still don't understand why a simple timeline of events can't be provided.  You would think it would be fun to provide all this data.
The funds were moved from that address to another address, which is also one of the multi-sig address, it wasn't disclosed but is definitely viewable on blockchain. This is the address: https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/36Uh2ine6UzWGPTDYdENqS6pj6Rzx4Q67R

The timeline is pretty simple:

-> NVO escrow terms were agreed before the BCH existed, and were different than the original CET terms.
-> The ICO raised around 3000 BTC, the alts weren't converted immediately. Some were, some still are/were recently converted.
-> There were issues while converting, due to investors lack of due diligence(quoting Lauda's exact words).
-> Fast forward to June(?), some shit happened(didn't read or get enough or any info on that) and it resulted in a vote, whether or not the investors should be refunded or not.
-> Vote is still going on, and if it results in a refund, they will be taken care of by Lauda and team.


I believe it is safe to say the escrow was at the very least mishandled and funds should have never moved from the escrow address (I still have no idea why they did or where they went.  I read to an exchange managed by a single person?) without a transparent transfer to another address and updated signatures.  The blockchain was created exactly so situations like this don't happen.  It is disappointing to see this level of transparency.
From what I can tell, only the alts were moved to an exchange, and most of the bitcoin stayed there only. Some bitcoins were sent to bittrex, and I don't know what happened to that. There's still more than 1000 btc in the escrow address ,plus forks.
Pages:
Jump to: