I have the feeling things have gotten a bit out of hand and some people are letting their emotions get the better of themselves, so let me clear some things up.
1) It is true that we wanted to sell some Veltor when the price was doing well to contribute to our funding of the foundation. However, not much later, the first dumps happened, and rather than selling any, I personally actually bought some more. I will check with the team whether we are willing to publish all of our addresses to confirm this.
2) I put my name behind this, and Alex put his name behind this, because we fully believe that not only will we make any investor whole, everyone will be better off long term. There is no haircut if holders get to keep their value and get a share in a project that has more resources and a much higher potential of success.
3) All of the funds raised in the ICO will go to an officially created foundation in Switzerland, with a clearly defined mission. I'm not sure if you are aware of how foundations work, but once you put the funds in, it's a non-profit organization and you can't legally use them for anything else. Nobody will personally profit from this.
4) The video interview was a bit of a stupid idea. Honestly, someone in the team accepted it before thinking it through, and then we had to somehow do it. We had none of the current plans and were simply playing a character of what was still a hobby project. We were trying to have a bit of fun, and in a way we did, but looking back, we probably shouldn't have done it.
5) It is fair to be upset, but what I think goes a bit far is personally threatening the people involved in the project. The team has put many months into Veltor, with no reward and no financial support. We invested tens of thousands of euros of our personal money for equipment and partnerships. There are two sides to this story.
In the end, the technical vision of the project has grown far beyond what was initially envisioned. In order to get there, we need serious funding. Otherwise, the project has no future and will die. If that's what you want to happen, that is what will happen. However, I think this would be the worst outcome for everyone involved when there is so much potential.
I see the biggest misalignment between the team's perception and the community's perception in what they think the potential of the project is and what is possible in terms of an ICO fundraiser. Of course, if you assume we can't raise much, then you think you are being scammed. It is our sincere belief, however, that no one will end up losing any value.
It is our fault for how communications on the project were handled, and when we did the Jason reveal, it was precisely because we have every intention of changing that. This is why we asked for a couple of weeks to let us roll out the updates. We could have done the ICO reveal later, but we did not want to keep anyone in the dark once the decision was taken.
We did fully expect some negative blowback, but the kind of things that are being said go far beyond what we thought a reasonable reaction would be. Again, we are a number of people dedicating their free time with nothing in return, to a project we started out of a passion and with an idea to create something extraordinary. I think this goes a little bit too far.
Your ICO is dead in the water without a fair deal try to get that fact.
50% is the minimum you can expect prior investors to take. That is meeting you in the middle.