Quote from: vizique on March 05, 2015, 10:12:24 PM

This is from another forum but worth the cross post for the value

The test node exited with 186,672.744183 XPY

129,607.455083 XPY went to PLathyqo3P5D4pNMMat7s26mpUnjP7SLZX
57,065.2881 XPY went to P9HwdnKRZD5niS7ua9pSV4DnjKxRPHw73Y (this wallet paid for the majority of the coin destruction three days later, yet didn't have the full 113,344.0 XPY at the time to do it on the date of 02-10.)

Difference of 129,607.455083 XPY - 57,065.2881 XPY = 72,542.166983
Another way to say it, is that the test coins, that weren't destroyed (72,542.166983 out of the 186,672.744183 XPY) went PLathyqo3P5D4pNMMat7s26mpUnjP7SLZX. That address did more interesting things with those coins and kept going, still alive to this day.

Have you cross checked the number of destroyed coins against what the number should be? Basically I am asking could it be possible that there is another address that was used to destroy coins?

This would be potential proof of a crime, namely wire fraud but possibly some others. An easy defense to this claim would be "we destroyed the promised number of coins by the promised date and time and here is the blockchain proof". This is why claims must be looked at singularly before calling it a crime - because that is how they are prosecuted and defended against. The suggestions (by someone else I believe) that you look at it as a whole and decide if a crime occurred based on a gut feeling is not how the legal system works.

Taking away that defense makes it easier. Proving criminal culpability also makes it easier to win a civil suit which is how most investors will get their money back. However those that cashed out early can be subject to clawback laws, basically if you cashed out early and profited all of that can be demanded back by the government and then per share awards can be given which means you may end up with a loss in the long term. This applies to mere investors the same as it does to those actually responsible when an investment vehicle is found to be criminal (look at some of the early investors in the Bernie Madoff ponzi scheme, merely because they cashed out early they were punished longer term).

Clawbacks can hose the people that got into XPY early and left early before everything blew up, even though they didnt do anything wrong. I personally disagree with clawbacks unless the person is found to have known, or reasonably should have known, that the investment was criminal. The government disagrees with me.

Quote

A SEC/FTA/FBI auditor or whomever (maybe they'll just take turns?) is going to have a field day with them.

The SEC largely deals with civil matters. This is related to advertising for investors, accepting investments, etc. They do have a unit that works with the FBI for criminal prosecutions.

The FBI would deal with wire fraud (for anything on the internet or telephone) and if there was anything mailed mail fraud. This would be criminal.

The FTA is the federal transit administration. I think you meant the FTC which largely deals with truth in advertising claims geared towards consumers mostly in civil court. They do have a criminal liaison unit which coordinates with criminal agencies like the FBI. The FTC would probably stay out of it deferring to the SEC and FBI for the civil and criminal charges should any exist. I believe they would likely stay out of it because it is more about investment advertising as opposed to regular advertising. Both the FTC and SEC regulate speech for the most part, just different areas of it.