https://www.peercointalk.org/index.php?topic=4035.45
Looks like for weeks people been asking for proof about their initial investors. Only deflections and straw mans from the slum lord Daniel Kaufman.
Looks like for weeks people been asking for proof about their initial investors. Only deflections and straw mans from the slum lord Daniel Kaufman.
Wouldn't posting lies before the presale be counter intuitive in the first place? What if the 'investors' saw their site and makes a public statement sayng it's all untrue...?
They've only been making these claims as of weeks ago. As well that is not how Google works. You can type your own name all day on Google and you would never see the returns, of you, being alleged with some obscure thing on a small corner of the internet. You have to use quotations for precise matching. So unless somebody told you, someone on the internet was claiming you gave them money, how would you ever find out? Maybe that is where the "invited to invest" part will come in (see below).
Nicholas Högberg is one of the names they mentioned.
Google: Nicholas Högberg "NeuCoin"
Google: Nicholas Högberg
There is a difference. I went through a lot of names and couldn't find any substantial proof that any of them are involved with this. Press releases, Bitcointalk, Cryptonews sites are not proof.
You would think it would had been mentioned on several twitter or social media accounts.
http://www.neucoin.org/en/wiki/#team
"Invited to invest based on their ability to forge partnerships and help drive consumer adoption, the Strategic Angel"
Maybe that wording was intentional as legal defense. "invited to invest".
Could be. But they could still be liable for suggesting the idea that those mentioned actually invested.