How has it been debunked? It's a fact.
A "fact" made up to suite your own vendetta.
After you received funds for this ICO escrow deal, you changed your escrow terms to state that you get to keep the forked funds. There is evidence you did this. It happened. Are you saying that the evidence provided is fraudulent.
Yes; the out-of-context "evidence" is fraudulent in the way that it was presented. The policy change is
for CET, in the CET thread for future escrow deals; it has nothing to do with NVO escrow terms which were made before Bcash was a thing.
The BCH fork happened in August of 2017. You made this change in November of 2017. Regardless, I will take this as an admission that you had no claim to the forked coins in the NVO escrow. We're making progress. Now we just need to see an audit of the non-transparent moves that were made while the funds were not protected by the agreed upon multisig escrow and when you alerted depositors that their funds would be moved to an exchange and would no longer protected by the escrow agreement as the evidence you provided above states that you took 18 BTC for that exchange and the allegations are that users were not aware their funds were being moved from the escrow protection.
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.
The evidence he quoted stated that he took 18 BTC for that transfer. I'm trying to clear up inconsistencies. People deserve to know what happened to their money.
This suggests that Lauda pocketed about 18 btc or usd $60,000 at the time (usd $120k today). Not bad for 30 minutes of work.