Quote from: suchmoon on August 23, 2018, 11:03:41 PM

Quote from: Quickseller on August 23, 2018, 09:55:02 PM

Quote from: suchmoon on August 23, 2018, 09:37:34 PM

Quote from: OgNasty on August 23, 2018, 08:59:21 PM

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".