Quote from: OgNasty on August 24, 2018, 12:45:58 AM

Was a vote ever done to see if the beta wallet and first API Cluster were acceptable?

Are the people who received 60% of the funds also entitled to a share of the refund for tokens they own?

There was no other vote other than the one asking for refund, speaking from the information available here.

The people who received 60% of the funds were the team members, and it was all spent, why would they get a refund. They might get a refund if they themselves were a private investor of the project.

Quote from: marlboroza on August 24, 2018, 01:51:00 AM

I disagree. This is only reason why OgNasty should do it. If something is wrong they will have to post proofs, and with so much hate between you two, I believe if OgNasty say everything is OK than everything is OK.
It is simple as that.

OgNasty and Lauda have had their beef for years, even though Og isn't a scammer, there is major trust issues between them. It'd would be better for both parties to hire a 3rd party unbiased professional auditor, or at least to someone who knows basic accounting and is trustworthy.

Quote from: Quickseller on August 24, 2018, 07:39:19 AM

My question is why were these coins moved? And more importantly, why is there a refusal to say the coins are in fact held in this address?

Each of the escrows also provided signed messages saying the bitcoin would be held in a "2-of-3 multisig" address. I am also curious to know if each of the three escrow agents solely controlled each one of the three keys required to unlock the funds, and if this continues to be the case. The wording of the signed messages certainly implies this is the case, however some statements in the ANN thread makes me be not so sure.

From the ANN thread, it was written that Lauda would control the bitcoin payments. I think Nemgun and Yanni also controlled the seeds(?).

Quote from: Quickseller on August 24, 2018, 07:39:19 AM

First of all, information regarding the alts needs to be made immidiately public. We need to know the addresses they were received to, when they were sent to an exchange, what exchange rate they were sold for, and where the bitcoin was withdrawn to after the coins were sold.

I calculate the alts to be worth just over 502 BTC at current depressed prices that are significantly lower than what they were when the ICO sale ended. Plus the additional 104 BTC from the sale of BCH, and the 1590 BTC raised in the ICO, and the total BTC comes to about 2200 BTC. All of these numbers are lower bound amounts.

It is unclear as to how the fact that the issues with converting were due to "investors lack of due diligence" as I have no idea how one could lead to another.

I am not sure why several hundred BTC was moved to exchanges. Something appears to be out of order here.

For the safety of the parties involved, the escrow , the investors, and the NVO team, it would be better for the exchange info to be private.

The investors lack of due diligence caused problems because of the escrow:

Quote from: nemgun on May 14, 2017, 01:23:54 PM

The Investors will have to provide a personal Bitcoin address they control in order
to receive the NVO Tokens. This is very important as NVO Token will be a counter party
asset, the investors have to provide a PERSONAL bitcoin address, not a pool or.............
exchange address because they would be stuck into these addresses...............................

Only Lauda would be able to explain why some bitcoins were sent to bittrex.