Quote from: vlom on August 28, 2018, 03:44:31 PM

and now this on telegram "Ton" wrote:

Quote

escrows are trying to process it fast but we have an important problem
the domain NVO.io needs be under the control of escrows while they are processing the refund. It's under imed boudali's ownership right now
we need to file a complaint to the registrar to take it down so it can't be abused while the refund is processed and everyone is updated through 1 channel
some people still check the website for updates and they may not know this is going on. It's seriously problematic.
If people don't know about the current situation they will come back thinking they received random BTC out of nowhere, NVST can still be traded and come back to see another crowdsale being done through the NVO.io website fraudulently.
This is a security risk we cannot overlook. We need the domain back to make sure NVST can't be traded after the refund and everyone is updated regarding the situation

I'm not sure why the "CEO" would be saying they NEED the domain to do anything... because he's worried it 'may' be used as a scam?
I can understand why he would WANT to make sure that the website can't have some blinking message of a new fake ICO or whatever under the website's brand, but you don't NEED that and the refund shouldn't be contingent upon that.

"This is a security risk we cannot overlook" doesn't give the registrar or the person making the complaint the right to take down and seize a website from its "legal" owner because somebody MIGHT do something... what kind of weird and twisted thought crime conspiracy shit is that? Because somebody might decide to break the law in the future with an asset they control? Huh

If the refund is delayed significantly, or indefinitely, by this claim, my suspicion grows even stronger that they can't provide blockchain evidence of funds and transactions to process the 'refund' which has been agreed to.

Is this a refund, or them buying back the coins??? Because it's weird that they don't want the coin to be tradable at all anymore after this, right? Is it a give us the coins and you get your refund type of situation? That seems more like a buy back in technical terms. Then again, double dipping after getting a refund by dumping the coin also seems like an immoral and unethical way to lead the situation. Also, I'm not sure if returning like 40-60% of the original investment asset (Bitcoin) is legal simply because it is worth more in dollars. If somebody takes 2,000 Bitcoin, uses 1,400 of it, then says oops my bad and returns 600 Bitcoin that has a dollar value the same as the original asset years ago, does that make it right? Or did you just lose 1,400 Bitcoin of opportunity cost that is easily proven and documented, that you would then be entitled to? What kind of contracts or writing/Terms of Service were used throughout this? Perhaps the contract has already been fulfilled and nobody is really obligated to do anything? I'd need the contracts to make heads or tales of what was agreed to. Not like any of that really matters because this is likely an unregistered security and therefor immediately illegal regardless. There's like over 10 million dollars on the line as we speak, not even counting what the dollar amount was at the peaks. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if this shit blows up GAW style. If anybody involved on either side of this thinks they can be a slick little grease ball and slide out of this situation and it will all just disappear with time you might want to ask our homeboy Homero how that's going for him Grin

I truly believe this is the next big scandal to send shockwaves through the industry.