Quote from: WaffleMaster on September 02, 2018, 09:35:38 AM

There are no explanations of any escrow transactions.

This was never in the original agreement, thus there is no requirement for such.

Quote from: WaffleMaster on September 02, 2018, 09:35:38 AM

Which would mean 45.8% refund as he stated ( .0000933 / .0002036 = .458 aka 45.8%). I was under the impression that 60% would be refunded based on previous statements made here... is that true? Not sure, I'm really not looking too deep into this but offering some speculation and questions. What % went to the escrows?

It is ~60% of the funds, but not 60% of the original rate. I've already explained this several times; the initial ~3050 BTC number was a *balance snapshot*[1] to figure out a distribution rate.

Quote from: WaffleMaster on September 02, 2018, 09:35:38 AM

Now despite the low refund percent, Bitcoin has rose to a huge level so the dollar amount of the refund is actually greater than the dollar amount that was used to originally buy the ICO.

It's higher than it should be.

Quote from: WaffleMaster on September 02, 2018, 09:35:38 AM

I find some interest in the "41.78678295 BTC will be set aside until a solution to this issue is found".

There's nothing interesting about it. It was already explained: nemgun & co. stole the domain and database, thus the documentation is missing for the unallocated tokens.

Quote from: WaffleMaster on September 02, 2018, 09:35:38 AM

I and everybody else are working with incomplete information and no evidence from blockchain tracing has been put forth so the presumption would be innocent until proven guilty.

This doesn't work when the accuser is Quickseller.

[1] Theoretical total BTC balance based on conversation rates at the time of the snapshot.