The burdon of proof is not on me to show innocence here, I am the one being accused. The accusers should show hard evidence instead of biased opinions.
You have shown to fit that same category and so there's not really any point me discussing or explaining to you either. Your mind is clearly already made up.
You are absolutely correct. The burden of proof when alleging a crime or a tort is always on the accuser, and the accused should be presumed innocent until the evidence shows guilt beyond a reasonable doubt when it comes to crimes, and based on the preponderance of evidence in terms of torts.
I have to say the evidence as is currently presented makes it appear that you scammed the token holders of your ICO by failing to buy back 10% of tokens every quarter. This is based on posts from your ICO OP and from your own statements.
I have to agree that JollyGood looks like he is pursuing a smear campaign against you and your business. It was in part because of this that when I started writing my first post in this thread, it was defending you, however once I worked through the details my opinion changed against you.
I saw you
talk about this in a previous post, and you said that you have a "hard-requirement of not exposing (yourself) to counterparty risk" and I wanted to point out that having Dean deposit the bitcoin collateral with a reputable escrow would expose you to counterparty risk with the escrow. I agree it is not a good idea to expose yourself to counterparty risk to someone offering an "instant" 42% return. It also is maybe a good policy to not expose yourself to counterparty risk to anyone who approaches you with a business proposal over a threshold.
It's actually not too bad. My suggestion was that we use an escrow-agent to create a 2-of-3 multisig address (Where I am one holder, dean is another and the escrow the third). We would both commit enough funds into the multi sig-address (and keep it topped up) and have public payout addresses. Dean preliminarily agreed, so I talked to some extremely prominent members of the bitcoin community who agreed to escrow the deal. But that rapidly fell apart with nonsense excuses and kept offering amendments such that would break rule from the start: I am not going to enter a deal where I need to trust him with a million dollars.
I believe there is still counterparty risk, although smaller when using 2-of-3 multisig escrow arrangement as you describe. If the escrow agent engages in collusion (no pun intended regarding current events in the States) with your trading partner, the money being held could be stolen. The escrow agent does not even need to make an affirmative statement agreeing to collude with your trading partner (risking his reputation), if your trading partner presented a signed transaction to the escrow agent sending the coin being held in part to your trading partner, and in part to the escrow agent, all the escrow agent would need to do is sign/broadcast the transaction.
A setup that involves less counterparty risk would be a 3-of-4 multisig setup similar to what you describe with an additional escrow agent acting as the 4th keyholder. If either escrow agent presents a signed transaction sending coin in a way it shouldn't be, his reputation is at risk and he may not end up with any illegitimate coin.