Allow me to quote the (unedited) post here:
-Just a Quick Update to all, Funds will be pulled out by escrow and will be converted to stable coin, as BTC keeps falling so we do want to take the chance not to gain loss and keep gaining for the sake of this charity and the people that needs it.
-Funds will go back to BTC as soon as it drops by 20k -25k
First, it's bad this isn't added to the OP. If someone wants to donate, they're not likely to read post #298.
Second, if a Bitcoin whale donated 1 Bitcoin, I assume they're long-term HODLers, which makes it likely speculating on Bitcoin dropping is not what they would have wanted (but this is just my own speculation).
Third, the post mentions converting funds to stable coin, it doesn't mention anything about splitting it to 3 people. I also don't think PHP classifies as "stable coin".
Fourth, Bitcoin did drop by 20k-25k between
April 23 and May 19. According to the above post, the "stable coin" should have been converted back to Bitcoin. Note that Bitcoin at $44k at the time was still much higher than the $32k at the time of the above post. This nicely shows how bad "timing the market" can be.
I don't think it had break up the escrow agreement
What
exactly was the escrow agreement? All I can find is this, which doesn't mention any terms at all:
This is bL4nkcode, and I confirm that this address 1CHAriTyyuCzLdXshSDVohyjgxTxW9Bhx is held by me and will be used as a donation address for Bitcointalk Charity Program
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5122205.0. Today 03/20/2019 PHT UTC +8
As an escrow, I think you're responsible for making absolutely sure up front how and when funds can be spend.
the split of the funds is agreed to make more activities and causes, not only from one person (cabalism) and one place (near on him)
The proper way to handle this would be to ask for funds from escrow each time a new charity activity was found and published in the thread.
that's why after the pull out of the funds, monthly activities had made.
If only there was a record of activities!
it was mentioned by cabal
Using incomplete names doesn't help for keeping track of who did what.
The transactions moves as per the request of cabalism or the beneficiary.
Wait, what? Why can the beneficiary ask for funds? How does that go? Like: "Howdy, I'm LoyceV, my address is in my profile!"? That's ..... weird!
- From escrow to my binance address -> binance p2p transaction (exchange to PHP fiat) -> my wallet (gcash) -> then send the amount eventually to beneficiary/cabalism account. OR from escrow -> my coins.ph account (exchange to PHP fiat) -> then send the amount eventually to beneficiary/cabalism account.
Without clear documentation, this sounds like a smoke curtain instead of honest documented trades. I've handled
some user's funds, and when I do, I make sure I document every transaction up to the last decimal. You've been active as an escrow for years, how can this not be your default behaviour?
From my points of view calablism13 did not make a mistake by splitting the work load of the charity function, ~, what he did by extending other activities to other person is good from my perception
Splitting the work load is totally fine. Giving people (including the escrow who was supposed to protect the funds) carte blance is not.