Quote from: notsoshifty on April 03, 2014, 12:05:23 AM

Quote from: TheMightyX on April 02, 2014, 11:45:06 PM

If anyone agrees I'll post my BTC address and start an online excel doc.
This project is getting interesting, but no escrow is smothering it.

Thanks for stepping in.

I agree it's looking interesting. My main concern is that the beta time until launch is too short to iron out critical security bugs, especially given the source is closed (and, in this release, slightly obfuscated to dissuade decompilation) so cannot be reviewed.

What would your escrow terms be? Also should formalise dev's escrow terms: criteria for determining if funds should be paid or not; when and under what circumstances an investor can pull out, etc.

I think 1% fee seems to be standard. In exchange I'll keep track of investments in a public excel ledger.
I would transfer funds to the developer only upon receiving a working wallet/protocol and confirmation of coins to the investors.
Any and all discrepancies I will be siding with the investors, not the developer.
If anything starts to look fishy; I start refunding.
If the dev has nothing to hide then he has nothing to fear.
These terms would increase consumer confidence so I don't believe he should be seeing them as negative.

I also think it would be wise to restart the IPO and agree on increasing the beta testing phase to allow for more bug reporting and testing.
Quora dev, do you agree to these terms?
You obviously have more to gain by doing a fair and open launch than a trustless IPO.