Quote from: Casino Critique on September 28, 2022, 09:18:58 PM

The 2 of 3 escrow still have the funds as you can see it was not moved. Once we will have a new setup then we will ask them to move it.

Sure, anyone can see the funds haven't moved, but that doesn't mean anything as far as the escrows are concerned. They might have relinquished control over their keys or signature piece or however it works without anyone knowing about it. Know what I mean?

Quote from: Casino Critique on September 28, 2022, 09:18:58 PM

Seeing the controversy around, we may consider not having the public IBCO.

Well....Jesus....there wouldn't have been all of this controversy if all of the team members were identified from the get-go, because that seems to be where the vast majority of it stems from. If CC doesn't go ahead with the public IBCO, it won't be strictly because of that; it'll be because there wasn't much interest in the project--but any potential interest was surely stifled by the lack of transparency on display.

Quote from: Casino Critique on September 28, 2022, 09:18:58 PM

If they want, they can keep it as their service charge, or they can send it to our team wallet which is a 4 of 5 multi-sig wallet between us team members or even they can send those chips back to the sender. The two cosigner who are not team member will decide it if we decide not to hold the public IBCO.

So the chip buyers are fucked? Or potentially so, at your discretion? Haven't those two escrow cosigners stepped down or have otherwise become unavailable? Why would you let them choose what to do with those funds? Why wouldn't you return everything to the chip buyers if there's not going to be a profit-sharing deal? Those escrow people haven't done any work as far as I can see, so there's no reason why they should keep the funds as a "service charge".

I asked for a fee up-front for my editing work, and even though it was a pittance, I insisted on it because I figured something like this might happen. That said, let's hope for a good outcome.