For those who are still "confused", let me repeat again:
XC claimed to have implemented multisig. If this is true, then it is trivial to provide some multisig addresses with multisig tx associated with them, that we can see and inspect in the blockchain.
Saying implemented multisig but unable to provide even one multisig address? That dev provided some links deemed to be multisig transactions, but we don't even see one single multisig address there. He keep talking m-of-m (a joke for those who know what is multisig for), and provided regular addresses as multisig addresses, do you think he knows anything about multisig?
Some community members just show what a true XC multisig address look like. Now if you continue claim XC has it, show everyone the address and tx in the blockchain. Nothing is simpler, and let's not waste our (and everyone's) time by arguing. There's nothing to argue here, just show the facts! Experts know what you are talking about.
OK, so we are clear then that XC is using multisig and the OP is FUD. Thanks for clearing that up.
Synechist (who posted the transactions) is not a dev, he is PR, so I guess he made a mistake. (I dont know, Im not technical either)
I can assure you Dan (ATC Secure) Knows exactly what he is doing code wise.