Thank you. This was handled professionally in the end run.

All of my addresses have been correctly funded.

Additional tip: The counterparty wallet sweeping process may appear to jam intermittently. I had a number of addresses (Electrum) and some worked while others didn't. After trial and error I figured out the common denominator: If an address has received more than one transaction (i.e. has more than one current spendable input) it would jam the xcp sweep. The solution was to send all BTC on an address to itself (collapse multiple inputs into a single). The sweep process then worked fine.

There are NVST addresses from the ICO with missing vote tokens.

Example: https://xchain.io/address/1M9UiQqDuwLRMcTWFJRnwh1BHErgNzwnsN

May I also suggest an announcement of when voting airdrops like this will occur?

These terms appear fair.

There is only one thing I must protest and one other thing I have concerns over.


The potential early closure is a problem if allowed to close too soon. Some people may desire refunds and be away with family, busy with work, etc... Might I suggest a minimum window that this is held open for?


Were these airdropped and when?

My recommendation sources from professional ethics applied to this situation.

When serious allegations arise regarding the legality of activities of internal management then all decisions resulting from those activities must either stop or be put on hold until a proper review is performed. Given that there are serious allegations levied in nearly all corners of this project at this point... I can think of no part of it which may continue as normal pursuant to the application of professional ethics.

A proper review requires the clearing of Yanni legally. It is alleged in the complaint that a computer was stolen which contained the DEX software. This makes the legal complaint of property theft relevant to this project ethically and legally. The assertions of fraud may also be relevant (i.e. we don't know at this time) and also require a proper clearing.

A proper review as mentioned above would tie up investor liquidity. All investors I've spoken to oppose the idea of their liquidity being tied up for very long.

From posts and comments I've seen there appears to be a discrepancy in how much the investors should be refunded. I propose that they be refunded the lowest undisputed amount as soon as possible with any discrepancies refunded to them at later date once the details are worked out. e.g. if everyone agrees the refund amount is at least 40% then 40% should be airdropped as soon as reasonably possible with any remainder sent once the details are settled.

I'm confused as to the rationale that would allow a vote at this stage.

With talk of voter manipulation, assertions of misappropriation of funds, one founder apparently prepared to bring a lawsuit against the other (i.e. Imed vs Ton Bi), and some investors prepared to bring this in front of European boards... I don't see (ethically/logically/etc...) how this could be left to a vote. Any sort of vote that extends this further will very likely succeed in expanding the size of the mess.

It's also worth noting that Imed has apparently published a copy of what appears to be a legal request for a prosecutor to take action against whom I presume to be Yanni. The legal request apparently alleges property theft, identity theft, and fraudulent bank accounts. Given that these are not minor allegations... decision about a vote should not hinge upon Yanni's involvement or lack thereof until such a time where he's cleared legally. My estimate is that investors would prefer not to wait for the duration of time this would take.

With the scale & pace at which government is being invited into this I could see it expanding to the point of legally ensnaring everyone (including escrows). It's been my impression that investors aren't liking the idea of having liquidity tied up in this for years while the only progress being made is to the financial benefit of lawyers. It's not even a matter of regret investing where absurd demands are being made by the investors either. Most appear happy to take their 60% haircut and move on.

That... and if a vote would win any kind of legitimate (e.g not manipulated) majority... then the founders should not be concerned by the idea of a refund. Any legitimate majority in their favor would happily reinvest after a refund proper.

I completely agree.

I didn't want to push for that at the time given that everyone was set on a vote.

The problems with a vote only became more obvious to me afterward.

I wanted to follow up on this.

So...

I've talked to people that support Imed and they want a refund & freedom to reinvest.
I've talked to the people that support Ton and they want a refund & freedom to reinvest.
And naturally there are the people that want out completely.

This is so much so that it appears (I'm getting information second hand) Ton is actively working on a mechanism to help the escrows perform the refunds.

I have yet to meet a vested person that wants to be forced into an unpredictable direction on this... including both of the founders.

So my question would be: Why are we voting?

Wouldn't a vote only add some unpredictable risk to everyone? e.g. a person with a large holding forces everyone to support one founder who subsequently backs out of their "refund but continue" narrative.

What's worse is there were murmurs of airdropping new tokens to people who show their support in the vote. I haven't heard as much about it anymore... but this casts a shadow of doubt over the legitimacy of deciding this with a vote. If people are voting one way or the other out of a fear of missing out on airdropped tokens it amounts to voter manipulation. Further... it also casts some concern into the mind of voters of if their investment addresses will be singled out in the future should either co-founder be privy to which address voted for what.

It looks like even coinpayments (post on NVO reddit by Ton) has backed the idea that the only right course of action is a refund of remaining escrow.

And if all paths/parties agree on the correctness of a refund I'm unclear as to why we're bothering with a vote. It would seem to me that this would only cause unnecessary risk, confusion, and voter doubt (i.e. the risks associated with voting that I mentioned above). If there were disputes over whether refunds should happen or not I could see some sort of consensus mechanism being needed (e.g. voting) but that doesn't appear to be the case here.

I've been thinking a lot about this.

Would it be more appropriate to allow an exit window for those who want out? e.g. the escrows setup a buy back for a limited period of time where people can voluntarily choose to stay or go. The remaining holders can then follow Imed or Ton by vote.

As has been pointed out the powerful hand of a single individual could force everyone involuntarily down a blind alley and subsequently into something they did not sign up for. Pure democracies have historically been suicidal and it's one of the reasons the US was setup as a republic with some hybrid functions of a democracy. I feel that's worth mentioning if for no other reason than to point out that pure democratic vote (especially one that would force everyone onto or off of something) isn't always the best way.