Much has previously been expounded on the muddled ENVION case. Given the ongoing circumstance, it appears to be that ENVION could form into a good example and a contextual investigation for “how to foster a substantial financial backers security approach” in the crypto-venture space. According to our perspective, financial backers assurance has not been referenced time after time in the continuous conversation which is centered basically around the investor fight. Yet, in actuality, ENVION fund-raised from in excess of 30,000 individuals around the world. At present, these financial backers are the casualties of an investor fight. Because of the absence of and mistaken data in the white paper, ICO financial backers had no chance of perceiving that there were a few investor bunches in the Envion that could get into struggle.
Meanwhile, these financial backers began to unite and alongside a financial backers’ wire channel, the site www.envion-investors.org went on the web. This appears to be a legitimate methodology and according to our perspective the main sensible method for making the privileges of the EVN token financial backers heard in this wreck. As wire diverts are utilized vigorously in selling tokens around the world, we think it is above and beyond that similar online entertainment channels are utilized to arrange the frustrated financial backers.
In any case, EVN token holders will find it challenging to declare their privileges. According to our perspective, token holders ought to likewise be viewed as financial backers who should be safeguarded.
With the end goal of an effective conversation in this muddled ENVION case we ought to attempt to structure the points to talk about and recognize the singular front lines. In our view, these two front lines are
the Investor Question Combat zone, for example the question between the two pioneer groups
the Financial backers Assurance Combat zone, for example the legitimate cases of the ICO financial backers/EVN token-holders
At present, maybe individuals around the ENVION AG President Matthias WOESTMANN are the troublemakers on the “Investor Debate War zone”. Evidently, they have a separate history and are capable corporate bandits. WOESTMANN and his accomplices might have deceived the organizers around TRADO GmbH and Michael LUCKOW. As a matter of fact, it really depends on the courts to settle on that in the weeks, months, or years to come. It’s a fight between the two investor gatherings.
At the “Financial backers Cases Combat zone”, nonetheless, we see both investor bunches in a joint risk against ENVION ICO financial backers and EVN token-holders.
Obviously the outline – the legitimate reason for their venture – contained bogus and deceiving data. Presumably the main piece of misdirecting data in the plan was that the administration of ENVION AG imagined that all resources important to arrive at the guaranteed business objectives are at the demeanor (claimed by) ENVION AG.
Presently it is obvious that neither the savvy contract for the symbolic deal nor the IP freedoms for the MMU at any point have been at the demeanor of the administration of ENVION. ICO financial backers have been deceived and attracted into an unfilled shell. The venture outline was bogus just like the white paper and the public declarations across the different ENVION virtual entertainment channels. That multitude of various components of public correspondence made a “bogus and deceiving picture” for ICO financial backers/EVN token-holders.
At any rate, the obvious promoting gag … we are a consistent ICO by giving an outline … will bring about a plan risk for the supervisory group of ENVION AG. Also, nonetheless, everybody engaged with the venture is answerable for offering bogus or deluding expressions in broad daylight. With financial backers security as the core value, we see a lawful obligation of both establishing groups here. Pointing at one another won’t change anything for financial backers and the courts on the “Financial backers Security War zone”.
And the guaranteed straightforwardness?
ENVION needed to be an alternate ICO, a straightforward venture and company. Sounded promising on the grounds that financial backers security begins with straightforwardness in any case. As Nathanial POPPER in his NYT article legitimately reminded us, it was one of ENVION’s vital messages to expected financial backers to be not quite the same as those numerous other dodgy ICOs. In one of its numerous limited time posts on Medium, the Envion group composed:
“As monetary controllers across the globe hope to manage I.C.O.s and safeguard financial backers, Envion fills in as a model for a consistent crowdsale that works with similar straightforwardness and trustworthiness of customary monetary business sectors.”
Indeed, it, sadly, turned out that ENVION precisely was something contrary to a straightforward venture. The TRADO-organizers around Michael LUCKOW at first concealed in obscurity and Matthias WOESTMANN, a previous columnist and venture letter distributer, managed everything. Regardless of being named a consistent ICO “made in Germany” it worked out that the nature of ENVION’s public papers – white paper and plan – had exactly the same unfortunate straightforwardness level as large numbers of the condemned seaward ICO tricks.
Over the ICO, the ENVION group unveiled a great deal of data to persuade expected financial backers. Those snippets of data distributed on its site, on its Medium channel (trailed by 4.8k individuals), in its white paper, and in the plan, ended up being considerably off-base. We should attempt to lay out a rundown of issues related with ENVION’s public assertions:
[table id=8/] Many individuals chipped away at the vehicle ENVION and everybody knew (or needed to be aware of) the status and state of the vehicle when the ICO was begun. According to a financial backer’s perspective, it is an unmerited rearrangements to fault the driver just, now that the vehicle crashed due to lethal development issues.