You talk about US laws. But US highest laws this is constitution states that presidential candidate must be American also that issuing of legal currency can be done only by country not by private company like FED, that national currency should be backed by value and not created from thin air and that country can go on war only with congress permision.
So how can you talk about need to obey laws by common citizens while there in USA even constitution is violated on daily basis LOL There even isn't any legal president there... when law isn't obeyed on higher level than it is a joke not a law.
Topic: [ANN] Ethereum: Welcome to the Beginning - page 1299. (Read 2007155 times)
Ethereum (the company) is not offering any equity for sale, so I doubt they are afoul of any laws. They are asking for donations, and in exchange for donations they will be handing out widgets and wingdings. Those widgets and wingdings may or may not end up being worth any money. That's the risk you take.
FWIW, I'm seeing "$36 million" thrown around a lot in this thread. At today's BTC prices ($800), assuming Ethereum raises the maximum of 30,000 BTC, that would be $24 million.
The great thing about open source software is that anybody can modify it and create a "fork." Some people are suggesting that investors are fools, because as soon as the client is released, people will just fork a "free" version of the client and reap all the benefits. You're partially right...the client will undoubtedly be copied and forked by enterprising individuals. But hasn't the same thing happened to the bitcoin client? Yet the underlying value of "the real thing" hasn't diminished as a result.
On a side note, I've been lurking on this forum for months...I originally started mining LTC in December and then switched to middlecoin and began following that thread, which introduced me to bitcointalk.org. I was initially overwhelmed by the volume of information and helpfulness of the members, but then I noticed that many threads (especially the middlecoin thread) quickly devolved into flamewars. It's really sad to see a place with such potential devolve so quickly. It's like going to Wikipedia and searching for a topic, only to find that there's a 50/50 chance you'll be presented with vulgar bathroom graffiti instead of the article you wanted. With the current state of internet forums, it's a wonder that Satoshi himself wasn't flamed into oblivion before he even released the first line of code.
FWIW, I'm seeing "$36 million" thrown around a lot in this thread. At today's BTC prices ($800), assuming Ethereum raises the maximum of 30,000 BTC, that would be $24 million.
The great thing about open source software is that anybody can modify it and create a "fork." Some people are suggesting that investors are fools, because as soon as the client is released, people will just fork a "free" version of the client and reap all the benefits. You're partially right...the client will undoubtedly be copied and forked by enterprising individuals. But hasn't the same thing happened to the bitcoin client? Yet the underlying value of "the real thing" hasn't diminished as a result.
On a side note, I've been lurking on this forum for months...I originally started mining LTC in December and then switched to middlecoin and began following that thread, which introduced me to bitcointalk.org. I was initially overwhelmed by the volume of information and helpfulness of the members, but then I noticed that many threads (especially the middlecoin thread) quickly devolved into flamewars. It's really sad to see a place with such potential devolve so quickly. It's like going to Wikipedia and searching for a topic, only to find that there's a 50/50 chance you'll be presented with vulgar bathroom graffiti instead of the article you wanted. With the current state of internet forums, it's a wonder that Satoshi himself wasn't flamed into oblivion before he even released the first line of code.
Donations...lol the way you are carefully choosing select choice words make it seem like they are trying the best they can to appear legal. I'm very confident they are breaking a ton of laws, I don't care how you want to phrase the investments. We all know what they are doing, what I'm asking anyone who wants to invest is where is all the transparency and why have they not filed with the SEC? There is a lot of suspicious behaviour and commenting going on in this message board. If someone came to your home and asked you to invest 200,000 and showed you a youtube video and a message board ad would you give it to him? No, fawk no you wouldn't, you want financials, business plan. background checks the whole nine yards. That's the minimum,. forget the fact that this is just another coin and there will be hundred more like this popping up every month until the crypto hype dies. What I want to know is why would anybody be against more disclosure, more information, detailed business plan, financials, background checks on these individuals. Who would argue against that for an entity that is trying to raise up to 36 million? Who would question the need for more transparency and compliance with regulations? Weird shit going on here.
K.
Interesting project. The only thing I could not understand - what exactly is starting today? )) I've seen before this date marked as official start of project, but the IPO will be in 1 week only, so what will be today then? )))
i think today was the announcement date along with the Miami conf.
Ethereum (the company) is not offering any equity for sale, so I doubt they are afoul of any laws. They are asking for donations, and in exchange for donations they will be handing out widgets and wingdings. Those widgets and wingdings may or may not end up being worth any money. That's the risk you take.
FWIW, I'm seeing "$36 million" thrown around a lot in this thread. At today's BTC prices ($800), assuming Ethereum raises the maximum of 30,000 BTC, that would be $24 million.
The great thing about open source software is that anybody can modify it and create a "fork." Some people are suggesting that investors are fools, because as soon as the client is released, people will just fork a "free" version of the client and reap all the benefits. You're partially right...the client will undoubtedly be copied and forked by enterprising individuals. But hasn't the same thing happened to the bitcoin client? Yet the underlying value of "the real thing" hasn't diminished as a result.
On a side note, I've been lurking on this forum for months...I originally started mining LTC in December and then switched to middlecoin and began following that thread, which introduced me to bitcointalk.org. I was initially overwhelmed by the volume of information and helpfulness of the members, but then I noticed that many threads (especially the middlecoin thread) quickly devolved into flamewars. It's really sad to see a place with such potential devolve so quickly. It's like going to Wikipedia and searching for a topic, only to find that there's a 50/50 chance you'll be presented with vulgar bathroom graffiti instead of the article you wanted. With the current state of internet forums, it's a wonder that Satoshi himself wasn't flamed into oblivion before he even released the first line of code.
FWIW, I'm seeing "$36 million" thrown around a lot in this thread. At today's BTC prices ($800), assuming Ethereum raises the maximum of 30,000 BTC, that would be $24 million.
The great thing about open source software is that anybody can modify it and create a "fork." Some people are suggesting that investors are fools, because as soon as the client is released, people will just fork a "free" version of the client and reap all the benefits. You're partially right...the client will undoubtedly be copied and forked by enterprising individuals. But hasn't the same thing happened to the bitcoin client? Yet the underlying value of "the real thing" hasn't diminished as a result.
On a side note, I've been lurking on this forum for months...I originally started mining LTC in December and then switched to middlecoin and began following that thread, which introduced me to bitcointalk.org. I was initially overwhelmed by the volume of information and helpfulness of the members, but then I noticed that many threads (especially the middlecoin thread) quickly devolved into flamewars. It's really sad to see a place with such potential devolve so quickly. It's like going to Wikipedia and searching for a topic, only to find that there's a 50/50 chance you'll be presented with vulgar bathroom graffiti instead of the article you wanted. With the current state of internet forums, it's a wonder that Satoshi himself wasn't flamed into oblivion before he even released the first line of code.
Quoting you to say thank you for using reason and not spreading FUD.
Under the proposed SEC rules, issuers who intend to conduct a crowdfunding offering are required to file certain information with the SEC and provide this information to investors, potential investors and the crowdfunding intermediary that they'll be using — there are many vying for dominance, but Kickstarter is a popular example.
In addition, an issuer — for our purposes, let's think of them as a startup company, but other groups will get involved — is required under the proposed rules to prepare and file a Form C on EDGAR (the Electronic Data-Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval system, which is used by those required by law to file forms with the SEC) before the offering commencement. Among other things, Form C requires the reporting to the SEC of the following:
information on the issuer, directors and officers, owners (if they own 20 percent or more of the issuer),
business plan,
intended use of proceeds,
targeted offering amounts,
offering price and how it was determined,
information about the intermediary being used,
and additional information set forth in the proposed rules.
The implementing rules also require disclosure of certain information not required by the JOBS Act, such as the number of current employees of the issuer, risk factors relating to the offering, the issuers of debt position and related party transactions, among other information.
The SEC's implementing rules follow the original statutory framework and require an equity crowdfunding issuer to provide the following financial information:
For offerings of $100,000 or less, US GAAP (generally accepted accounting principles) financial statements for the two most recently completed fiscal years or shorter period during which the issuer has been operating as well as filed income tax returns for the most recently completed fiscal year.
This is the minimum information and filing that is required for companies requiring up to one million dollars only. These guys are asking for 36 million. LOL you have to file with the SEC and register as an IPO with all the proper disclosures to even think about it. You all should be asking MINIMUM the following questions US law requires for a minute one million dollar request of crowdfunding. Where is all this information? Something something devs revolution, they deserve to get paid for hard work is not going to cut it. These rules and laws are in place to prevent fraud and exactly this type of thing they are trying to pass onto everybody with zero transparency.
For offerings between $100,000 and $500,000, CPA reviewed US GAAP financial statements along with the CPA's review report; and for offerings over $500,000, CPA audited US GAAP financial statements.
An issuer, like a tech startup, would also be required to provide a narrative discussion of its financial condition covering, among other things, historic results of operations and liquidity and capital resources. In many respects, this is similar to a MD&A (Management Discussion and Analysis, which provides a narrative explanation, through the eyes of management, of how an entity has performed in the past, its financial condition, and its future prospects), but is not intended to be as lengthy or detailed.
The proposed regulations also require each issuer to do the following:
file with the SEC and post to its website an annual report within 120 days of the end of each fiscal year that discloses information about ongoing business and capital-raising activities.
In addition, issuers are restricted in their ability to advertise their crowdfunding offering only through a print or electronic notice containing specific limited information.
The notice must direct potential investors to the crowdfunding intermediary platform being utilized, where these investors could then access additional information about the offering.
However, under the proposed rules, there would be no restriction on an issuer's ability to communicate with investors or potential investors on the intermediary's platform, or make communications that do not refer to the terms of the offering. For example, an issuer can advertise its products or services so long as it does not refer to its crowdfunding offering in the advertisement.
The SEC's proposed rules clarify issues arising from the $1 million capital raise maximum prescribed by Congress in Title III of the JOBS Act as well as the per investor maximums. Under the proposed rules, only securities sold in the crowdfunding offering would count toward an issuer's $1 million capital raise maximum. The proposed rules also permit crowdfunding issuers to rely on the efforts of crowdfunding intermediaries to determine whether an investor has reached the per investor limits prescribed by Title III of the JOBS Act.
In addition, an issuer — for our purposes, let's think of them as a startup company, but other groups will get involved — is required under the proposed rules to prepare and file a Form C on EDGAR (the Electronic Data-Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval system, which is used by those required by law to file forms with the SEC) before the offering commencement. Among other things, Form C requires the reporting to the SEC of the following:
information on the issuer, directors and officers, owners (if they own 20 percent or more of the issuer),
business plan,
intended use of proceeds,
targeted offering amounts,
offering price and how it was determined,
information about the intermediary being used,
and additional information set forth in the proposed rules.
The implementing rules also require disclosure of certain information not required by the JOBS Act, such as the number of current employees of the issuer, risk factors relating to the offering, the issuers of debt position and related party transactions, among other information.
The SEC's implementing rules follow the original statutory framework and require an equity crowdfunding issuer to provide the following financial information:
For offerings of $100,000 or less, US GAAP (generally accepted accounting principles) financial statements for the two most recently completed fiscal years or shorter period during which the issuer has been operating as well as filed income tax returns for the most recently completed fiscal year.
This is the minimum information and filing that is required for companies requiring up to one million dollars only. These guys are asking for 36 million. LOL you have to file with the SEC and register as an IPO with all the proper disclosures to even think about it. You all should be asking MINIMUM the following questions US law requires for a minute one million dollar request of crowdfunding. Where is all this information? Something something devs revolution, they deserve to get paid for hard work is not going to cut it. These rules and laws are in place to prevent fraud and exactly this type of thing they are trying to pass onto everybody with zero transparency.
For offerings between $100,000 and $500,000, CPA reviewed US GAAP financial statements along with the CPA's review report; and for offerings over $500,000, CPA audited US GAAP financial statements.
An issuer, like a tech startup, would also be required to provide a narrative discussion of its financial condition covering, among other things, historic results of operations and liquidity and capital resources. In many respects, this is similar to a MD&A (Management Discussion and Analysis, which provides a narrative explanation, through the eyes of management, of how an entity has performed in the past, its financial condition, and its future prospects), but is not intended to be as lengthy or detailed.
The proposed regulations also require each issuer to do the following:
file with the SEC and post to its website an annual report within 120 days of the end of each fiscal year that discloses information about ongoing business and capital-raising activities.
In addition, issuers are restricted in their ability to advertise their crowdfunding offering only through a print or electronic notice containing specific limited information.
The notice must direct potential investors to the crowdfunding intermediary platform being utilized, where these investors could then access additional information about the offering.
However, under the proposed rules, there would be no restriction on an issuer's ability to communicate with investors or potential investors on the intermediary's platform, or make communications that do not refer to the terms of the offering. For example, an issuer can advertise its products or services so long as it does not refer to its crowdfunding offering in the advertisement.
The SEC's proposed rules clarify issues arising from the $1 million capital raise maximum prescribed by Congress in Title III of the JOBS Act as well as the per investor maximums. Under the proposed rules, only securities sold in the crowdfunding offering would count toward an issuer's $1 million capital raise maximum. The proposed rules also permit crowdfunding issuers to rely on the efforts of crowdfunding intermediaries to determine whether an investor has reached the per investor limits prescribed by Title III of the JOBS Act.
Ethereum (the company) is not offering any equity for sale, so I doubt they are afoul of any laws. They are asking for donations, and in exchange for donations they will be handing out widgets and wingdings. Those widgets and wingdings may or may not end up being worth any money. That's the risk you take.
FWIW, I'm seeing "$36 million" thrown around a lot in this thread. At today's BTC prices ($800), assuming Ethereum raises the maximum of 30,000 BTC, that would be $24 million.
The great thing about open source software is that anybody can modify it and create a "fork." Some people are suggesting that investors are fools, because as soon as the client is released, people will just fork a "free" version of the client and reap all the benefits. You're partially right...the client will undoubtedly be copied and forked by enterprising individuals. But hasn't the same thing happened to the bitcoin client? Yet the underlying value of "the real thing" hasn't diminished as a result.
On a side note, I've been lurking on this forum for months...I originally started mining LTC in December and then switched to middlecoin and began following that thread, which introduced me to bitcointalk.org. I was initially overwhelmed by the volume of information and helpfulness of the members, but then I noticed that many threads (especially the middlecoin thread) quickly devolved into flamewars. It's really sad to see a place with such potential devolve so quickly. It's like going to Wikipedia and searching for a topic, only to find that there's a 50/50 chance you'll be presented with vulgar bathroom graffiti instead of the article you wanted. With the current state of internet forums, it's a wonder that Satoshi himself wasn't flamed into oblivion before he even released the first line of code.
FWIW, I'm seeing "$36 million" thrown around a lot in this thread. At today's BTC prices ($800), assuming Ethereum raises the maximum of 30,000 BTC, that would be $24 million.
The great thing about open source software is that anybody can modify it and create a "fork." Some people are suggesting that investors are fools, because as soon as the client is released, people will just fork a "free" version of the client and reap all the benefits. You're partially right...the client will undoubtedly be copied and forked by enterprising individuals. But hasn't the same thing happened to the bitcoin client? Yet the underlying value of "the real thing" hasn't diminished as a result.
On a side note, I've been lurking on this forum for months...I originally started mining LTC in December and then switched to middlecoin and began following that thread, which introduced me to bitcointalk.org. I was initially overwhelmed by the volume of information and helpfulness of the members, but then I noticed that many threads (especially the middlecoin thread) quickly devolved into flamewars. It's really sad to see a place with such potential devolve so quickly. It's like going to Wikipedia and searching for a topic, only to find that there's a 50/50 chance you'll be presented with vulgar bathroom graffiti instead of the article you wanted. With the current state of internet forums, it's a wonder that Satoshi himself wasn't flamed into oblivion before he even released the first line of code.
Well I'm going to call the US attorney's office anyways and we will see if they are filing the proper paperwork with the government to ask for 36 million. There is a BIG difference between letting miners mine a coin and buy and sell in a marketplace and advertising an IPO that requests up to 36 million with ZERO transparency. I would bet every bitcoin that I have that these guys are breaking a ton of laws in US and Canada.
Why am I so upset? Because, I'm pretty sure these guys are breaking a ton of laws. When you are asking the joe public for 36 million dollars, I don't care if its in equity or coins and advertising it as an IPO. There better be a ton of transparency as to where who and how and what. Every detail should not go uncovered and you are lackadaisically saying that its ok, there is nothing wrong with that, these are good devs they should be paid....something something revolution blah blah blah. Well, I think there is something entirely wrong with that.
Why am I so upset? Because, I'm pretty sure these guys are breaking a ton of laws. When you are asking the joe public for 36 million dollars, I don't care if its in equity or coins and advertising it as an IPO. There better be a ton of transparency as to where who and how and what. Every detail should not go uncovered and you are lackadaisically saying that its ok, there is nothing wrong with that, these are good devs they should be paid....something something revolution blah blah blah. Well, I think there is something entirely wrong with that.
Stop saying "you guys" to random users. I told you, I'm not part of this project. I'm a user on a damn forum who is looking at a project just like you are. You're on here making legal threats (against this project) and physical threats (you told me to kill myself). When you call, make sure you mention Mastercoin, Nextcoin, and every other project that has taken money from people. By your definition, all of these criminals need to go to jail. Also tell them we don't know who Satoshi Nakamoto is, so he could be a terrorist. And thanks for scaring the shit out of everyone, probably even people who work or want to work on Ethereum ideas. You're an awesome human being. Maybe go get a job where you can bully people all day.
I just wanted to post this pic again because its so cool . ha ha ha .
check out lightning hands there ! : D
Right, because the sec has oversight authority over US citizens investing abroad 
Who is to say they are incorporated in Canada? If they are smart they went through another jurisdiction.
I still havent made up my mind on this project but your shameless shilling is annoying
Who is to say they are incorporated in Canada? If they are smart they went through another jurisdiction.
I still havent made up my mind on this project but your shameless shilling is annoying
They're also not selling equity. They're selling digital coins on the Internet that have no inherent value. It's friggin' software. We also don't know what the exact offer is. If that's illegal, we need to shut down all of Bitcointalk. This gutshot5820 user is quoting random laws that have no application here and making wild threats to scare people - God only knows why.
Well I'm going to call the US attorney's office anyways and we will see if they are filing the proper paperwork with the government to ask for 36 million. There is a BIG difference between letting miners mine a coin and buy and sell in a marketplace and advertising an IPO that requests up to 36 million with ZERO transparency. I would bet every bitcoin that I have that these guys are breaking a ton of laws in US and Canada.
Why am I so upset? Because, I'm pretty sure these guys are breaking a ton of laws. When you are asking the joe public for 36 million dollars, I don't care if its in equity or coins and advertising it as an IPO. There better be a ton of transparency as to where who and how and what. Every detail should not go uncovered and you are lackadaisically saying that its ok, there is nothing wrong with that, these are good devs they should be paid....something something revolution blah blah blah. Well, I think there is something entirely wrong with that.
As an experiment - I'm going to buy Mooncoin ! and see if i do better !
: O
no, seriously good luck !
: O
no, seriously good luck !
Interesting project. The only thing I could not understand - what exactly is starting today? )) I've seen before this date marked as official start of project, but the IPO will be in 1 week only, so what will be today then? )))
My understanding is that the timer that counted to today launched the web site and information about the people behind it. They made a thread here.
Interesting project. The only thing I could not understand - what exactly is starting today? )) I've seen before this date marked as official start of project, but the IPO will be in 1 week only, so what will be today then? )))
cool project
Right, because the sec has oversight authority over US citizens investing abroad
Who is to say they are incorporated in Canada? If they are smart they went through another jurisdiction.
I still havent made up my mind on this project but your shameless shilling is annoying
Who is to say they are incorporated in Canada? If they are smart they went through another jurisdiction.
I still havent made up my mind on this project but your shameless shilling is annoying
They're also not selling equity. They're selling digital coins on the Internet that have no inherent value. It's friggin' software. We also don't know what the exact offer is. If that's illegal, we need to shut down all of Bitcointalk. This gutshot5820 user is quoting random laws that have no application here and making wild threats to scare people - God only knows why.
You are crazy off in your calculations, 36 million to support how many guys for how many years and that is not excessive? We are living in two different worlds because I'm sure any venture capitalist would tell these guys to blow off if they presented them with the investment numbers they are asking from the public. You are acting as if this coin will actually survive in the long run. Every coin forum I have been to has a group of devs that think they have the best and innovative tech. You know what? There will be more coins and even better tech next month from the next group and so on and so on. If ANY coin survived in the long run it would make a 100M investment look cheap, that is a very lame apologist explanation. The chances of any coin to surviving besides bitcoin after the crypto hype is over is slim to none. This coin and every coin before and after it is a long long long shot to survive when the crypto hype dies. You can take all the technology you want and nobody cares except for tech nerds. The only thing people care about in coins is the ability to transfer money anonymously and liquidity liquidity liquidity. What good is a coin if you cant cash it out, I dont care what tech is behind it.
You're right. We should never think of anything ever again. This is the furthest humanity will ever go, and we've reached it. Let's shut down everything. Ideas are scary, and they're risky, and that's why we do them. I think it's cool that these guys are at least trying to do something interesting. That's all there is to it. It's novel, they're delivering code, and they're open about things. That's cool to me.
Bitcoin was revolution that changed the world, these guys are just hopping on the train and taking advantage of the Bitcoin community while crypto coins are still hot. It's obvious you are a tech nerd and like the work these guys are doing, but if they can't get money from a bank or venture capitalist, and need to beg to Bitcoin community to fund their project, while having no initial investment of their own, that sends warnings bells through my head. You have a right to your opinion, if you like then so much, go ahead and invest 100k and be an early adopter. If they were were asking for a few million to fund for expenses and a %percentage of pre-mine to reward them if things work out, then I would be behind this. But the mere fact that they are asking for up to 36 million is just ridiculous on an entirely different greedy level.
If a company or government wants to utilize this emerging cc/blockchain technology, and they can basically chose which blockchain/coin they want to build on, why would they choose Ethereum? Isnt it quite possible when it is released and is potentially much easier to build upon than bitcoin, ripples etc that it will be heavily adopted and may make up ground rapidly? But then whats stopping bitcoin or others using their advantageous work and implementing into their protocol? (side note: also, isnt it conceivable that people could start building on the dogecoin blockchain?) All these "ifs" make the ipo price a little crazy imo, but then i dont know shit. Im interested in economics and the histroy of money and really like this new technology, but dont really understand it despite doing my best to learn about it, including watching a few vids with Vitalik. Having watched these vids, and confident that ive always had a really good "gut brain" and high level of EI, Id say he doesnt appear to me at all as someone who wants to wrong anyone let alone rip people off for greed. In fact, he donest strike me as someone who is likely to care about money much at all, certainly not at the expense of his reputation which is on the line so early in his career.
I cant see myelf investing at this stage.
so is there a scrypt release for mining ? when is that date?
What happens, if the founders also 'invest' in their own company? It costs them exactly nothing, and reduce the share of the other investors.
The investors must know exactly what they get for their money.
The investors must know exactly what they get for their money.
Quoting from vbuterin (Vitalik) on Reddit:
"The organization will absolutely not attempt to increase its reserve by investing BTC into its own fundraiser."
The developers will not, but third parties that are associated with the project (behind the scenes) will.
Get ready for the most insane IPO funding ever
According to US Law, you can't just offer a crowdfunding of this type without filing the proper legal paperwork. This is a free market, but there are rules in place to prevent companies from defrauding their investors. Where is all the paperwork that is required? This technically could be construed as an entirely illegal enterprise and all the funds seized.
(1) They're in Canada. (2) They're not selling equity.
Canada, but asking for US investors. Also, I'm sure there are rules that apply for this level of funding that is on a whole different level. I'm pretty sure they have to file with the SEC and provide ten times more documentation for the dollar amounts they are requesting. Also, Canada has very restrictive crowdfunding laws to prevent this type of investment where transparency is almost non-existent,
Right, because the sec has oversight authority over US citizens investing abroad
Who is to say they are incorporated in Canada? If they are smart they went through another jurisdiction.
I still havent made up my mind on this project but your shameless shilling is annoying
According to US law the maximum this company can raise is in crowdfunding is one million. Their alternative is Regulation A and allows for up to 50 million and is required to fully register with the SEC and have full and detailed disclosure.
On top of all this, Ethereum is trying to pass this off as an offical IPO. They are probably breaking multitudes of laws with the SEC, that directly has restrictions placed on these types of offerings in order to prevent fraud. Anyone that asks for 36 million from the public without filing the proper paperwork with USA and Canada law is operating illegally. This is a free market, but rules are in place to protect the average joe from fraudsters that try to avoid transparency at all costs.
On top of all this, Ethereum is trying to pass this off as an offical IPO. They are probably breaking multitudes of laws with the SEC, that directly has restrictions placed on these types of offerings in order to prevent fraud. Anyone that asks for 36 million from the public without filing the proper paperwork with USA and Canada law is operating illegally. This is a free market, but rules are in place to protect the average joe from fraudsters that try to avoid transparency at all costs.
Jump to: