I don't have to call the SEC because it is not (yet) regulated so what in the real world is obvious and punishable insider trading, in crypto not only is not penalized but considered normal, acceptable behavior by the likes of you and others. That's why the sheriff is coming to town mand you and other will soon learn a hard lesson in the most elemental ethics. The hard way, of course.
Once again for the ignorants: You can do with your coins whatever you want, sell them to whomever or throw them away if you like. On a regulated market though, IF YOU ARE AN INSIDER, you simply can NOT. It is ILLEGAL and punishable with jail. Get it now?
Since I am such an ignorant, I will gladly acknowledge you are right if you can prove it. So far I have seen no merit to your argument that what jyap did in the post you linked to constitutes insider trading. Please provide links/definitions to back up your claims. Additionally please show how jyap and/or CryptoCayce benefited from this 'insider trading'. Here is the SEC's page on insider trading to start you off.
http://www.sec.gov/answers/insider.htmGladly. If Julian would have wanted to purchase 1.5 million pink in the marketplace, his orders, to be fulfilled, would have created an increase in the price by themselves. It other words, he would have had to buy probably the entire book, or at least a significant part of it (I take you know what the "book" is?), therefore paying significantly more than he paid CryptoCayce for it. That's the way HE profited. CryptoCayce profited, conversely, because if he would have sold those 1.5 million pink in the market the opposite effect would have occurred and he wouldn't have obtained even remotely close to the "market price" he got from Julian. Since it was Julian buying and Cayce was not supposed to DUMP -it's called dump when devs sell their coins-, the market price of pink would have increased as a consequence of Julian's buy, therefore not only he benefited, not only Cayce benefited, but also ALL pink investors lost value on their investment due to that particular backroom operation. That is ILLEGAL INSIDER TRADING in the real world. And is punishable with jail and extremely high fines.
I have explained the a to z of how that is unethical on any perspective and illegal in the real world one. Now it is up to you to choose to believe what better suit your interests. It won't change the facts of what took place one bit.
Just as I thought...this is not insider trading. This is off exchange trading aka aver the counter trading in the financial world. Im sorry barabbas, but your claim is utterly ridiculous.
Coins dont have to be purchased/sold on an exchange. For that matter neither do stocks/bonds.
And you, AGAIN, choose to miss the point. CHOOSE... The difference between insider illegal trading and trading "over the counter" or in any other fashioon is that INSIDERS, are not legally allowed to do ANY SELLING which is not transparent and within the strict windows set. The cannot sell, period, when they want but only when they are allowed, regardless what the market price is. And they have to notify their intention to sell well in advance of such window periods.
Non insiders can, of course, as stated several times before, sell their investments when where and to whomk they choose. But INSIDERS can NOT.
Now back to choose whatever seudo reality you seem fit.
barabbas, you are a pure cancer to this thread, i think that is a fairly uncontroversial thing to say, given the responses to your perseveration. and you won't even address the very reasonable jyap's most recent post, choosing instead to fire away at semantic arguments about what is and isn't insider trading...
so why not just let it go, and go play somewhere else? it seems obvious you're just looking to get into arguments for self-amusement/aggrandizement, so can you just be merciful and do it elsewhere so i and others don't have to read your boring screeds? maybe head over and irritate the BYC folks at coinblab... thanks!
Sorry for some reason -and there's a very solid reason for I don't have anyone on ignore that I remember-, I had you on ignore...
I can't leave the thread, you see I recently invested in NAUT and I am trying to defend my investment. You see, the reason I invested in NAUT is because I expected BK to find some solid solution to a problem (POS) that every single shit coin out there has solved before launching, every single one. So I figured he would solve it in a snap and since the price had gone down way more than I had ever expected, even in the worst of circumstances, I figured it would be a not too risky investment at these levels.
But enough of my reasons. The project, I feel, should be pole position for upcoming regulation and not very much is needed, in my view, to achieve that status on a solid base, but SOME actions are indeed required. Getting the "help", voluntary or otherwise, of Julian Yap is the solution? It doesn't seem so. The markets don't think so, so how wise is it? Does BK even care at this point? Those are the relevant questions investors should be posting, rather than attacking the messenger...
Oh, wait, that would be in a world of common sense and basic intelligence, sorry for a moment I deluded myself believing I was in such a world... I know much better, though.