After careful deliberation, we have decided to not participate in the SuperNet ICO. I understand that a large community is excited about SuperNet, and since we were initially announced as the ICO host, I wanted to take a moment to explain how we came to arrive at this decision.
For the past couple of days, we’ve been in discussions with our attorneys about hosting the SuperNet ICO. As several community members pointed out in this very thread, the sale of SuperNet tokens could be interpreted as the sale of unregistered securities. Our attorneys came to the same conclusion and have since advised us against taking part in the SuperNet ICO for this reason.
Further, one of our ICO requirements is identity verification (https://www.poloniex.com/icoRequirements); this requirement exists to protect investors and to lend credibility to the ICO. Despite several attempts to convince James the importance of revealing his identity, we were ultimately unable to reach an agreement that satisfied both parties.
We needed time for due diligence, to carefully assess the legal implications of taking part in SuperNet, and also the time to set up our backend systems to support it. James was very eager to get this going, however, so he chose to go with another host before we could communicate to him our findings and final decision.
We have since communicated with James, and we wish him the best of luck.
For the past couple of days, we’ve been in discussions with our attorneys about hosting the SuperNet ICO. As several community members pointed out in this very thread, the sale of SuperNet tokens could be interpreted as the sale of unregistered securities. Our attorneys came to the same conclusion and have since advised us against taking part in the SuperNet ICO for this reason.
Further, one of our ICO requirements is identity verification (https://www.poloniex.com/icoRequirements); this requirement exists to protect investors and to lend credibility to the ICO. Despite several attempts to convince James the importance of revealing his identity, we were ultimately unable to reach an agreement that satisfied both parties.
We needed time for due diligence, to carefully assess the legal implications of taking part in SuperNet, and also the time to set up our backend systems to support it. James was very eager to get this going, however, so he chose to go with another host before we could communicate to him our findings and final decision.
We have since communicated with James, and we wish him the best of luck.
I'm glad Polo wisely declined to participate in the SuperNet ICO.
But I don't understand why Polo nevertheless listed jl777hodl, a scam asset which has done nothing except destroy value for anyone foolish enough to buy into it.
I know the former is an ICO while the latter is an asset (albeit composed of other assets which supposedly monetize an asset platform for managing assets), but that very much seems to be a distinction without a difference. I wouldn't want to be the attorney splitting that hair for an unamused judge or TLA.
When SuperNet and jl777hodl encounter the inevitable regulatory scrutiny, Polo is going to have some very difficult questions to answer.
is it also for NXT?
