From discussion of the newly-proposed NY law for crypto:
"One particularly controversial aspect of the law appears to ban the creation of any new cryptocurrency by an unlicensed entity. This would not only put a stop to virtual currency innovation (other Bitcoin-like monies include Litecoin, Peercoin, and the mostly satirical Dogecoin) but could theoretically put Bitcoin’s anonymous creator, known by the name Satoshi Nakamoto, in danger of prosecution if he failed to apply for a BitLicense." (Plenty more. It's not pretty)
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.7915278Implications for DRK?
I think there is sufficient room for interpretation around this aspect to make the regulations unhelpful.
The section that is relevant is
section 200.2
(n) Virtual Currency Business Activity means
the conduct of any one of the following types of activities
involving New York or a New York Resident:(1) receiving Virtual Currency for transmission or transmitting the same;
(2) securing, storing, holding, or maintaining custody or control of Virtual Currency on behalf of others;
(3) buying and selling Virtual Currency as a customer business;
(4) performing retail conversion services, including the conversion or exchange of Fiat Currency or
other value into Virtual Currency, the conversion or exchange of Virtual Currency into Fiat Currency or other
value, or the conversion or exchange of one form of Virtual Currency into another form of Virtual Currency; or
(5) controlling, administering, or issuing a Virtual Currency.If the creators or the administrators carry out their 'conduct' in New York or involve a NY resident, then it is clear cut that issuing or administrating code, e.g. uploading crypto code to github for distribution, would require registration as a business.
The difficulties are:
1. What is the business that a coin issuer or administrator conducts, especially if they do their work for free?
2. Do individual volunteers have to register as individual businesses?
3. What if you issue a coin in Japan, yet someone living in NY contributes a few lines of code?
What is very unclear is whether someone living in Arizona would be considered as requiring registration in NY as a business if someone in NY acting as a consumer simply uses a currency. I doubt it. Terms of reference in this section talk of 'conduct' i.e. carrying out activity relative to 'controlling, administering or issuing.'
Regulatory licences for any type of existing activities typically target a control test. They try to make businesses disclose sufficient information to identify those who ultimately might indirectly control a business, e.g significant shareholders (who may not be employees or officers; they may be acting through other businesses or from overseas).
Those that release a coin or contribute code to it might be consider as having some control. That remains true until a coin becomes sufficiently decentralised that new code releases could be forked and rejected by a sufficient number of clients.
How does this impact on DRK? It doesn't. It might if these regulations were adopted by Arizona or by the Federal government.
Is Satoshi under threat? Not likely. He doesn't control Bitcoin. However, if the regulations extended their definition of control to include those with a significant holding of a virtual currency, that could be challenged in the courts, but it is sufficiently grey that it could go either way.
Do significant holders of the global gold or diamond reserves have to disclose who they are? If someone accumulated significant cash and stored it under their house, would they need to disclose themselves?
With Darkcoin going anon, how can anyone prove how much eCash a DRK holder has? They can't. Whereas with Bitcoin they can. That is a good enough reason to go DRK as a hedge as anyone with any significant amounts of Bitcoin or Litecoin really needs.
Like I said before:
* You sold your eCash, when you should have hodl your eCash. ha ha.
* To da moon.
why would we need .com when .io is cooler 
