Topic: ASICMINER: Entering the Future of ASIC Mining by Inventing It - page 142. (Read 3917058 times)
October 29, 2014, 09:28:55 PM
Surprising it took this long, it should have dumped hard on fc's latest announcement, but you all have stockholm syndrome.
October 29, 2014, 08:54:07 PM
<0.1 BTC a share.
This should get interesting.
This should get interesting.
October 29, 2014, 08:06:21 PM
Actually I suspect AM may be able to argue that since there is no 'ownership' of the company conferred by owning AM shares, that they did not offer securities. This is obviously muddied by the use of the words IPO, share, securities etc.
Clearly you have not read the legal definition of a security, nor have you been around for very long or you would have known better. There is absolutely zero doubt AM shares are legally securities subject to SEC regulation in so far they are offered to US investors.
JOBS Act, Title III.
October 29, 2014, 06:20:50 PM
Over 500 shares just dumped on Havelock! Holy cow, who do you think did that? Insider information or just an early adopter cashing out some of his stash? Maybe someone is willing to buy some AMHash??? 
just some people leaving the boat.
October 29, 2014, 06:18:50 PM
Over 500 shares just dumped on Havelock! Holy cow, who do you think did that? Insider information or just an early adopter cashing out some of his stash? Maybe someone is willing to buy some AMHash???
October 29, 2014, 03:48:10 PM
Actually I suspect AM may be able to argue that since there is no 'ownership' of the company conferred by owning AM shares, that they did not offer securities. This is obviously muddied by the use of the words IPO, share, securities etc.
Clearly you have not read the legal definition of a security, nor have you been around for very long or you would have known better. There is absolutely zero doubt AM shares are legally securities subject to SEC regulation in so far they are offered to US investors.
Applying a little bit of thought, you are clearly right.
October 29, 2014, 07:48:25 AM
Hum so i guess thats good news. Sort of a build up between these 4 manufacturers. Need to scale up and cooperate in order to be sustainable in this industry and in front of the (private) megalodon bitfury.
October 29, 2014, 03:44:04 AM
Actually I suspect AM may be able to argue that since there is no 'ownership' of the company conferred by owning AM shares, that they did not offer securities. This is obviously muddied by the use of the words IPO, share, securities etc.
Clearly you have not read the legal definition of a security, nor have you been around for very long or you would have known better. There is absolutely zero doubt AM shares are legally securities subject to SEC regulation in so far they are offered to US investors.
October 29, 2014, 03:42:21 AM
I really don't know what will come of this, even how the SEC could enforce anything if operators work and reside out of country? Wouldn't their only option to be to ban U.S. citizens from trading on such services? I don't know enough about these areas of international and business law.
They certainly wouldnt ban users (/investors) from using those services. Interestingly its not all illegal to buy unregistered securities, its the selling and promoting thats the issue.
As for what they can do; typically the sec would demand the seller stop promoting its products to US investors and demand they implement reasonable safeguards to make sure they do not sell to US nationals. Failing to do so may lead to prosecution, it may prompt them to contact their (in this case) Chinese counterparts. I dont know how chinese authorities look up on this, nor am I at all familiar with chinese security regulations, but considering their crackdown on bitcoin exchanges, this might be a more scary prospect than the SEC.
October 29, 2014, 03:32:41 AM
Actually I suspect AM may be able to argue that since there is no 'ownership' of the company conferred by owning AM shares, that they did not offer securities. This is obviously muddied by the use of the words IPO, share, securities etc.
October 28, 2014, 09:19:12 PM
Ok, this part of the letter;
And, the whole thing is voluntary for now...
I really don't know what will come of this, even how the SEC could enforce anything if operators work and reside out of country? Wouldn't their only option to be to ban U.S. citizens from trading on such services? I don't know enough about these areas of international and business law.
SEC's mandate is to protect american investors. How would they go about policing the foreign based companies caught doing something wrong? Interpol?
Falling btc, no divs, now this! Yeeeesh
A must-read, imho. I imagine we will hear a lot more about the topic, but for now:
“A key element of the letter requires that those receiving the letter stay quiet and treat it as confidential. They may seek legal counsel but they may not reveal the fact they received a letter to those who are not directly involved with responding to the letter nor the public so the exact number of letters going out nor the companies receiving them will not be revealed by those affected without legal consequences.”
“A key element of the letter requires that those receiving the letter stay quiet and treat it as confidential. They may seek legal counsel but they may not reveal the fact they received a letter to those who are not directly involved with responding to the letter nor the public so the exact number of letters going out nor the companies receiving them will not be revealed by those affected without legal consequences.”
And, the whole thing is voluntary for now...
I really don't know what will come of this, even how the SEC could enforce anything if operators work and reside out of country? Wouldn't their only option to be to ban U.S. citizens from trading on such services? I don't know enough about these areas of international and business law.
SEC's mandate is to protect american investors. How would they go about policing the foreign based companies caught doing something wrong? Interpol?
Falling btc, no divs, now this! Yeeeesh
October 28, 2014, 07:09:26 PM
Correct, but highly unlikely China will assist the SEC in any action, making any action impossible. Far more likely, the SEC will concentrate its efforts elsewhere.
Exactly. You can claim to have dominion over the world, but here in reality America isn't the world police so they can say what they want, but they have no jurisdiction so no way to enforce their "rules".
October 28, 2014, 06:12:55 PM
What about Havelock/Panama? I'm unfamiliar with the relationship between Panamanian government and US regulatory agencies.
Do you really believe the people running Havelock reside in Panama?
Didn't Erik Voorhees relocate to Panama for cryptobusiness operations?
He did.
October 28, 2014, 06:02:28 PM
What about Havelock/Panama? I'm unfamiliar with the relationship between Panamanian government and US regulatory agencies.
Do you really believe the people running Havelock reside in Panama?
Didn't Erik Voorhees relocate to Panama for cryptobusiness operations?
October 28, 2014, 05:19:32 PM
Well, I guess I don't know much. What do you know about it?
I dont have facts or inside info either, but its a very safe bet its registered in Panama not because the operators have Panamese nationality or residence, but because its dead easy to register a PO box company there and evade regulation/taxation/etc.
We are located and regulated locally in Panama.
Has Havelock commented on whether they received a letter from the SEC, and/or how they would respond to that scenario?
October 28, 2014, 05:14:27 PM
Well, I guess I don't know much. What do you know about it?
I dont have facts or inside info either, but its a very safe bet its registered in Panama not because the operators have Panamese nationality or residence, but because its dead easy to register a PO box company there and evade regulation/taxation/etc.
We are located and regulated locally in Panama.
October 28, 2014, 04:31:14 PM
Well, I guess I don't know much. What do you know about it?
I dont have facts or inside info either, but its a very safe bet its registered in Panama not because the operators have Panamese nationality or residence, but because its dead easy to register a PO box company there and evade regulation/taxation/etc.
October 28, 2014, 04:26:32 PM
What about Havelock/Panama? I'm unfamiliar with the relationship between Panamanian government and US regulatory agencies.
Do you really believe the people running Havelock reside in Panama?
Well, I guess I don't know much. What do you know about it?
October 28, 2014, 04:18:29 PM
What about Havelock/Panama? I'm unfamiliar with the relationship between Panamanian government and US regulatory agencies.
Do you really believe the people running Havelock reside in Panama?
Jump to: