Topic: GAW ZenCloud ZenPool Hashlet - does it really exist? ALWAYS MAKE MONEY :-) - page 39. (Read 262951 times)

im a bit away from here but looks atleast we will know the name of the coin today is that ,end year all hoping good news as incomes betters lets chill out 

i said it before if u have funds pull them if you are thinking about getting in to the game at that company run

it's time to the beginning of the end!
yes of course you can mine hundred,thousand of coin with your haslet you buy 15usd, and this coin you can sell at 20usd each!!!!!!!!!!!!!


this is serious how you can thinkit's right??
panic sell is comming.

LOL @ mutha
That was a good one. 

Oh Mr. BitGeek, for being a self appointed judge of everyone else, you do come across rather dense and troll-like yourself. That, in itself is much more pathetic than what you accuse others of and shows your inherent immaturity to speak like a reasonable adult. Try using your REAL name here and then we can talk about who the sockpuppet(s) are.

Say what you will about me, the new site, or what is or is not coming down the pipeline in regards to GAW/Zen. I couldn't care less beyond knowing that I stand behind everything I present here and in every other forum I contribute to (yes, you know what contribute-to means, right?) 100% and there is nothing that will stop the truth from being told. Just like Moolah and BFL did, anyone can lie and cover their tracks for only so-long before the the truth catches up with them. I suggest you think about that too before flaming others while relaxing in your black kettle perched upon your three legged wooden chair shoring up your ever so cracked glass house.

Scott-

Happy to oblige:

https://hashtalk.org/topic/14890/what-should-be-the-new-name-of-the-coin-rename-hashcoin

They should have a contest to name the coin!

I would suggest the "Dung Beetle" Coin! It would be perfect for them, if you think about it... you start with a little ball of cyber dung roll it around the internet and block chain until you have a great big ball of cyber dung. Then start over again with a little ball of cyber dung and roll it around until you have another great big ball of dung.

The Coin ticker could be Dung

Instead of miners they could market "dung rollers" and really cause some interest.  

It may be the solution to all these rumors? Sometimes my marketing genius scares me! Yes it does!

Hashcoin is just a placeholder I think... Pretty sure they have chosen something else...

They do "own" btc.com... maybe they purchased the rights to BTC

I think 504 is pretty limited though - $1 million per year, accredited investors (no "public" offer)(, and and the hashlets sold could not be resold (no hashlet market)....  I don't think GAW could meet those requirements regardless.

Another potential skunk is that the name Hashcoin has already been used for a shitcoin  - I found that the other day.  Looks like the coin was pumped and dumped.  Wonder why on earth GAW would not have at least picked a different name.

Yes you are right on the mark with all that, that is why I suggested the tried and true Form 504 the catch all to whatever it is they are doing... you can sell a million dollars of skunks if you file that form and there has been plenty of skunks sold that way  

But I am not in the free advice giving business... let the GAWS crew run things as they see fit, I just want to see an ROI and mine BTC.


BTW that announcement of the Fastest Crypto currency may drop them off into another bucket of shit... at the moment World Coin (WDC) is the fastest and it will be interesting to see if they can match that speed.  

Not exactly.  The following are **clearly** securities within the meaning of 1940 Act and case law:

(1) Prime Hashlets
(2) Zen Hashlets
(3) Hashcoin when purchased using anything of commercial value (bitcoin, litecoin ... interestingly, it seems that GAW believes that purchases using Hashcoin might exempt them but that would imply Hascoins lack commercial value.  Would love to see GAW's legal memo on that point)

I have made this point before, but it seems that folks might not understand how obvious this is.  So here is a little backup for that:

1.  1940 Act definition with less important parts redacted for ease of reading (Section 2(a)(36)):
“Security” means any ... certificate of interest or participation in any profit-sharing agreement ... or subscription, transferable share, investment contract, ... , any ...  or any certificate of interest or participation in, temporary or interim certificate for, receipt for, guarantee of, or warrant or right to subscribe to or purchase, any of the foregoing."

Note that any "participation in any profit-sharing agreement" is very broad and on its face would include just about any contractual arrangement.  So courts have limited securities a bit to interests in profit-sharing agreements where the purchaser has no active involvement in the business enterprise but is merely providing funds for use by the business in operating - see Howey case below.  That still leaves hashlets wide open.

2.  Note that the 1933 and 1934 Acts have slightly different definitions, but commentators and the SEC itself take the position that all three Acts are the same so the above definition is as good as any other for most purposes and for all purposes relevant here.

3.  The seminal U.S. case setting the test for whether an profit-sharing agreement or investment contract is a "security" is the U.S. Supreme Court's SEC vs. W.J. Howey Co., 328 U.S. 293 which you can easily find in full text by google.  That case involved a promotion company that sold profit shares in a citrus grove, coupled with a services agreement pursuant to which the management company took out fees for servicing the grove.  Sound familiar?  Substitute the words "e-coin mining farm" for "citrus grove" and you have the answer pretty clearly.  The "rule" of the case is this (and don't take my word for it, google the case and read any law review article about Howey from any respected U.S. law school journal ...): "a contract, transaction or scheme whereby a person invests his money in a common enterprise and is led to expect profits solely from the efforts of a promotor or third party." 328 U.S. at 298-99.

4.  Clearly, a Prime Hashlet and Zen Hashlet meet this definition:

(a) Contract, transaction or scheme: CHECK

(b) Person invests his money in a common enterprise: CHECK (note also that GAW has not limited the profit of Zenpool to just mining, which MIGHT otherwise make this okay arguably; but instead Zenpool can make money on lending, renting, IPOs, Hashcoin, etc. so it really is analagous to an equity investment where you expect profits based on the business acumen of Josh himself)

(c) And is led to expect profits based solely on the efforts of a promotor or third party: CHECK - given the opacity of Zenpool and the forthcoming Hashbase and Hashcoin, and the "trust me" statements from GAW/Josh repeatedly, no one could possibly dispute that a purchaser of a hashlet is going to make money or lose money based solely on the success or failure of Josh's grand plan.

Any reasonably counter to this would have to somehow explain how a Zen hashlet and/or Prime Hashlet and/or Hashcoin purchase fails to meet these criteria.

5.  I raised this issue on Hashtalk once, and of course the discussion was short-lived as everyone involved was banned (except me, strangely).  The asinine red-herring response was that Howey was inapplicable because it involved government subsidized farming.  While factually that is a distinction, no lawyer with even a modicum of legal education would accept that as a distinction.  The fact is that Howey is widely (universally) accepted as THE test for whether a profit-sharing agreement is a security, and NOWHERE in Howey is the issue of the citrus grove being government funded relevant to the reasoning or rule of that case.  Read the case, substitute the words "coin mining farm" for citrust grove, and explain to yourself or anyone else how you can come to any conclusion other than one which renders Prime and Zen hashlets as securities.  I would love to hear a cogent theory to the contrary, because it is very obvious when you actually read the case.

So to me the interesting question is - so what?  Being a security, hashlets have some real problems for GAW but these may be solvable:

(1) Right to rescission.  Since GAW did not follow federal or state rules in issuing its hashlet securities (remains to be seen on Hashcoin) state laws universally require GAW to give back money invested.  This could be the reason why we had the prime buyback?  Just speculation but maybe GAW got legal advice late in the game.

(2) Failure to disclose material facts.  Being a security, GAW must disclose to all potential purchasers all material facts about hashlets, hashcoin, etc.  Clearly, that has not been done nor does it seem likely GAW will do that.  That leaves GAW open to lawsuits for misrepresentation/failure to disclose both from regulators and as class actions or individual claims. 

Pre-announcement. Tonight at 10 PM the real info. *sigh*

It's KC6TTR's site:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.9418873

If you want my unfounded speculation, if they did try to sell "ownership" as opposed to a "service" IE owning a miner or owning shares/equity or whatever they consider it? They have rewritten the terms so much I am not sure what it is I bought??? So yeah I suspect they did get an "informal request for info". You start changing the rules in the middle of the game things get confused.

They are looking for a new CFO? SEC allegations and so on and so forth? This is one reason I think it is amature hour with the GAWS management, even a novice lawyer or CFO would file a form 504 (a thru d... take your pick of which applies) to CYA themselves, that is the official form to "raise upto $1,000,000 USD" Not giving legal advice or anything... its just one reason I do not know WTF they are doing... I wonder if they do?  

But anyhow as long as they arent selling equity or ownership or fund raising on "unregistered securities" the SEC can only ask "informal questions".... but yes you are right it is popcorn time.

It is kind of hard to take that site seriously with their affiliate links for supposed legit sites like PBMining (don't get me wrong, I have ROI'd on PBMining several times over, but still it is more scam-looking than GAW and that says a lot...)

HOWEVER, IF the SEC were to issue even only an information request that is a very serious precursor to action.  Information requests costs 10's of thousands or even 100's of thousands of dollars to properly respond to.  Failure to respond is a sure way to get in big trouble.  Responding with bogus info is bad too.  Info requests are not published so only would know through word of mouth at best.  Would love for this site to put forth some evidence that they are not just shilling for another scammer.

Yeah some unknown forum made by a couple of trolls proves it
This reminds me of that guy who claimed they stole his 700 BTC and earlier there was another guy with 20 BTC claim, both were fake.

Pass the popcorn.. This should be very interesting.. Not wishing any company ill will it may bring changes for the good..

The CEO has stated on more than one occasion that they are holding BTC (no idea how much) and feeling the pain of its drop. Sorry, can't find you a link now, HT search sucks.

Well you have to understand how the SEC works.... Informal requests are blasted out by the 1000's each day, they are just that informal inquiries/questions, the SEC is wanting
an explaination for. If there was any CEASE and DESISTS issued it would also be on that list.

Its when you get on the bad boys list Administrative or the Active administration lists, when it comes public and you had better be on the phone with your legal council.

Anyhow... I am not at all happy with GAWS/ZEN, but unvalidated FUD doesnt do much to help matters either.

On other thing about your link : you should check the other post made by the user indeed on this website .. Interesting , espacially the last one .