Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 851. (Read 2032266 times)

The Netherlands.

It's a common term at Investopedia: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/bearer_share.asp

I cannot imagine bearer shares are prohibited in the US or other Western countries. How would you list a company then?

I'd love the BRICs to break up the Jekyll Island Cabal as much anybody but...

On a scale of 1 to Martin Armstrong, BF is 9.5 nutbars short of a moonbat.   

Prove it.  Cite one example of a jurisdiction where companies can presently issue bearer shares.  I think there may be some tax-haven type locations where it's still possible, but that's hardly "quite common."

You quoted the wrong guy Wekkel...

Hmm, bearer shares are quite common. Of course, at certain moments the company learns who it's shareholders are at that time. What do you think listed shares are?

That's great Peter, these laws apply to where I live too however it's talking about a Company issuing shares because the company seeks to make profit (that profit is the incentive) thus many malpractices exist to issue shares which may infact be ponzi schemes or to sway people out of their money.. and in these "ecosystems" its not the company which issues shares but gives the ability to issue shares which is yet another grey area, yet not susceptible to any type of applicable laws in any democratic jurisdiction I believe.

The company that creates the system has no vested interest in trying to issue shares for profit or for business... I don't see the correlation.

I do think you bring up a good point though... and name/address pairs are needed to validate who owns or issues shares... I think if a company uses the system to issue shares such as overstock they need to be registered and legally comply which they are... the system itself does not need registration as far as I can see. The system or company needs a way to track the individuals the shares are given to... so overstock needs a registration process to track the address inside of the decentralized marketplace to the physical identity of the person with shares.

Like Melbustus said, the main obstacle to much of the "2.0" stuff is regulatory as opposed to technological.  The useful "2.0" features will be implemented on top of bitcoin when the regulatory picture is more clear, the ecosystem has matured, and there's actual demand for these products (as opposed to what IMO is speculative demand designed to pump an alternative blockchain). 


Yes, absolutely.  I find debates about the legality of 2.0 tech fascinating: many people have strong opinions, but few seem interested in digging into the actual laws as they are presently written. 

For example, perusing the BC Corporations Act (which applies where I live) it becomes clear that a company can't have anonymous shareholders.  Shareholder name and addresses must be logged in the company's share registry.



This makes perfect sense given current tax/corporate laws: for example, the company needs to determine % foreign ownership for tax purposes, it needs to know how many shareholders it has as that affects certain reporting requirements, etc, etc. 

So no anonymous shareholders, which complicates the use of blockchain-based share certificates.  "Bearer shares" are not lawful in any jurisdiction that I'm aware of. 

This is just one example.  I suspect anonymous asset-backed tokens are unlawful as well (and is probably the reason we haven't seen Brock Pierce's "real coins").  Download the applicable laws in any relevant jurisdiction, and the difficulty in navigating them should become clear.

-----
I spent one evening going through the BC Corporations Act and made notes here about ways I thought one could issue blockchain-based share certificates and adhere to the existing laws, if anyone's interested.

Sure lets entertain #2 as being valid... what is your assumption? The project fails? I don't see where you are going with this.

Reading comp... I said #2 was untested, and that it's naive to jump to conclusions. Put more clearly: your cute interpretation of 80 years worth of SEC regulation doesn't matter. The interpretations of courts and judges matters.

You could ask nefario (glbse) about #2.

I've already built the case that it doesn't apply thus I didn't think I needed to spell it out for you. Sorry I misjudged your ability to infer information.

BTW im not mr bitshares.. I jsut think it may not even be the one.... but something like it might be... something that creates more of an ecosystem. If they continue to make good decisions than I have hope for them.. it is to be seen on the recent drastic change they are proposing on how it will turn out... Chinese sold off earlier this week at the hint of dilution however the proposal is to infuse capital to raise funds (based on consensus voting using their voting technology) for new DACs which is a novel idea... however again it is to be seen on how it will look in hindsight... based on past performance I think it will be fine but I have other ideas on what an ecosystem looks like although other technical ideas are good in bitshares.

FTFY

OK so in these cases, they fine Daniel for $50k/$100k for coming up with this software (IDK why this would be the case) or throw him in jail worsed case both of which don't really affect the project itself in the grand scheme of things.

There is noone to go after... it is up to the buyer... the law he was charged(Securities Act of 1933) under states:

Often referred to as the "truth in securities" law, the Securities Act of 1933 has two basic objectives:

1) require that investors receive financial and other significant information concerning securities being offered for public sale; and

2) prohibit deceit, misrepresentations, and other fraud in the sale of securities.

Who is supposed to give them information? Invictus? OK they fine Invictus and tell them that all profits must be surrendered, what profits? Its a self serving ecosystem... they take away their pts/ags/btsx, thats fine....

#2 doesn't apply.

You are confused about #1. Money Transmission regulation is distinct from SEC securities-offering regulation.

I'm not saying any of this 100% takes down bitshares or similar systems. Jurisdictional arbitrage will happen, of course. But at the same time, it's naive to think that the SEC and similar bodies in the world's largest markets, will not apply their broadly-written body of regulation to these new platforms. Again, Erik Voorhees experience is a good example. That was a tiny, niche, esoteric offering and the SEC still took enforcement action (~2 years later).

Hehe.. ok, I didn't know him. Fully certifiably mad then, if he's like that all the time.

there's something to be learned from GLBSE and Nefario, the first intended global stock trading system first implemented in 2011.  it got shut down after 2 attempts, the last being by the UK regulators.

Maybe... im not part of the team so I'm just trying to be logical... #1 may or may not be certain.. since again it is not a money transmitter and so I think a new law would have to be put in place for it to happen (not likely in short or medium term).. #2 sure he gets thrown in jail, there are plenty of devs ready to step up... it doesn't stop the system. The hard work is pretty much done anyway.

BTW entities that issue shares (that can be anyone) so you mean EVERYONE who uses it must comply with SEC regs.. yea good luck with that!

There are two potential regulatory issues:

1) The entities that issue shares onto the platform very likely need to comply with SEC regs. You can ask Erik Voorhees about that.
2) If the creators of the platform are known/public, aggressive regulatory enforcement could hassle them as well. I'm not saying it makes "moral" sense or whatever, just that it's entirely within the realm of things that can happen in reality.

#1 is a near certainty. #2 is untested, and so just speculation.

Benjamin Fulford is not "a bit" mad...

Wow!

All i have to say to that is... "That's a bit mad!"

There does not seem to be much substance to it, it is all unnamed sources, heresay etc. But definitely one of the more 'out there' things I've read today.