It was obvious the way a lot of these ICOs were being conducted that they would be treated as securities.
Our BannerCoin ICO - (http://www.bannercoin.com) was designed from the beginning to not be a security, well before the SEC guidelines were even published.
Of course, you never know how a regulator will treat your product until you actually put it out there for scrutiny.
Topic: Importance of not being a 'security' after the SEC DAO report (Read 343 times)
It would be very interesting to see a list of coins/tokens and whether they are likely to be classed as securities.
Very easy to move a virtual company, or base it in any jurisdiction.
I guess it may still pose an issue for US residents.
Very easy to move a virtual company, or base it in any jurisdiction.
I guess it may still pose an issue for US residents.
I pay attention. If it's a security and it's organized under the laws of the us, I'm not willing to take a chance. The SEC will come after the company for all it is worth and investors will lose everything.
ShapeShift is going to drop coins that are considered securities Coindesk article
DisLedger's token is NOT A SECURITY so it be even more valuable
I predict other exchanges will start dropping 'security' coins quickly
DisLedger's token is NOT A SECURITY so it be even more valuable
I predict other exchanges will start dropping 'security' coins quickly
After the SEC report this week how much importance do you place on whether a ICO/token is or isn't a security in the U.S.?
I'm trying to gauge how important it is for future tokens to get written legal opinions that they are not securities for: stability, resale value, listing on exchanges, other reasons...
I'm trying to gauge how important it is for future tokens to get written legal opinions that they are not securities for: stability, resale value, listing on exchanges, other reasons...
Jump to: