Topic: IOHK Research and Scorex ARE NOT working with Waves - page 5. (Read 34016 times)

Yeah
I really wanted to reply to this too. But, I won't post in this thread, before Charles and Alex do

Wow! What a politically correct post! No more "USA is superior and all Russians are crooks" vibe? It seems my words have penetrated that wall of insanity in your head.

My (wild guess) opinion/speculation follows. I can read between the lines too, as many of you probably did also. Kushti is friends with Sasha. Kushti is a Russian who isn't hung up on formalities of laws we have in the West and is primarily interested in developing the code and having enough money to afford better lighting in his dingy apartment (this is a joke for anyone who has seen the Waves Hangout video). I guesstimate that Kushti doesn't have an ethical stance against ICOs and he probably thinks it was all just hunkydory. But then Charles probably explained that this is unacceptable for the company and for Charles personally being a USA citizen. So Kushti appears to be trying to ride the middle line.

The problem here appears to be incompatible cultures. We appear to have different attitude in the West towards issues revolving around intellectual property, contracts, and investment laws. Charles hails from academia or math research, and he wants to form diverse and global ties. I am thinking he is bumping up against the sort of quagmires that can arise in international business.

My stance is that Sasha needs to realize that if he wants to integrate with our hitech world in the West, then he needs to play ball within our more formal legal structures. I actually hate red tape and lawyering up. I love production and coding. So it is strange to see me taking this stance. I guess I have become very pragmatic at age 51. Alas I am not 20s and 30s carefree now. By not being careful, I encountered some big mistakes in my life. I am much more cautious.

His statement seems to imply this case, but what you are asking for him to do is the very thing he seems to want to avoid (and we don't know why, but probably some legal issues with IOHK). Not sure if the question makes sense.

@kushti Did you ever have any formal or informal agreement to serve as an advisor or in any other role on the Waves team, either individually, as a Nxt developer, or as an employee of IOHK? (The latter seems clear from previous posts but best to clarify.)

If not, did you engage in any communications with the Waves team or founders which could reasonably have led them to believe you would serve in such a role?

TPTB trolls everyone with this his idée fixe. Better ignore his posts on this issue, sane counterarguments will just make him angry.

Again the Supreme Court decisions have more than once emphasized that they will look past obfuscating circumstances and make the determination based on the economic reality. So no, BTC's classification by any one has nothing to do with the fact that BTC can transfer value. The term 'value' is used in the Howey test, not only 'money'.

Disclaimer: IANAL, so please consult your own.

Thanks agreed happy we cooled it down. Same to you.

Your understanding appears to be entirely off in an incorrect direction. It doesn't have anything to do with the coin's ecosystem afaics. Rather it all hinges on whether the n00b investors are basing their expectations of future profit on the future actions of a centralized entity (i.e. the issuers of the ICO and the developers). That is what 'security' means, i.e the centralized entity is 'securing' your future profit.

Note I originally started that linked discussion thinking that one could do an ICO as long as they did not use that raised money in the enterprise of making the project ongoing and if they gave up managerial control. 2112 was more knowledgeable about the law and was steering me to the Howey test so I could learn that I was incorrect.

So I actually started out ignorant. As I studied the issue more in depth, I realized that just about any ICO sold to "unsophisticated, non-accredited" (<-- legal terms with definitions) USA investors is ostensibly illegal and the issuers of the ICO (and potentially also the accomplice promoters) are subject to SEC action even if they are foreign entities.

The test that is applied to determine whether an investment vehicle is a regulated investment security under USA law, is known as the Supreme Court's Howey test.

In the thread I linked for you, the requirements of the test are discussed in great detail. I suggest reading the entire thread so you don't miss any of the nuanced points.



That is sort of what I originally thought, but then I realized I was wrong.

The Supreme Court has said it will look past all obfuscations to the economic reality of whether the n00b investors were basing their expectations of future profit on the future actions of the centralized party issuing the tokens and developing the enterprise which the investors are investing in.

Realize I am doing you a big favor. Cancel the ICO immediately and keep yourself out of trouble. Stay focused on being a developer and not involve yourself in this legal tarpit.

You over-complicate things, It all boils down to this - ICO is not illegal, it's just crowdfunding. If you do some projections about future profits this is illegal.
Actually when you do ICO you're selling a product - token in a value transfer system.

Ok, glad we cooled it down.
First of all you seem like a very intelligent person and hardly a "blacksheep". maybe you come from a strong family so you see it this way.
I've started reading your post (the first page), and the related one with the votes.

I think I understand what you mean by illegal, correct me if im wrong,
You say that ICO's can be illegal if their tokens are ecosystem related or not, and if their buying price is significant or not.
actually I voted for option 4, stating its illegal only if its a significant cost without use in the coin's ecosystem.

But since this entire market is still unregulated, and maybe it cant be.. yet.
So if there's no law about it. its neither legal nor illegal.

Thanks and have a nice weekend btw

Man you are oversimplifying. I am a minanarchist. Last time I checked (as far as I know), my father and I don't agree on most things (although I suspect he would respect my insights if he had time to absorb them, but maybe not also since I am more theoretical/abstractly based than he is). I don't have any elitist pedigree in me. I am (one of) the black sheep in the family (actually on further reflection, I think the entire family is composed of black sheep, lol).

Go read the link I provided and learn something.

Those of us who want to create successful projects, know we can't do so from prison.

Oh, you come from a family of lawyers.
Its all becoming clear to me now, the insults and your "elite" way.

Yeah..

This ted talk tell us nothing new.
Its the same talk as many others..

Charles, you should take the right path here,
you got your apology even tho your acts was not understandable.
and even malicous in a way, as this was posted on first day of the ico,
and that makes it seems you wanted to create real damage to this platform.

Your (boastful) ignorance is the problem. Read again the resource I cited upthread.

Americans should be less political and more contributive to the crypto community.
What do you mean by " illegal investment securities to non-accredited USA investors "?
Are you serious? what's illegal here? the ico? WHAT?

These kind of childish acts are exactly whats holding progress BACK in all crypto world.
This is mine..This is yours.. grow up.

instead of supporting and contributing to each other, everyone wants what they THINK they deserve.

Kushti is an advisor, and now behind the scenes, all cause of this massive greedy post.
Your'e messing with people's lives, dreams and their investors'.

WAVES is a good idea. and IDEAS are powerful.

We did not claim to be endorsed by IOHK in any way. I had a very vague idea about what IOHK was before a couple weeks ago. Charles contacted me first, not the other way about. 

Actions speak louder than words. Have you removed the misleading statements from your website and inserted a disclaimer that your interactions on the open source Scorex do not constitute an endorsement, commitment, nor assistance from IOHK?

I think you don't understand well the predicament Charles is in, considering that he is running a global corporation and is ostensibly a USA citizen. He can't at any costs be later claimed to have contributed to the promotion of illegal investment securities to non-accredited USA investors (and regulatory issues in other jurisdictions). Although he won't come right out and say this, you need to respect and understand that this issue is most definitely lurking (unless Charles specifically states here that is not an issue for him). He is being diplomatic but it is up to you to have a brain and read between the lines so there won't be a misunderstanding. This is not a small matter. Jail time is potentially involved.

Disclaimer: IANAL so consult your own. And I have had no discussions with Charles on this matter, nor on legal issues, nor any private communication with Charles since 2014 (before he formed Ethereum) afair.

What if it turns out Charles is right? Kushti is an acquaintance of Sasha that much we know. However representing Kushti as a consultant/advisor was/is misleading. It presumes that Kushti is involved in the decision making process and the coding process. Whereas if you read what Kushti wrote. It is up to Waves people to figure out how to make the platform work. And acording to Kushti the platform IS NOT READY to work, and needs lots in order to vet it.

The Waves thread represented their project as Kushti was working on it. In reality Kushti is an acquaintance of Sasha, and they had a conversation or two about Scorex. That does not equal advising or consulting.

Charles is right to distance his organization from Waves. There could be serious legal issues regarding Waves ICO.

thx for the links!!
(i never claimed that i feel to know him, i do NOT )

~CfA~