Jinn/IOTA - What is really going on? - page 3.

Tobo

hero member

Activity: 763

Merit: 500

Quote from: iotatoken on December 05, 2015, 12:12:36 PM

IOTA is software. End of story. Please stop engaging these trolls.

so why do you and cfb still want to wast your time on this kind thread? I never see Vitalik and Joey Krug to waste their time on this kind threads. Everyone knows what was going on with Jinn and Iota and ample information has been given already.

You should believe in ordinary people. Regarding the trolls, you don't want to spend time on them. If you think they are trolls, the ordinary people will think they are trolls as well. Trolls don't have influence and they only hurt their own reputation. if persons believe in trolls and do not have the discretion to tell what are the facts in this kind situation, it is theirs problem.

The serious projects should stay away from Bitcointalk as far as possible after the crowd sale as Ethereum and Augur have been doing.

iotatoken

hero member

Activity: 714

Merit: 500

Quote from: illodin on December 05, 2015, 11:54:13 AM

If IOTA tokens or JINN are deemed illegal securities in any jurisdiction, doesn't that mean that any citizen of that jurisdiction selling or buying them (a trader in an exchange for example) is doing something illegal?

IOTA is software. End of story. Please stop engaging these trolls.

iotatoken

hero member

Activity: 714

Merit: 500

Quote from: DecentralizeEconomics on December 05, 2015, 05:47:03 AM

Since David has flip-flopped on IOTA being a cryptocurrency and not being a cryptocurrency, don't you understand that people might be apprehensive when you give contradictory statements?

Find someone new to troll please, this is getting tiresome.
We called IOTA a cryptocurrency in the beginning due to it not being a legal term. We have been in crypto for years, so the term is ingrained in our brain as a casual way to talk about cryptographical tokens. However, since we began work on IOTA EU changed it's stance on what a cryptocurrency is and thus we had to update it BEFORE the sale. It's 100% an issue of terminology and law. You have been informed of this 1000 times, but you keep going on about it in a pathetic: "GOTCHA!!!!!" troll loser way, because you truly got absolutely no reason to exist if you can't troll someone. According to yourself, you have been banned from this forum for trying to peddle a cheap troll Nxt clone called Nexx back in the day and you have been banned at Nxtforum for spamming, stalking, slandering and death threats. I think it's time to grow up and get a good ol' life.
IOTA is software, nothing more and nothing less. AS HAS BEEN STATED EVERY SINGLE TIME since we launched it. Now I will demand your legal name, if you are serious and not just a troll, this will be no problem. If however you elect not to hand it over, it is unequivocally an admission of you being a useless troll.

Come-from-Beyond

legendary

Activity: 2142

Merit: 1009

Newbie

Quote from: illodin on December 05, 2015, 11:54:13 AM

If IOTA tokens or JINN are deemed illegal securities in any jurisdiction, doesn't that mean that any citizen of that jurisdiction selling or buying them (a trader in an exchange for example) is doing something illegal?

Maybe. In my country a company can be fined for up to 1000 USD for that. A private person can get max 500 USD penalty if a currency is involved. BTC, NXT and other altcoins are not treated as currencies so it will look like monopoly monies exchanged for monopoly cards, i.e. having no legal consequences at all.

illodin

hero member

Activity: 966

Merit: 1003

If IOTA tokens or JINN are deemed illegal securities in any jurisdiction, doesn't that mean that any citizen of that jurisdiction selling or buying them (a trader in an exchange for example) is doing something illegal?

Come-from-Beyond

legendary

Activity: 2142

Merit: 1009

Newbie

Quote from: DecentralizeEconomics on December 05, 2015, 05:47:03 AM

Do you understand that these two statements are contradictory?

Already explained upthread.

Quote from: DecentralizeEconomics on December 05, 2015, 05:47:03 AM

Since David has flip-flopped on IOTA being a cryptocurrency and not being a cryptocurrency, don't you understand that people might be apprehensive when you give contradictory statements? How can you on one hand say that "they will get what was promised" and on the other ask, "Who was promised 'profit-shares'?"? This is why I said that I doubt JINN holders who do not redeem their assets for IOTA will receive any profit-shares. It sounds like you are questioning if anybody was promised "profit-shares" at all.

He follows legal advice of the lawyer, so he is fine I think. Read http://188.138.57.93/tos.pdf and http://188.138.57.93/risk.pdf if you need the details.

Quote from: DecentralizeEconomics on December 05, 2015, 05:47:03 AM

Additionally, regardless of my feelings towards David, you know that you are legally protected from EU/US securities laws, but he is not. Do you really think that it is right to allow him to string himself out and bear the full burden of any legal repercussions brought about by your joint endeavour? Anybody with common sense can tell from his statements that he is woefully ignorant about securities laws and his legal responsibilities.

It's hard to prove that David violated EU/US laws (which didn't happen) when everybody knows that JINN was initiated solely by me. I doubt a USA prosecutor will spend a lot of time on a case where monopoly money (NXT) were handed over to a guy from Russia (which hides Snowden the Enemy #1) whose official reply to any official requests from USA/EU is "FUCK OFF". And all this just for a zero chance to charge 50'000 USD penalty? I don't think you believe in this.

DecentralizeEconomics

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1042

White Male Libertarian Bro

Quote from: Come-from-Beyond on December 05, 2015, 04:21:55 AM

Now you do exactly the opposite of what you wanted - you mislead people. I already explained upthread that JINN wouldn't become useless after Iota sale, but you prefer to pay attention to other things, not to my clear statement.

It's not so clear.

Quote from: Come-from-Beyond on December 04, 2015, 04:52:06 PM

Quote from: DecentralizeEconomics on December 04, 2015, 04:38:11 PM

So, will investors who hold Jinn assets after the IOTA redemption period is over be legally transferred profit-shares?

1. They are not investors.
2. They will get what was promised 14 months ago.

Quote from: Come-from-Beyond on December 04, 2015, 05:01:55 PM

Who was promised of "profit-shares"?

Do you understand that these two statements are contradictory?

Since David has flip-flopped on IOTA being a cryptocurrency and not being a cryptocurrency, don't you understand that people might be apprehensive when you give contradictory statements? How can you on one hand say that "they will get what was promised" and on the other ask, "Who was promised 'profit-shares'?"? This is why I said that I doubt JINN holders who do not redeem their assets for IOTA will receive any profit-shares. It sounds like you are questioning if anybody was promised "profit-shares" at all.

Additionally, regardless of my feelings towards David, you know that you are legally protected from EU/US securities laws, but he is not. Do you really think that it is right to allow him to string himself out and bear the full burden of any legal repercussions brought about by your joint endeavour? Anybody with common sense can tell from his statements that he is woefully ignorant about securities laws and his legal responsibilities.

TPTB_need_war

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 262

Quote from: Come-from-Beyond on December 05, 2015, 05:10:10 AM

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on December 05, 2015, 05:01:52 AM

To hit the sweet spot of cryptocurrency is going to require laser beam focus on adoption.

Hm, none of the subjects (JINN nor IOTA) are cryptocurrencies. Looks like we again hit definition wall, like it was with Consistency.

You were defining the consistency at the peer-to-peer network layer and I the consistency of the block chain semantic layer.

Seems we hit the pigeon-holing wall again.

A cryptotoken or decentralized exchangable datum is just another way of describing the same notion of the existential cryptocurrency in some meta-model of abstract equivalence.

Some attorneys and judges are super smart. They can distill down such attempts at obfuscation to their economic equivalence.

Come-from-Beyond

legendary

Activity: 2142

Merit: 1009

Newbie

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on December 05, 2015, 05:01:52 AM

To hit the sweet spot of cryptocurrency is going to require laser beam focus on adoption.

Hm, none of the subjects (JINN nor IOTA) are cryptocurrencies. Looks like we again hit definition wall, like it was with Consistency.

TPTB_need_war

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 262

As I anticipated:

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on December 04, 2015, 06:53:01 PM

Edit: knowing that you are operating under EU securities law, readers should be cognizant of the fact that you will I assume be required to limit discussion around such legal issues to certain presentations. Thus readers perhaps could consider not to necessarily interpret presentations as deception (but again I can't advise anyone and each reader should consult their own attorney). Again I am not well versed on all the specific accusations against Iota/JINN raised in this thread and have no opinion on those accusations. I was merely sharing my layman's musings (IANAL) about cryptocurrency securities law status in general.

...

Quote from: Come-from-Beyond on December 04, 2015, 04:19:25 AM

The misunderstanding regarding status of JINN arises because the lawyer recommended not to extend on JINN definition beyond one set during that dutch auction. It's part of our legal defense - to avoid answering the question just because some person who purchased JINN from the original purchasers may attempt to catch us at our word to get more rights than was planned.

...

PS: I hope you'll get the issue...

The legalese complication of straightforward understanding of Iota, it purpose, function, and adoption comes across as dilutive to marketing in terms of the way I would approach it.

I have never found that grand merger of disparate areas (e.g. a cryptocurrency with some complex hardware plans) hits the sweet spot.

I would not involve my serious software endeavors in such distractions.

To hit the sweet spot of cryptocurrency is going to require laser beam focus on adoption.

(oh so why I am bothering to comment here then! whoops)

Seems you all got yourselves into this misunderstanding by weaving complexity which requires legalese.

Grief my father is an attorney, but I try to steer my plans as far from needing legal input as possible. I released some code modules recently and declared the license to be the Unlicense.

It is going to be interesting to watch how this turns out. I think it will end up being yet another confirmation of Murphy's Law and the subtracted value of selling basketball shoes bundled with basketball ~~rims~~courts.

Marketing 101. Observe what I do.

Come-from-Beyond

legendary

Activity: 2142

Merit: 1009

Newbie

Quote from: DecentralizeEconomics on December 05, 2015, 04:10:23 AM

I said that because David changes the wording of the agreement with investors to minimize his/your legal culpability, we all get it. I can't believe that you actually said, "Who was promised 'profit-shares'?", when your partner, David, clearly stated it on January 27, 2015, you obviously will continue to mince your words to suit your interests. This is sad, I liked the spirit of decentralization within you and I didn't think you would put profits before truth, but I won't sit by and allow people to be misled and incur losses due to double-talk caused from gross legal negligence.

It's the same issue as with Smooth and "investor" definition. Now you do exactly the opposite of what you wanted - you mislead people. I already explained upthread that JINN wouldn't become useless after Iota sale, but you prefer to pay attention to other things, not to my clear statement. What is it called when a person ignore things that disprove his position?

Time to stop going in circles. Refer to https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.13145784 for clarification.

DecentralizeEconomics

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1042

White Male Libertarian Bro

Quote from: Come-from-Beyond on December 05, 2015, 03:27:21 AM

Quote from: DecentralizeEconomics on December 05, 2015, 01:11:59 AM

I seriously doubt if any Jinn holders, who do not redeem their assets for IOTA, ever receive any legal form of "profit-shares" as promised.

You say this because it was shown that you had been wrong but you can't admit this publicly, we all get it. I have to stop arguing with you, you obviously will continue to ignore all arguments. This is sad, I liked spirit of decentralization within you...

I said that because David changes the wording of the agreement with investors to minimize his/your legal culpability, we all get it. I can't believe that you actually said, "Who was promised 'profit-shares'?", when your partner, David, clearly stated it on January 27, 2015, you obviously will continue to mince your words to suit your interests. This is sad, I liked the spirit of decentralization within you and I didn't think you would put profits before truth, but I won't sit by and allow people to be misled and incur losses due to double-talk caused from gross legal negligence.

Come-from-Beyond

legendary

Activity: 2142

Merit: 1009

Newbie

Quote from: DecentralizeEconomics on December 05, 2015, 01:11:59 AM

I seriously doubt if any Jinn holders, who do not redeem their assets for IOTA, ever receive any legal form of "profit-shares" as promised.

You say this because it was shown that you had been wrong but you can't admit this publicly, we all get it. I have to stop arguing with you, you obviously will continue to ignore all arguments. This is sad, I liked spirit of decentralization within you...

DecentralizeEconomics

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1042

White Male Libertarian Bro

Quote from: Come-from-Beyond on December 04, 2015, 04:52:06 PM

Quote from: DecentralizeEconomics on December 04, 2015, 04:38:11 PM

So, will investors who hold Jinn assets after the IOTA redemption period is over be legally transferred profit-shares?

2. They will get what was promised 14 months ago.

Quote from: Come-from-Beyond on December 04, 2015, 05:01:55 PM

Who was promised of "profit-shares"?

Quote from: Come-from-Beyond on December 04, 2015, 05:23:07 PM

There was a lot of misinformation spread by those who wanted to sell JINN for as higher price as possible. Maybe they were just scammers, there are a lot of them in cryptospace.

https://nxtforum.org/news-and-announcements/%28ann%29-jinn/msg156081/#msg156081

Quote from: Come-from-Beyond on December 04, 2015, 04:52:06 PM

1. They are not investors.

I'm curious as to what you think they are then? Charitable donors?

Quote from: iotatoken on December 04, 2015, 05:38:48 PM

Yea sure you know more than a team of lawyers. Ok, great.

It's software, it's not a cryptocurrency. It's a cryptograhical token that can represent ANYTHING. It can represent computational data, computational power, bandwidth, jesus juice, whatever. It's NOT a cryptocurrency.

Really? Then why did you describe it as such?

https://nxtforum.org/news-and-announcements/iota-jinn/msg201696/#msg201696

Quote from: Come-from-Beyond on December 04, 2015, 06:43:30 PM

2 years ago I posted on this forum how many fucks I give to USA laws, nothing changed since that. Thank you for the advice not be so smug, but I won't follow it this time. Cheesy

Quote from: Come-from-Beyond on December 04, 2015, 06:34:03 PM

So you meant USA jurisdiction it seems. Interesting, what odds that the USA can enforce its laws against me, a citizen of a country belonging to the opposite political block, a country that is under heavy economical sanctions initiated by the USA, a country that is protected by Russian nuclear fist...

Do you have the launch codes and command authority to extend this nuclear protection to David Sonstebo who is in Norway?

Quote from: smooth on December 04, 2015, 06:09:58 PM

I never discredited anything. If you think questioning double talk is discrediting, then you must feel you are on shaky ground somehow.

When you claim that people who are buying an asset with the prospect of appreciation (or who were allegedly promised profit-shares) are not investing in it, that is double talk.

Legally, I don't even care, nor do I find those discussions interesting since legal systems tend to get so complex that only specialists can even have a hope of understanding them (and even then they disagree). I'm mostly an anarchist, so as long as what you are doing doesn't mislead anyone, do what you want. But you can't stop questions about it on an unmoderated thread.

The truth of the matter and reason behind this flip-flopping is because David Sonstebo has no clue regarding the proper legal procedures to follow to be in compliance with the law. This is why he promised "profit-shares" to Jinn holders and is now saying, "Well, they aren't investors." This is why he stated that IOTA was a cryptocurrency and is now backtracking and now saying that it isn't a cryptocurrency. He either didn't consult with knowledgeable legal counsel before he started selling assets or has incredibly bad legal counsel. Obviously, Come-from-Beyond doesn't care and is relying on mutually assured destruction to be his legal defense. This isn't going to turn out well for David or Jinn "holders". I seriously doubt if any Jinn holders, who do not redeem their assets for IOTA, ever receive any legal form of "profit-shares" as promised.

TPTB_need_war

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 262

Quote from: Come-from-Beyond on December 04, 2015, 06:48:11 PM

The above applies to EU laws too. Iota sale is regulated by EU laws, JINN - not.

Well then you are in a labyrinth of European law that seemed to me be quite complex to analyze (mix of deference to national laws mixed with EU harmonization), so I punted on the analysis and just assumed it is eventually headed to harmonization with the USA over time and thus I don't want to sell what would be defined as an unregistered security under USA law (especially given I am a USA citizen).

If you guys under legal counsel have decided to proceed under EU law, I have nothing more to say.

Thank you.

Edit: knowing that you are operating under EU securities law, readers should be cognizant of the fact that you will I assume be required to limit discussion around such legal issues to certain presentations. Thus readers perhaps could consider not to necessarily interpret presentations as deception (but again I can't advise anyone and each reader should consult their own attorney). Again I am not well versed on all the specific accusations against Iota/JINN raised in this thread and have no opinion on those accusations. I was merely sharing my layman's musings (IANAL) about cryptocurrency securities law status in general.

Come-from-Beyond

legendary

Activity: 2142

Merit: 1009

Newbie

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on December 04, 2015, 06:45:11 PM

Note the USA investors have to be concerned with USA securities law to some extent, but as I understand it (IANAL) their culpability is significantly less than the one who is marketing the securities.

Also my limited attempt to dig into the labyrinth of EU law seems to be moving toward harmonization with the USA law.

The above applies to EU laws too. Iota sale is regulated by EU laws, JINN - not.

TPTB_need_war

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 262

Quote from: Come-from-Beyond on December 04, 2015, 06:43:30 PM

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on December 04, 2015, 06:38:42 PM

In the thread I linked to, I explained why I think you should not be so smug. For example, according to USA law if you sell to USA investors, you fall under their jurisdiction. (and the G20 is getting organized on enforcing each other's laws) But again, to each his own.

2 years ago I posted on this forum how many fucks I give to USA laws, nothing changed since that. Thank you for the advice not be so smug, but I won't follow it this time. Cheesy

Note the USA investors have to be concerned with USA securities law to some extent on a coin that is marketed by a non-USA entity, but as I understand it (IANAL) their culpability is significantly less than the one who is marketing the securities. Some details on that is covered in my linked thread.

Also my limited attempt to dig into the labyrinth of EU law seems to be moving toward harmonization with the USA law (with great difficulty/complexity due to needing to harmonize also all the laws of the nations in the EU). This was the intuition I gleamed from reading some of the EU laws and the progression of the laws.

Come-from-Beyond

legendary

Activity: 2142

Merit: 1009

Newbie

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on December 04, 2015, 06:38:42 PM

In the thread I linked to, I explained why I think you should not be so smug. For example, according to USA law if you sell to USA investors, you fall under their jurisdiction. (and the G20 is getting organized on enforcing each other's laws) But again, to each his own.

2 years ago I posted on this forum how many fucks I give to USA laws, nothing changed since that. Thank you for the advice not be so smug, but I won't follow it this time. Cheesy

TPTB_need_war

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 262

Quote from: iotatoken on December 04, 2015, 06:26:20 PM

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on December 04, 2015, 06:20:34 PM

Please note that the concerns I raised apply to nearly every (if not every) cryptocurrency, so this is not pointing a finger at Iota/JINN. So please do not take it as an attack on you guys.

I agree with smooth's implied point that securities law action appears to mostly come about due to losses and complaints from investors, so one way to potentially prevent trouble is to make sure all the speculators in your coin are not upset in the end (and hopefully it becomes a true currency and the initial investors can cash out and everything is fine). Not being misleading is also helpful in terms of preventing accusations, but it doesn't assure that investors won't become disgruntled.

The Supreme Court stated that the Howey test is not bypassed by any schemes and disclaimers. Rather the intent of the law is always in force and it said the court is astute in seeing past any obfuscations and directly to the economic reality of the situation.

So that is why I have claimed that a cryptocurrency that is never marketed to investors and is always given for free to non-investors, will have a must higher chance of failing the Howey test for what constitutes an unregistered investment security.

P.S. my full name is easily found (e.g. just search The Digital Kill Switch and refer to my post on this forum which contains my full name) or just go into my thread and click the newspaper clipping that contained my full name as of 17 years of age (and afaik it hasn't changed hence). But please don't turn this into some sort of legal battle against me, please I am not attacking you guys and I am just raising concerns that apply to cryptocurrencies in general.

To be sure: I got no beef with you, personal, legal or otherwise. But we have an ongoing SOFTWARE sale that you proclaim is a securities offering, which it isn't, which we have explained and disclaimed clearly, including all risks associated with the software itself. This means that when you claim it is indeed an investment/securities offering, you may mislead potential buyers of our software, which may or may not incur us damages, which is why I now choose to exit this otherwise hilarious forum-troll thread and will only continue communication in a legal domain. So it's your choice.

I am not claiming anything in a legal sense. I have numerous times appended the disclaimer that I am not a lawyer ("IANAL") and that readers should consult their own attorney.

I am only sharing my layman's opinion of what I have read about securities law.

If you feel you are adequately covered by your legal advice, then I have nothing to say against that other than what I already shared as my personal layman's concerns and not against your offering in particular rather musings about cryptocurrency's securities-law related legal status in general.

Again I wish you best luck with it. And I will bow out of the discussion. If your attorneys wish to anonymously contribute to my thread about those concerns, that might be illuminating. Obviously they may not feel it is in their interest to bother to do so. I can accept that reality.

Quote from: Come-from-Beyond on December 04, 2015, 06:34:03 PM

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on December 04, 2015, 06:20:34 PM

The Supreme Court stated that the Howey test is not bypassed by any schemes and disclaimers.

So you meant USA jurisdiction it seems. Interesting, what odds that the USA can enforce its laws against me, a citizen of a country belonging to the opposite political block, a country that is under heavy economical sanctions initiated by the USA, a country that is protected by Russian nuclear fist...

In the thread I linked to, I explained why I think you should not be so smug. For example, according to USA law if you sell to USA investors, you fall under their jurisdiction. (and the G20 is getting organized on enforcing each other's laws) But again, to each his own.

If you are USA citizen, then even marketing to USA investors qualifies, even if there isn't a sale.

Come-from-Beyond

legendary

Activity: 2142

Merit: 1009

Newbie

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on December 04, 2015, 06:20:34 PM

The Supreme Court stated that the Howey test is not bypassed by any schemes and disclaimers.

So you meant USA jurisdiction it seems. Interesting, what odds that the USA can enforce its laws against me, a citizen of a country belonging to the opposite political block, a country that is under heavy economical sanctions initiated by the USA, a country that is protected by Russian nuclear fist...

Topic: Jinn/IOTA - What is really going on? - page 3. (Read 13538 times)