Topic: Jinn/IOTA - What is really going on? - page 4. (Read 13569 times)

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.

Well there you have it. A "real person" (by your definition at least -- as if we're not all "real people" somehow) whose points do not derive from any posts on this thread by someone you claim is a troll or otherwise. He posted the same points long before this thread existed.

So go ahead and debate with a "real person" as you requested. I will read with interest.

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 USA 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.

Btw, my father was former West Coast Divison attorney for Exxon and handled the Valdez spill case. He later was General Counsel for THUMS (a consortium of the major oil companies dealing with environmental law issues afair). My father's specialty apparently was contract law. And afair graduated top of his class at LSU when it was a top ranked university for Law degrees at the time (may still be). Given that legal briefs were laying all over the place were I was living from a teenager and especially in my early 20s, then perhaps some of that rubbed off on me as I was a curious reader.

That would be a pathetic ad hominem, so no, which my arguments clearly show, but if we're going to expend time and resource on this debate, it will be between real people, not forum names.

But then again, you were both victims of a notorious troll, so I guess legit-checking isn't your strong suit. Anyways, I wont engage further in this troll thread. All answers has been given (like they were from day 1 in 2014), so have fun with the trollparty you guys got going.

His name is public and is all over his thread with his pictures and he's even posted some videos. If that is your attempt to dismiss his points, you've failed terribly.

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.

Thanks and like said: this has been done. Not only by us, by Ethereum, Augur, Gems, Voxelus etc. It's quite basic. You just bit the bait of a troll and for some reason started thinking there were controversy here, there isn't. You seem like an otherwise intelligent guy, so I have no idea why you decide to waste your time trying to discredit a legit project that warns everyone upfront of all risks, that does something productive and useful and also legal. Power of the troll I guess..

IMO, as a matter of common English usage, if purchased to hold for any meaningful period of time, yes. It certainly offers potential profitable returns [from] appreciation of value. I've certainly heard people talk about "investing" in various (fiat) currencies. Such usage is quite common.

Legally, ask your lawyer, don't ask me, or anyone on a forum.

What jurisdiction are you talking about?

Sure, that'll be no problem as soon as you give me your full name. I refuse to waste my time and resources on debating someone who bit the bait of a notorious troll so hard. As soon as you give me your full name we can continue this in a professional and serious manner. Until then you are sadly just a unaware accomplice of a troller.

I don't want to get in a fight with you. I have nothing against your project. My only concern is that all of us are getting into trouble with the law w.r.t. to unregistered investment securities. I am concerned for you guys too as well as for investors and all of us. You may be getting really poor legal advice (lawyers can make more money getting you into more trouble).

Could you please have your lawyers come debate me in my thread about what constitutes an unregistered investment security. I want to pick their brains and see who is correct. They can debate me anonymously, so they have no legal culpability.

Rather than just appeal to authority, have them come in my thread and prove their superior knowledge. All of us would surely love to see more input from real lawyers. For some reason, they are afraid to post at this forum (even anonymously).

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. It's not about disclaimers, it's about EXPLICITLY explaining what IOTA is and what it isn't. Which we have done. Law is on our side. You are both victims of a troll that has been banned on BTT And Nxtforum twice for trolling, slandering, spamming and death threats. Pathetic.

Right now we talking about: if A follows from B, does it mean that B follows from A. Look at that example about people buying USD. Smooth claims they are investors. I claim that  being an investor means XXX, but XXX doesn't mean that you are an investor.

PS: There is a famous sophism related to that, can't recall what it was.

Seems all of you need to read my linked thread more carefully. Saying that "it is not an investment" doesn't make it so. The legal criteria are covered in great detail in my linked thread.

Again this doesn't mean I am accusing anyone of fraud or bad intentions. I am not taking sides on that concern. Rather I am just pointing out that every single cryptocurrency that is marketed to speculators, is an investment, regardless of any disclaimers issued. Study the law. Delusion won't help you in a court-of-law (even if it is not a kangaroo court).


W.r.t. to securities law (as I covered in my thread above), a government issued currency is not an unregistered security. But a private issued cryptocurrency always is, unless it was issued primarily to non-speculators (non-investors) for use as a currency token and not as an investment (e.g. a game currency given away from free and primary to participants of the game not to investors and speculators in the potential rise in value of the tokens).

You can't escape the intent of the securities law, which is to protect speculators and investors from "get rich quick" scams.

For example, americanpegasus argued that Aeon is not an unregistered investment security because it is issued by proof-of-work and no party received the proceeds. Yet if there is a community of speculators centered around the core developer (smooth) who are obviously by their forum posts involved for investment and thus this group is looked upon by investors as responsible for the future potential value, then this is an unregistered invesment security as defined by the Howey test. If rather Aeon was primarily distributed for free to n00bs who don't have a clue about investment and the primary use of the tokens is to spend them, then one could argue it is not an unregistered investment security under the Howey test.

Some people believe the USA securities law is not the model that applies globally, but I personally wouldn't risk that. The EU seems to be codifying the similar intent of the law. The globalization of the USA style hegemony is well underway.

I live in a country with high inflation. People buy a lot of USD to save their money. Are they investors?

No. That's not how the law works. ANYTHING can appreciate or depreciate in value post-purchase. IOTA is software. We got 2 documents: Terms of Sale and Risk that EXPLICITLY state that IOTA IS NOT either securities or investment, it's SOFTWARE. NOTHING MORE AND NOTHING LESS.
This is the same for all software and crypto-software, including Ethereum, Augur etc. This is the law, done deal.

I can't believe you have bitten this hard on the bait of a troll. Haha, smarten up man.

I'm not catching you on any word, I'm looking at the dictionary definition and silly claims that people who quite obviously "put (money) to use, by purchase or expenditure, in something offering potential profitable returns, as interest, income, or appreciation in value" are not investors. That's nonsensical.

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. Also note that sometimes I use word "investors" because it's much simpler than to explain all the details. It's just a shortcut and any attempts to catch me at my word are silly. Without the context "investor" can mean anything, so I'm not sure it's a good moment to quote Merriam-Webster dictionary.

Jinn buyers, according to the claims made in this post. I don't know whether they are correct or not, nor do I know whether your posts are correct. I only know what I read.

According to that dictionary definition, people purchasing or expending money on IOTA tokens are also investors, unless you are going to prohibit IOTA tokens from ever being traded (not sure how that would work) and only allow them to be used as network access. They offer "potential profitable returns, as interest, income, or appreciation in value".

Lawyers will have to work out the legalities, but when it comes to the English language and matters of substance, they are clearly investors.

 

Who was promised of "profit-shares"?