Topic: rpietila Altcoin Observer - page 51. (Read 387491 times)

My preferred strategy is to render their laws impotent, hence for example my pedantic comments about anonymity.

I remember what Jesus is quoted as saying, "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's".

I don't prefer the martyr strategy, nor physically fighting the hordes of zombies who willing wear jackboots for the King.

My preferred method for dezombification is for the zombies to see their jackboots are useless and they can be free too. The rest can simply jackboot each other as prescribed in Revelation.

In short, I opt out. I don't have to play in Satan's game (other than my human weaknesses, we can't entirely avoid that little nagger). The Bible tells us in John (the Baptist), "if ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you".

Further on the Poloniex "ICO", this link has a good analysis of why Bitcoin has not been considered a security by the SEC, and why a ponzi scheme that invested in bitcoin, like the Bitcoin Savings and Trust ("BST"), is:  http://www.compliancebuilding.com/2013/08/09/is-bitcoin-a-security/

I think the logic is directly applicable to the ICO.  Look at the discussion on the elements of "Common Enterprise" and "Expectation of profits from efforts of others".  I think those are the same ones that could cause problems for the ICO.

Is there a list of alts that have been banned in this thread?

I don't have anything to contribute to this topic on either side, just wanted to say that I am really happy to see these concerns expressed and actually real Acts sited.  This kind of discussion is often lacking on the forums.

Yep, the same thing Voorhees got in trouble for with Satoshidice: http://www.sec.gov/News/PressRelease/Detail/PressRelease/1370541972520#.VAekb_ldWSo

The Securities Act of 1933, section 5(a) for one.  There are others which may also pertain, but I am not a domain expert, and prefer to mention only the one which seems relatively straightforward in its application.

That's where it gets interesting (complex). No money transfer license (MTL) would be required for Polo to do that business with Montona residents, BUT, each state/district has its own laws. The previous state in the list requires one.

If a state determines the ICO is "currency exchange," Polo would need the MTL from that state/district to have the state's residents as customers. That is 51 different jurisdictions to check.

Which law specifically do you think is violated?

Lawsuits are civil matters, one could be sued for anything at any time.  This liability exists with all business and is a different matter entirely than lawbreaking.

Some problems that they don't have:
The primary defense for poloniex is as the service provider, they are not an adviser or broker, they provide no financial advice.
For currency exchanges in particular in the State of Montana no Money Transfer license is required.  Not even USForex has one in the state:
http://www.usforex.com/about-us/legal#MT

They seem in compliance, but I have no special information regarding their operations so don't take my word for anything, ask them if you have a concern.

If they start offering Securityies with the BitsharesX stuff, they may need to register under Section 6 of the SEC Exchange act of 1934.

I am strongly supportive of Busoni fighting any such lawsuit, and hopefully establishing a precedent which expands liberty to contract, at least in the jurisdiction of the federal district court of Montana.  

I will even voluntarily contribute to his legal fund, should that become needful.

It is not a present danger, so I need take no action until and unless a lawsuit is actually filed.

However, I am not supportive to the level of leaving funds on deposit, if such a case should go to trial.  At that time I would cease trading on Poloniex, with great sadness.

Meanwhile, I consider that my first (Mt.Gox-informed) knee-jerk reaction, to cease trading immediately, is immoderate, and unwarranted.

Even if the ICO is a direct violation of U.S. securities law (as I believe it to be - no lawyer, I, but married to one) it should create no significant threat of any action other than civil enforcement, and that should present no threat to my funds on deposit until some act of an appropriate court.

Please do not consider my intemperate, alarmist language as grounds to cease business with Poloniex.  It is an exemplary business, and deserves our support.  I personally continue to keep a portion of my XMR on deposit there for trading purposes.

Once it happened to me that I was a large but not majority ~15% owner in a private company. The owners, me included, decided to sell shares in proportion to our holdings, to people who were interested. There are certain rules in the law how the company may carry out new private issues but nothing regulating people selling their own shares. We made a prospectus-of-sorts just to give information to the prospective buyers. When the SEC-equivalent of Finland learned about it, several months after the round was completed with no problems, they decided that the law is extended to cover the sale where the company did play no part, so that the prospectus was found faulty, and as a result the company must offer 100% buyback to anyone who so wishes. As president of the company, it was quite a chore to manage the situation where the stock had lost about 20% of the value, giving the lower morality ones among our shareholders just enough incentive to force a buyback.

The case caused me to lose any respect towards the organization pulling such a trick. If they regard me as scum, so be it both ways.

There is no limit whatsoever these sad clowns will do if we let them. They can make any laws and when they are not convenient, change them, amend them, or just act irrespective of them. The less people resist this fuckery, the easier it is for them to continue. The first point of realization would be to realize that any use of force or threat thereof, towards your freedom, is a crime. On their part, not yours.

ADD: The money we were talking about, in total, was about $100k. The government agencies have the apparent luxury of utterly disregarding any sanity in what they pursue, with their only punishment coming in the next age when righteousness reigns.

There have been several IPO/ICOs already. QBK is just a recent one. There was LCL (Limecoin Lite), XBC (Bitcoin Plus), MIL (Millennium coin now), as well as those mining shares if they count. People definitely lost money on them (the IPO/ICOs) as well.

Well, i read that the AMD miner was about to get out. Dunno if that is going to push the price down or not...

Busoni is aware already. (just so everyone knows)

Well, it's almost certainly not "clearly" in violation of the law considering it's uncharted territory in general. I'm not qualified to argue the point, so I won't. But I think you would probably agree that it's a complex subject that would end up resulting in at a minimum serious debate between pro-freedom legal minds and those of the government(who might not even consider such offerings an issue).

The closest thing that we've seen thus far is Erik Voorhees settling his case with the SEC after he sold his fully functioning company via shares  on MPEX. The SEC very likely wasn't 100% sure they would be able to win in court considering he sold SatoshiDICE for something like 13 million dollars at the time, yet settled with the SEC for $50,000 if I remember correctly. And the only similarity here is that the shares were bought with cryptocurrency. The offering itself wasn't a cryptocurrency, unlike Qibucks which is.

I don't think you can really compare decentralised cryptocurrency offering to securities, but I might be wrong about that and perhaps the SEC does see it that way. My gut feeling is that they don't, but Poloniex's lawyers will be the final word on this, and I hope things will continue as usual in our community without the ever present gaze of the SEC or any other governmental agency disrupting what's being built.

I hope he's vetting the SuperNet code.

amino, please reach out to busoni and warn him if you haven't already.  I like Polo and would hate to see it go!  Thanks.

How could anyone lose money on this deal?

True.  But I think the "ICO" is very clearly in violation of the law.  This creates a liability when they are sued by investors who lose money as a result.

Personally I think the logo and color scheme is great! It is bold and striking without being flashy like many other coins. Do you want your money represented by something that looks like it should be on a cereal box?

The Monero logo is understated and tasteful, just as it should be.

Yes—I'm just wondering if there's a less superficial answer.

I read on google, that the color Orange, " combines the energy of red and the happiness of yellow. It is associated with joy, sunshine, and the tropics. Orange represents enthusiasm, fascination, happiness, creativity, determination, attraction, success, and stimulation"