Topic: SEC and ICO. Why yes, why not? (Read 215 times)

SEC definitely reasons out that the they do regulations on ICO for security purposes to protect the investors from fraud cause some people have really have been scammed. It's also good for them to show some guidelines in making investments but not to totally control things.

The change that the SEC and other appropriate authorities are taking more of an active interest in ICOs and TGE(if you want to add another layer of bullshit to try escape their reach) is a positive sign. Regulators are not going out and flexing their arms for no reason, they are making sure that people are playing by established rules that are there for consumer protection. ICOs that have turned around and ceased operations are only showing that they know they are not up to scratch and this can only be seen as a positive. Those centra lads were insane and raised a stupid amount of money on bullshit claims. I'm glad that people like this cant continue to operate. This stance will help to ensure that the public can trust ICO operators.

Thanks for enumerating both the pros and cons.

But register tokens in the SEC unit.
Can this be seen as a sign of fraud?- Not always!
Analyzing the arguments of Sec, I want to try to create a stencil, by which you can evaluate the ICO and its future.
And not only the SEC is important. Examples from other jurisdictions are also very interesting. But they have not been found yet.

If you are offering a security for sale, you have to follow the rules of the land. It doesn't matter whether the sale is through an IPO or ICO. Most companies which are raising funds through ICOs have realized this. They either take great pains to ensure that their tokens cannot be construed as securities. Otherwise they close their sale to US citizens.

Oh sure. You're right.
But there is another opinion about the SEC - SEC protects the business of the elected and does not allow it to take part in common people. In part, this statement confirms ICO Telegrams. The Telegram complied with the requirements of the SEC. But a lot of non-professional investors could not take part in the  ICO.
Two years ago, SEC paid no attention to ICO.
A year ago, having proved that ICO DAO violates the rules, the SEC did not punish the DAO team.
And now they are balking ICO at the stage of preparation and holding. It seems to me that these changes well show a change in the state's policy towards crypto-currencies.
Therefore, it is interesting to learn examples of ICO bans not only the American SEC, but also the Singapore MAS and the European E S M A and e.t.c..
 
Create such a simple ICO assessment template. Let's tell you promise revenue on tokens, but there is no registration in SEC and similar - better stay away and so on, this is for investors.
And for the team ICO is also understandable. What to do and how to do. And do not try to invent something.
The close attention of supervisory authorities is a perfect sign for a crypto community. So the states have adopted crypto-economy. And it is now serious and for a long time!!!!

P/S And Centra's ICO is exactly a complete scam. I cited as a good example of the work of the SEC.

One recent example which made headlines is Centra's ICO. They said they were releasing a crypto debit card backed by Mastercard and Visa, only to be busted that there were no partnerships between them. Floyd Mayweather advertised their ICO. SEC said that they "engaged in fraudulent conduct and made material misstatements and omissions designed to deceive investors".

I don't know if you can consider that to be an advertising blunder because they were clearly lying about everything the project was about. It's a good example of a complete scam.

The SEC has no wrongful doing with this. If Initial Public Offerings (IPOs) have a screening process with the SEC on whether they can be invested in the public market or not why can't ICOs have the same procedure as well? The SEC is only protecting the investor's money as if they invested in to the wrong ICO their hard earned money could disappear without any trace. Also the requirement of KYC is always there as the government sees potential threats when an anonymous buyer can participate the sale.

The reason for closing ICO is an interesting fact.
When we understand why the SEC or the Court closed this or that ICO, we can see the organizers.
The analysis of errors will be useful not only to the teams that prepare ICO, but also to investors.
Issuers of ICO can avoid risks, and investors lose money.
The legal approaches of the Courts, Secs and other supervisory authorities to the ICO from different countries, perfectly show where the state policy moves in relation to crypto-currencies.
Actual lawsuits and bans say much more than laws and regulations.
Very interesting, if colleagues will share facts from different countries.
I propose to spread the information in a compressed format. A few examples:

 1. November 1, 2017, a few hours after the call of the representative Sec, Munchee returned all payments to investors and did not send more than one token to customers. At this point, the company attracted more than 15 million ICO. ICO was dedicated to the unification of cafes and restaurants.
In the restraining order of December 11, 2017. Section, as Munchee and released a utility token. And the maintenance tokens of the utility, with the advertising company, managers and bounty program participants used the terms of the shares - profit, income and growth of the value of tokens on the exchange.
Conclusion-watch your advertising company. It must match the signs of the tokens that you advertise.

2. In support of paragraph 1.  December 1, 2017, Dmarket conducted ICO in the amount of 30 million. ICO dedicated to the site for unification of computer games. The team also conducted a test of Howey and presented her tokens as utilities. In the advertising company used only the terms bonus and discount. Sec does not touch them, they develop normally in America.
Conclusion-watch your advertising company. It must match the signs of the tokens that you advertise.

3. April 20, 2018 issued a statement about Centra Tech Inc. Moshonic ICO, which raised $ 32 million. The team announced contractual relations with VISA and Mastecard companies, which were not. Simply collars.
Conclusion - check at least the basic facts from the information in white paper.

And so on, I'm waiting for your examples.