Topic: | STRATIS | The first blockchain developed for businesses |Full POS - page 182. (Read 1891162 times)

As I wrote on twitter I'm expecting a price of $300-$500 per STRAT until the end of the year. The hard-work and real applications will always thrive and offer plenty of rewards to true believers.
https://twitter.com/Cristian_R_Pop/status/973182507171696641

Startis is very close to deliver something exciting and maybe more and more companies will host ico on stratis blockchain.
we will see a good price increase this year

Already we have seen there is a huge potential in the Stratis platform and very soon they are doing their best. In this year they are huge development planned in Stratis Blockchain, once the platform is out we can expect there is a huge growth in terms of price.

This is undervalued token a big room of growth for this hidden gen surely it will be among top 10 markets by the end of the year. I think this is right time to buy this token before it's get too late.

i'm interesting after reading this WP. hopefully this can be a successful project

You are both right, Howey Test is neccessary too, besides the three points of jc12345 claimed, these factors determine the coin is security or not, I think Stratis is not a security.

https://twitter.com/Khil0ne/status/973149793294962688

This is the best time to buy stratis people, if you where waiting for the entry point , this is it. the trend is going to reverse soon!!

Template is a joke.  He's wearing the "Rise" signature and calling Stratis an abandoned project.  How funny is that?  Yeah, the Stratis team abandoned the project yet they keep showing their faces at expos and conventions to promote it.  Get a life.

It's mostly people who have no financial interest in the project anymore or never even had any interest in it. Yet they take the time to come to the forum and post some BS.

Don't expect higher value in short period of time, the market will recover according to purchases made by the people and most of the people are kept selling in the market because they don't have patience.

That's only partly true though. In the US, the Howey Test is applied to determine if something is a security. The aspect of the Howey Test the SEC is going after seems to be the "expectation of profits" clause. It would be hard to know how this pans out, but I would love for one of the ICOs to fight the SEC in court and win to set a precedent.

Some of the stronger indicators of a security are:
1. that the token receives a dividend or part of the profit share of the organization.
2. that the token entitles you to rights should the organization close down and the remainder of funds are distributed to all the token holders.
3. holders of tokens can vote in matters of the orgnaization

None of these indicators are true for Stratis which counts strongly in favor of Stratis being a utility coin. If there are any other more obscure arguments towards a security it would be weak arguments. Stratis will be used to do stuff on the Stratis platform e.g. to pay for creating sidechains or other use cases where it becomes "fuel" or just in general to pay for stuff which counts strongly in favor of being a utility coin.

The SEC mostly seems to be interested in 'tokens' and not cryptocurrencies in general. They have been very clear, for example, that Bitcoin is not a security.

I'm gonna buy this staff now. There are some good signs that this shit will go X3 in coming months.

So we see from this articles that SEC consider almost all crypto currencies as securities - i suggest all who are interested further into this topic, that you read them.

"Why exchange regulation is appropriate

The SEC has argued before that the cryptocurrency coins and tokens sold in initial coin offerings closely resemble securities, sharing many of the same characteristics as corporate stock and other business interests. Most people invest in ICOs in the hope of seeing the value of their investment go up, and creators of crypto-assets often offer them to the public at large to maximize their potential distribution and popularity.

By that argument, if cryptocurrencies are securities, then the companies that specialize in buying and selling cryptocurrencies are subject to regulatory requirements governing securities exchanges. That requires either registering with the SEC or qualifying for an exemption from the registration requirements. By imposing those restrictions, the SEC seeks to protect investors and prevent fraud and trade manipulation from occurring."

https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/03/11/sec-to-bitcoin-investors-you-should-demand-regulat.aspx

"Tokens are almost always securities. The SEC will treat virtually all tokens as securities, and token issuers should treat their tokens as securities.
"Utility Token" does not mean what you think it means. The SEC believes that tokens that have or will have utility generally are still securities. Legal or other opinions that a token is a "utility token," and therefore is not a security, are unlikely to be persuasive to the SEC.
A token does not stop being a security when the related platform becomes "operational." This is a corollary to the fact that utility tokens often are still securities. Whether or when a token stops being a security is a highly fact-specific question, which likely turns on factors like the continuing degree of involvement of one or more platform sponsors in the token ecosystem and whether the tokens are largely being purchased and held for consumptive purposes or for investment purposes. None of these have any likely correlation to the time a token platform becomes operational.
You can't add your way out of a token being a security. Whether a token or any other instrument is a security is based on statutory provisions and many decades of carefully crafted court and SEC decisions. None of those provisions or decisions relies on assigning numerical values to various factors and adding them together to try to reach a target score. While some token issuers have tried to rely on purported tests that use such a mathematical approach, the SEC likely will not be persuaded that such a numerical exercise is useful to the analysis of whether a token is a security.
Technical and technological distinctions between tokens generally are not relevant to the question of whether a token is a security. For example, there is no difference in the analysis of whether a protocol layer token and an application layer token is a security. The differences between the two may be very significant for some purposes, but both are likely to be securities to the SEC. Similarly, distinctions between and among terms like "coins," "tokens," and "currencies" may have important distinctions in some contexts; there is no distinction in the analysis of whether they are securities.
Is your token really that different from all other tokens? For those token issuers that still want to argue that their tokens are not securities, you may want to ask yourself this:  if the SEC thinks that each of the hundreds or thousands of tokens it has seen are securities, what are the fundamental differences between your token and all those others that make your token the only one that is not a security?  Do you really want to risk an enforcement action (and potential token-holder litigation) on that distinction?"

https://www.coindesk.com/ico-issuers-fix-problem-sec-fixes/

Stratis is now listed on CoinGenome https://coingenome.com/coin/strat