Topic: The altcoin topic everyone wants to sweep under the rug - page 14. (Read 24383 times)

What I am getting from all of this is that the laws are written in a way that they COULD be interpreted as tptb is stating.

If they chose to do so, they would most likely pull it off.

So the exercise here, as I understand it, is for us to discuss ways that the developers could fund the creation of a platform/coin in a way that would make it impossible for it to be characterized as a security.

Sorry. I should have been more careful with how I wrote that.

I was referring to some of the responses tptb has been getting. Wasn't asking you if you were a lawyer.

At the same time, rereading your original comment, you weren't so innocent. You were being a dick. But better late than never to become more civil and backpedal. Good to hear you don't want your original comment to be taken as a slight anymore. And let it be, don't, just don't keep......thanks.

I argue the powers-that-be do hope you are so willfully ignorant of the law, so they can entrap you. I reviewed the EU legislation and they are very busy advancing the securities law and the definitions are sufficiently broad that they could start to interpret securities law very similar to USA courts do in some EU court that gains powers as the EU is federalized (reducing national sovereignty) as this sovereign debt smashup crisis comes crashing down 2016 - 2018. The powers-that-be appear to have planned it out very well to trap you Europeans who boast to yourselves how you don't have to pay taxes on income abroad and yet the powers-that-be are busy formulating a G20 coordination on unified taxing so that no one escapes paying taxes and regulation. The global economic collapse is the way they will get all the nations to accede to this coordination to hunt down all capital.

You are just buying a little time before your demise.

If you review the thread I linked to, which has more details on what the legislation and case law has stated, I think the conclusion is that the determination of whether an implicit "investment contract" has been formed is tied into whether there are those who are selling (and/or offering for sale, including reselling) shares in a "common enterprise" wherein they are "promoting the reasonable expectation of profits/gains" and another condemning characteristic is when those who have those reasonable expectations, are depending on the efforts and/or promotion of those aforementioned promoters or trusted controllers of the common enterprise. So it appears that when the developers of the coin have created a community promotion wherein there is a reasonable expectation of profits backed by the efforts and promotion of those developers who are in control of the common enterprise, then a security (dependency on the developers to deliver gains) has been formed and thus these shares need to be registered and regulated under the law. IANAL, but that is my interpretation.

I have proposed that no security would be created if the developer of a crypto-token protocol and implementing software instead does a crowdsale (and/or just launches with distribution via mining debasement) where it is made very clear in the pronouncements and actions of the developer that the tokens created by this protocol and software are being offered to users of the tokens for using the protocol network, and disclaims prominently and profusely that no one obtaining these tokens should have any expectations of future gains based on any exchange value. The developer should not be targeting his marketing (such as forum activities, naming, etc) to individual public investors and rather to selling his software and protocol to users, for example via a crowdfunding to gain funding to complete or repay loans he incurred to do the programming. He should not make public announcements of the available of tokens to  investors. One way perhaps to make this very clear, is to limit the maximum size that any one person can donate at the crowdfunding to perhaps $500 or what ever would be considered too small to be a reasonable worthwhile investment in the first world. In other words, there are many users of a new technology (even include other developers who can work on ecosystem projects) who have an interest in using the real world product (thus they need some tokens to use it) who have an interest in its success and in interacting with the product, that have nothing to do with a reasonable expectation of profits on those tokens. Whereas if you are constantly trolling in these forums acting as if you want to funnel all the speculators to your coin, then ostensibly you are not targeting usership but rather speculation and thus arguably (and implicitly) promoting a security.

One issue I am still trying to work out is how accepting placements from angel investors would mesh with the crowdfunding direction for funding programming of software and protocols for users?

Apparently there are several types of exceptions to requirements to register securities in the USA, which seem to revolve around accredited and/or sophiscated investors:

http://thismatter.com/money/stocks/exempt-securities.htm

These all appear to place restrictions on when the shares of the angel investors can be sold and also require subsequent registration. Apparently sales to non-USA angel investors is a complete exception to all requirements (but may trigger requirements in the non-USA angel investor's domicile or tax jurisdiction).  What is worrisome is that such may trigger all shares (even those sold to users and not investors) to be classified as security especially if these shares are divisible and fungible (become mixed up) as is the case for crypto-currencies.

Thus it appears one would be best pay their angel investors back in cash (with any agreed interest rate or equation of return), classifying these as loans are investments in the programmer, and not in the final protocol and software which is sold and provided to users, not investors. Angel investors who wanted to convert this cash to shares would have to do so on some open exchange market (and again with disclaimers from the developer in force that no reasonable expectations of gains should be expected and shares should be obtained for use and not for investment and if they choose to ignore that, there is nothing the developer can do to prevent markets from forming). This has been a very important epiphany for me.

Of course we are not, but (apart from a few Eastern European countries) taxing and tax collection seems to be more relaxed over here, in addition until I don't cash out in fiat I don't have to worry. If I convert it to fiat then I have to pay a CGT but that's all.

He would need to find someone he respects and views as his equal for that to work.

I finally googled, 'cause I really was curious.  TPTB = the powers that be

Ah well, I thought it was something else  LOL.

I'm going to suggest, for you tptb, that you think on the intent of the law.  Instead of trying to fit the development teams of crypto, and the vast voluntary force that also help direct the way crypto projects go, into some kind of traditional management team, think also about why there are laws on securities.  Mainly, to enforce the disclosure of financial information, etc... of a company that issues those securities.  In the case of open source cryptos, those are completely known and ... well... open.  There are so many reasons why crypto currencies do not fit the mold of securities, and you seem to choose one, a management team, which in and of itself does not define a security.  You're trying to force a square peg (cryptos) into a round hole (securities) and I don't know why other than to cause consternation.  

I know you are a brilliant man, but honestly, I think you direct your energies in the most unproductive directions.  Your view is so narrow, you can't see the forest for the trees.  I honestly think you need to develop your lateral thinking.  Or for better productivity, team up with someone who has the opposite problem?

There is no "promise of profits".
There is no "enterprise" because there is no business or company.
Furthermore, there is no investment at all but only exchange between bankers.
A crypto-currency is nothing more than a network of bankers that will accept and use a token.
Did you not see on blockchain.info how it says "be your own bank"?
BANK: the store of money or tokens held by the banker in some gambling or board games.

The Powers That Be. Why doesn't your internet have search? Is it broken or something? 

Nope, I'm not a Lawyer, not sure why you'd think that?  I'm still wondering what  TPTB_need_war  means, I really am curious   Actually, I just saw a thread I liked deleted for unknown reasons, and I thought it was odd that this one stays, even so it's only here to bring attention to another thread.

Anyway, I'm not good at acronyms, and can't figure out  TPTB_need_war ?  The last part sounds intriguing and since I don't understand the first part, I can't figure out what needs war?

It is really starting to look like many of the cryptos out there can be classified as securities.

People, like yourself, don't seem to understand. Before, I didn't think they were securities, either. He is bringing up an extremely important point for discussion. He is trying to understand as well. And yes, he made a new thread to hopefully be more successful than the first one.

Do you think if we just stay quiet it will go away?

Its a great point. And what is the response.

What, you think you're a lawyer? Etc.

Fucking ridiculous, lol.

As for me, I also don't understand what you're asking, nor why you made a second thread because you didn't get enough attention on your first thread.

But what I do want to know, Anonymint, is what your new name stands for?  TPTB_need_war  = what?  I don't get it?  Of course I'm not a genius like you are, so???

I have tried to clarify what I think the USA law says a security is:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12795383

Can anyone tell me after that post why Monero is not an unregistered investment security under USA law?

Well, then go dabble in crypto then.  Why even worry about it too much.  Everyone in the USA is on average committing 3 felonies a day just by breathing.

That was my only point. I find your project Ion (that name is better imo) interesting, and I hope you follow through with it.

Cheers

I hope you were not implying I was asking for legal advice?

I am certain that if you review my posts you will find I am discussing my non-expert (layman's) interpretation of securities law as it applies to crypto-tokens with (so far ostensibly although open to further analysis) non-experts. Maybe you are perplexed as to what my purpose could be if not just to waste my time or ask for advice?

Consider that I am talking to users of crypto-currency. Consider I have to build a reputation. Consider I have an incentive to raise awareness on this issue for numerous reasons (one my reputation, two competing coins are mostly all culpable under securities law, etc). Go from there in several directions of motivations...

If your only point was that we are unlikely to get expert advice here in these forums, then my apology for overreacting if you weren't implicating me.

The simpler explanation is that "the authorities" already have a mole and simply continue to gather evidence. I know very little about Dash, but I remember what happened during the days of "Bitcoin Consultancy" operating in Europe and Bitomat.pl acquisition by Mt.Gox. At that time not even "the authorities" would gather evidence, the regular private gumshoes did, the circle of users was so small.

When both Bitcoin Consultancy and Bitomat disappeared the gathered information was used to close down and prosecute some controlled-substances distribution rings in Europe. Bitcoin acted as a sort of honey-pot, as it tended to attract businesspeople who weren't well-served by the regular banking transfer network SEPA.

Further back in history I remember that some early arrests of Al-Quaeda functionaries were thanks to the secret cooperation of the employees of Swisscom EasyROAM subsidiary.

Asking for legal advice on Bitcointalk forums is not a road I'd suggest traveling down.

stan you are conflating issues and glossing over the relevant definition of a "security" in the other thread linked from the OP of this thread. Try to read again my posts more slowly and carefully. I will also make a few more clarifying posts in that other thread.

(not to be condescending, but also no time to repeat myself again)

Prosecuting Silk Roads was an effective action of warning people that they will be caught doing these things.

The legal specifics of "unregistered investment securities" is much different than the laws that were employed to prosecute "Silk Road".

Proprietors of these suspected or alleged (i.e. not proven in court action) "unregistered investment securities" crypto-coins are much easier to track down and many are already public, such as Evan from Dash and Daniel Latimer from Bitshares. I am not aware of good forensic data on the Protoshares and Bitshares saga (apparently Chinese were involved).

If your point is the users can always move on to another illegal platform since open source is like a virus that can't be destroyed and that it is impractical for the authorities to bring actions against all millions of individuals, I think the authorities want a much more efficient solution and will rather go for some scenario where they just automatically fine your bank account or access you some tax FINRA fine, and if you don't pay they just keep raising the fees and penalties until it is worthwhile to sell you to a Haliburton prison where they are paid by inmate by the government so have a financial incentive to increase inmates and pay off the court system to send them more prosecutions. Westerners are not at all prepared for the reality payback for socialism that is going to slam the door to freedom in their face over the coming years.