Topic: The altcoin topic everyone wants to sweep under the rug - page 8. (Read 24377 times)

Apparently you are in denial that all European banks are complying with FATCA which is a USA law.

Apparently you have entirely ignored my point that the G20 has already pledged to cooperate against financial defectors, because the Europeans are also escaping to the USA to deny paying their European responsibilities. All the governments are bankrupt and they will be joining together to make sure no one can game the jurisdictional boundaries.

It is your Russian delusion. You will get another spanking just as you did for the past decades in the wonderful dictatorship of Belarus. If you want to join the prosperous world, and actually make something for IoT, then you can't hide in nefarious corners of the globe and deny a global community of laws.

I am sure Samsung and other major companies you want to cooperate with on IoT are going to really appreciate your statements in this thread. You are digging your grave, just as you did by debating me in the POLL thread.

So you keep sticking to the delusion that USA sets laws in Western Europe despite of that document upthread that proves the opposite. I don't see a reason to continue this discussion with you. You are obviously in total denial, caused by inability to accept that you were wrong.
Dixi.

Incorrect. Please stop pretending you are attorney, because you obviously are negligent in your conceptualization of the current international reach of US law. Which btw, is only going to become more pervasive in 2017, as the G20 has pledged to harmonize and cooperate on cracking down on financial defectors. The world is not some fantasy of independent regions. The world is run by an elite class who are supra-national and they are driving very rapidly towards a global governance system, so that there is no place to run and no place to hide from the hegemony of the global elite.

I suppose you are unaware that Switzerland totally caved into the USA demands on bank secrecy. Even Germany was able to penetrate Swiss bank secrecy by using bribes.

Russian speakers apparently believe the lie that Russia can stand up to the USA, which the elite have by design helped to foster by awarding Edward Snowden safe haven in Russia and complete with this faked failure of the USA when it required the Ecuadoran President's plane to land in France. Do you really live in some foolish kindergarden fantasy where you think the Snowden could have left Hong Kong without the elite knowing where he was and also knowing that he was not on the Ecuadorian President's plane. This is all planned theatre to fool the naive. This was never the case because Russia and the USA are being run by the same elites. They want you to believe that is not so and for you to hold your foolish, nationalistic pride.

But even that conspiracy oriented perspective is not required, because the USA can prosecute you and if necessary they will go after you with a proxy such as seizing your funds and business in the USA and the Swift wire transfer system, and of any one who is aiding, coddling, and protecting you. I mean really can you expect Iota to not totally crash in value if the USA is attacking the ongoing enterprise that is responsible for the Iota centralized servers and driving its development and promotion. They've done this to Julian Assange to KitDotCom, etc.. They can be ready to arrest (interdict) you during your international travels. Eventually they'll nab you. If it is really important, they'll covertly kidnap you and forceably move you to a jurisdiction where they can arrest you. With FATCA, the USA has demonstrated it can pressure the foreign banks to enforce USA laws by threatening to blacklist them from the international financial system.

All the G20 have the same shared problem which is how to prevent financial defectors as the global sovereign debt collapse goes over the cliff later this year and especially in 2017. The powers-that-be know what is coming and they are preparing to prevent the practice of safe havens that allow individuals to play the various jurisdictions against each other. Don't be so damn naive. This isn't something decades from now, this is happening now.

Instead of your childish fantasies of what you wish the law says, let's actually look at what the law says.



In order to qualify for an exemption from registration with the SEC, you must either sell only to qualified investors or you must make no public offering, and also publicly file a Form D, ostensibly none of which Iota's ICO complied with.

Do you really think the US laws would mention "foreign private issuer" if the USA law has no jurisdiction over them. 

And you claim that these things matter in Europe because ...

Fill the gap, please.

Are you ludicrously claiming the 1930s Security Act and the Supreme Court's Howey test interpretation is still not in force in the USA?

Young man, I've seen your Facebook account with your Likes on the Grateful Dead and bands of that drug culture.


You are because you have promoted them as such and you have promised to deliver certain development, which thus ties the investor's expectations to your ongoing enterprise by your own design of how you offered the ICO before the development is done and before the software is fully decentralized on auto-pilot.

Just ignore this idiot. His arguments can be summarized as follows:

1. Retroactive laws (which doesn't exist)
2. That we're responsible for how other people perceive their tokens

In other words, he's useless to the universe.

I think this thread should be split into at least 2 parts, because every post that refers to SEC and Howey test is void (in legal meaning) for Europe as shown by this document - http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32010R1095.

I didn't mean that you would change your position.

You keep referring to US laws, but they are not applicable in Western Europe. Also, the USA won't export democracy to those countries as the states used to do with the other parts of the globe. So stop pushing your agenda that USA is the center of the world. Greenwich has been the center and will keep being it even if Trump becomes the president.

No. You should explain why you thought I changed my position. So readers can decide if your logic makes any sense.

I suspect that you thought that because I wrote "Software is not a fungible money" that I had changed my position. That phrase was a terse response to iotatoken's point that Iota tokens are only software. Actually that phrase taken out-of-context would be incorrect, because Bitcoin is software and is fungible. The salient distinction as I clarified in my long post just a few moments ago, is that no one is depending on the control exerted by a group that sold us the Bitcoins for the expectation of gains in the value of Bitcoin. That is why Bitcoin is not an investment SECURITY. It is an investment or speculation, but not a SECURITY, because no one is depending on the efforts of an ongoing enterprise for the expectation of gains.

You may be right or wrong. In any case it doesn't make sense to argue on that.

CfB I did not change my position. Your disingenuous attempt to assert that I am waffling is a despicable obfuscation tactic.

If you read this entire thread, you will see I have explained in great detail with quotations from the relevant Supreme Court decisions, that the Supreme Court has clarified that the Howey test is employed to distinguish an investment security from other scenarios which are not investment securities.

The key aspect of the Howey test is whether the individuals who are purchasing what is offered, are expecting to gain on the resale value due to the ongoing efforts of some group other than themself. This means they've placed their trust in a group (an ongoing enterprise) that is responsible for their future gains.

It is quite clear that ever since your ICO, that the future value of Iota's tokens is dependent on iotatoken and Come-from-Beyond, for example all the development work you had to complete from the time you sold the tokens until now and still ongoing work required. As well, you arguing with me here in this thread, indicates that you are responsible for the promotion and forming public opinion which determines the value of Iota's tokens.

Also one of the other key factors is that money paid for these tokens was transferred to this group, which the investors are depending on for their expectation of gains.

Pokemon cards are not software, they are physical collectibles similar to baseball cards. The major reason for obtaining these cards was not for depending on the ongoing efforts of a group to promote and provide value for these cards. To the extent these cards have risen in value, it is because of the inherent value of the cards when they were created, not due to any reliance on ongoing efforts of promoters and developers to raise their value over time.

Pokemon card values are a user-driven phenomenon. Iota token values are an iotatoken and Come-from-Beyond driven phenomenon (and the various early investors who also pump your tokens here in this forum and rave about Come-from-Beyond's reputation of creating Nxt). The users are depending on your development group to implement and monitor the coin ongoing. Heck your company is even providing centralized servers which are essential to the launch phase which will make or break the value of the tokens.

The USA Supreme Court has specifically stated it will ignore all such obfuscations and focus on the economic facts, which is whether the investors were depending on the actions of the sellers of the securities for the expectation of the gains on the value of the securities. The Supreme Court will also look as to whether the primary reason for obtaining the tokens was for an expectation of the gains, and not primarily for the use value of trading the tokens as a currency for some game or services.

None of the investors of Iota are using them to trade for services or in a game. They are HODLing them in expectation of selling them for an investment gain to greater fools, and they help to promote the tokens on these forums thus displaying their intentions and expectations.

If you two insist of writing stupid shit which exemplifies that you have not even read this thread entirely, and thus do not understand the Howey test, then you are being disingenuous and trying to fool your investors. Which is another fact to add to your culpability under the Howey test and USA securities law.

And yes I think Ethereum's lawyers are dumb shit. And btw, my father is very prominent attorney who has been a general counsel and run the entire west coast division for the world's largest oil company. I have not only inherited his IQ, but I also was exposed to numerous legal briefs and discussions with him over my teenage years which thus an imbued in me the ability to understand key salient points of the court's legal decisions.

I see many attorneys making some egregious mistakes with their comments about crypto currency within the context of the USA's Howey test. I have provided those refutations and clarifications upthread.

The Howey test is very simple. A security means the investor places his surety and trust in a ongoing enterprise to provide his expectation of gains. When buying a bicycle which I resell in the future, I don't depend on the efforts of some ongoing enterprise for the expectation for gains in the value of the bicycle. When I buy software which I resell one day, I don't buy the software to expect gains on the value of the software but rather I buy it primarily to use it. Duh! The SEC regulates these ongoing enterprises so they provide proper disclosures or that they limit their offerings to qualified investors who have at least $1 million in liquid net worth or who have proven they are sophisticated investors who understand well all the technologies and risks involved. Obviously from the dumb comments that speculators make on these forums, they are not all sophisticated. And I understand you did not check to make sure all participants in your ICO (that are USA citizens) had a liquid networth of $1 million.

He has the right to be wrong, but he does not admit that he's wrong. He states things as a matter of fact and thus deserves to be ridiculed for it.

Well, he is not an expert and has the right to be wrong. Of course, noone seriously believes that TPTB is better than Ethereum lawyers but if one conforms to TPTB's rules then the one conforms to all possible jurisdictions. So TPTB's opinion is useful to some degree.

The most hilarious part about these trolls is that they argue from a retroactive point of view. Laws are never retroactive. According to TPTB's "expert lawyer opinion" pokemon cards were really a security because they appreciated in value due to demand after they were sold as a card game. Genius.

I just needed your comment. I didn't expect that you would change your position nor anyone expected that.

Software is not a fungible money. Software is not purchased for expectations of gains.

Your logic is that buying a bicycle is not an investment security even though it can be resold. Then nothing is an investment security by your test. Rather the Howey test looks at the relevant economic facts and ignores any such attempt at obfuscation.

Are attorneys in Europe really this dumb   

Could you comment on http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2012-07/cp120094en.pdf, please?