Topic: The altcoin topic everyone wants to sweep under the rug - page 9. (Read 24383 times)

Haha, we have never tried to 'obfuscate' anything. We made it crystal clear that we do not care about speculators, we do not promise any appreciation in value of the tokens, we sold the tokens as software (which it is), and we SPECIFIED that it was not an investment, security or asset.

Afaik, you sold a token which can be resold by investors. The Supreme Court has said about the Howey test, that it would look past all attempts to obfuscate a security.

Software is not an investment, rather it is purchased for a use case. The Howey test looks at what the expectations were of those purchasing.

Your lawyers are ignorant apparently.

Why would we ever register with SEC to sell software? I know you want to pretend you're a lawyer, but c'mon, this is pretty basic. When I talked with our lawyers about this there was absolutely no constraints on selling software to the US.

Did you verify that Iota adhered to all laws and regulations for selling investment securities in every jurisdiction where they offered the "tokens" for sale to investors?

Specifically did they register these tokens with the SEC in the USA? If not, did they restrict non-qualified USA investors from obtaining the coins?

I hope you aware it is against the policy of crowdfunding sites such as Kickstarter and Indiegogo to offer any shares or redeemable tokens to contributors.

There is a reason why the SEC issued a warning about Crypto coins calling them scams.. 90% are !
I was doing research early this year when i stumbled onto their press release by accident (same day it was posted)
I then posted it in the Bitcoin section where everyone said it was good news AHAHHAHAHHA
It even mentioned an unnamed forum which was totally obvious they meant Bitcointalk.
Read it yourselves.. https://www.sec.gov/investor/alerts/ia_virtualcurrencies.pdf (Issued Jan 4th 2016)

Of course you do, because you have vested interest because you bought 1/1000th of the illegal unregistered securities (pre-sold for a lie that is vaporware) and now are pumping these lies on unwary n00bs. I am recording all of this for the future SEC investigations and jail time for those who deserve to go to jail.

No. As I've pointed out in the past, the securities regulations appear to be lenient against those who were merely buy and selling illegal unregistered and/or manipulated securities. Those who are promoting are dangerously close to the line. Those who are actively manipulating are flirting with the law. Note IANAL.

Where is your proof?

I've never seen a case where humans didn't take money that was sitting in front of their faces to take. The insiders always do this, unless they are worried about being caught and prosecuted. But since ETH was an illegal unregistered investment security launched from Switzerland to attempt to side step SEC (and I presume EU) regulations[1], we don't have to doubt whether they feel constrained by any regulators.

[1] But they marketed it to US investors so they are still in violation of SEC law.

Whereas, it has helped me greatly to decide how to launch a coin wherein it will be legal every where.

Recently the European Commission (EC) announced plans to apply the EU anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing regulations (the Fourth AML Directive or 4AMLD) to digital currency exchanges and possibly wallet providers.

This move is a part of the EC’s broadening action against terrorist financing.

But while this news comes as no surprise, another EC proposal, far less publicized and somewhat overlooked, has the potential to revolutionize the current state of affairs in digital currency regulation in the EU.

The EC announced that it will consider applying the licensing and supervision rules of the Payment Services Directive (PSD; a new version of which, 2PSD, has been adopted in 2015) to digital currency exchanges in order to "promote better control and understanding of the market".

PSD is one of the cornerstones of the EU single market for payments. It sets out rules for regulated payment services and contains a catalogue of such services.

Firms which render payment services have to comply with many regulations, including licensing and supervision rules, which now the EC apparently also intends to apply to digital currency exchanges.

Such a plan seems to be sensible. It is clear that there are two legal acts in the EU that would be well-suited for regulating cryptocurrencies: PSD and another related directive, the E-Money Directive (EMD). Works on the new '3EMD' are now under way, so some changes could be introduced there as well.
Revising basic assumptions

What matters, however, is what the current PSD regulatory methodology looks like.

A crucial piece of the PSD is the definition of "funds", which so far has included only cash, bank (scriptural) money and e-money (regulated by the EMD). Cryptocurrencies do not fall into any of those categories – a fact confirmed by the European Central Bank (ECB) and others.

It follows that, for the EC, digital currency exchanges would be best covered by some provisions of the PSD, although in the current form it does not apply to digital currencies at all.

It therefore appears that regulatory change might have to be much deeper than merely adding a few provisions extending the scope of licensing and supervision regulations on digital currency exchanges.

New regulations would probably have to revise some of the basic assumptions and concepts of the PSD, including definitions of "funds", "payment transaction" or "payment institution".
How should stakeholders react?

It is difficult to evaluate the EC's plan, since at the moment it is extremely general and vague. However, very likely it will open the door for the introduction of cryptocurrencies to the EU payment services regulations.

Various proposals may emerge afterwards, from cautious and restrained ones to those proposing comprehensive and broad regulation.

Firms that may be affected by any regulatory change should monitor developments closely and be ready to react.

This really is a pointless

You're trying to second guess what regulators will do in each country by reference to America?

At G20 last year, all governments agreed to report everyone everywhere to their host countries for tax purposes. The hunt for taxes is destroying the world economy at a staggering rapid pace and this is far worse than even I had anticipated when we first forecast BIG BANG would hit 2015.75 back in 1985. Here is a email a non-US citizen received from his trust company in Malta.

The dollar rally and the devaluation of the yuan is not a fluke and it most certainly is not a one-time event. The dollar declined against the yuan for 19 years during the same timing that saw gold decline from 1980 to 1999. The major low on an annual closing basis at 2013 and 2014 was an outside reversal to the upside for the dollar. The Yearly Bullish Reversal stands at 683 and technical resistance stands at 658. The dollar filled the gap that existed prior to 1994 and is yet another confirmation that the dollar rally is underway.

Yes, the world trade is contracting and will get much worse after October. Governments are destroying the world economy on their hunt for taxation. Politicians are hunting money as if it were some sport and are undoing everything that was built postwar. Numerous reports are coming in to us about people traveling on trains and having their bags searched for money in Europe. The hunt for cash is wiping out the world economy. Americans are being thrown out of banks and mutual funds everywhere. FATCA has forced Americans to repatriate dollars. The only real Americans who can operate overseas are now established multinational companies. Small companies cannot expand from the United States nor can individuals send money anywhere.

Add to FATCA the problem in Europe and we see capital still pouring into the USA from both China and Europe. The real estate cycle has/or will peak with this turning point around the world from Switzerland, Britain, Canada, to Asia right down into India and Australia. We are plagued by politicians who have absolutely no clue how to run an economy and it is now all about them retaining power virtually everywhere we look.

The dollar rally is unfolding despite the fact people do not understand why. They look only at the USA debt and assume the dollar must crash, when in fact, the problem we face is on a global scale and $18 trillion in U.S. debt is simply not the large enough for international capital to hide. The future is going to be anything but a textbook move. This is why this year’s World Economic Conference is going to be a real eye opener.

I was also provided the following link by Zcash:

https://coincenter.org/2016/02/no-fincen-policy-is-not-relevant-to-the-bitcoin-forking-debate

Okay I read the document you provided and it doesn't change anything I have written in the past. I never said the developers would be at-risk of FinCEN regulation. It is the miners who transfer coinbase to your company/foundation that will be subject to registration as MSBs. And the document you provided does not argue otherwise. The document you provided is only talking about miners who don't transfer their coinbase but rather mine it for themselves (they may exchange it later as an individual but that is not the same as a regularized transfer operation). Now you might argue that since they are transferring it only to one (or just two) entity then there is no risk of money laundering, thus the MSB regulation would not apply. But that is not what FinCEN guidance says. They say if the entity is creating and transferring, then they must register. Sorry you are potentially wrong and this could cost you dearly. Why not simply premine it! Much easier and avoids the problem on your miners.