Now, does anyone know if that will really protect him legally? I ask out of curiosity and because it could be instructional. To my understanding, the government doesn't even acknowledge such defenses ("It wasn't prostitution! I only paid her for her company, not for sex!"), at least in the US. So if you're gonna be on the wrong side of the law, wouldn't it be better to just be clear with your customers?
I'm actually not a coinlenders user (though I was thinking about it), but I do use inputs.io and this development worried me a bit--enough to panic withdraw my coins. That's why I was hoping for some answers, so I could allay some of my worries and go back to inputs cause I really like it.
That's a totally different comparison. There's no expectation of profit on the demo instance, and it is not an common enterprise.
It's true that calling interest "fee rebates" has no purpose. However, there's already a precedent that the changes were based on - SEC v. SG, Ltd., 265 F.3d 42, 45.
When the "crime" is about how something is presented and marketed, then yes "word games" makes a difference.
Hey TF, thanks for the responses (and sorry we got the conversation going on two threads!)
I understand what you are saying and God knows I agree that you have to protect yourself and that some things are illegal but not wrong (for example, bitcoin lending, parking where it's not permitted, etc.). However I'm trying to protect myself from something that maybe illegal
and wrong (i.e. a ponzi scheme). In other words "malum in se" vs "malum prohibitum".
But I gotta say, it doesn't fill me with confidence that your defense above refers to a giant, long-running, ponzi scheme (
https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/265/265.F3d.42.01-1332.01-1176.html).
