Quote from: burnside on December 12, 2012, 11:19:16 PM

Toward your first point(s) I think we have a fundamental misunderstanding. I am not Blizzard nor Linden. I act more like Ebay, Craigslist, or any of the other 100's of virtual swapping sites setup to trade Blizzard and Linden virtual assets independently. As such, whatever Blizzard or Linden state in their ToS has zero relevance to me or my platform. All the quoting you did from their ToS, etc, means nothing to me. (I play neither and have never agreed to any such ToS.) The bitcoin ToS on the other hand, might have some impact... but I'm pretty sure that boils down to a GNU license that is effectively "do whatever you want with it, you agree to hold the developers harmless should anything befall you", etc. And in support of my argument that everything is virtual is the very fact that if those developers wanted to, they could pull the carpet out on you just as easily as Blizzard can with WoW gold, or Linden can with their "currency".

I was not actually trying to apply their ToS to the sites, but showing a comparison of how the sites and cryptocoins are not just the same as WoW/SecondLife.
You had stated:

Quote from: burnside on December 12, 2012, 11:19:16 PM

"but anything that can be said about WoW/SecondLife can be said about cryptocoin."

There are fundamental differences between them. That is all.

Quote from: burnside on December 12, 2012, 11:19:16 PM

Further, we are not exchanging virtual goods for real currency. So there is no exposure there either. The company does not profit in currency. The company profits in commodities. That the shareholders get a chunk of these commodities as a benefit of their shares doesn't magically equal income. The shareholders profit when they convert their commodities to currency somewhere else. I think I had this discussion in the Giga thread a while back, discussing how to report crypto-currency income via 1099's, operation of barter exchanges, etc.

Your point regarding shareholders of the virtual world having a say in the real-world operation of the real world company is an interesting one. I see your point, but I am not sure that such an arrangement is without precedent. Many organizations offer memberships, those members have privileges defined by their membership, and many times part of that is providing input toward the direction of the company strategically.

Addressing most of the rest of your post, you are absolutely correct that if a Judge gets annoyed at us, he'll do whatever the heck he wants to us. (or just me.) We are ALL under that umbrella in the USA. Ever heard of the "three felonies a day" theory? (see: http://www.threefeloniesaday.com/Youtoo/tabid/86/Default.aspx ... or google "three felonies a day".)

All I can do is try to minimize our exposure to that risk. (and in this case, minimize the exposure of the LTC-GLOBAL shareholders, asset issuers, and users.) My efforts as a founder of this particular small business to bootstrap a self-sufficient, self-sustaining entity have all been toward that goal. No doubt there is a long way to go, and I'm always open to good ideas. Wink

Cheers.

As long as you know how you will present the package in court (and hopefully this never happens, to anyone.), and feel comfortable with it that is all that matters in the end.

As I stated before, I am just tossing out concerns from my personal opinion, as well as providing another point of view that might hopefully be of some help, and are not meant to be considered an argument to fight instead.
As always, I wish you, and your partners the best of luck.