Quote from: Come-from-Beyond on March 17, 2016, 06:56:28 AM

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on March 16, 2016, 10:53:54 PM

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 Huh

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

Quote from: Come-from-Beyond on March 17, 2016, 09:22:54 AM

Quote from: iotatoken on March 17, 2016, 08:45:18 AM

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.

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.

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

If you read the 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.