Quote from: TPTB_need_war on April 15, 2016, 08:12:55 AM

Quote from: nikster on April 15, 2016, 07:56:08 AM

I've started reading your post (the first page), and the related one with the votes.

I think I understand what you mean by illegal, correct me if im wrong,
You say that ICO's can be illegal if their tokens are ecosystem related or not, and if their buying price is significant or not.
actually I voted for option 4, stating its illegal only if its a significant cost without use in the coin's ecosystem.

But since this entire market is still unregulated, and maybe it cant be.. yet.
So if there's no law about it. its neither legal nor illegal.

Thanks and have a nice weekend btw Wink

Thanks agreed happy we cooled it down. Same to you.

Your understanding appears to be entirely off in an incorrect direction. It doesn't have anything to do with the coin's ecosystem afaics. Rather it all hinges on whether the n00b investors are basing their expectations of future profit on the future actions of a centralized entity (i.e. the issuers of the ICO and the developers). That is what 'security' means, i.e the centralized entity is 'securing' your future profit.

Note I originally started that linked discussion thinking that one could do an ICO as long as they did not use that raised money in the enterprise of making the project ongoing and if they gave up managerial control. 2112 was more knowledgeable about the law and was steering me to the Howey test so I could learn that I was incorrect.

So I actually started out ignorant. As I studied the issue more in depth, I realized that just about any ICO sold to "unsophisticated, non-accredited" (<-- legal terms with definitions) USA investors is ostensibly illegal and the issuers of the ICO (and potentially also the accomplice promoters) are subject to SEC action even if they are foreign entities.

The test that is applied to determine whether an investment vehicle is a regulated investment security under USA law, is known as the Supreme Court's Howey test.

In the thread I linked for you, the requirements of the test are discussed in great detail. I suggest reading the entire thread so you don't miss any of the nuanced points.

Quote from: sasha35625 on April 15, 2016, 08:08:46 AM

ICO is not illegal, it's just crowdfunding. If you do some projections about future profits this is illegal.
Actually when you do ICO you're selling a product - token in a value transfer system.

That is sort of what I originally thought, but then I realized I was wrong.

The Supreme Court has said it will look past all obfuscations to the economic reality of whether the n00b investors were basing their expectations of future profit on the future actions of the centralized party issuing the tokens and developing the enterprise which the investors are investing in.

Realize I am doing you a big favor. Cancel the ICO immediately and keep yourself out of trouble. Stay focused on being a developer and not involve yourself in this legal tarpit.

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on April 15, 2016, 08:29:24 AM

Quote from: nikster on April 15, 2016, 08:26:53 AM

But isnt the fact that its all traded for BTC, not standard fiat, changes the entire picture?
Since bitcoin is not recognized as a currency in the usa (and europe..)
No banks or private institutions are involved in the invesments' exchanges.

fiat -> btc -> ico token - process, solves this issue imo.
if it was a credit card / wire transfer, this would be an issue obviously.

And I'll read the rest of the thread later on, it certainly got my interest

Again the Supreme Court decisions have more than once emphasized that they will look past obfuscating circumstances and make the determination based on the economic reality. So no, BTC's classification by any one has nothing to do with the fact that BTC can transfer value. The term 'value' is used in the Howey test, not only 'money'.

Disclaimer: IANAL, so please consult your own.

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on April 15, 2016, 08:42:29 AM

Quote from: Macno on April 15, 2016, 07:31:59 AM

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on April 15, 2016, 04:59:56 AM

I don't hate Synereo's people. I just wish they hadn't done a vaporware ICO, both for the legal reasons of selling unregistered investment securities to non-accredited USA investors apparently in violation of securities law as provided for by the Supreme Court's Howey test and simply because it is the antithesis of the objective ethics (i.e. no zero-sum games) of meritocratic software development to sell vaporware.

That`s so nice of you not to hate them. What I like about the vaporware AMPs is that no one has to buy them and at the same time people like you have no possibility to hinder me to do so.
I can buy it as freely as I can ignore your T-Shirts. Freedom is awesome.

Well originally that was my thought too given I am a minanarchist. I was very defiant of 2112's attempt to help me and ridiculed his attempt to teach me that I was incorrect. Today I was reminded to PM him a "mea culpa".

Because the reality is that USA society (at least and probably simiilarly in other jurisdictions) has decided that snakeoil salesmen (i.e. hypesters and pumpers) have too much leverage over "unsophisticated, non-accredited" USA investors, and thus has adjudicated that the selling (and ostensibly promoting) of ICOs to USA n00bs (residents or expat citizens) even when promulgated by foreign entities. I understand a prison sentence is a possibility.

Meaning it is not freedom to allow murders and rapists. It is also not freedom to allow hypesters to prey on the ignorance of n00bs, or at least that is what society has decided. If the law changes, then we can talk about the new reality. Until then, I can't help create/code/develop freedom from prison. I suggest you go read the appropriate thread from start to finish:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1218399.msg14546242#msg14546242