Quote from: SynereoCommunity on April 19, 2016, 05:22:11 PM

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on April 18, 2016, 05:56:41 PM

Quote from: SynereoCommunity on April 18, 2016, 01:02:03 PM

You think all "ICOs" are manipulation.

I am confident they are ILLEGAL if publicly marketed to USA investors.

Maybe that's why it's important to know that the managers of these are not in the US, and in this case, neither is the company.
However, regardless of either of our ideas, if they were truly as "illegal" as you state (out of context), then there would be action being taken, and I don't see that going on. (not to say that there are not scams, and intentional fraud, etc - a small %, like in every industry)

Also: citation? If it's illegal, it has a link stating so clearly. Of course, you've employed circular reasoning by using the term "investment", and begged the question. Crytpocurrency is neither a currency, nor an investment in the eyes of the law.

Details of USA Securities Law is covered in the following thread:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1218399.0

Making AMPS publicly available for sale to non-accredited USA investors makes the unregistered investment securities illegal even if issued by foreigners.

Greg Meredith will have a difficult time arguing that he was not promoting this, and he is a USA citizen. In my opinion he is taking a huge risk.

Quote from: SynereoCommunity on April 19, 2016, 05:22:11 PM

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on April 18, 2016, 05:56:41 PM

Greg @ Synereo is avoiding explaining all the specification and technology to us in terms we can understand. No excuses you can make for that which are valid. He is selling AMPs and not giving us information we can verify. That is an illegal prospectus. If Synereo didn't sell AMPs to the public, Greg et al would have no obligation to explain the technology in detail to us in terms we can understand and verify.

Edit: it is rather useless if I go expend my scarce time to become an expert in process calculi so that I could find game theory flaws in Synereo's process calculi approach to their hyped Attention Model feature. Because it would still be an asymmetric information market for the investors, as then they would be required to trust either my conclusions or Greg's (Synereo's). The only solution is for Greg to do proper disclosure by explaining the technology in terms that all AMP investors can understand. They have the time to produce a very exquisite website and consume hours every week on video Hangouts that do hyped handwaving on technical details, then they should also have enough time to explain the technology in sufficient detail that we can analyze without requiring us to become one of the few process calculi researchers on earth.

Greg never avoids explaining. In fact, I've never heard him not add an invitation for more explanation if needed, to what he says in hangouts.

Verbal handwaving is not technical explaining. It is clever marketing to fool n00bs, but I know better.

Quote from: SynereoCommunity on April 19, 2016, 05:22:11 PM

Ask an informed question, and you'll get an informed answer.

I have stated what is needed. When the appropriate technical documents are made available, which expert programmers such as myself and smooth can understand and verify without needing to become process calculi researcher. We need sufficient technical detail so that we can verify if the system will do what he is claiming it will do.

Please don't reply to my post with more diversionary bullshit. It is getting very repetitive.