Quote from: smooth on May 18, 2016, 02:31:23 AM

Quote from: ArticMine on May 18, 2016, 02:29:23 AM

Quote from: smooth on May 18, 2016, 02:04:41 AM

Quote from: ArticMine on May 18, 2016, 01:49:04 AM

Quote from: HONCHO on May 18, 2016, 01:34:31 AM

...

The Howey test doesn't concern itself with the issuer, rather only the economic reality of whom is securing the investor's expectations.

So you propose a security without an issuer?

In the case of Monero, hypothetically, the "issuer" would be whoever is orchestrating the scheme to funnel investor money for their benefit with some investor expectation of a future return.

Whether someone is "orchestrating" Monero as a scheme to do anything depends who you ask. Like if you ask ceti or Spoetnik, its all being run behind the scenes by Risto or me (or I am Risto).

It's obviously nonsense, but if someone were to make the case, that's the argument they would make.

In the case of this thread, it is clear that there is a scheme with two coins, one with an ICO (i.e. clearly funneling investor money with some investor expectation of a future return), and various relationships between a number of involved parties, some anonymous. The scheme is laid out, at least in general terms, on this very thread for all to see (or maybe the posts I read are on another thread).

Yes, but even the the above example "the scheme" rather than Monero itself would be the security. There is a subtle difference here. A good example is Ethereum. Many would argue that Ethereum is a security because of its initial ICO, but in reality was the security the promise to deliver the Ethereum at a future date or the Ethereum itself? Another example would be a promise to deliver gold at a future date, The promise to deliver gold at a future date may very well be a security, but that does not make the gold itself a security.

I think I agree with that. Not sure the relevance to this thread, but then I saw no relevance to Monero having been brought up at all, except to try to attack us with the appeal to hypocrisy fallacy.

"Issuer," "security," etc. are all legal terms defined by statute and which have been interpreted by courts. The Howey test is one case about one particular type of investment contract (one involving real property) and whether it constituted a "security" under the Securities Act (U.S. Jurisdiction). The court looked to investor expectations to help determine that the contracts in question were securities. Whether the securities needed an "issuer" was never in discussion - obviously they do, they don't come from nowhere and they are creatures of contract, which require people or other entity with a legal existence (like a corporation, partnership, llc, etc).

Question: what jurisdiction is being discussed/contemplated? Why not start with some definitions from the relevant statutes from the relevant jurisdictions instead of making stuff up? How will long-arm statutes be avoided?
OP has said nothing in 10+ pages, Caveat emptor.