Quote from: GreenBits on July 25, 2017, 11:12:17 PM

Quote from: CryptoBry on July 16, 2017, 03:18:43 PM

Quote from: botany on July 06, 2017, 04:19:02 PM

Quote from: Element.M on July 06, 2017, 05:54:54 AM

US regulators act from an excess of caution, primarily as a result of the anti-money laundering regime that was instituted after 9/11. Of course, there are some legitimate concerns that anonymous money can be used for destructive purposes -- there is no debate about that. However, blockchain and programmable money are a fundamentally new technology, in which the states may fall behind. During the internet bubble, USA was quick to embrace the change. For blockchain, it seems that the American adoption of this new technology is somewhat impeded by a legal system that is designed for security above all else, which is regrettable, but also an opportunity for non-US startups to assume leadership.

It is not just the regulators who are extra cautious. It is the fund raisers who don't want to get entangled with the US regulators and incur high compliance costs. I don't blame them - there are enough people in other countries who are ready to subscribe to ICOs.

You are right. Rather than face legal challenge later on, why not just concentrate on markets aside from USA. There are indeed enough investors outside of USA, who can launch and fund a project. Unless of course, SEC would soon issue a legal framework to work with, then it is not worth including USA in any ICO issuance. The government of USA is very much protective of its own citizens and that is something we all understand, anyway.

well, that was fun while it lasted Sad

Quote from: CryptoCoinNews

If you thought a lot of ICOs were limiting US participation due to zealous regulators already, wait until you read the following: SEC has concluded that DAO tokens are a security, which should be regulated. The report spends a lot of time establishing that the DAO was in fact a centralized organization, describing actions that run parallel to those of any struggling start-up which has actual control over its resources.

The issue of whether the DAO had sole discretion or full control is important because it then implies responsibility for investor losses as a result of security malfunctions. Legally, it opened up a can of worms, which is why the SEC commissioned the report in the first place. The authors appear to be intimately familiar with blockchain technology, which is refreshing and scary at the same time.

"Whether or not a particular transaction involves the offer and sale of a securityregardless of the terminology usedwill depend on the facts and circumstances, including the economic realities of the transaction. Those who offer and sell securities in the United States must comply with the federal securities laws, including the requirement to register with the Commission or to qualify for an exemption from the registration requirements of the federal securities laws. The registration requirements are designed to provide investors with procedural protections and material information necessary to make informed investment decisions."

This is why some ICOs are more selective than others, and this should have a chilling effect on yet to drop US-based ICOs. They arent charging the Slock.it DAO with securities fraud in this instance, as this is groundbreaking legal territory, but this is a clear message: Token that offer security-like benefits are securities, and you must be regulated and compliant, or we will arrest you Sad

Be careful with the tokens from now on. this also means:

ICOs will need to register with the SEC as securities, and;

Exchanges will need to register as stock exchanges to trade securities.

The Howey test is rather simple. The ICO issuer should not refer to an ROI or that the Dev team will generate a profit for the token holder or risk having the tokens deemed securities. The DAO case served as a reminder and some rudimentary framework of what not to do when holding an ICO. Frankly I do not believe the SEC will have the resources to begin to regulate the crypto world but rather react when violations or encroachments.

Full disclosure:
I am a licensed attorney practicing securities arbitration. The foregoing is not intended to be legal advice and no attorney-client relationship is implied.