Any token which is a security, is illegal to trade on public markets (i.e. including non-accredited investors) which are not registered with the securities regulator in the applicable jurisdiction.

This means that tokens which were issued via ICO are not legal for spending as a cryptocurrency, nor for trading on the unregistered exchanges that exist now.

Eventually numerous major countries will ban the trading of these tokens per the requirements stated above. When that happens, there will be no more mainstream speculation market for these tokens.

Additionally ICO issued tokens which were not registered (with the securities regulators in each jurisdiction where the people who will trade them reside) nor issued only to accredited investors (which is the case for every ICO issued token project thus far), can't even be traded on regulated exchanges nor in private transactions between accredited investors.

Additionally those who are trading and/or promoting ICO issued tokens are potentially incriminating themselves, for future action by authorities at some later time. Remember the national securities agencies of at least the G5 are saving everything you do on the Internet for future analysis. And remember VPNs and Tor are honeypots and do not protect your anonymity.

If that is "pathetic" or "overblown", then do not cry to me later when you suffer major losses, fines, or jail time. I tried to warn you.


As @cryptohunter first pointed out many months ago and admitted by Byteball’s creator @tonych, Byteball was distributed to those who had access to BTC. Thus the exchanges and other ICOs enterprises received (as for example ICONOMI admitting on a Medium blog that they received 8.8% of first round) a huge chunk of the distribution, since they were holding BTC for those who are trading on the exchanges. Thus I presume there’s a possibility some kickback deals were made between the Byteball dev and the major exchanges and other groups that held a lot of BTC, which would thus be an obfuscation of the economics of an ICO issued token (which makes the tokens securities) in that the developer would obtain tokens nearly for free and sell those to speculators to raise funds. Or at best, the distribution was highly skewed non-meritoriously to undeserved whales.

As for Dash, anyone who still doesn't understand that Dash is not only a scam but derelict technology, is willfully ignorant and should be allowed to remain so in purgatory. Meaning I am not going to bother linking you to the information that you have been linked to 100 times already and continue to ignore.


And obfuscated instamines such as Dash and Steem also have such non-meritorious distribution regardless of whether they are also illegal securities due to the fraudulent way they were issued.