Quote from: Hyperme.sh on September 28, 2017, 02:34:30 AM

This is perhaps why the Filecoin SAFT employed a warrant to separate the company shares from the token (even if that makes those tokens initially securities as I argued).

Securities and ICOs are complicated mess (hornets nest).

New ADA Token

That same legal risk (and risk of future delisting) that applies to the Filecoin SAFT, I believe may also apply to Charles Hoskinsons new ADA token.

Per my prior post, note these former Ethereum founders have been involved with the Swiss transgressions of global securities law and even they are involved with that TXSRB presumed attempt to defy nation-state regulators and form their own global self-regulatory body. What are these guys thinking Huh

We cant defeat the corrupt power of nation-states by walking directly into the jurisdiction of their JUST-US laws already on their books regarding securities and AML. Instead we must paradigm-shift away from securities issuance which is what proof-of-work does.

So this group issued ADA vouchers primarily to Japanese investors (and btw their websites are designed so they cant be captured by archive.org nor archive.is!), which afaics have no purpose other than to be exchanged for ADA tokens which are now being sold to US investors on Bittrex!

Afaics, this is a violation of Regulation S safe harbor exemptions because even though the vouchers were offshore transactions and were not directed sales in the USA, the exchange of the vouchers for tokens (which are now offered for sale to USA person on Bittrex) is just an obfuscation of the economic reality of the investment contract per the Howey test!

I presume they have good attorneys and may also be well connected in FinTech, but I predict the way this will play out is ADA tokens will become highly regulated.

This is not cryptocurrency in the (popular interpretation of the) spirit of Satoshi Nakamoto (although Satoshi had a sinister hidden objective which is just now coming to light), as they admit. As well, their Ouroboros ledger technology is not decentralized.

IMO, Charles has lost the plot. I am of the opinion that their group and project(s) are headed not in the direction of world changing paradigm-shifts but rather encumbering the tokens and ecosystem with rigor mortis regulatory morass right into the lap of the evil motherfucking powers-that-be and the morass of centralization that retards degrees-of-freedom and permissionless network efforts.

I am going the other direction towards scalable, permissionless, decentralized!

Seems proof-of-work was specifically created to avoid encumbering the tokens with regulation, so that it survives as a globalization phenomenon (which is one of the big hints as to who created Bitcoin). I expect the nation-states TPTB (regulators, fat cats, etc) are going to have an eventual feast on these token-sale-issued tokens (no matter how they were obfuscated with vouchers and SAFTs).

These useful idiots are playing right into the plan of how Bitcoin would globalize (while necessarily becoming entirely centralized mining as has recently been proved in research!) while the scammers would drive the excuse for massive regulation:

Quote from: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/04/icos-may-be-seen-as-securities-by-u-s-and-singapore-regulators.html

It's a very good time to be a money launderer, and you can thank cryptocurrencies

Cryptocurrencies have exploded in popularity in recent years that has led to a red-hot fundraising trend where start-ups bring in millions of dollars in capital by issuing virtual tokens to investors in exchange for money.

Initial coin offerings (ICOs) have become a primary means of fundraising for projects built on blockchain technology. Companies create and issue digital tokens that can be used to pay for goods and services on their platform or stashed away as an investment. They put out whitepapers describing the platform, software or product they're trying to build, and then people buy those tokens using widely-accepted cryptocurrencies (like bitcoin and ethereum) or fiat currencies like the U.S. dollar.

All of that is done without any regulatory oversight, and that has regulators and members of the financial industry worried about the potential of widespread money laundering and fraud.

ICOs are enabling the media to associate cryptocurrency and blockchains with money laundering, terrorism, North Korea, World War 3, etc..

I think the differences in approach here is due to different world view of the negative value of democracy and the reality of democracy (i.e. what really happened on 9/11 that everybody really wants to sweep under the rug).

Let the competition of ideas, designs, concepts, and financial structuring ensue.

Disclaimer: IANAL. This is not legal advice.