Quote from: Hyperme.sh on October 12, 2017, 12:04:06 PM

Quote from: GaleRecoN on October 11, 2017, 02:10:44 PM

Quote from: infested999 on October 11, 2017, 01:55:10 PM

Hey, wondering if someone could help me out: how are the EOS tokens (currently ERC20), going to be transferred to the EOS environment, if that is what EOS is planning? how will they be used within the EOS environment?

If you're not a US resident, you can register with your Ethereum address on their site. You should keep your ERC20 EOS tokens there and once their blockchain is built, you'll get the equivalent official EOS token based on how much you have in the Ethereum address you registered with. If you are a US resident, you'll probably just need to keep your EOS tokens in a separate Ethereum wallet (not in an exchange) and once their platform is complete, they'll probably have a way to import your Ethereum address to get the equivalent tokens on their blockchain.

Thanks for confirming that EOS likely issued an illegal security by doing widespread promotion that caused US persons to find a way to invest and bypass their IP address (with a VPN) and I am not a USA investor self-appraisal, but note that its possible this does not make the EOS Platform tokens securities (rather just the issuer that might end up in legal troubles):

Quote from: Hyperme.sh on October 12, 2017, 11:22:54 AM

[]

Quote from: http://saftproject.com/static/SAFT-Project-Whitepaper.pdf#page=15

In short, the SAFT provides investors with the right to fully-functional utility tokens, delivered once the network is created and the tokens are functional. The SAFT is very likely a security, namely an investment contract. Once the tokens have been imbued with utility and are genuinely functional, the SAFT investors rights in the SAFT automatically convert into a right to delivery of the tokens. For the now-functional utility tokens, there is a very strong argument that the tokens themselves are not securities.
The same should apply to any ultimate sale of the tokens to retail purchasers, whether by the SAFT investors or by the seller.

So vaporware ICOs are securities. Fully-functional tokens if have sufficient free market factors other than just ongoing developer efforts, are probably not securities.

Quote from: http://saftproject.com/static/SAFT-Project-Whitepaper.pdf#page=17

Moreover, since the tokens are not securities and the SAFT is non-transferrable, the investors do not, merely by purchasing the SAFT, risk being deemed underwriters if they resell their tokens.⁷⁵

⁷⁵ Investors are participants in the distribution of the utility tokens following conversion of the SAFT, but the token is not a security. Though the SAFT is a security, they do not distribute it. The definition of underwriter under the Federal Securities Laws is limited to the participation in a distribution of a security, thus SAFT investors need not fall within the definition or risk exposure associated with being deemed an underwriter. See Securities Act Section 2(a)(11), 15 U.S.C. § 77b(a)(11).

So by this logic, a token which was issued and sold as a security (e.g. pre-functional vaporware ICO), would not necessarily become a non-security when it is sold by investors later when it is fully-functional and has sufficient free market factors other than just ongoing developer efforts, i.e. when the from ongoing efforts of others prong of Howey is no longer satisfied. Because the investors could be considered underwriters if they had not held the token for some reason other than to distribute it, which as I had pointed out upthread may require up to a 3 year hold before selling.

The separation of the issuance into a security that has rights for a token (instead of issuing a pre-functional token or promise) and separate issuance of the fully-function token is argued that the investors in the former (e.g. a SAFT) had no intention to distribute a security because the fully-functional token is argued to not be a security because it fails the from ongoing efforts of others prong of Howey. Whether the issue of the former security (which can be traded for a fully-functional platform token later) was legal is a separate issue, with for example EOS issuance being very suspect of not complying with securities regulations.

Perhaps, if EOS is required to pay back all the money that might hamper development.

However, the following may even implicate the Platform tokens as securities:

Quote from: Hyperme.sh on October 12, 2017, 11:22:54 AM

Quote from: http://saftproject.com/static/SAFT-Project-Whitepaper.pdf#page=20

Second, a seller might weaken its defense against the fourth Howey prong when the seller significantly over-promises in its sales materials. In such a circumstance, the sellers efforts to imbue the token with greater utility might still predominate the variety of other market forces acting upon the tokens price. A profit-seeking purchaser might predominantly rely upon the efforts of the seller, even post-functionality, where the seller makes bold promises of developing more sophisticated functionality beyond that present at issuance. Purchasers might rely on those promises and expect to profit from the resulting increase in functionality, thus satisfying Howeys final prong.

Ah the above might even endanger the EOS Platform tokens as being securities!

You have got to be kidding me. EOS is not even close to being a security. It promises nothing in return and is an open source software that will be released. You sure wasted a lot of words and don't even understand what EOS is.

As far as US buyers using VPN to get around getting EOS tokens, 99% of other ICO's have allowed the same loophole. They gave the same warnings with even stronger language discouraging US buyers