Quote from: barabb ass on October 15, 2017, 11:30:24 AM

Quote from: Hyperme.sh on October 14, 2017, 07:42:47 PM

Quote from: Red_Sanford on October 14, 2017, 02:09:24 PM

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.

The securities law is based on the profit expectations of investors, not what EOS writes in their legal documents which do not reflect the economic reality of the situation.

Do you see Blockone actively ensuring that the EOS tokens will not have any value? Did they sue the exchanges to prevent the tokens from being listed?

Open source does not help them avert the securities regulations, because for one thing they pooled the funds raised and are expected by investors to use those funds to develop the open source.

The investors expectations are proven by the comments in this thread. All the SEC has to do is capture this thread. Note I have archived this thread at archive.is to help the regulators.

Quote from: Red_Sanford on October 14, 2017, 02:09:24 PM

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

Nevertheless, the US buyers side-stepped the controls and thus EOS (i.e. blockone) has likely violated the law.

Disclaimer: IANAL. This is not legal advice.

Why the fuck then are you worrying and discussing and bitching about a subject on which you admittedly have neither expertise ie no fucking idea of what you are talking about nor any interest ie no money put on EOS?

Lol. Seems someone is worried that my posts might cause some greater fools to think before buying your empty bags.

Why the fuck then are you worring and bitching about my analysis about which you evidently have done not even 1/100th of the research that I have done, and in which you thus presumably have no knowledge to judge whether I know what I am talking about.

Note I recently became aware of the legal argument as presented in the SAFT whitepaper that when the market price of the token is dependent mostly on free market speculation and factors, then the token would not be a security despite ongoing activities of the issuer. Yet in this case, I have archived this thread where clearly the investors are citing the ongoing developments of Blockone (and Dans reputation) as the reasons to invest. So clearly this token fails to meet that legal theory.

And note upthread I stated that $300 million is not necessary to fund development of a blockchain. Had they raised $10 million I would not be complaining. They are presumably drawing the attention of the regulators due to the extreme amount raised in addition to the overt attempt to evade securities law with doublespeak while still apparently issuing a security.

Quote from: barabb ass on October 15, 2017, 11:30:24 AM

Unlike you the Larimers know how to get [potentially illegal] shit done

Agreed.

Btw, the SEC presumably has their eye on you now:

Quote from: Hyperme.sh on October 18, 2017, 09:05:03 AM

https://www.coindesk.com/obvious-bubble-sec-committee-lashes-bitcoin-icos/

Why dont you post your identity and post from your real BCT account? Coward. You afraid of the SEC?

Transparency. Legality. This shit matters in the end.

Quote from: Hyperme.sh on October 18, 2017, 11:51:22 PM

There were those who were warning about Mt. Gox, yet many Legendary members here still lost money because they thought it was unlikely to fail.

Cryptocurrency (in addition to other epochal-shift potential) is a theft paradigm. Every Legendary I know has lost massive amounts of BTC due to scams and theft. This will continue to be the case.

Since many or perhaps most of you have become wiser about safeguarding your private keys and not leaving your BTC on exchanges, the Zionist bankster thieves need a more sophisticated method of taking your BTC from you gullible goyim.

[]

So we're already entering nosebleed terroritory, but perhaps we need to hit $10,000+ or some level ($50,000?) where my nose is bleeding profusely before we finally get the SegWit attack, the SEC crackdown on major ICOs such as EOS, and perhaps also the failure of TetherUSD, Bitfinex, and perhaps Poloniex also.

Something like a contagion is on my radar but I do not know when. Perhaps some time in 2018.

[]

Well I might say that ETH has had a few years and produced nothing tangible, but ETH was the enabler for ERC-20 ICOs. And the recent EOS token sale to me was an indicator of a fever where afaics suitable legal precautions were deemed unnecessary, but it could be that we are only in the middle innings (baseball analogy) yet.

Quote from: ChromaticStar on October 16, 2017, 03:12:11 PM

I don't think it's a scam. These are all things that were stated or implied before the ICO.

Its not strictly necessary for it to be fraudulent for it to be illegal under securities law.

But I bet the SEC can find some fraud and misrepresentation of material facts any way. Theyre quite expert at digging out that stuff and even offer huge $millions bounties to those who will provide inside information to them.

Also given that theyre attempting to claim the token sale is not a security issuance, then they will also be subject to consumer protection laws as well. Those complicit in selling MLM bags to greater fools could I guess also possibly be culpable.

I mean basically get involved with something shady and do not be surprised when you end up in some troublesome shit.

And I hope nobody is spending their profits from all these token sales as clawbacks are potentially a threat. And then if you cant pay back, youre in deep shit.

So if youre living in some banana or former-USSR republic, then completely disregard my statements and carry on suckering those in the first world nations into these hot potatoes.