Quote from: klarki on October 17, 2017, 08:58:40 PM

Quote from: coinporch on October 17, 2017, 01:03:30 AM

Quote from: duber on October 17, 2017, 12:44:36 AM

Hey all! We've taken the extra steps to register as a SAFT ICO, and we're wondering what other ICOs you've heard about that have gone the route of SAFT.

Let us know!

Thanks,

duber Partners
https://dubercoin.com/

SAFT ? never heard about that,,
can you provide a link to the SAFT project ?

Is there an official thread on the forum?

I analysed ICOs and the SAFT project white paper:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2208231.msg22902804#msg22902804

Quote from: Dasani7867 on October 22, 2017, 03:03:40 PM

The SAFT wants to eliminate the utility token argument. Many tokens are NOT securitites and are more like metrocards and software licenses, however the SAFT doesn't care and essentially creates a securities where there is not. As Cooley admits, the token is often not the security while the SAFT always is. So then why add such a regulatory burden and why limit the amount you can raise and who you can offer to (only Accredited Investors (i.e. high net worth)? (rhetorical question)

Furthermore, what protections do the SAFT provide once the tokens are delivered? Are the tokens now treated as restricted securities, meaning that you must hold your tokens for a year or more before selling them? That seems like a major drawback for anyone buying tokens for short to medium term investing.

The quoted portion is ignorant and incorrect bullshit.

The SAFT white paper clearly explains that the SAFT is a way of avoiding issuing a pre-functional token, which is likely to be classified as a security. The functional token that is ultimately issued must be a non-security.

The SAFT shares are the security, not the token.