Even though I am not an expert on FINMA regulation, I think you better should double-check that it is right what you are saying here. Otherwise, you just look like a Newbie who is FUDing around here.
Honestly I am not worried how I look to you. I did share a link to the latest FINMA guidelines in which FINMA clearly stated that they do not regulate ICOs at this point. This stands in sharp contrast to what utrust has been trying to sell to us, repeatedly.
"Lastly, FINMA clarified that even though the act of crowdfunding via token issuance may not be regulated as a financial activity, some other regulations could still be applicable:
- AML and KYC Obligations will apply where the creation of a token by an ICO vendor involves issuing a payment instrument. " (
Source)
Please reread the quote. First, it reiterates that the ICO by itself is NOT REGULATED, as I said. And second, it differentiates that once a token becomes a payment instrument, regulations COULD apply. You are aware that, at this point, the utrust token is no such payment instrument. You may also remember that all of utrust's future planning is still subject to approval from FINMA (meaning they are not approved as of yet - and how could they, with hardly two weeks of company existance).
Still thinking I and others are spreading FUD? Well - did you notice how the "Regulated by FINMA" slogan
just now disappeared from their homepage?

Instead we still see a huge "Featured in Yahoo" logo, which - surprise surprise - links to their own press release.

Before:
https://imgur.com/a/wgndINow:
https://imgur.com/a/IyJNnDear utrust, I am still waiting for your explanation: When I bought tokens during the pre-ICO, from whom did I purchase these tokens? Who was the company and where was it registered? And more importantly, what happens now with my tokens since the ICO is under a different company and under different terms and conditions which I did not agree on during the pre-ICO.