Quote from: mrsaint on November 10, 2017, 03:47:23 PM

Quote from: Sozialtourist on November 10, 2017, 03:05:56 PM

"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? Roll Eyes

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

Before: https://imgur.com/a/wgndI
Now: https://imgur.com/a/IyJNn

Dear utrust, I am still waiting for your explanation: When I bought tokens during the pre-ICO, from whom did I purchased 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.

Well, I must admit that they deleted the "Regulated by FINMA" now, should have been announced here and explained.

But coming back to my quote. Don't you think you could argue that the Utrust token can be seen as a "payment instrument" and therefore would require AML and KYC obligations for the ICO?