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

Quote from: Hyperme.sh on October 21, 2017, 06:06:37 AM

I see Dan is making a legal argument for the EOS token sale not being a security, so he is essentially arguing that because they did not use the pooled funds for developing the software (which he claims are revenue for a software sale, not an investment in the future value of tokens). The Howey test will look beyond such obfuscations of the economic reality. The economic reality is the investors are depending on Blockone to provide the profit expectation for the tokens. I suppose analogous to the arguments for the SAFT, theyre thinking that the pre-functional tokens are securities (although they claim theyre not and are revenue) and the functional tokens at the time when Blockone is not running the nodes are not securities because Blockone as the common enterprise will have ceased doing the significant efforts. Even if courts and regulators agree with that logic, the pre-functional tokens are clearly securities (as are the shares of a SAFT) and they have clearly been promoted to and sold to USA investors. Also the USA is not the only country with securities laws. And the funds invested were pooled with Blockone regardless whether they used the funds or used prior funds. One of the arguments for the SAFT is that because the pre-functional shares are treated as securities, then the public-at-large (i.e. the non-accredited investors) are protected from the sort of fraud and insufficient disclosure that securities law is designed to protect. So Blockone did not adhere to the protections that would make the SAFT concept worthy to society and regulators, and instead sold the pre-functional token (as an investment contract!) willy-nilly. Dan was asked why they made the pre-functional token tradeable which adds evidence that investors buy it to distribute it as underwriters, and Dan basically gave a nonsense response. This sort of hair-brained stuff from Dan is what boggles my mind. I presume he is thinking that if they have enough money they can afford attorneys and buy off regulators or perhaps even lead an overthrow of the powers that be? In that case, even a $billion is not enough.

Dans response to the question about what assurances do buyers of the token have is very incriminating in my opinion. Basically he is admitting they have to obfuscate the economic reality to attempt to evade securities law. In the prior response he stated that they needed to create a distribution, so this implies there is an expectation that some group will launch the live network honoring that distribution, and then they mention they will use the $300 million to develop ecosystem infrastructure and apps, yet then they somehow disclaim that that will be connected with this spontaneous formation of a live network that honors the distribution of the formerly useless token. Dan tries to imply that the distribution is distinct from the Blockone common enterprise (which issued the distribution in a token sale) and that the common enterprise is just selling open source software token which anyone might or might launch into a live network, and thus implying Blockone would not be the issuer of the eventual live network tokens and also claiming they are not issuing a security for the pre-functional ERC-20 token. This is clearly a premeditated obfuscation of the economic reality. Buyers of the EOS ERC-20 tokens are clearly expecting the live network to honor their share and they are clearly basing their profit expectation on the efforts of Blockone to develop the software that will form the live network. The current speculative trading on EOS ERC-20 tokens on exchanges is clearly based around those expectations of the ongoing efforts Blockone must complete. What are their lawyers smoking? I want some of that shit.

My understanding is that the securities law attorneys who advise for example Blockone, are paid to provide a legal OPINION. This means their culpability is limited as long as they provided a reasonable justification for their opinion. Yet the culpability for breaking the law will rest on the principals of Blockone, not on the attorney. The attorneys could be fined or in the worst case dis-barred, but the criminal and culpability for returning the $300 million rests on the principals of Blockone and possibility any affiliates and underwriters complicit in the scheme which might include some of you shills in this thread.

Disclaimer: IANAL. This is not legal nor investing advice.

Quote from: CornCube on December 10, 2017, 02:55:46 AM

Quote from: Wekkel on September 03, 2017, 07:19:02 PM

Quote from: HR on September 03, 2017, 06:36:45 PM

Anyone care to address these issues here on Bitcoin Forum?

No product, no promises.

So only faith and a high market cap based on air (for now). And Dan Larimer who has launched two successful projects earlier (Steemit.com and Bitshares.com). People have faith in Dan. And the features of EOS.io may give ETH a run for its money.

The question is: do you have faith?

So expectations-of-profit for making an investment in useless tokens have been based on faith in Dan Larimers ongoing efforts. Sounds like an investment security under the Howey test.

And probable recycling fraud ongoing (also here and here) has been presented that perhaps the useless EOS token sale is being gamed in various ways., which the SEC has already indicated would be a priority for future enforcement action.

Quote from: favdesu on September 29, 2017, 06:36:03 AM

Quote from: Hyperme.sh on September 29, 2017, 12:11:02 AM

EOS is an unregistered security that was sold to some USA and EU investors illegally and it will eventually be delisted like all the other ICOs including Ethereum.

Investors are risking legal and criminal culpability for illegal selling on unregistered exchanges.

backseat lawyer by the way

Correct Steemit had Gary Ross a former US Treasury official advising them.

Quote from: sinner on December 04, 2017, 05:13:36 PM

Testnet today, and Mike Novogratz mentioned EOS on CNBC, which means he probably has a position in EOS. EOS ICO distribution is also more than half over.

Hmm. Another $billionaire involved as a promoter thus potentially culpable to SEC enforcement. Makes one wonder if the regulators are complicit (i.e. have been bought off)?

Quote from: s1gs3gv on October 08, 2017, 06:59:07 PM

Quote from: Hyperme.sh on October 06, 2017, 03:18:14 PM

Create instead decentralized paradigms that avoid legal entanglement:

It is a myth that decentralized 'paradigms' make it possible to avoid legal entanglement.

Well they seem to render the vocal cords of SEC officials unable to speak.

Quote from: Hyperme.sh on October 19, 2017, 04:51:48 AM

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.

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.

Quote from: Hyperme.sh on October 21, 2017, 09:50:32 AM

It will be epic if all those funds get frozen and clawed back. Lets see which partners in the silicon valley take the risk of receiving black money and risk a 20 year felony prison sentence per the money laundering laws in the USA for accepting funding that was obtained via illegal activity.

Quote from: scaryvirus on October 21, 2017, 09:06:16 AM

Any other ICO format for a PoS coin would be literally idiocy.

You could have at least done the SAFT and limited it to accredited investors. Then at least youd have some heavyweight legal research behind you.

But then of course you might not have received $300 million because you would need to know the identity of each person, do a background check, etc..

[]

I read that EOS plans to show some auditing ostensibly to claim proof they were not buying token sales from themselves. But that can be subverted given that tokens were sold apparently without requiring identity checks. Thus it is easy to operate with ETH loans or other ETH the insiders have access to through sock puppets.

Quote from: Hyperme.sh on November 05, 2017, 09:16:36 AM

Quote from: Yuuto on November 04, 2017, 11:05:24 PM

Quote from: Haitham on November 04, 2017, 10:18:47 PM

I wonder when more people will realize that EOS is a scam.

I couldn't find anything that suggests that EOS is a scam.

1. Claiming they are not subject to US securities laws because they claim they did not sell to US persons, yet it is documented that US persons did purchase the token sale. They refused to do KYC to prevent US persons from participating. Ditto for Chinese, Koreans, UK, Canadians, and other countries which have strict securities laws and are cracking down. So they incorporate in the Caymans and presumably expect to hide behind layers of lawyers. Lets see how that works out for them and those accomplices affiliates like @chryspano.

2. Running the ICO for a year so they can pump hype about being ahead of schedule, cause the price to jump way up so they can sell, then let the price crash back down so they buy their own ICO. Recycling their money over and over again to extract maximum rents from the ecosystem while ending up with most of the ICO tokens for themselves via numerous sockpuppets same as they did for Steem. Running their tokens through Bitfinex in Hong Kong with that Tether et al scam that Brock Pierce is involved with so presumably they can obscure the disposals of the funds to fiat so as to obscure how their extensive organized crime syndicate is buying their own ICO. Look into the conglomerate structure of the parent companies of Bitfinex and climb down that rabbit hole. Even Dan announced in a blog that they would do this admitting in writing that he is scamming.

3. Documented upthread that the ICO is designed to be algorithmically gamed (details linked upthread) so that this is unfair. Dan was warned about this before launch and chose to ignore it.

4. Terms of the token sale claim that the tokens are not be part of any future software distribution, and that there is no common enterprise because the funds raised are not being used to create such a software distribution, yet in videos and promotions they claim exactly the opposite that they are using the funds to develop what will be the software distribution. Clearly all the speculators here expect the tokens to be the tokens of the software distribution.

5. Lying about their technology. Ridiculing other experts (including PhDs of computer science from Tendermint, Vitalik, and myself) who write correctly about their technology.

6. Failing to admit that DPoS only functions properly if the stake (tokens) are controlled by an oligarchy of whales.

7. Lying about the past performance of the technology, even having their shills here declare me a liar when I point about that the Steem system has been DDoS attacked numerous times because the zero transaction fee nonsense does not fund the perimeter nodes of the system.

Quote from: Hyperme.sh on November 06, 2017, 12:17:48 PM

Actually I had always thought that Dan was genuine but just a bit weird/myopic in terms of his design choices and political-economic philosophy. But the premeditated sneakyfastmine of Steem (wherein he wrote a blog in advance announcing they would do that) to grab 50+% of the money supply for an oligarchy of whales caused me to start to doubt whether he was innocuous. But then I realized he did not have much choice because DPoS does not function properly with chaos in voting (he was frustrated the Bitshares governance was not working correctly to approve funding for some of the things he wanted to be worked on) and must be controlled by a like-minded group of whales. And Steem was somewhat interesting because it was the first experiment for onboarding the masses. And the first with a front-end interface and use case outside of just a wallet. So I rolled with it and used the lessons learned (such as my blog mathematically figuring out that voting from minted tokens of the collective can never be fair and must aggregate to the whales) there to guide my project plans. But the $2 billion useless token sale and all this distortion of the material facts while ridiculing others in the industry is way over the top and has lowered my respect for Dan even further into the gutter.

Quote from: Hyperme.sh on November 05, 2017, 02:56:17 PM

Quote from: btcbringer on November 05, 2017, 02:36:49 PM

it seems the price will not rise high until the ico end

Ah I would not count on that. When BTC peaks, then there might be a lot of FOMO money spilling out into alts. And looking at major alts, there are not that many solid choices. So many speculators are perhaps going to look at ETH at $28 billion marketcap and EOS at $0.5B mcap, and somehow equate the two since EOS will have a first-mover advantage higher transaction volume capability (even though it is just vaporware and a lot of work to get to point that ERC-20 tokens are being issued on EOS someday).

Betting against FOMO-fever is not wise. It will all probably come crashing down someday, but probably not in 2017. I think the prior decline in price before the recent hype about accelerated progress, was probably the down move for 2017. Alts are about to catch a bid after mid-November.

Quote from: Hyperme.sh on November 06, 2017, 07:00:58 PM

Quote from: philakone on November 06, 2017, 03:48:23 PM

EOS November 6 Technical Analysis and Price Cast, Elliot Wave and Trend Line

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wTvuwrsMH8

Btw, that looks to be a good analysis. Looks very bullish short-term.