Quote from: DeathAndTaxes on July 25, 2013, 03:44:31 PM

Quote from: Deprived on July 25, 2013, 03:32:58 PM

Quote from: DeathAndTaxes on July 25, 2013, 01:39:36 PM

b) The PokerStars model. ACTIVELY exclude US residents, citizens, and entities from either listing or trading. Simply having a checkbox "I am not a US resident" is likely not sufficient, just ask the foreign online poker sites that the DOJ took down (servers, companies, and bank accounts all in non-US soil and the DOJ got sufficient help from governments where the activity was legal to seize assets in excess of >$500 million).

The implication of what you posted is that Pokerstars DID have a check-box for people to tick saying they weren't in the US. That's totally wrong. At the time the US moved against them Stars (and Fulltilt) both accepted US players and claimed they'd been advised that was fine. The actual action against them didn't hinge on them having US players anyway - but on the means by which funds were being transferred between US players and the sites (and the steps that were being taken to disguise those movements of funds).

Yeah it was an unclear example. I was thinking more Pokerstars today. If you are trying to connect from a US based IP address you can't play real money games, if you sign up for real money games you can't legitimately enter a US based address, they don't accept US based credit cards or bank accounts. When trying to withdraw funds (over a token amount) you will need to provide KYC type docs and if you are US based well you aren't ever getting your money. They actively monitor players and even accidentally connecting from the US (say UK player connecting on business) will get the account instantly frozen. The exact mechanics may vary but that is the level of "dedication" necessary to take that route. Just having a "I promise I am not from the US" checkbox (something proposed upthread) isn't going to get the SEC to turn a blind eye. Maybe it would have been better to say "PartyPoker model". Since I used the flawed analogy it might be a good idea to add that PokerStars failure to do this before legal action cost them about $250,000,000 in fines and seized assets. Luckily the company is immensely profitable and has deep pockets so they were able to ride it out. If a Bitcoin asset exchange tried to play "fast and loose" with the rules and got hit with just say $1M in fines and asset seizures would they be able to "reform" and ride it out? My guess is no, they would fold like a cheap card table.

Quote

The main defence exchanges have had to date is being too small to matter and trying to avoid listing scams.

Agreed. The bad news is many I think took that to mean "we are immune" no it simply means you WERE (as in past tense) too small for anyone to care. As the ~~securities~~ I am sorry "asset games" get larger and larger eventually I don't know or even care to predict when but eventually it will be big enough for the SEC to see it as a headline if nothing else.

Agreed about the steps Stars take nowadays.

Think the main thing which will cause the SEC to go after an exchange will be when some significant-sized asset scams/defaults/fails and the operator and/or victims are in the US. At that stage if they're having to investigate the security it kind of makes sense to go after the exchange at the same time as they'd have to interact with the exchange one way or another whilst gathering evidence. I think that's probably AMC's best change of making headlines in the BTC world tbh - around middle of next year when it becomes apparent investors are in for a large loss to something run from on US soil. They only need 1 US investor for all the foreign registered companies etc to be irrelevant - and AMC gave profit projections in USD so has no 'it's a game' defence to even try to hide behind.

Best defence for those of us actually running investments is to make a profit whenever the outcome of an investment hinges on our own predictions, competence or efforts. That cuts out a lot of potential charges right away. Not being in the US also helps of course.