Quote from: btcash on August 27, 2013, 10:11:18 AM

Really don't like the latest changes.

Quote

The disclosure must now be agreed to before seeing the market or the individual assets. It's virtually the same disclosure as that in the registration agreement, but this way there's a periodic reminder that participants should only be using the site for education/entertainment/fun.

This will not stop the S.E.C and it makes BTCTC look bad. It sounds like you endorse scamming because is all just a game and fun.

I think it is time to drop the educational/game act.

The issue unfortunately is that it is not an act. It was the knowledge all the way back when the exchange started that real securities trade on real exchanges and I wasn't about to write a real exchange. (I have zero wall street experience...) The most obvious examples of that thought process being the facts that:
- it was released in beta and still is
- except in rare instances where directly asked we don't verify anything/anyone
- it trades in virtual currency that initially was worth next to nothing. (started with LTC, had no plans for BTC until GLBSE tanked)

It truly was intended to be for fun, entertainment, and education. (mine and everyone else's.)

Quote from: MPOE-PR on August 27, 2013, 01:42:09 PM

To make it perfectly clear: BTCT is not a game, BTCT is an opportunistic scam masquerading as a game.

Awesome. I had a lot of respect for you and MP but right about when the volume dropped on MPEx and went up on BTCT crap like this started showing up. You're fishing in the wrong pond.

Quote from: ThickAsThieves on August 27, 2013, 02:32:02 PM

This is not a question of shoddy legalese, it is calling a duck a spade for the preservation of the duck trade.

I think this is us trying to make clear that we are realizing that we have been confused with ducks -- and rather than let people get misled, it's better to make clear with everyone that we are a spade so that we can continue the spade trade.

Quote from: ThickAsThieves on August 27, 2013, 02:32:02 PM

No one expects a bitcoin financial service effort to be totally SEC-proof at this point, but the SEC does indeed value good faith efforts to operate within the law. They do not, however, respect deception and the contrary.

Exactly. In what world do you have anonymous people with handles like ThickAsThieves running "investment" strategies using virtual currency? Does that fit more with (a) The NASDAQ, or (b) Second Life ?

Quote from: ThickAsThieves on August 27, 2013, 02:32:02 PM

Yes, I can acknowledge that legal developments take time, I know this first hand. But I do not see how asserting a false position is wise, nor how a legal team could recommend such.

The original intent of the exchanges was clear, things have morphed around us somewhat, and we're working on addressing that. But for now, nothing has changed except awareness. If it serves to protect some, then I think it was worth it.

Quote from: ThickAsThieves on August 27, 2013, 05:22:38 PM

Fraud is a lie to extract value. The main distinction here is that I am not claiming TATI offerings to be anything other than what they actually are (like a virtual game).

I think my change would be the opposite then... I really don't think volume is going to go up because of it.

Cheers.