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.
So let me get this straight...
- You yourself have issued what you believe are "actual securities" on this and other non-compliant exchanges.
- Your securities have not been properly registered with either the SEC, CFTC, or your state regulator, and do not qualify for an exemption under Regulation D.
- There has never been any question as to the legality of your own securities, but now that you have sought legal counsel, you presumably have actual knowledge that you are in violation of Reg. D, among others.
- You are a "board member" of "virtual identity company" with, at the very least, early access to non-public information, while simultaneously freely trading in the security of said company, with no disclosure of your trades. You have even issued a derivative of the company's stock... that is, virtual shares backed by virtual shares of a virtual company.
-
Now, after having been happy to operate for so long on a wink and a nod, you are here throwing around terms like fraud, as if, all of the sudden, the "shoddy legalize" under which you've issued securities is now repellant to you.
Here's news... if Burnside's characterization of his exchange constitutes fraud, so does your issuance of securities on any exchange that you know to be non-compliant. You can't have it both ways.
I have no idea what you think is to be gained by making these completely unhelpful accusations, but as an issuer of securities on multiple non-compliant exchanges, you should know better.
Anyone with even minimal knowledge in these matters knows that absolutely everything is non-compliant. Perhaps you are naive enough to believe that you really are going to bring yourself into compliance, but either way, your judgment is now seriously in question.
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).
Regardless, waiving our guns around will not make what I said about BTCT less relevant. However hypocritical you might think it is for me to comment, pointing the gun back at me does not change the situation. I think my questions are important ones, and worth getting answers for.
And yes, my goal is indeed compliance, and there will be news in that regard in due time.