There's a huge debate on whether a company should go the route of a security token or utility token.
Utility tokens have been very popular, although we are seeing companies like Telegram start to issue security tokens. It seems like everyday there is new legislation passed somewhere on ICO's - some negative, some positive.
I thought this podcast, episode #130 of Joe Wallin's 'Law of Startups' podcast was an interesting debate between one lawyer who believes the SEC and other government organizations are going to crack down on utility tokens versus another lawyer who doesn't exactly see if that way.
Does anyone have experience with an ICO doing either a utility or security token? What was that like and how did you think about the legal frameworks?
http://www.thelawofstartups.com/ Episode #130 with securities lawyer Dan DeWolf
There are plenty of different types of tokens.
Tai Chi Chain Token is not a Utility token, equity, security, or any right to Tai Chi Chain.
We are doing everything as "Donations".
We believe this is truly a new way to raise funding without being classified as an ICO, but while still allowing users to trade these tokens with any given speculative value on decentralized exchanges.
TaiChiChain.org
This sounds sketchy.
You're telling me people are donating their money and not getting the ability to use these tokens in your platform? Nor do they get the benefits of owning a part of the company?
Sketch.