Quote from: TsuyokuNaritai on September 08, 2013, 01:49:48 PM

Quote from: ThickAsThieves on September 08, 2013, 01:09:44 PM

If you read the provided description of the term IPVO, it makes clear that this is not attempt to do what Burnside is doing. His use of "virtual" is in a context of a "game" in his text. This is not a game, it is virtual-currency-fueled finance. The difference here is that, from a legal standpoint, the IPVO, while similar in ways to an IPO, is quite different.

To date, the bitcoin securities market has attempted to use the term IPO creatively by redefining it to suit its needs, but the term IPO, is meant to imply more than simply selling your company publicly. "IPO" is an accepted term that implies an offering that will be made public on traditional stock exchanges at Wall St and the like, which is obviously not the case here.

Being that most bitcoin IP(V)Os are things like fundraising, crowdfunding, profit-shares, informal entities, and partially unregulated, a unique term must be adopted to differentiate so as not to confuse those familiar with traditional IPOs.

As Danny mentions, there is trailblazing happening here. Both of our legal teams are hard at work establishing ourselves as best as possible within the current framework of guidance. As I have mentioned before, there will be more news on these developments soon, and there will be even more changes to come.

I do hope it works out, it will be great for bitcoin if this venture can succeed. Thanks for your response, but it addresses why I was curious to hear your opinion on the question, it doesn't answer the actual question...

Quote from: TsuyokuNaritai on September 08, 2013, 05:14:51 AM

Quote from: cryptocyprus on September 07, 2013, 06:15:29 PM

The virtual entity is to ensure current American SEC regulations are not being broken by investors from America.

Why are you sure that calling it virtual will definitely exempt you from all SEC regulations?

...which as other have commented, appears to not be the case. Cryptocyprus has also avoided the question, even though several people have now raised it.

If it this IPVO wasn't for a financial service I wouldn't be pushing this, but they want to start a bitcoin bank! What other important legal or regulatory things do they believe are ensured that aren't? It's something of a red flag, especially when it's probably only a matter of time before the wrong civil servants in some place or another start looking for excuses to close them down.

The aspects of Neo being a "bank", and how the SEC classifies this offering are two separate things. The SEC would not have much ability to regulate a Cypriot bank, and Danny has responded to the situation regarding his local regulation environment.

However, the SEC may have ability to regulate an offering to US citizens. We did not claim to be using the IPVO term as a method to skirt the SEC, that was an assumption of a commenter. As I clarified, it is a new term meant to differentiate from a term that simply means something else.

Regarding how the SEC would view this, the simple answer is that it is complicated, and very much the responsibility of our lawyers and their strategy for legitimizing what we are doing within the current framework and guidance of the law. I know that certain registrations are being filed, and certain exemptions being considered for various aspects of what we are. What we are is the first entity attempting to be the first bitcoin investment bank, and that is no simple task to enact.

I can tell you we are confident in the plan our lawyers have put forth, and they are in the process of implementing it step-by-step. Our goal is to have made every good faith effort we could have by the time clear regulation has been passed for bitcoin and bitcoin finance overall. At that time, if there are any discrepancies between our position and what is required, we will move our methods into compliance as appropriate.