Quote from: OgonDark on October 09, 2013, 04:19:12 PM

Quote from: crumbs on October 09, 2013, 03:37:11 PM

Quote from: OgonDark on October 09, 2013, 02:23:27 PM

I have to say that the way that both Bitfunder and BTCT have handled things is absolutely atrocious.

If they are pretending that the conditions that are forcing them to shutter their doors didn't exist when they set up their exchanges, they are either liars, unethical or incompetent.

Each of them has created large quantifiable financial losses for people who had relied on their assertions and now they want to shove that responsibility off onto another entity. I'd love to see even a redacted version of the Cease and Desist letter either of these exchanges received. Because, I don't believe one exists. They've scared themselves out of doing something that they should have known was scary to do in the first place.

Acting like all the rules around issuing securities just happened is a joke. They were in place for literally decades and closing in on a century before these exchanges were ever conceived.

They knew the risks of running one of these things, if they weren't up to it they should have never started.

Inversely, you also knew the risks going in.
You knew that you were investing in illegal, unregistered stocks. Or rather most here did.
If you did not, it wasn't for lack of warnings from fudsters, trolls & other sane adults.
[pool's closed.gif]

Of course I knew the risks. And I mitigated them to a large extent by not exposing myself too much to the "securities" sector as a whole.

OTOH, just saying "inversely" and not addressing the actual argument I put forward isn't an answer.

The exchange operators can't have it both ways, if they didn't understand the risks of running an exchange, and that in doing so they were putting themselves at risk and only woke up to this fact because they've only recently hired lawyers, I'd say that they are downright incompetent and shouldn't be trusted by the community should they try to do something going forward.

If they knew the risk and just got cold feet 6 months into the venture, then I'd say that speaks volumes as to their ethics. If you were aware of the risks going in, then why did you even start it in the first place if you were going to run away at the first hint of trouble?

Either way, neither has handled these things as they should have, both while operating and in shutdown mode. I'm not saying it is easy, I'm just saying that they signed up for the task, and there is an implied type of responsibility there. As you made clear, the risks were known, shutting down now is either an act of cowardice or incompetence.

It might be both, but it can't be neither.

I'll address you grievance.
The exchange operators understood the shifting legal landscape, and explicitly stated that understanding in the site's user agreements/FAQs. I'll quote burnside:

No assets on the site are to be considered real.
Nothing is verified. (Do your research!)
The use of this site is for educational and entertainment purposes only.
If an asset issuer on this site defaults, you have ZERO RECOURSE. (not like you have any recourse in most international BTC situations anyway.)

While the aforementioned would be laughed out of every Podunk courthouse, you must agree that it leaves little to interpretation.
If you feel that the wording is ambiguous, please offer a more direct alternative -- i'm at a loss.

If i didn't sufficiently stress that the legal landscape was, and continues to be, in flux, i'll repeat it. The Pirateat40 case & other developments made it clear that these "virtual" antics had IRL consequences. As i've mentioned before, the exchange operators attempted to telegraph their intent, going as far as announcing the possibility of restrictions on US citizens, but were shouted down. Those willing to listen listened.

The exchanges were taking risks, you have opted to bet on the FAQs & user agreements being simply words to fool the regulators.
The regulators weren't fooled. You were.