Ninjastic
PostEdited versionsQuotes to this post
Post
Topic
Board Securities
Re: [IPVO] [Multiple Exchanges] Neo & Bee - LMB Holdings
by
Herp
on 12/10/2013, 08:31:50 UTC
Quote from: Luckybit on October 12, 2013, 08:14:22 AM
Quote from: Herp on October 12, 2013, 06:13:58 AM
Quote from: freedomno1 on October 12, 2013, 05:26:16 AM
Was enjoying the page 53 to 55 conversation so kept quiet now
Good conversations now and then but since it is back to normal
We will need to wait on the viewpoint of Canada from Havelocks legal team which unfortunately was unable to provide much more info on Oct 3

The key difference is that USA and Canadian Policy to finance is DIFFERENT
Since it's a different jurisdiction a legal avenue that is not available for American Exchanges such as btct and bitfunder may exist here.
But for now in regards to US traders it probably will be the same so wait till November since that seems to be a unified closing date to see why Btct and Bitfunder are shutting their doors.

The info posted in Burnside's sale of BTCT code worries me a bit. It states the following:

Quote
"...any purchaser of the code will have to agree to block US citizens from any site utilizing the code."

Quote
If you are interested in the site code, please fill out the following and submit a bid via email to ceo@btct.co:

    Name: (actual person's name)
    Company:
    Address: (street, city, province, postal code, country, etc)
    Phone: (w/ country prefix please)
    Email:

    I agree to block US citizens: YES / no

    Proposed use of the code:

    Best possible offer:  XX BTC or XX LTC

So even if buyer is from Brazil,South Africa or Canada he would still have to agree not to allow US investors.

I'd say Neobee should start planning for direct shares solution asap.

Does this make any reasonable sense? You can't get in trouble for selling code can you?
I don't understand why he doesn't GPL the code if he really wants to stick it to the government. The fact that he's doing this means he just wants to make money from some sort of auction.

This is fine because what should we expect? but it also highlights the primary weakness of a centralized exchange.


I think he has that condition, to have buyers vow they will not allow US customers, to protect the users of this future exchange, which will have to some degree his name attached to it.

 It makes sense when you think about it. You want your code to be in good hands and survive if possible and for that to happen users and their assets have to be protected.

Say someone buys his code and opens up a new exchange 1 week later and allows US customers. This new exchange gets into same legal troubles and is forced to shut down or block US customers, so US customers get screwed again and also does price of all securities listed there. It will mess up with IPOs, mess up badly with stock prices, destroy market confidence and so on. Last but not least you don't want to be associated such a mess when you could have prevented it.

So, as I was saying, it kinda` makes sense.