Quote from: devphp on September 05, 2014, 03:31:28 PM

Quote from: cryptodevil on September 05, 2014, 03:29:44 PM

Regulations applicable to a company relate not to the jurisdiction it is incorporated in but, rather, the jurisdiction where 'management and control' is proven to be.

Why would it matter where management and control is for an Internet company? And where is management and control of Bter by the way? It could be anywhere in the world

It matters because, otherwise, you could incorporate a company in one jurisdiction and run it from another without having to obey the laws of the regulatory environment you were in. Numerous legal challenges over the last couple of decades have seen most countries around the world adopt the position that, if you are controlling/managing a company while domiciled in that country, the company is required to obey the legislative operating rules of that country, vis-a-vis taxation, kyc and due diligence, money laundering regs and correct licensing and operation of financial products and services being offered or provided.

The US, in particular, takes an extremely dim view of attempts to circumvent their laws, going so far as to require almost any company in any part of the world wishing to do business with its citizens, individual or corporate, to adhere to US rules and regs.

There is no such thing as being 'domiciled on the internet', as long as there is a centralised service being provided there is a physical presence somewhere of people working the levers and pushing the buttons. Where they are is generally where the company is considered to be operating from, even if it is incorporated in an 'offshore' jurisdiction like the B.V.I.

With regards to the classification of these cryptographic 'TOKENS', there is probably a fair amount of room to manoeuvre at this time, with "Virtual Tokens of Value" being the favoured term to describe the nature of what is being bought or sold, without needing to adhere to the strict rules imposed when something is perceived as a financial product or a currency. Saying that, though, I don't blame Poloniex for being gun-shy about the SEC in the US sticking their oar in. If they were located in a less, erm, 'reactive' country, when it comes to the strength and length of the arm of the law, they might consider it worth sticking with claiming the products their business is involved in are not legally recognised as truly financial in nature, but if they wish to have anything like a chance of staying the course as a US-based cryptocurrency exchange, the fact it has now been brought to their attention means they cannot avoid the potential ramifications of going against the legal advice they have since received.