Quote from: visual111 on September 06, 2014, 02:42:29 PM

Quote from: dEBRUYNE on September 06, 2014, 02:33:26 PM

Quote from: AlexGR on September 06, 2014, 02:06:53 PM

Hmm... that was interesting (as predicted / discussed earlier):

Quote from: busoni on September 05, 2014, 06:14:12 AM

After careful deliberation, we have decided to not participate in the SuperNet ICO. I understand that a large community is excited about SuperNet, and since we were initially announced as the ICO host, I wanted to take a moment to explain how we came to arrive at this decision.

For the past couple of days, weve been in discussions with our attorneys about hosting the SuperNet ICO. As several community members pointed out in this very thread, the sale of SuperNet tokens could be interpreted as the sale of unregistered securities. Our attorneys came to the same conclusion and have since advised us against taking part in the SuperNet ICO for this reason.

Further, one of our ICO requirements is identity verification (https://www.poloniex.com/icoRequirements); this requirement exists to protect investors and to lend credibility to the ICO. Despite several attempts to convince James the importance of revealing his identity, we were ultimately unable to reach an agreement that satisfied both parties.

We needed time for due diligence, to carefully assess the legal implications of taking part in SuperNet, and also the time to set up our backend systems to support it. James was very eager to get this going, however, so he chose to go with another host before we could communicate to him our findings and final decision.

We have since communicated with James, and we wish him the best of luck.

This worries me more. If he wanted to set up something legitimate, why doesn't he want to reveal his identity? Personally if I invested in this I would be more confident and less worried if I knew the identity of the man who set it up.

I believe he is worried about personal safety. I don't know what his plans are for crypto, but he has expressed a distrust for the powers that be... understandably so. we are not talking about opening a supermarket chain here, but rather revamping the financial industry. some may not like this

just a perspective...not right nor wrong

Issuing some form of securities to investors is a jurisdiction by jurisdiction issue.

If you own or live on an island in international waters, you can issue securities to whomever you like, you just can't promote them to countries that require you to get regulated in their jurisdiction before conducting financial promotions or accepting investment from their citizens.

If he doesn't live in the USA, Europe, or other countries that have tight regulatory controls on investment securities, he can put up a website that has terms and conditions stating people in xyz countries are not allowed to enter or participate.

Payment being in crypto, if he establishes a business plan and puts together some protections on the investors money, then investors that are not ruled out because of jurisdictional constraints can send crypto such as Darkcoin which provides privacy to investors from their transactions being recorded on a public ledger. Traffic analysis by marketing types can also be avoided by DRKs IP obfuscation. He then just has to ensure he records details and conducts transactions in accordance with local laws.

Darkcoin is being integrated with an open bazaar deployment, not sure of the details. This should have some form of reputation mechanisms.

Alternatively, why not use Kickstarter?

This is not advice or financial promotion. If you believe it is, then you should seek professional and legal advice before you act on any of the above.

Always do your homework before investing in anything https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=579976.0