|
Title: Importance of not being a 'security' after the SEC DAO report Post by: DisLedger on July 27, 2017, 06:03:54 PM After the SEC report this week how much importance do you place on whether a ICO/token is or isn't a security in the U.S.?
I'm trying to gauge how important it is for future tokens to get written legal opinions that they are not securities for: stability, resale value, listing on exchanges, other reasons... Title: Re: Importance of not being a 'security' after the SEC DAO report Post by: DisLedger on August 19, 2017, 05:50:44 PM ShapeShift is going to drop coins that are considered securities Coindesk article (http://bit.ly/2icewqO)
DisLedger's token is NOT A SECURITY so it be even more valuable I predict other exchanges will start dropping 'security' coins quickly Title: Re: Importance of not being a 'security' after the SEC DAO report Post by: Dullmartini on August 19, 2017, 07:23:44 PM I pay attention. If it's a security and it's organized under the laws of the us, I'm not willing to take a chance. The SEC will come after the company for all it is worth and investors will lose everything.
Title: Re: Importance of not being a 'security' after the SEC DAO report Post by: Keihatsu on August 19, 2017, 09:01:07 PM It would be very interesting to see a list of coins/tokens and whether they are likely to be classed as securities.
Very easy to move a virtual company, or base it in any jurisdiction. I guess it may still pose an issue for US residents. Title: Re: Importance of not being a 'security' after the SEC DAO report Post by: cenicsoft on August 19, 2017, 11:58:58 PM It was obvious the way a lot of these ICOs were being conducted that they would be treated as securities.
Our BannerCoin ICO - (http://www.bannercoin.com (http://www.bannercoin.com)) was designed from the beginning to not be a security, well before the SEC guidelines were even published. Of course, you never know how a regulator will treat your product until you actually put it out there for scrutiny. |