Bitcoin Forum

If you are promoting a scam ICO on social media, and that probably includes Bitcoin Talk signatures, then you risk being fined twice the amount you are alleged to have received in payment. Just be careful when you are promoting products in your signatures.

This is actually good news most of the scams happens due to Ico's, and by this move Sec is cleaning up the Ico's mess. Though I'm not really sure how effective Sec will be when it comes to social media, and bitcoin talk signatures, like not all are under the jurisdiction of Sec. Then the most common excuse my account was hacked, and it's difficult to find fault with this statement. Anyway I do hope people take the clue, and avoid promoting Ico's.

Read More here: https://www.ccn.com/secs-next-move-social-media-influencers-who-promoted-crypto-icos/

Well I think this is a great move forward but there should also make a regulations for new ico coming in and also give guidelines on how to know if a project is genuine or not

Finally we don't need to chase the spammers any longer, now SEC will be after them :D

I think this is going to hit bounty managers, not the usual bounty participant. The amounts/payments generated via the campaigns are simply too low that hunting down the participants would be worthwhile for the SEC

But all in all very good news!

This is good to limit the scam ICOs.  It will also help regulate and restrict how ICOs are being managed.  So what I always do to prevent getting scammed, I usually research ahead of the company and learn how it works  8)

Won't it be a great idea to create Bitcointalk SEC that'll be prosecuting bounty Hunters/managers of ICO's already busted for been SCAM like reporting to red tag them or reporting for banning or they'll be fined before they can participate in future campaigns.

Cryptocurrency influencers who are paid to shill a project, with large followers and follow their suggestions and buy into the hype.
They are expected to have deep insights and knowledge about the project, as they are promoting it on their social platforms.
This would not really affect bounty hunters, promoting them through signature and social media campaigns.

Everyone is expected to do research however before promoting any project.

SEC most obviously won't go for a witch hunt for bounty hunters. The announcement can be more seen as about the large-scale youtubers who use their platforms commercially and publish marketing there in the form of reports and recommendations for initial coin offerings.

Or the ones like Trevon James advertising for obvious scams like Bitconnect and take the (referral) profit.

Bitcoin/bitcointalk/cryptocurrencies in general is a decentralized network/platform,and creating a commission is not in accordance with what "decentralized" stands for as no body should regulate or wield enormous powers in this system
The only prosecution bitcointalk can pour out to offenders is either a red tag,a tempban or a permaban.

If you say that it is true, you must add such a premise： You know clearly that it is scam.
In fact, most bounty hunters don’t know that the bounty they are joining is scam，if the bounty is confirmed to be scam, then they will also be deceived.
No country’s law will impose the same punishment as a scammer on a deceived person.
So this won't happen.

As far as I can see, SEC’s intent extends to any ICO promoter, be the ICO itself a scam or not. What they want to do is target those promoters that get compensated and do not declare these compensations. The pursued fraud therefore resides in this non-declaration of compensations, and not on the ICO nature itself (see  SEC’s Next Move: Social Media Influencers Who Promoted Crypto ICOs (https://www.ccn.com/secs-next-move-social-media-influencers-who-promoted-crypto-icos)).

It’s probably a notch over exaggerated, giving the impression that the scope of SEC’s tentacles on this matter are much wider than they are. In conceptual intent, sure, anyone could be their target. On a practical plane, at least for now, they have enough potential case setting examples that they can work for a long time. The first of such cases are the settlements with Floyd Mayweather (paid $600K after receiving $300K for promoting three different ICOs) and DJ Khaled (paid $150K after receiving $50K for promoting an ICO).

Focus now will likely move on to lead by example cases found in promoting segments such as youtubers, crypto review platforms, etc. A signature barer receiving a few tokens seems far from the top of the list right now …

Whilst they may not pursue a spambie who promotes a fraudulent ICO that defrauds him, so that he gets nothing, they make take a different view of the alt farms who make significant money from their spamming/scamming.

I hope that ICO scammers can be brought to justice, otherwise for newcomers, joined crypto means that it is very likely to be cheated.
Any newcomer is willing to enter a safe, simple environment, not a place full of thorns and traps.
Honestly, I am very willing to have more friends playing crypto around me, but I am sure they will never come again once they are cheated.

90% of ICOs will be scam ICO, most of the people are here to earn some money and most of them are noobs on the crypto market.
I think the first thing to when you choose a signature is to choose the manager and see his past history and see how many of his promoted ICOs has to be turned on scams.
Sometimes is really hard to find before the end of the ICO if one project is a scam or not, we should have only signature paid on Bitcoin but this will never happen.

Thanks for warning, but I can be calm, because I don't advertise ICO's at all. For me it's interesting one aspect - can SEC sue people who live outside US, is it their jurisdiction?
I think marlboroza can be called as SEC of Bitcointalk :D. Unfortunately, he don't have power to ban these scam promoters, he only can red tag them...