Bitcoin Forum

S.2190 the CROWDFUND Act passed in the Senate this past week.

The next step is for it to be sent to the House to be reconciled with the JOBS Act passed previously and a revised bill passed by both the House and the Senate.  Then President Obama is expected to sign it and it becomes law.  But hold on, then the SEC has 270 days to make the rules for the regulation.   So give it nine months before the unwashed masses will be given the immense privilege of being able to invest $100 into someone else's project.

Here's a snippet I posted in another thread relating what the Crowdfunding bill brings:


There are many details though -- assuming they remain in the Act and become law.

For instance, if the amount of funds being raised (IPO'd) are under $100K, the latest tax return plus self-certified financials are all that is required for analysis of financial health by the funding portal.  Above that amount and the financials must be reviewed by a public accountant (a "compilation") and above $500K audited financials are required.

The Crowdfunding bill has limits as to how much one can invest.  For instance the maximum investment (added, per-year) in all crowdfunded projects combined for any investor is 5% of the investor's annual income when either that person's income or net worth is under $100K (though regardless of income at least $2K is allowed).

To raise funds, registration with a "funding portal" is required.  The funding portal does background checks, ensures that investors are aware of the risks [which possibly means giving an opinion (or rating) on the project's viability,] verifies that the above maximum investment levels aren't exceeded and manages the money during the raising of funds.  This "portal" function will not be cheap, so most of the types of projects you see on Kickstarter will remain on Kickstarter looking for for donations rather than being able to raise capital instead.

The Crowdfunding bill will not allow IPO'd shares to be sold for the first year after purchase to other investors (except to accredited investors or back to the issuer).  Compare that to GLBSE which has no lockup period once IPOs begin trading.

The raising of funds must hit the target (i.e., be fully funded) otherwise investors can opt to cancel any funds already paid to the portal.  Once fully funded, a 21 day hold occurs before the portal delivers the funds raised.   This is to give additional time to vet the issuer.

There may be restrictions on how the offer is pitched -- so forget sending out a tweet that reads: "Please buy shares in my new project!".  There are restrictions on using an agent or paid campaigner for help in raising funds as well.  On the upside, if you will only be issuing to accredited ("wealthy") investors, you actually will be allowed to pitch yourself at an event for the public now though.

All this is very interesting but nothing was really unexpected.  One exception though was when I learned that there is an advisory council (CAPS Council) that has already been formed and has already been operating to come up with guidelines that these funding portals would follow in vetting issuers who are raising the funds.   I'll post that in the next thread.

A "funding portal" that will act as intermediary between crowdfunding investors and crowdfunding issuers is a type of broker.  Crowdfunding is now an industry and there is this group within the industry that has formed to become the industry's governance group.  They've created a panel that came up with a framework that specifies what and how the funding portals will do the work that they do.  This framework is called the Crowdfunding Accreditation for Platform Standards (CAPS).  

The Crowdfunding Act is not signed into law even yet, so the SEC hasn't deemed what rules the funding portals must follow.  CAPS was apparently created though to meet or exceed what those rules from the SEC will likely be requiring.   The creators of CAPS are a governing group called the CAPS Council, and includes key people that helped to guide and lobby for the Crowdfunding Act legislation.  

They've already had eight crowdfunding (funding portal) platforms successfully go through the process to become educated on and accredited in CAPS and are now having another twenty of these funding portals become accredited.

 - http://www.crowdsourcing.org/editorial/crowdfunding-industry-establishes-standards-to-help-prevent-fraud/12670
 - http://www.crowdsourcing.org/caps

Now, what I'm curious about is if this changes anything for Bitcoiners.

CAPS exists because "crowdfunding platforms owe fundraisers and investors a high degree of transparency and the ability to facilitate secure transactions to reduce the risk of fraud".

I wonder if a service provider would be able to take much of  the CAPS framework and apply it to a model that works for issuers who wish to use GLBSE (or direct, or other model) to raise funds.  It wouldn't be a CAPS accredited provider but it might parallel CAPS in most areas.

I'm sure there will be other instances where this new crowdfunding method in the U.S. will intertwine with bitcoin-related investment and trading.

until nefario started collecting e-mail addresses as part of the registration, it was pretty untraceable who owns shares at glbse. the only link in 1.0 was a keypair and incoming bitcoins.
with 2.0 e-mail is linked to an account and there goes the plausible deny ability.

as non U.S. resident i look forward to the rising supply of shares caused by this regulation. </sarcasm>

thanks for the link.

So why not get an anonymous email account from somewhere like Hushmail?

Stuff like these regulations by the state make my head want to explode. I cannot express in words how pissed I got when I read the OP.

I'm presuming this is why:


 - http://pastebin.com/HM3PSK74

So glbse is asking for IDs, too.

GLBSE is finished. We need blockchains for financial securities.

Right now the current concept is a brain fart.

Atlas, you are a brain fart. stfu

The ID requirement for GLBSE is optional, and is only for those that are offering something, not for buyers. To prevent the scammers that were seen in 1.0, 2.0 offers ID verification which will then mark the account verified. Those that choose not to send ID will still be allowed, but will not be marked trusted. This is my understanding of the changes that Nefario is implementing, and they are positive changes.

I wonder what lame investments CAPS Council will allow the unwashed masses to invest in? Government has historically demonstrated very poor financial guidance. Actually, it can be perceived as criminal, except it cannot be criminal if it is done by government. I'll stick with real estate, art, and Bitcoin. I am anxious to see what becomes of GLBSE. It may be labeled illegal someday, but having an international perspective that Bitcoin provides, especially with Brain Wallets, will make investing in democratizing enterprises safe from the long arm of the banksters.

Im sure they will let you invest unimited funds into the government ie "political donations"

This is good information to know.  Thank you!


From the angle of your post, you seem to be purposing this information more toward IPOs than Kickstarter sites.  Investment generally, though, is not a privilege that's allotted to us in drips and drabs by people who purport to be our political representatives.


That's a pretty big assumption.  It will probably remain in the Act, and the Act will get passed.  But people have forgotten these days that just because legislation is passed, it doesn't automatically become law.  Legislation is a paperwork term, a term of bureaucracy.  It refers to the process; are all the papers signed by the right parties?  dated correctly?  handed in on time?  Then it's legal.

But to also be law, it must be valid in law.  That means it must correctly adhere to the proper delegation of authority.  In the U.S., the delegation of authority goes from God -(into man's system of law)-> to the People -> to the political representatives we delegated.  With the Constitution, we delegated certain specific authorities to our representatives.  Anything not specifically delegated remains with the People, or with the various States.

That hasn't stopped any number of politicians drafting all manner of legislation and getting it passed (http://nothingchanged.org/), but it certainly doesn't make it law.  If we remembered that political authority doesn't arbitrarily flow out of a politician's pen, we wouldn't be so concerned when stuff like the blatantly unconstitutional NDAA passed last December for example, with 93 of 100 senators voting in favor of obvious treason.  Because we would all know it was void the moment it was penned, and never could be law.  Nobody would adhere to it as if it were, and we'd have quite a response to politicians who have the temerity to draft this stuff.  But for now, since the People have forgotten the nature of the political structure they built, politicians have been getting away with it with impunity.

On a more practical basis, an increase in legislation limiting crowdfunding will probably lead to a public increase in Kickstarter-like sites on the darknet.  Where the crowds can collectively fund anything they like.  Seems like the natural social response.


hazek, I quoted your response because my point above speaks directly to it.


It shouldn't be that long before someone creates a Kickstarter/BitCoin for taking down corrupt politicians and CEOs.  Wouldn't take much; a crowdsourced Wiki [that requires people to cite their sources] that also creates a ChipIn-like BitCoin fund to pay the court costs and the attorneys' fees.  Any court-awarded damages could go directly back to the users who invested in that fund, in whatever proportion they invested.  People could actually profit from sorting out all the corruption among corporations and politicians.  I mean, we are in a target-rich environment there.

I'm sorry but what good does it do me if something isn't law but gets enforced anyway? Nothing. I'm not pissed at this particular law, I'm pissed at statism in general. I can't stand being treated as a slave.

My point is that the only reason people tolerate it - and therefore allow it to get enforced - is through a lack of knowledge.  By filling that lack, people can sort out society without revolutions or hopeless elections.  It's just a matter of putting back what was lacking - and in some cases, deliberately hidden.

I feel the same way you do.  Perhaps even moreso.  Years ago, I realized that they couldn't do it if nobody paid their paychecks - or at least refused to do so until they shaped up.  I also realized that subsidizing what they do would make me a party to it as well.  For over a decade I've been living off the grid - and unemployable - as part of the choice not to enable them to do what they've been doing.  If everybody did that, the problem would have been solved by now.  People complain that the elections don't work, the courts don't work, and so on... but there's always a choice.

Always.


Be well,

- Satori

Thanks for the update on this. I kinda wrote off this legislation and assumed that moneyed interests would crush it. I set up an account at one of the funding portals so that I will be in position. I encourage other bitcoin peers to do the same, we could turn a lot of people on who are interested in money but have not heard of BTC.
It's also a great place to see ideas that are out there and think about who you would invest in directly.   I'm at www.growvc.com , but there are others.

I've been watching this bill since mid 2010 and I have to say, I didn't think they'd pass it. I am speechless. Can't be more proud to be an American living somewhere other than America right now.

Nice reply after asking how an investor of a crowdfunded business can sell shares purchased after the 1 year statutory lockup period for IPO'd shares expires:

- http://www.quora.com/Crowdfunding/How-does-an-investor-of-a-crowdfunded-venture-sell-the-shares

Lightrider posted this in another thread. It is using bitcoin for crowdfunding. Open Startup becomes an Open Source project  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xc8O1VevmcI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xc8O1VevmcI)

Janet Tavakoli ... apparently not a fan of the CROWDFUND Act:


 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=wTWKT3pZgT8#t=1157s

To be fair, I think Tavakoli's argument is with the provisions of the JOBS act regarding what it will now allow for "emerging growth companies" (those with up to $1 billion in annual revenue) and she isn't specifically criticizing the CROWDFUND act (for companies raising up to $2 million through crowdfunding).

Heh, it stresses mining as the way to generate funds to invest.

I'm not sure I was comprehending correctly.  Did that say investors ("angels") give up 80% of any profits from ventures that launch because those profits are then reinvested into future ventures ("validated ideas")?  I had a hard time understanding the flow, as far as what an investor has control of.

When I'm choosing to invest in a startup, I'm hoping for a big hit.  I understand the risks but I'm thinking I'm smarter than everyone else and will discover the 10 bagger that nobody else did.  That supports my thinking that even if four-out-of-five investments fail, I still gain big thanks to the one that hits it big time.  But if I'm having to give up 80% of the gains, yet eat the losses then my motivation to go this route goes away.  I guess I am saying I don't trust that reinvesting of the profits in new "validated ideas" is always going to be the best use of my funds.

I also have to laugh at the term "Angel investor". I have done a bit of that myself and have friends who do it for a living. None of us are angels. Since when are angels motivated by profit.  ::)

The Jumpstart Our Business Startups (JOBS) Act was today signed into law:

https://i.imgur.com/XFCbo.png

Summary here:
 - http://www.crowdsourcing.org/editorial/obama-crowdfunding-bill-signing-/13174

So, crowdfunding is now legal.  Awesome!!

On this news, I would like to announce my new startup. I am seeking investment from the public via crowdfunding!

Ooopsss ... upon reading the details I see that even with this law it would be illegal yet for me to solicit funding by myself:


So scratch that.  And the SEC won't have their part (establishing the rules for the intermediary brokers) done until 2013.


Unlike a Kickstarter, you can't just raise money for an idea.  There must be an actual legal entity, such as a corporation.  That's like $800 / year alone, in California.  I suppose setting up a corporate in Nevada or something similar is an alternative.


So much for free market valuation for what you've invested in, at least not for the first year.

[emphasis added]

That probably should have said: Americans will regain their right to invest in their friends, family and favorite companies.


Yup.  And nothing in there says the investment and/or dividends have to be made using dollars.  Hopefully the SEC doesn't screw it up.

Let the games begin!

I'm slapping some money down this weekend after I finish a little research on a company I'm looking at.

;D FTFY

Rights are not gained or lost at the whim of a government. They are only recognized or fail to be recognized by a government.

I don't know what the solutions are - but there must be some way to issue and hold a public security anonymously, and still protect both sides from fraud and other crimes. (lol, people are still saying that bitcoin isn't going to work!)

It's high time the people stopped relying on, and permitting the government to protect them from everything that might be harmful. It's ridiculous.

guruvan is quite correct.  I'd just been about to post that myself.

In this country, rights are considered to be intrinsic parts of us, given by our Maker.  The idea of living without your rights is similar to that of living with an artificial wooden head.

The whole excuse for having a government is to keep those rights upheld.  To the extent that it does not - or encroaches upon those rights itself - it's failing in its own purpose.

We delegate specific authorities to that government in the founding documents.  Anything we did not delegate to it, or to the States, remains with us.  No matter how big a heap of legislation they generate purporting to give themselves brand-new authorities, or create brand-new offices to control, monitor or dictate various aspects of our lives.

In order for me to give something to myself or someone else, I must first have it to give.  The same goes for government.  I suppose I could steal it from someone else, but that would be theft on my part.  In government, this is called usurpation.

So waiting for a government to tell you what you can and can't do is pretty silly.  They do have control over how corporations are run, but that's only because we told them to regulate interstate commerce.  That's probably forfeit at this point, inasmuch as they're so far outside the Constitution in most other ways.  I would say people would be completely within their rights to do an end-run around them and do whatever via Tor-based encrypted sites; the government has pretty clearly defaulted on its Constitutional duties by this point, and subsidizing it or adhering to it is more or less giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

additional info Crowdfunding: What it Means for Investors
http://mashable.com/2012/04/06/crowdfunding-bill-investors-tips/

Public comments may be submitted here:
 - http://www.sec.gov/spotlight/jobsactcomments.shtml

The comments do require name and e-mail address and those are disclosed publicly, so keep that in mind if you are submitting anything.

I think I now understand why there was this understanding that "shares can't be sold" within the first year.  It might have to do with staying under the 500 unaccredited shareholders restriction.    So if you  were to start selling your shares to others in the public it wouldn't take long that in total there would be more than 500 unaccredited investors, and then certain (restrictive and expensive) reporting requirements come into being.

The expectation then is that the shares will be issued as being non-transferrable.
 - http://1billionangels.com/2012/04/13/summary-of-april-11-sec-panel-discussion-on-the-jobs-act/

Obviously, even when crowdfunding in the U.S. does start happening next year, it will not look like what investors and companies really want it to be.
 

Here's an article from a Canadian news source, lamenting that they have not yet started down the equity crowdfunding road:

 - http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/small-business/digital/web-strategy/crowdfunding-the-equity-divide-between-borders/article2433403/

Interesting read.

Croudsourcing.org's Eric Blattberg interviews Jeffrey Rubin.  Rubin practices corporate securities law. In addition he is chair of the federal regulation of securities committee of the business law section of the American Bar Association.

Excerpts:





 - http://www.crowdsourcing.org/editorial/the-dangers-of-crowdfunding-a-jobs-act-discussion-with-jeffrey-rubin/15030

 - http://venturebeat.com/2012/08/22/crowdfunding-delayed-again-blasted-as-a-top-danger/



 - http://www.nasaa.org/14679/laws-provide-con-artists-with-personal-economic-growth-plan/


That first article was written by Jason Best and Sherwood Neiss (who together helped write the House bill that was passed in March, before it become part of the JOBS act that was signed into law in April.).  In June I had the opportunity to talk with Jason.  What he knew of Bitcoin was what was the general overall message fed by the online media so he was a little surprised to learn that there already was equity crowdfunding using bitcoins.

I got to describe briefly GLBSE and how it uses bitcoin as the trading currency, such that neither the exchange nor the asset issuer necessarily know who the investor is, including from which country the investor hails.  When I explained that the cost to IPO was about $50 (BTC/USD was $6 at the time), he appeared to be amused.  When I then explained that there are even assets issued where the issuer is psuedonymous, that's when it even went past incredulity into annoyance.

I had purposely mentioned how this space had already moved well beyond what the JOBS Act (U.S. Equity-based Crowdfunding law) would permit.  I pointed out some contrasts.  With the equity crowdfunding law, Shares purchased are locked up for one year (except for sale back to the issuer or to an accredited investor).  Those investors cannot trade the equities they own on a secondary market during that lockup.

Another contrast is that the with the JOBS Act, equities offered via crowdfunding in the U.S. can only be purchased by those from the U.S.  

I pressed Jason as to why foreigners were ineligible to buy crowdfunded shares and his response was something to the effect that it was already nearly too much of risk trying to get the congress members and staff to grasp the crowdfunding concept.  If the bill were to include secondary markets and foreign ownership, they might not have been able to get it passed.

So the earliest you are going to be able realize the gain on an equity that was crowdfunded is no earlier than when you can first sell it  ... in 2014 at the earliest.

There wasn't much of a response then when I had stated that this online cyberequities system with no phsyical presence in any country wasn't something waiting on U.S. rulemaking to reach completion nor was it going to be getting altered once the rules come out so that it is compliant.

In hindsight, perhaps the reason I didn't get much of a response was because it really doesn't matter.  Really.  These aren't shares of ownership of incorporated entities, nonetheless even U.S. entities.  You aren't at risk of little old ladies investing in them.  This is not real equity and not real money.

I think as long as it is kept  out of FarmVille where anyone would notice it wil be left alone.

KickStarter made some significant changes with what types of projects they will allow.

Basically, the more risky projects are no longer welcome on KickStarter.

If you have to use a drawing, CGI or animation to show your product, you aren't welcome at KickStarter -- photos of actual prototypes only,

If you are looking for speculative buying through KickStarter of your first production run, you aren't welcome.  One "reward" per backer.   KickStarter is no longer pre-selling but instead back to providing donation-based "funding".

The equity crowdfunding won't likely have such restrictions, but KickStarter doesn't want to be an equity crowdfunding platform so they needed to make it less possible that there will be "capital at risk" from "investment" into products that never materialize.

 - http://www.crowdsourcing.org/editorial/kickstarter-bans-project-renderings-adds-risks-and-challenges-section-/19431


There was a question asking about what Bitcoin-related crowdfunding exists.  The response:

Hey with all this stuff about the S.E.C I read this posts, You said it passed senate? I looked here and it said its has not http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/s2190

It was sent to Committee, that is where most bills die lol.

See photo above where POTUS signed the JOBS Act with the crowdfunding ammendment. 

Getting the laws changed took about three years since they began (ironically, with a plea to raise $1,000 from the crowd to write a proposal to get a change in the laws to occur).

But there were about half a dozen attempts with the same aim, including the attempt to get the crowd to buy the Pabst brewing company ( BuyABeerCompany.com, which the SEC shut down).

Here's a great article on the history:

 - http://www.crowdsourcing.org/editorial/how-crowdfunding-and-the-jobs-act-got-started-told-by-the-guy-behind-the-big-idea/19288/500

I think this S.E.C.  rooting around here might have something to do with this. Says they will not be done with the regulations till 2013 so we might be written in. Bad part about it is we really have no say in what they write.

Technological progress waits for no three-letter agency.

Though not every bit of technological progress slides by without getting tripped up by one.

what the fuck does the bill do? i want 1-3 sentences...

Basically it lowers the bar as to who can get equity funding.  

Some of the projects on KickStarter or IndieGogo would never have passed muster with banks or angel investors, yet when these people put their ideas out there, there were actual potential users around the country and around the world who thought it was a good enough idea to drop $20 or $50 or whatever to see the idea be designed, built and sold.

Today chances of you as an non-established entrepreneur getting funding are much higher if you have wealthy friends or family.  You aren't allowed to put out a sign asking the public to invest in your business.  Even with Crowdfunding made legal, that will still true about the sign but at least you can list your startup with a crowfunding portal which is where your pitch is made.

Instead of needing to persuade a few wealthy investors that your idea will be more profitable than the next guy's idea, instead you can pitch to people like yourself who might uniquely see the same value in what your startup creates.  And they don't have to be wealthy -- they can invest $20 if they want, and can be from anywhere in the country -- not just local investors which nearly all startup funding historically has come from.

saying indiegogo was illegal before this bill?

IndieGogo and KickStarter aren't today giving out equity.  They are donation-based.

But they did introduce this concept of kickbacks to the backer, which usually ends up being a form of pre-selling the product. 

KickStarter is backing away from that model. 

IndieGogo is moving foward as an equity crowdfunding portal.

Both of them though have essentially been enabling crowds to fund companies that might not otherwise have been able to get funding.

they give gifts and props from the sets

Well, it is looking like it doesn't do a whole lot.


 - http://www.cringely.com/2012/11/17/jobs-act-crowdfunding-is-unlikely-to-help-most-startups

And the CROWDFUND act has guaranteed that legal crowdfunding is a stillborn venture.

Tadaaaaa, the magic of government protectionism of existing schemes.

Never gonna work. They'll kill you first. Do you really think that Jones is going to let any of the Negroes in his plantation organize against him?

this is interesting
https://github.com/lockitron/selfstarter (https://github.com/lockitron/selfstarter)

And even what little it does do, it doesn't look like it will be happening anytime soon (nonetheless January 3rd like many were projecting back when President Obama signed the bill in April):



SEC Chair Schapiro to Step Down, Likely Delaying JOBS Act Crowdfunding
 - http://www.crowdsourcing.org/editorial/sec-chair-schapiro-to-step-down-likely-delaying-jobs-act-crowdfunding/21974

[Edit: On a positive note, Bitcoin-enabled equity crowdfunding platforms (none of which are waiting for the SEC rules) are now here and more are  being developed with at least one particularly good implementation arriving real soon now.]

how'd the bill do?

Unfortunately, it will only take one man being caged for running one of these platforms, for the whole Bitcoin equity crowdfunding model to be stillborn.

There needs to be a term for a person who has the audacity to invest as a "non-accredited" investor.

Self-accredited?

Wildcat?

Desparado?

Incidentally, instead of being able to eagerly anticipate the SEC's release of the results of their rulemaking at the beginning of 2013 it appears the exit of SEC Chairman Shapiro will delay by "months - if not a year - until equity crowdfunding can be fully addressed".

 - http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2012/12/13/crowdfunding-expected-to-stall-during.html
 - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324339204578173731988591450.html

someone tell me what this crowdfunding bill meant

BTC0.01 reward

Distraction of the week?

was it signed into law?

Not that I can see. Stalled in house subcommittee, near as I can tell.

There were a lot of facets to the bill.  The ones specific to crowdfunding allow a company to go through a crowdfunding portal to raise capital from non-accredited investors.  Accredited investors are those with significant net work and income (e.g., $1 million net worth, not including a home).

Currently there are a lot of projects raising money through Kickstarter.  There was the hope that the JOBS act would allow that type of project to be launched in which equity in the project would be owned by supporters.  That is not what the JOBS Act will do however.   There still will be a significant up-front investment to be able to offer equity through a crowdfunding portal.   

Exactly what will be required though is still being worked out by the SEC, with the details now delayed until much later this year.

Now we know first-hand both the risks and rewards from equity crowdfunding thanks to the now-defunct GLBSE, and thanks to a few other cyber-equity stock markets.  We know that scammers are attracted to this (e.g. a very long list)but also that incredibly profitable ventures can be the result as well (e.g., ASICMINER and SatoshiDICE).   

But we'll never see these types of exchanges be compliant with U.S. securities law, even after the JOBS act rulemaking is completed

So that doesn't really tell you a whole lot about what the crowdfunding bill is, but it does tell you what it isn't.

It's your thread and so...

>But we'll never see these types of exchanges be compliant with U.S. securities law, even after the JOBS act rulemaking is completed

Why do you think it's inconceivable for a bitcoin exchange to operate in the US?  Until bitcoin is a called a currency it's as simple as getting a money transmitter license and building the software.  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=179147.0


More importantly when is the crowd-funding law going to go into effect?  I've been waiting for a year already.... (damn SEC).

I guess I paint with a wide brush.

One of the allures of a BitFunder, for instance, is that an issuer can register, be listed and complete an IPO in a short amount of time and at little expense.  These factors are nowhere in the list of top 100 priorities for the SEC.    They aren't looking to enable scrappy entrepreneurs.  They are looking to have layers of filters, which is what was more needed before this thing called the Internet enabled individuals to do a halfway decent job of due diligence on their own.

Additionally, one of the allures of investing and trading on an cyber-equities exchange like BitFunder is that accounts are pseudonymous -- so there's no limitation that would restrict investor base to any geographic or jurisdictional boundaries.   There is no way an exchange with anonymous accounts will ever be operating with the SEC's blessing.

What could happen is that an online broker could accept bitcoins as a funding method.  Like e-Trade letting you add funds which are converted to USDs and credited to your account for trading NYSE, NASDAQ and other listed securities.  

fair enough.  but a little registration only gives up a little liberty so Franklin would only be a little unimpressed.  personally i look forward to a day of NASDAQ like crypto currency exchanges.  and with crowdfunding maybe an American exchange can even offer loans to start up entrepreneurs...

so, when will the sec get the rules done?

Getting registered as a MSB is not SIMPLE.   That is probably the problem that most of these USA businesses have.   If you solicit or have customers in a state you must apply, register and report to that state also.   Each state is different.  So you have the federal and 50 side nannies all to approve you.   Then, you must basically have an in house lawyer full time to comply with all the guidelines and SOPs you need to prove you have in place.   I do not think people realize how complicated it is.   Go get a sunday paper and look at some of the financial institution ads and read the disclaimer on what states that product is NOT available in.....   It is not simple nor something a 24 year old can do out of their studio apartment on a whim

you are talking about a barrier to entry, not presenting an impossibility.  in fact you kind of made my point... it's not trivial but it can certainly be done.  and being second to market in the USA is going to be nearly impossible once the first player becomes registered. 

The last thing anything near official said "no earlier than 3Q 2013".   Most in the space have concluded that since there's so little activity on the rulemaking occurring now this simply won't happen in 2013.

What is happening is that they are getting the process meted out using accredited investors and then when the rulings come out these companies in the crowdfunding space then will hopefully only need small changes to be compliant with whatever comes out the SEC's pie hole.

Well, some forward progress.

SEC Clears Way for Entrepreneurs to Tweet, Blog About Unregistered Shares
 - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324694904578597691543313894.html

Next on deck:

awesome, thanks for the update!

Going to be interesting to see how this plays out!

The crowdfunding part of the JOBS act has been nothing but a total waste of time, to-date.

Now there is this:

The Equity Crowdfunding Improvement Act of 2014
 - http://financialservices.house.gov/uploadedfiles/bills-113hr-pih-crwdfnd-m001156.pdf
 - https://www.invigorlaw.com/congressional-committee-contemplating-jobs-act-2-0-to-revive-crowdfunding

Where's the billion dollar website for this soon-to-be corrupt and broken program?

The SEC finished its rulemaking for equity crowdfunding:

 - http://www.sec.gov/news/pressrelease/2015-49.html

 - http://mashable.com/2015/03/25/equity-crowdfunding-sec-vote