never saw an october progress update

september was lucrative

Good that you want to make some statistics but I am wondering what your end goal is. There have been some hilarious mismanagement in cryptocurrency securities but in the broader market most companies fail, so I'm not sure what this analysis will help with.

supposed to be some dividends today to one of my addresses right?

50 @ .72

annnd 796.com is down

I'm looking forward to reading the actual regulations, but the article I read said that people that made less than $100,000/yr could only buy with 5% of their income, that doesn't have to be in USD

Similarly, entities could be made with multiple components to comply with different regulations, hedge funds operate this way. In the master feeder structure there is one entity that is made for US investors, and a different entity that is for non-US investors, as well as an entity acting as the limited partnership... all three of these entities (and more) can be in different jurisdictions.

I'm still mulling it over, officers and directors can simply be addresses, where the bearer of the private key is the officer, but listing these things would be entirely optional

The key perk to enforcement is that everything (asset ownership) could be proven in the blockchain, where liquid assets which were bought have a record of being bought, and  illiquid assets which may have been acquired without payment of bitcoin would still be subject to the contract forming the incorporation and the divided liability of shareholders subject to the contract

practically any court could enforce it because once you set aside the industrial era contract formalities, most courts simply need proof to take a stance on a dispute, and the blockchain provides that

I'm a fan of 796.com

nice, emailed you about my existing 796 account

yes, again with this

I read your argument on why bitcoin and contracts denominated in bitcoin couldn't be regulated, but the securities act of 1933 in and of itself doesn't even attempt to define money, in its definitions, and that test you mentioned is also old and irrelevant case law after pirateat40's case in federal court where he tried to use that argument basically word for word. welcome to 2013

Thats an existing Regulation D exemption, which is valid but reg d also allows for 35 non-accredited investors, and there are also exemptions for issuance sizes.

But there are two issues with this thinking, as it is limited:
1) you are limiting your thought to individual share companies, instead of thinking about the exchanges and other market participants which are encumbered by different SEC regulations which have nothing to do with raising funds
2) regulation D has nothing to do with the sections of both of those laws that I pointed to. the SEC can grant exemptions to ANY SECTION OR REGULATION related to those titles.

we can talk about more specific regulations later

its really the exchanges that are causing problems for everyone. no need to focus only on securities themselves.

btct.co had only 12 million usd in assets listed, even attempting to comply with the relevant securities issuing acts would be an impractical burden.

Should? Its more about the benefit of continuing business as usual, those exchanges still incur liability whether they are on the radar of a securities regulator or not. There will be a lot more liquidity if the United States was not a hostile environment for raising capital, and had some kind of federal gracing while cryptocurrency economies are building infrastructure (which requires raising capital)

Both of those acts have over 2 dozen sections, the exemptions can be for certain parts, while the commission continues to regulate the space

for instance, the commission can exempt certain exchanges from needing to verify that they are issuing to americans or not, that would have avoided the clusterfuck with btct.co and bitfunder

or waiving the licensing requirements for certain persons trading with other people's capital

bitcoin stock exchanges and bitcoin securities issuers are all running afoul of SEC regulations and the law. They don't attempt to comply because of perceived expense of legal counsel and the expense of regulator compliance

reserved

There are plenty of USA exemptions for the issuing size of the companies that have attempted to raise capital in cryptocurrencies. Regulation D has plenty of them.

Yes, the general libertarian-anarchocapitalist air of "government bad, regulation bad" has sliced your portfolios by 60% in the past two months, when instead of working with regulations, issuers and exchanges have used more energy trying to avoid the US regulators.

But even with Regulation D, and even unfinalized regulations on crowdfunding ... the SEC can exempt any person (natural or artificial), any security, or any class of security from any section of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

I've held that nascent technologies like bitcoin require exemptions to avoid the impossible burdens of raising capital or exchanging value in compliance with securities laws. I think it would be more fruitful for Americans and other traders, issuers and people planning to run exchanges with americans, to put energy into courting the SEC, not necessarily for a broad exemption from certain sections of the Securities Act of 1933 or Securities Exchange Act of 1934, but to make it clear to the SEC what the public interest is and how they can still protect consumers without burdening all bitcoin denominated securities issuers with impossible regulations.

see section 28 of the Securities Act of 1933
http://www.sec.gov/about/laws/sa33.pdf

see section 36 of the Securities Act of 1934
http://www.sec.gov/about/laws/sea34.pdf

despite the commissions incestuous ties with a protectionist financial system, the key parts of their exemptive powers come from realizing the public interest, and how it can continue its goal of "protecting consumers"

I am interested in researching the idea stateless incorporation using a blockchain.

The idea being that incorporating within a jurisdiction/municipality is a leftover relic from the industrial era. In the United States there is no way to incorporate at the federal, except by an act of congress on a case by case basis, this is not available to citizens. So a citizen is left to choose a state to incorporate in, as if each state were their own country.

Since shareholders can be determined by an address in a blockchain, why not the official formation of a corporate structure, or any limited liability entity? How would this be done? The utility would be for having a separate entity from an individual, in a future where financial liability can be levied upon an entrepreneur. The address or transaction inputs forming the corporation would act to limit liability according to its charter.

So, my understanding is that this only involves the contract feature set of the blockchain, which I do not fully understand even with this article in the bitcoin wiki https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Contracts

Instead, I guess this could be just a corporate charter developed as messages in one address, signed with transactions or PGP keys in the message? I haven't quite ironed this out, and for stakeholders I'm not clear how they could get to be part of this charter from inception. Having held shares of bitcoin companies, I understand that the necessity of detailing who the stakeholders are at inception is largely a moot point, because value from dividends can just be send out to eligible addresses.

Anyway, I hope someone can help me iron this idea out. For raising capital in a cryptocurrency and doing business in cryptocurrencies or simply holding titles, and collecting value from those titles, this structure can be ideal and cheaper than incorporation in any jurisdiction on the planet.

so Asicminer is working on a blockchain based exchange, and so is ActiveMining

hmm

hasn't asicminer 796 been trading there since august?

yeah I was skeptical at first but I now I'm sure you have no idea what you are talking about for this thread


yes: for bitcoin to have any easier chance of surviving for commerce while its market cap is so low, then it would need exemptions from expensive regulations

no: this has nothing to do with securities or the concerns of the securities regulators

see, we agree

now lets talk about the exchange