I guess the first question would be how do you ensure the securities being exchanged are compliant. At the very least they would have to be registered (or fall under one the exemption rules, but not many would be applicable AFAICS). IMHO, the issuers of these securities run a greater legal risk than the operator of the exchange.

Maybe something can be done in the framework of this new crowd funding legislation, but i havent read up on it yet.

Yeah its all pretty meaningless isnt. Two bitcoin stock exchanges were forced closed so far, at least one of which after consulting with lawyers, the biggest asset issuer on that exchange (giga vps) got legal counsel that concluded he couldn't legally continue the way he did,  the law clearly states these bitcoin denominated assets are securities, the SEC explicitly states it, its upheld in court now (and if you like being pedantic by ALL judges in ALL bitcoin security related cases Im aware off), but somehow it just isnt true because Ytterbium, Ytterbium & Associates thinks it isnt or it shouldnt be.

Welcome to my ignore list.

If you trusted me with a few million dollars in irreversible and pseudonymous currency, then that fact should worry you a little bit indeed.
But you didnt.

Ok fine, but do I get this right that we dont know who theswede is IRL and that theswede may well not know for sure who labcoin is IRL ? And no one else knows who labcoin is?

Are you saying he doesnt control the IPO bitcoins? And that not only we have no frigging idea who does, but quite possibly, even the "spokesperson" doesnt ?

Asicminer model would be one way, another would be gigamining. The latter having the advantage of being legal (afaik), at the cost of losing anonymity and liquidity.
Anyway, it would be good to think about it before its needed.


Yeah, hurry before it gets closed too

Then its a good thing we all know the RL identity of theswede and where his business is incorporated and were his datacenter is, right?
I mean, we do know that, dont we?

maskset doesnt have anything to do with it being structured asic, standard cell, or full custom. You need a mask set for each of them.

AFAIK, VMC are using easic nextreme 3, which is much like a structured asic. Upsides are lower NRE and faster time to market. Downsides are worse performance/power efficiency and higher per unit costs.

In the current market situation that seems like a good tradeoff. NRE for 28nm full custom is astronomical and time to market is everything, just 2 or 3 months could make the difference between earning a small fortune and making a loss.

In the long run, those chips wont be able to compete with cheaper to produce, and more efficient asics, but by that time, when prices have dropped that low, as a potential buyer today, either you will have made your profit or you never will.

This would be a good time to think of what to do when BF also closes down, because its only a matter of time IMO.

Doesnt sound like you or your lawyers are very confident (nor do I think you should be).
Im not giving it 6 months.

There has already been a ruling which is more relevant to the current situation than whether or not pirate misled its investors and ran a ponzi (that is what is yet to be proven, but no one seriously doubts the outcome):

Shavers argues that the BTCST investments are not securities because Bitcoin is not money, and is not part of anything regulated by the United States
So Shavers essentially tried to say that Bitcoin is a bauble and that he was taking in digital points and giving out digital points that had no real world value. The prosecutors at the SEC disagree, arguing that Bitcoins “are both investment contracts and notes, and, thus, are securities.”
..
the judge sided with the SEC, giving Bitcoin his stamp of approval as real world money.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2013/08/07/federal-judge-rules-bitcoin-is-real-money/

Thats your "EVE defense" shot down right there in a legal precedent.  If that applies to BTCST, I dont really see how you think its not going to apply to all the other instruments on BF/BTCT.

I havent read such a ruling yet about EVE, but I wouldnt even bet that we never will.


Does it matter where the site is hosted, where the operator lives, or where the business is being conducted? Similar regulations exist all over the world too.
Moreover, many of the asset issuers are in the US.

Not really, beyond reading the relevant act and following the pirate case. IANAL.


Id say most, if not all of them do. And it only takes one to give you serious problems.


I have no doubt. Thats why I am curious to hear what makes you or your lawyers think you would or could be in compliance and what is different between GLSBE, BTCT and bitfunder. Its a serious question.

Pirate tried that defense too, see how far that got him.
I dont play eve, so I dont know, there may well be legal issues, but the securities being traded on BF/BTCT relate directly to real world companies and operations, and non trivial ones for that. I dont see much grey zone to hide in.

Well, the US securities act seems pretty clear cut to me, that all those "shares" are unregistered securities. How does working with lawfirms change that, or are they telling you something else?


 

Let me guess, no one even knows their real names and addresses?

No, but its doesnt solve anything for anyone either.

Bitfury is shipping now, KnC expects to ship any moment now. Its only logical that anyone shipping a few months later will have better price/GH.

That said, Im pretty sure VMC/Activeminer is no scam and their published partnership with easic makes their claims pretty credible. If you manage to understand their product line and feel like that kind of hashpower/$ will be profitable in december or january, go for it.
I wouldnt, but hey, I wouldnt order any asic.

IANAL but just moving the website probably isnt going to be enough, as long as its accessible to (among others) US customers.
Moreover the asset issuers based in just about any industrialized country would still be breaking the law by issuing unregulated securities.

Can you point me to somewhere where I can find out more about this, what you have done and why think BF would not be violating security trade legistlation ?

Really. I have a weird feeling it will also be closing down soon.