wait a sec shelby. shouldnt this be the job of the US non-accredited investors to decide what they can or cant do.
Originally I supported this perspective, which also seems to be supported by the actual history of the blueksky laws in the USA: http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2679&context=fss_papersWhat changed my mind is the altcoin arena has turned totally away from any sane decentralized designs to the proof-of-shit/stake designs which are really just MLM investment scams in disguise that prey on the gambling instinct in humans. It is regressing the progress of our technologies, not advancing them. More abstractly, you are essentially arguing that every member of society is an island and can protect him/herself from every threat alone. Shouldn't it be the job of every citizen of a nation to defend themselves against a nuclear bomb using their handgun. The reason the USA protects the little man from his own gambling instinct is because it is known to be an impoverishing addiction that leads to deleterious outcomes for society. Whether it didn't entirely come about for that reason, the public seems to support the regulation of gambling. My more abstract generative essence statement on regulation is as follows. Any market which is not self-regulating, i.e. which is dysfunctional and not behaving as a free market, will end up regulated by special interests. My definition of "free market" is decentralized market. So the reason the altcoin market is not decentralized and is dysfunctional, is because of asymmetric information. The speculators entirely lack the ability to understand the technobabble. They entirely rely on a few "experts" to guide them. And thus the market does not function. It regresses. What a pile of bull shit. Laws related to finances have only one real purpose - to help banksters to keep the current status quo. Of course, lawmakers pretend they work hard to protect us against terrorists/pedophiles/immigrants. There are only few people here who believes them. You don't even comprehend what I wrote. It is far above your abstraction capacity. When markets don't have decentralization (which in this case is centralized due to asymmetric information which is why only accredited or sophisticated investors are allowed because they have more motivation to become informed and have proven they will do their DD), then those effectively centralized markets WILL BE INEVITABLY regulated/captured by special interests. It is an inevitable outcome of the lack of a free market due to centralization (in this case asymmetry of information is a form of centralization of the market). Thus the market can't anneal to productive investment, due to the lack of decentralized decision making (e.g. all the fools rely on the information from a few "experts" who manipulate them). And you forgot to point out that you are one of the special interests who are milking the fools and just as culpable as the banksters you try to deflect their attention to. You are pretending you are the good car salesman and the banksters are the bad car salesmen. Nice one!  You’ll be greeted by a friendly sales person—and if he’s any good at what he does, he’s also personable and disarming.
What follows is a classic episode of the good-cop-bad-cop game with your salesman pretending to be arguing for you. I say pretending because the manager and your salesman work for the same organization, are both on commission, and both stand to benefit from you paying a higher price. They’re on the same side, get it?
This sad comedy plays out several times during the negotiations with the salesman conducting a physically impressive begging routine, while his manager makes exaggerated side to side motions with his face as if to say “definitely not”—all playing out in a corner office with glass walls so you can see the drama unfold inside. Finally, after your salesman has done “all he can”, the manager makes a quick guest appearance to deliver the let-me-give-you-our-bottom-line speech.
|
|
|
|
...
Synereo was launched as a vaporware ICO and the math whiz on the project is Greg Meredith who is into process calculus research and was one of key persons apparently on Microsoft's BizTalk design. Greg is into using Scala and also is collaborating on the math modeling of Ethereum's upcoming, promised Casper design (which btw several of us, excluding smooth, have criticized in the Ethereum Paradox thread for its fundamental insoluble flaws).
You are greatly misinformed here. The technology behind Synereo, Greg's SpecialK, the persistent distributed process calculus machine, had been proven in production for more than two years. They also had the distributed Splicious social networking app prototype of Synereo running on SpecialK. I believe you know all this but continue to repeat that Synereo was vaporware. Why? I've seen something running on Greg's computer screen in Hangout videos. Is that what you mean? If so, how does that exhibit anything that I can significantly verify. Is there a website I can load now and play around with? How many users are on that social network now? Greg work in process calculus leading BizTalk was also a bases for business process orchestration standards including BPEL, the workhorse of Service Oriented Architecture (SOA) used by enterprises today. Greg disowned BPEL when it deviated from his model limiting its application. But that its the best thing out there we owe in no small party to Greg.
I have no idea what that does and how it has been used. I can't find concise explanations of the use cases and technology. Seems all like technobabble to me and I am reasonably astute in technology. Greg work on Casper with Ethereum is the tip of the iceberg of the blockchain research Greg is doing. He has devised architecture capable of thousands of transactions per second. He is leading an evolution of the blockchain that is scalable, objectively fair, incorruptible and mathematically proven. Watch the hangouts, they are awesome. Synereo is blockchain agnostic and it is not planned to have its own blockchain initially, the point of the research is that synereo is guarenteed to scale and will be able to offer blockchain innovations to users in the future.
Ah more technobabble. I already listened to several Hangouts and it was always handwaving. Let him write a technical paper that I and other mere mortals can understand. He hasn't done that. Privacy is important to many who would rather not use facebook who will insist their contacts use a private decentralized system nobody owns or controls.
Bwahahaha.  Many users do not want a user experience that is dictated to them without the opportunity to branch their own. Many do not want others to control their streams.
Customization is a potential compelling feature. But you've still got to hurdle the chicken-or-egg dilemma of users not using a social network where their contacts aren't already there. They need a compelling reason to use even if their contacts aren't there. If everything was spelled out completely in the original whitepaper they would have had it already and not need any funding. The whitepaper spells out sufficient justification for the approach, not every detail. You are asking for a book, not a whitepaper.
That sort of funding is best raised in an ongoing crowdfunding (not for tokens) and/or private investing from angel investors. By publicly offering an investment security, there will be more demands to make full disclosures. If you are suggesting that the average person does not understand what synereo is doing, that's very true. Its quite abstract and the average person or investor isn't going to see the real value it offers without a lot of research and theoretical mathematics. Dumbing it down is one of Synereo's major initiatives currently along with autonomous governance, UX design, etc. It's a BIG job but the community is committed and additional funding opportunities are presenting themselves.
You just admitted that this is technobabble being sold as an investment security (you even mentioned the price going down so you are insinuating it is for investment). Not good. You could get Synereo in legal trouble by admitting that. Precisely my point is don't go selling investment securities to people they can't understand. It you have been following the hangouts or Gregs posts you should know the #tag or "filter" does control perceived REO. A religious evangelist, for example might have high REO with respect to his community, but not mine, due to my #filters. Filters are #hashtags on steroids!.
Good, but again generalized statements/goals are not verifiable technology specifications. In the Synereo model, @channel are addresses representing bi-directional channels, while #filters are composable general formal social contracts in a language of decentralized mobile communicating process calculus consisting of only @'s (objects) and #'s (code). Once you see the whole picture is is gorgeous. Everything is type safe and algorithmically verifiable. Program behaviour is formally provable Greg is willing to answer anyone's questions. Don't give up on synerio because it is not one of those shallow ideas that generate a lot of excitement but have no meat behind them.
I have no idea what is provable and what is gameable. I don't trust his magic wand technobabble. It needs peer review. He needs to be able to teach the math to all of us in a way we can reason about it ourself and verify if it is gameable or not. I don't have time to go learn all the foundational research on process calculi. But, I think you know most of this so I really wonder what your motivation is to disparage synereo. You appear to agree with my arguments and then seem to ignore them. If your point is that synereo will not succeed by tomorrow you are correct. The beta will not be for three months. Adoption may start slow but I anticipate exponential growth. Resistance is futile :-p
You need not war with synereo, but thanks for keeping the AMP price low.
<snip>
Have I not explained my stance now? |
|
|
|
You need a Nash equilibrium for security aspects, but you also need one for adoption. If someone premines the entire coin and has the market cornered by design on day one, there's zero incentive for anyone to adopt it when the issuer and his cronies have such advantage over everyone else. You're just replicating central banking except the value of central banking units is derived through coercion, and without it, it would have no value.
Which is precisely why it can't become a "value transfer system" where that is supposed to mean a currency and unit-of-exchange, and not a transfer of value from gamblers and fools to snakeoiltechnocoolbabble salesmen. |
|
|
|
An example of one of my several correct predictions on ETH: Is that the reason that the Ethereum price rises recently?
No sorry I caused that: On the non-logarithm scaled chart, Ethereum broke down through the February pump support, and the next support is from the January support line which currently extends to about 0.0164 BTC ≈ $7: https://dc-charts.com/chart_eth.php?ex=16&cu=0&tz=6&ar=1On the logarithm scaled chart, Ethereum broken down through all support lines and there is no support. If it breaks below roughly $8.50, then next uptrend support line is at roughly $7. The next support would be at roughly $6. If below that, there is no support and it would collapse.
Slow rate of collapse might be short covering.
|
|
|
|
Is that the reason that the Ethereum price rises recently?
No sorry I caused that: On the non-logarithm scaled chart, Ethereum broke down through the February pump support, and the next support is from the January support line which currently extends to about 0.0164 BTC ≈ $7: https://dc-charts.com/chart_eth.php?ex=16&cu=0&tz=6&ar=1On the logarithm scaled chart, Ethereum broken down through all support lines and there is no support. If it breaks below roughly $8.50, then next uptrend support line is at roughly $7. The next support would be at roughly $6. If below that, there is no support and it would collapse.
Slow rate of collapse might be short covering.
|
|
|
|
wait a sec shelby. shouldnt this be the job of the US non-accredited investors to decide what they can or cant do.
Originally I supported this perspective, which also seems to be supported by the actual history of the blueksky laws in the USA: http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2679&context=fss_papersWhat changed my mind is the altcoin arena has turned totally away from any sane decentralized designs to the proof-of-shit/stake designs which are really just MLM investment scams in disguise that prey on the gambling instinct in humans. It is regressing the progress of our technologies, not advancing them. More abstractly, you are essentially arguing that every member of society is an island and can protect him/herself from every threat alone. Shouldn't it be the job of every citizen of a nation to defend themselves against a nuclear bomb using their handgun. The reason the USA protects the little man from his own gambling instinct is because it is known to be an impoverishing addiction that leads to deleterious outcomes for society. Whether it didn't entirely come about for that reason, the public seems to support the regulation of gambling. My more abstract generative essence statement on regulation is as follows. Any market which is not self-regulating, i.e. which is dysfunctional and not behaving as a free market, will end up regulated by special interests. My definition of "free market" is decentralized market. So the reason the altcoin market is not decentralized and is dysfunctional, is because of asymmetric information. The speculators entirely lack the ability to understand the technobabble. They entirely rely on a few "experts" to guide them. And thus the market does not function. It regresses.
You need a Nash equilibrium for security aspects, but you also need one for adoption. If someone premines the entire coin and has the market cornered by design on day one, there's zero incentive for anyone to adopt it when the issuer and his cronies have such advantage over everyone else. You're just replicating central banking except the value of central banking units is derived through coercion, and without it, it would have no value.
Which is precisely why it can't become a "value transfer system" where that is supposed to mean a currency and unit-of-exchange, and not a transfer of value from gamblers and fools to snakeoiltechnocoolbabble salesmen. |
|
|
|
wait a sec shelby. shouldnt this be the job of the US non-accredited investors to decide what they can or cant do.
Originally I supported this perspective, which also seems to be supported by the actual history of the blueksky laws in the USA: http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2679&context=fss_papersWhat changed my mind is the altcoin arena has turned totally away from any sane decentralized designs to the proof-of-shit/stake designs which are really just MLM investment scams in disguise that prey on the gambling instinct in humans. It is regressing the progress of our technologies, not advancing them. More abstractly, you are essentially arguing that every member of society is an island and can protect him/herself from every threat alone. Shouldn't it be the job of every citizen of a nation to defend themselves against a nuclear bomb using their handgun. The reason the USA protects the little man from his own gambling instinct is because it is known to be an impoverishing addiction that leads to deleterious outcomes for society. Whether it didn't entirely come about for that reason, the public seems to support the regulation of gambling. My more abstract generative essence statement on regulation is as follows. Any market which is not self-regulating, i.e. which is dysfunctional and not behaving as a free market, will end up regulated by special interests. My definition of "free market" is decentralized market. So the reason the altcoin market is not decentralized and is dysfunctional, is because of asymmetric information. The speculators entirely lack the ability to understand the technobabble. They entirely rely on a few "experts" to guide them. And thus the market does not function. It regresses.
You need a Nash equilibrium for security aspects, but you also need one for adoption. If someone premines the entire coin and has the market cornered by design on day one, there's zero incentive for anyone to adopt it when the issuer and his cronies have such advantage over everyone else. You're just replicating central banking except the value of central banking units is derived through coercion, and without it, it would have no value.
Which is precisely why it can't become a "value transfer system" where that is supposed to mean a currency and unit-of-exchange, and not a transfer of value from gamblers and fools to snakeoiltechnocoolbabble salesmen. |
|
|
|
wait a sec shelby. shouldnt this be the job of the US non-accredited investors to decide what they can or cant do.
Originally I supported this perspective, which also seems to be supported by the actual history of the blueksky laws in the USA: http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2679&context=fss_papersWhat changed my mind is the altcoin arena has turned totally away from any sane decentralized designs to the proof-of-shit/stake designs which are really just MLM investment scams in disguise that prey on the gambling instinct in humans. It is regressing the progress of our technologies, not advancing them. More abstractly, you are essentially arguing that every member of society is an island and can protect him/herself from every threat alone. Shouldn't it be the job of every citizen of a nation to defend themselves against a nuclear bomb using their handgun. The reason the USA protects the little man from his own gambling instinct is because it is known to be an impoverishing addiction that leads to deleterious outcomes for society. Whether it didn't entirely come about for that reason, the public seems to support the regulation of gambling. My more abstract generative essence statement on regulation is as follows. Any market which is not self-regulating, i.e. which is dysfunctional and not behaving as a free market, will end up regulated by special interests. My definition of "free market" is decentralized market. So the reason the altcoin market is not decentralized and is dysfunctional, is because of asymmetric information. The speculators entirely lack the ability to understand the technobabble. They entirely rely on a few "experts" to guide them. And thus the market does not function. It regresses. |
|
|
|
|
I voted "No" because I want to believe the Waves' lead Sasha is sincere inspite of my points that I think selling an ICO is normally illegal (e.g. if not blacklisting non-accredited USA investors).
However I also think he is trying to get the money from the ICO, so although I don't think it is only/just a money grab, I do think it is a money grab more than it is a serious attempt to achieve all the goals. I believe he would like to hire some devs and achieve the goals but I don't think he will achieve the goals.
So I almost voted yes, except for the word "just" (i.e. 'only') in the poll question.
|
|
|
|
Heh, this BS is still going?
Anyone can again explain what the hell is rimbit? What sauce u would use on that?
Quoted. |
|
|
|
Thanks for posting the YouTube link man, much appreciated! There seems to be a lot of FUD going around so everything that helps clarify is great! Sasha Ivanov claims that Ethereum's scaling problem will be solved, yet we have explained in the Ethereum Paradox thread that it can't be solved and remain decentralized. Either he failed to omit the detail that the only solution is centralization, he is disingenuous, or he isn't that well tuned in to the technology. Which is it? Is he a programmer? A great programmer? What is his history as a programmer? What is his age? |
|
|
|
Thanks for posting the YouTube link man, much appreciated! There seems to be a lot of FUD going around so everything that helps clarify is great! Sasha Ivanov claims that Ethereum's scaling problem will be solved, yet we have explained in the Ethereum Paradox thread that it can't be solved and remain decentralized. Either he failed to omit the detail that the only solution is centralization, he is disingenuous, or he isn't that well tuned in to the technology. Which is it? Is he a programmer? A great programmer? What is his history as a programmer? What is his age? |
|
|
|
You're a troll and you know it  How so? Hey I am genuinely trying to launch a "value transfer system". So I think I know the difference between selling tokens versus creating a "value transfer system". What is your rationalization that what you are pre-selling is primarily a currency and not a primarily a speculation  I mean come on, just give me one reasonable argument. Isn't it obvious that you are no where near having a currency, but do have many pumpers running around this forum with a Waves banner on their signature. You can sell an ICO legally I presume. One thing you could have done is get a lawyer and have him advise, e.g. blacklisting USA non-accredited investors. |
|
|
|
I am guessing that Rimbit has argued to Indiegogo that they are giving contributors tokens in a "value transfer system" and thus arguing those are not investment securities. I would like to refute that as follows. ICO is not illegal, it's just crowdfunding. If you do some projections about future profits this is illegal.
Actually when you do ICO you're selling a product - token in a value transfer system.
That is sort of what I originally thought, but then I realized I was wrong. The Supreme Court has said it will look past all obfuscations to the economic reality of whether the n00b investors were basing their expectations of future profit on the future actions of the centralized party issuing the tokens and developing the enterprise which the investors are investing in. Realize I am doing you a big favor. Cancel the ICO immediately and keep yourself out of trouble. Stay focused on being a developer and not involve yourself in this legal tarpit. Where is the "value transfer system"? I see only tokens sold to speculators hoping to make a profit on the rise in exchange price on a few centralized exchanges populated only by speculators. Afaik, the Waves product isn't even ready to ship to actual users of a "value transfer system", how could it be a value transfer system. The tokens were not distributed for use as a currency. There is no significant use of the tokens for exchanging value for any purpose other than speculation on the price of the tokens. One way to make it even less dubious, is don't sell the tokens to the adopters of the "value transfer system" so that they don't need to be speculators to justify obtaining the tokens. I've started reading your post (the first page), and the related one with the votes. I think I understand what you mean by illegal, correct me if im wrong, You say that ICO's can be illegal if their tokens are ecosystem related or not, and if their buying price is significant or not. actually I voted for option 4, stating its illegal only if its a significant cost without use in the coin's ecosystem. But since this entire market is still unregulated, and maybe it cant be.. yet. So if there's no law about it. its neither legal nor illegal. Thanks and have a nice weekend btw Thanks agreed happy we cooled it down. Same to you. Your understanding appears to be entirely off in an incorrect direction. It doesn't have anything to do with the coin's ecosystem afaics. Rather it all hinges on whether the n00b investors are basing their expectations of future profit on the future actions of a centralized entity (i.e. the issuers of the ICO and the developers). That is what 'security' means, i.e the centralized entity is 'securing' your future profit. Note I originally started that linked discussion thinking that one could do an ICO as long as they did not use that raised money in the enterprise of making the project ongoing and if they gave up managerial control. 2112 was more knowledgeable about the law and was steering me to the Howey test so I could learn that I was incorrect. So I actually started out ignorant. As I studied the issue more in depth, I realized that just about any ICO sold to "unsophisticated, non-accredited" (<-- legal terms with definitions) USA investors is ostensibly illegal and the issuers of the ICO (and potentially also the accomplice promoters) are subject to SEC action even if they are foreign entities. The test that is applied to determine whether an investment vehicle is a regulated investment security under USA law, is known as the Supreme Court's Howey test. In the thread I linked for you, the requirements of the test are discussed in great detail. I suggest reading the entire thread so you don't miss any of the nuanced points. |
|
|
|
ICO is not illegal, it's just crowdfunding. If you do some projections about future profits this is illegal.
Actually when you do ICO you're selling a product - token in a value transfer system.
That is sort of what I originally thought, but then I realized I was wrong. The Supreme Court has said it will look past all obfuscations to the economic reality of whether the n00b investors were basing their expectations of future profit on the future actions of the centralized party issuing the tokens and developing the enterprise which the investors are investing in. Realize I am doing you a big favor. Cancel the ICO immediately and keep yourself out of trouble. Stay focused on being a developer and not involve yourself in this legal tarpit. Where is the "value transfer system"? I see only tokens sold to speculators hoping to make a profit on the rise in exchange price on a few centralized exchanges populated only by speculators. Afaik, the Waves product isn't even ready to ship to actual users of a "value transfer system", how could it be a value transfer system. The tokens were not distributed for use as a currency. There is no significant use of the tokens for exchanging value for any purpose other than speculation on the price of the tokens. One way to make it even less dubious, is don't sell the tokens to the adopters of the "value transfer system" so that they don't need to be speculators to justify obtaining the tokens. You're a troll and you know it How so? Hey I am genuinely trying to launch a "value transfer system". So I think I know the difference between selling tokens versus creating a "value transfer system". What is your rationalization that what you are pre-selling is primarily a currency and not a primarily a speculation I mean come on, just give me one reasonable argument. Isn't it obvious that you are no where near having a currency, but do have many pumpers running around this forum with a Waves banner on their signature. You can sell an ICO legally I presume. One thing you could have done is get a lawyer and have him advise, e.g. blacklisting USA non-accredited investors. |
|
|
|
ICO is not illegal, it's just crowdfunding. If you do some projections about future profits this is illegal.
Actually when you do ICO you're selling a product - token in a value transfer system.
That is sort of what I originally thought, but then I realized I was wrong. The Supreme Court has said it will look past all obfuscations to the economic reality of whether the n00b investors were basing their expectations of future profit on the future actions of the centralized party issuing the tokens and developing the enterprise which the investors are investing in. Realize I am doing you a big favor. Cancel the ICO immediately and keep yourself out of trouble. Stay focused on being a developer and not involve yourself in this legal tarpit. Where is the "value transfer system"? I see only tokens sold to speculators hoping to make a profit on the rise in exchange price on a few centralized exchanges populated only by speculators. Afaik, the Waves product isn't even ready to ship to actual users of a "value transfer system", how could it be a value transfer system. The tokens were not distributed for use as a currency. There is no significant use of the tokens for exchanging value for any purpose other than speculation on the price of the tokens. One way to make it even less dubious, is don't sell the tokens to the adopters of the "value transfer system" so that they don't need to be speculators to justify obtaining the tokens. |
|
|
|
In german law there is the concept of "unterlassene Hilfeleistung", "failure to render assistance". You areI am culpable of not doing everything in yourmy power to save those poor new investors, which makes youme a culprit/co-conspirator as well. Up to 5 years in prison in Germany, don`t take that lightly ("Nichtanzeige geplanter Straftaten"; § 138 of german penal law).
ftfy I don't live in Germany. We have no such law in the USA. Do you enjoy incriminating yourself. Poor USA. How can the "society" turn a blind eye on the vicious people witnessing severe crimes without helping? I can`t see the crimes, so I have no reason to go to the police and I am confident that a judge would believe me. But you and smooth are sooooooooooooooooooooooooo sure about ongoing crimes you are witnessing for 2 years and you STILL do nothing to stop it. GO. TO. THE. POLICE. Fast. Quoted for your government's future investigations. In addition to your boastful defiance of USA law and I suspect international treaties of the G20 to mutually enforce each other's laws, you may have an even bigger problem. Apparently you may be promoting and condoning what may be illegal actions under German securities law: http://uk.practicallaw.com/1-501-2097#a165703 (pay attention to the "open market" case) http://uk.practicallaw.com/1-501-2097#a376738 |
|
|
|
In german law there is the concept of "unterlassene Hilfeleistung", "failure to render assistance". You areI am culpable of not doing everything in yourmy power to save those poor new investors, which makes youme a culprit/co-conspirator as well. Up to 5 years in prison in Germany, don`t take that lightly ("Nichtanzeige geplanter Straftaten"; § 138 of german penal law).
ftfy I don't live in Germany. We have no such law in the USA. Do you enjoy incriminating yourself. |
|
|
|
In this case it seems possible that the end-product can be marketed to banks or finance business even if the kickstarter part was funded by a non-(US)compliant funding. Can still pass as a grey area.
I agree with you that it is possible, but it would require that the platform be extremely compelling. Only in that instance will banks and other conservative, often heavily-regulated business touch anything in a gray area. We've seen how they have been very reluctant to get involved with Bitcoin, for example. It hasn't prevented a few trailblazers from venturing into that gray area, but only once Bitcoin reached a relatively enormous size and impact (relative to the apparent prospects of new crypto projects, not relative to conventional finance). And even if that is the outcome, the banks don't need the tokens and its questionable history. They need only the open source code and the developers who know how to code on it. So again the developers and insiders get everything and the foolish n00b token investors get an empty bag. |
|
|
|
I just want you to be consistent and go the authorities if you think you are witnessing such tremendous crimes.
In my (german) society there is the concept of "unterlassene Hilfeleistung" which google translates as "failure to render assistance", which is a crime in itself where I come from. To me you are guilty of either that or of hypocrisy.
I am rendering assistance with all my research here. You have no right to compel me to force the SEC to do something, which I don't have the power to force them to do. That is entirely disingenuous. You are playing a game here. Re-read my prior post; I added another example of your disingenuous tactics. In german law there is the concept of "unterlassene Hilfeleistung", "failure to render assistance". You areI am culpable of not doing everything in yourmy power to save those poor new investors, which makes youme a culprit/co-conspirator as well. Up to 5 years in prison in Germany, don`t take that lightly ("Nichtanzeige geplanter Straftaten"; § 138 of german penal law).
ftfy I don't live in Germany. We have no such law in the USA. Do you enjoy incriminating yourself.
In german law there is the concept of "unterlassene Hilfeleistung", "failure to render assistance". You areI am culpable of not doing everything in yourmy power to save those poor new investors, which makes youme a culprit/co-conspirator as well. Up to 5 years in prison in Germany, don`t take that lightly ("Nichtanzeige geplanter Straftaten"; § 138 of german penal law).
ftfy I don't live in Germany. We have no such law in the USA. Do you enjoy incriminating yourself. Poor USA. How can the "society" turn a blind eye on the vicious people witnessing severe crimes without helping? I can`t see the crimes, so I have no reason to go to the police and I am confident that a judge would believe me. But you and smooth are sooooooooooooooooooooooooo sure about ongoing crimes you are witnessing for 2 years and you STILL do nothing to stop it. GO. TO. THE. POLICE. Fast. Quoted for your government's future investigations. In addition to your boastful defiance of USA law and I suspect international treaties of the G20 to mutually enforce each other's laws, you may have an even bigger problem. Apparently you may be promoting and condoning what may be illegal actions under German securities law: http://uk.practicallaw.com/1-501-2097#a165703 (pay attention to the "open market" case) http://uk.practicallaw.com/1-501-2097#a376738 |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
