Just the Beginning? Tezos Lawsuits Could Open Doors for ICO Litigation

[sheld0n]

While startups launching initial coin offerings (ICOs) may be all too aware they're working in a legal gray area, that might not be enough to stop lawsuits that could test their legality.
At issue is that, although the U.S. agency tasked with enforcing securities law – the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) – has voiced concerns about cryptocurrency tokens (even labeling one a security), it has yet to announce much in the way of formal rules.
Now, following the news that Tezos, one of the largest most visible startups yet to use the ICO funding mechanism, has been hit with two lawsuits, it seems lawyers and litigators are lining up to press the issue, potentially with the aim of a payday in mind.

[dragons_are_secure]

Yes, echoing that this seems to be well worth following to see what happens.  For those that may not have seen it, here's a nice article to summarize the situation:
 https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/tezos-a-cryptocurrency-that-raised-232-million-in-july-is-in-crisis/

 A few quotes from it:
  "The Breitmans promised to build a blockchain with a revolutionary new governance model that would avoid the kind of strife that has plagued the Bitcoin world over the last few years. Instead, Tezos itself has been engulfed in controversy since its fundraiser ended. The couple is locked in a bitter conflict with Johann Gevers, the man they picked to lead the Tezos Foundation.

The big question hanging over the Tezos project is whether its so-called initial coin offering violated US securities laws. Those laws require companies to register with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) before they can offer securities to the public. The lawsuits argue that, legally speaking, the Tezos crowdfunding campaign was a sale of securities, and so the Breitmans broke the law by ignoring SEC rules."
 
  ....

  "But the case could also have broader significance for the cryptocurrency world. Tezos was one of the most successful coin offerings conducted in 2017, but there have been many others like it. Most of them have not registered with the SEC, and others have offered the public tokens on networks that haven't been created yet."

[sinner]

all ICOs should be banning USA people at this point, obviously.. and probably state on your website that the tokens are worthless and that people are buying a dream.

[ValhallaICO]

The SEC is only stepping in when there is obvious fraud, and when there's a bloodbath (DAO).

They will likely watch the Tezos drama play out, and issue findings after that.

ICO's are a gray area, but there's still a lot of good in this space.

SEC will likely issue stronger guidance, and warn people not to screw over US investors. Then nailing a few who ignore that.

But making all ICOs securities would be suicidal for the US economy..... so I expect to see a logical coherent approach from them.

It would likely be very different under Hillary.

[EMS-007]

all ICOs should be banning USA people at this point, obviously.. and probably state on your website that the tokens are worthless and that people are buying a dream.

This is the reason why Utrust never accepted US investors!
This might be a tough issue in between ICOs and SEC regulations!