Got off the phone with the Guy from the S.E.C

[pyrkne]

No offense to BitcoinINV, but I would prefer that information about bitcoin that will be used IN COURT is not provided by random forum users.

In addition, please do not inadvertently link BFL to pirate's scam.  BFL has not violated an SEC regulations as far as I know.

The thing about BFL sort of came out of the blue.

~pyotr

[MrTeal]

No offense to BitcoinINV, but I would prefer that information about bitcoin that will be used IN COURT is not provided by random forum users.

In addition, please do not inadvertently link BFL to pirate's scam.  BFL has not violated an SEC regulations as far as I know.

QFT. There are some valid concerns about BFL, but trying to get them shut down or cause them issues for no reason doesn't help anyone.

BitcoinINV runs a GPU farm based GLBSE asset (ironically more at odds with the SEC than BFL is) and would benefit from the government hassling BFL.  In fact, he would only benefit if BFL is not a scam but the government hassles them anyway, as if BFL is a scam an investigation would not change the availability of ASIC devices.

Temporarily at least. There's other ASICs in the pipe that would end up eating his lunch anyway.

[MPOE-PR]

I don't think posts implying that GLBSE has not been legitimate in the past are going to be helpful to any investigation of its activity.

Depends what you mean by helpful. If you mean "help conceal the facts of the matter", then no. Otherwise, yes.

[beekeeper]

Lol, so whats the relationship between Pirate thing and BLF?

[malevolent]

I must admit this is sad that the Internet is not decentralized enough to prevent such moves. TLD .com is managed by Verisign which is based in US, therefore it would be prudent to move GLBSE onto a different TLD, with a registrar and the TLD registry based in some liberal place.

It would be prudent for all Bitcoin services which do not require a physical nexus or an interface with the legacy banking system to operate anonymously on Tor like Silk Road does to insulate them from future changes in the law and/or extra-legal regulatory harassment.

True, but then again they are cutting themselves from a big portion of customers who never heard of / used TOR.

[Shadow383]

No offense to BitcoinINV, but I would prefer that information about bitcoin that will be used IN COURT is not provided by random forum users.

In addition, please do not inadvertently link BFL to pirate's scam.  BFL has not violated an SEC regulations as far as I know.

QFT. There are some valid concerns about BFL, but trying to get them shut down or cause them issues for no reason doesn't help anyone.

BitcoinINV runs a GPU farm based GLBSE asset (ironically more at odds with the SEC than BFL is) and would benefit from the government hassling BFL.  In fact, he would only benefit if BFL is not a scam but the government hassles them anyway, as if BFL is a scam an investigation would not change the availability of ASIC devices.

Temporarily at least. There's other ASICs in the pipe that would end up eating his lunch anyway.

The guy has a few Single SCs on order (4 I think), so he should probably avoid screwing over BFL...

[tvbcof]

Lol, so whats the relationship between Pirate thing and BLF?

They both netted a pretty good haul.  That's the way I see it anyway at the time of this writing.

Put another way: 'subscribing'.

[tbcoin]

BFL????what need is there to fuck BFL with SEC?

[HDSolar]

Sorry, I did not see this but here is what I don't understand (also I would like to know if anyone here has taken the Series 7 exam) how can SEC be involved in this problem both for pirate and BFL.  Securities Exchange Commission deals with registered securities so who registered with them from either group?  Companies such as BFL become state problems in which they are legal entities for and same with any pirate ventures as well.  As for GLBSE again did they register as a US entity and trade company securities and not bitcoin developed or funded properties.  Again SEC would work with the state the company was established in and they also not discuss the status of an individual who is under criminal investigation.  

Basically if an SEC agent did call which could happen it is someone trying to make a name for themselves.  Any SEC investigation will yield nothing but if you wanted to have teeth in this I would have been worried if you said Secret Service since they handle currency issues which Bitcoin does that since it used to transfer funds arround the world.  

As for BFL not sure why SEC would care since they are a privately held company but if that is not the case let me know so I can get some stock or bonds.  

We use the terms stocks and bonds but that does not mean that SEC has jurisdiction over them since it is not a registered or recognized instrument.  If that was the case, the next bogus coupon you see or even coupon managment at the grocery would fall under SEC if we follow this train of thought.  I really don't want to get broker dealer license just to by some milk but maybe you do.

Enjoy and yes I do have a finance background and I have worked with the SEC.  

[Dalkore]

No offense to BitcoinINV, but I would prefer that information about bitcoin that will be used IN COURT is not provided by random forum users.

In addition, please do not inadvertently link BFL to pirate's scam.  BFL has not violated an SEC regulations as far as I know.

People turning State's evidence in ...3....2......1.....NOW!


This is some serious s**t people.   Sure we let of bankers that commit fraud with Billions but they are most likely just looking for an excuse to come down hard on our alternative.   This is why I was going after all the illegal businesses that were trying to IPO through this forum months back.   It was only a matter of time.


In closing THINK ABOUT THIS:    Pirate going to prison?   Maybe on a reduced sentence.   You think he might not of already turned State's evidence and is spilling his beans right now?   While everyone was fawning over him, they most likely thought he was a friend and told him many many things that they thought would never come out because he was their buddy and they were in the cool kids cliche.  

[HDSolar]

GLBSE is based in the UK and is subject to regulation by the  Financial Services Authority (FSA), we are in the process of becoming a registered company that meets all conditions to carry on business.

We have not been contacted by the SEC and are not subject to SEC regulation.

Nefario.

How can GLBSE be under FSA?  Won't that be an issue once you are a registerd company?  I agree with you on SEC.  Just asking because I have had little involvement with FSA but I understood that they followed the same views as the SEC when it comes to companies that their ownership is traded, public or private.

[Puppet]

 Securities Exchange Commission deals with registered securities so who registered with them from either group?  

Did zeek offer registered securities?
Its a rhetorical question, but to be sure, I just googled it, and found this:

According to the SEC’s complaint filed in federal court in Charlotte, N.C., customers were offered several ways to earn money through the ZeekRewards program, two of which involved purchasing securities in the form of investment contracts. These securities offerings were not registered with the SEC as required under the federal securities laws.

http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2012/2012-160.htm

[HDSolar]

No offense to BitcoinINV, but I would prefer that information about bitcoin that will be used IN COURT is not provided by random forum users.

In addition, please do not inadvertently link BFL to pirate's scam.  BFL has not violated an SEC regulations as far as I know.

To add if BFL did violated an SEC regulation please tell, I can't figure that one out. 

[Dalkore]

"Information should ideally be provided by xxxxxx or PPT operators' lawyers.  If not lawyers, then at least knowledgable and respected forum members."

I would like to point out some of these "respected members" turns out to be people involved in not so great business ventures that have caused a lot of heart ache on this board from reading through many posts.   For the record, I am not referring to the member in the redacted text, that person was just name dropped.  

BFL:  I hope there is no connection behind the scenes of Pirate and BFL, that would throw us all for a loop.  We really need to get an official list from the OP on exactly what questions where asked and what he replied to the best of his knowledge.  

[HDSolar]

No offense to BitcoinINV, but I would prefer that information about bitcoin that will be used IN COURT is not provided by random forum users.

In addition, please do not inadvertently link BFL to pirate's scam.  BFL has not violated an SEC regulations as far as I know.

To add if BFL did violated an SEC regulation please tell, I can't figure that one out. 

Ok, well that explains the pirate approach but SEC is going to have a problem with connecting BFL.  Again this sounds like an SEC agent trying to make a case to make a name. 

This whole discussion is sad and short sided.  Pirate sucks we all know that but I would think we all support bitcoin or somthing like it but if you want to see it end keep poking the bear.  Washington will come down on this whole thing so fast and we can go back to business as normal.

[MPOE-PR]

Again this sounds like an SEC agent trying to make a case to make a name. 

Dude lay off whatever you think you've gleaned by watching half-hour tv shows. The guy involved (Philip Moustakis) is already senior, has a name and so forth.

[thebaron]

No offense to BitcoinINV, but I would prefer that information about bitcoin that will be used IN COURT is not provided by random forum users.

In addition, please do not inadvertently link BFL to pirate's scam.  BFL has not violated an SEC regulations as far as I know.

To add if BFL did violated an SEC regulation please tell, I can't figure that one out. 

They didn't, hence why the agent told the OP to contact the FTC and his state AG.

http://business.ftc.gov/documents/alt051-selling-internet-prompt-delivery-rules

"By law, you must have a reasonable basis for stating that a product can be shipped within a certain time. If your advertising doesn't clearly and prominently state the shipment period, you must have a reasonable basis for believing that you can ship within 30 days.

If you can't ship within the promised time (or within 30 days if you made no promise), you must notify the customer of the delay, provide a revised shipment date and explain his right to cancel and get a full and prompt refund.

For definite delays of up to 30 days, you may treat the customer's silence as agreeing to the delay. But for longer or indefinite delays - and second and subsequent delays - you must get the customer's written, electronic or verbal consent to the delay. If the customer doesn't give you his okay, you must promptly refund all the money the customer paid you without being asked by the customer.

Finally, you have the right to cancel orders that you can't fill in a timely manner, but you must promptly notify the customer of your decision and make a prompt refund."

[greyhawk]

Dude busted a 400 million ponzi last year. I very much doubt he needs the pirate case to "make a name". 

[Dalkore]

Dude busted a 400 million ponzi last year. I very much doubt he needs the pirate case to "make a name". 

Sounds like an seasoned pro. 

[thebaron]

I gotta wonder, did Pirate shut down before or after he learned the SEC was investigating him? He's obviously known for some time now.