[AEON] Aeon Speculation

[smooth]

This is because you speak ostensibly as an insider member of the community with strong connections to the lead developer

Just to correct this, I have no particular connection to funnyman21. I don't even remember ever communicating with him directly, but it is possible I did.

As far as buyers and sellers, well it is pretty obvious, and I don't know that it represents pumping. Everyone is pretty aware that there are more large buyers than sellers who are public about it, but the market price is still what it is (with buying and selling in rough balance), so that isn't even necessarily a bullish indicator. There could be more small sellers or more large sellers who don't want to be public.

EDIT: neither a connection with rangedriver. Fact is I'm not really "connected" with anyone on these forums. I mostly just live my own life, do what I do, and post on here (and occ on reddit, etc.)

[1713514050]

1713514050

[1713514050]

1713514050

[1713514050]

1713514050

[newb4now]

If the hash rate continues to climb past 400KH/s, I doubt you'll find many sellers at the current bids. It takes over 50 average machines to mine just $12/day so I would think most miners would sit it out with a loss.


Regarding up to 1M AEONs lost, I think that's a fair assessment. I am aware of at least one individual who have lost the pk to a 200K wallet.

I would be very unhappy if I ever lost a private key with that many coins. It is sad to hear about losses like this. Hopefully that person does not give up on AEON because of this.

[americanpegasus]

EDIT: neither a connection with rangedriver. Fact is I'm not really "connected" with anyone on these forums. I mostly just live my own life, do what I do, and post on here (and occ on reddit, etc.)

 
  
Let this be a lesson to you all.  
  
Yachts, luxury, and escorts sound nice, but they get old after a while.  You eventually want more, and Gucci can't fulfill it.  Wealth should be viewed as a tool to allow you to more easily contribute towards things that really matter in life - instead of slaving away for some other entity.  I'm sure smooth took his own 60 day cruise at one point and then realized that Wi-Fi is shit from the deck of a cruise ship.    Now he's back, in his custom built ultra-basement to work on important stuff again.  
  
Also, tptb, nice of you to stop by.  
  
Can I put a disclaimer on the initial message to help alleviate any concerns of pumping?  Something like "all opinions are merely the opinion of that poster, and nothing should be construed as financial advice?"  
  
There's no rules (at least not American) that I'm aware of in regards to promotions or making overly enthusiastic statements about cryptocurrencies, but I'm sure it's only a matter of time.  
  
That being said, it should be assumed that everyone who posts in this topic owns Aeon and has a very biased opinion. 
 
Also, tptb, glad to hear that your innards might have a chance at getting better.  I know there are a lot of prescription anti-fungal drugs out there, and I second that perhaps you have a particularly awful mold growing in your ducts...  It can destroy you over time.  Get it checked out immediately. 

[TPTB_need_war]

Ugh.. I assume you're talking to me. (You have quoted funnyman21)

Corrected the quote. (computer page swap thrashing issue with 100+ tabs open, had to reboot)

Actually I was making a statement of fact. It is nigh impossible to get hold of Aeon OTC. (Believe me I've tried). AmericanPegasus requested he was on the look out for a bulk purchase. The best method is currently waiting and accumulating via Bittrex. I don't know how else I could have phrased it.

Apparently no one knows for sure how the securities law is going to be interpreted and applied in the future. I can't command anyone what they should be doing. My current thinking is do not discuss investment issues at all. Instead discuss features, ecosystem development, and all the things users and developers would talk about when there is no investment involved.

You can refer to the post I linked to where I explained my (IANAL) reading of the USA securities law.

(I won't burden this thread further about my personal health issue. Thank you for the info.)

[americanpegasus]

Regardless, I would say that people like myself and smooth probably need to take extra care.  I'm someone who serves in a semi-official capacity in both communities, and I have a fair number of people (being conservative about that) that simply follow me online and consider what I say when deciding where to put their money.  
  
The other day, (perhaps it was just coincidence) I mentioned a certain tiny computing stock and it's price went up 20% the next day.  That's some heavy responsibility if my mention caused that.  Luckily I didn't own any shares, or it may have been a conflict of interest.  
  
Considering these things, despite not having any more actual information about releases or development than the general public (other than what is publicly available on Google), I do plan to own significant amounts of both Aeon and Monero over time.  
  
I also plan to make a lot of positive statements about them, as I feel that their technical merit (which anyone with proper mathematical skills can independently verify) merits it.  
  
So it feels like the best way forward is simply to be public about my holdings.  I know that certain people like the Winklevoss twins and Barry Silbert are outspoken proponents of the bitcoin price, but also are relatively public about how much they own.  (any rational person should expect someone who owns half a percent of an asset to be optimistic about its future).  
  
I'm not suggesting that anyone else needs to feel obliged to follow my lead, but I simply feel that this allows me to maintain an ethical position both as a perceived insider and an asset holder as well.  When (not if) the day comes that the SEC starts considering how to apply Internet Fraud laws to crypto-assets, I believe this will allow me to escape any of the nastiness that plagued the first people to "pump" stocks online.  (there are many instances in the 1990s of the SEC cracking down on people who heavily touted stocks online they owned).  
  
However I welcome additional comments and suggestions in this regard, and again: I only feel like I need to take this step as a result of being a moderator in the two communities.  It's conceivable that my actions there might be construed as having a conflict of interest with my holdings if I don't practice some manner of transparency going forward.  
  
That being said, everyone should remember that Hal Finney was harassed into his dying days by assholes trying to extort bitcoins from him.  This was a direct result of him being an early and public personality involved in the space.  Personally, I am surrounded by a variety of means to defend myself, won't negotiate with any bad actors regardless of the circumstances (this only incentivizes further bad actors),  and believe in defending my 'kingdom' however is needed.  
 
All players in the game will have to make up their own minds about how they will proceed though. 

[TPTB_need_war]

The other day, (perhaps it was just coincidence) I mentioned a certain tiny computing stock and it's price went up 20% the next day.

Seems I inadvertently did that to the BBR price just recently (others informed me, I wasn't even watching the price and I still haven't looked at the price). And no I did not buy any BBR. I am not at all into making money by front running unconfirmed rumors to add a certain feature to another coin. If ever I worked on another coin and wanted to buy that coin, I would buy after any publicity. I am not even interested in speculation, so I don't want insider trading culpability for something that isn't even my cup of tea. I want to write software and profit on its sale and long-term value creation. I have no desire in trading. I am a geek at heart.

So it feels like the best way forward is simply to be public about my holdings.  I know that certain people like the Winklevoss twins and Barry Silbert are outspoken proponents of the bitcoin price, but also are relatively public about how much they own.  (any rational person should expect someone who owns half a percent of an asset to be optimistic about its future).

But I presume at least the former probably have purchased protection from the SEC at the highest levels, and also my analysis is that Bitcoin is not an investment security because at this point there is no particular promoter or developer or any one in control of either the protocol or the investor's expectations. It has already graduated to a decentralized economic (not just protocol) phenomenon. Whereas, even Monero looks precariously close to skirting the risks of being an investment security. I don't know for sure, but I would be careful on these "pink sheet altcoins".

When (not if) the day comes that the SEC starts considering how to apply Internet Fraud laws to crypto-assets, I believe this will allow me to escape any of the nastiness that plagued the first people to "pump" stocks online.  (there are many instances in the 1990s of the SEC cracking down on people who heavily touted stocks online they owned).

I suggest you review the thread I did on investment securities. I don't think UNREGISTERED disclosure protects you from creating an implicit investment contract with prospective investors for an UNREGISTERED investment security.

You are just being informed now, so perhaps that is a defense if you alter patterns now if you feel you need to based on new information. IANAL so I don't know really.

That being said, everyone should remember that Hal Finney was harassed into his dying days by assholes trying to extort bitcoins from him.  This was a direct result of him being an early and public personality involved in the space.  Personally, I am surrounded by a variety of means to defend myself, won't negotiate with any bad actors regardless of the circumstances (this only incentivizes further bad actors),  and believe in defending my 'kingdom' however is needed.

I am not aware of that. Can you point me to some details or elaborate? What sort of harrassment? This concerns me significantly and was one of the reasons I originally wanted to be anonymous, but I had put my real name on my post when I first joined this forum in 2013, so there was no way to get my anonymity back. And I doubt any way for me to create a coin without someone realizing it is the same writing style as Anonymint. Probably I'll never have to worry about that, as the odds of creating another Bitcoin are not so great (and if you do, you likely have more resources than Hal had to protect yourself).

P.S. I wasn't trying to killjoy the thread. Please don't everyone go silent, I feel guilty.

[americanpegasus]

Whereas, even Monero looks precariously close to skirting the risks of being an investment security. I don't know for sure, but I would be careful on these "pink sheet altcoins".

 
  
It obviously a difficult space to define, because no company owns any of these coins.  Nevertheless, that doesn't mean that inappropriate behaviors aren't possible.  For example, if I were the sole developer of a coin I could announce that I quit shortly before shorting the coin - I would obviously make money (for example if this John Conner person shorted his VanillaCoin).  As well, someone like gmaxwell could do the reverse: he could slowly buy up a ton of BBQCoin and then announce he is starting a big initiative to add features to it (not that he would do that).  The price would skyrocket and he could cash in on his reputation at the expense of investors.  
  
So potential for abuse is there, and that's what the SEC is for - to babysit and ensure the free market doesn't actually reign over the U.S. Securities market.  

I suggest you review the thread I did on investment securities. I don't think UNREGISTERED disclosure protects you from creating an implicit investment contract with prospective investors for an UNREGISTERED investment security.

 
  
Please link it; I can't seem to find it.  As well, there's no way to register ownership of any of these assets at the moment because they are in a quasi-legal status.  I suppose they would technically float between being defined as a commodity (gold) or a currency (dollars).  Does the SEC regulate the gold market?  I don't think so.  If I owned 1% of all gold in the world, and was online singing the praises of gold, would that be against the law?  If I owned 1% of all Romanian currency, and I was singing what an economic resurgence that Romania was about to have - would I be in violation of any law?  
  
It's important to remember that unless new legislation is passed in the US, these are commodities.  Unless new legislation is passed in the EU, these are currencies.  These are not securities.  In fact, if you try to claim your cryptocurrency represents a company or another entity, you can expect the SEC to shut you down quick, because you don't have the authority to do that (assuming you are subject to US law - I'm sure someone from Antarctica could claim whatever they want).  So no one has to worry about violating a securities law just because they are speculating on a commodity.  
  
(even in the case of actual securities, the internet is filled with message boards where people are free to speculate about their future prices - and do).  
  

I am not aware of that. Can you point me to some details or elaborate? What sort of harrassment? This concerns me significantly and was one of the reasons I originally wanted to be anonymous,

 
  
http://www.wired.com/2014/12/finney-swat/  
  
Buy a gun.  Then buy another.  If/once your worth exceeds 8-figures in USD, hire actual security.  If your net worth exceeds 9-figures in USD, hire the best security money can buy.  
  
The police are not there to protect you; they are there to report on the bad things that happened to you, and occasionally abuse their authority.  
  

 
P.S. I wasn't trying to killjoy the thread. Please don't everyone go silent, I feel guilty.

 
  
The illustrious history of TPTB.  Rumor has it he made major contributions to economics and computer science back in the 1990's, wrote a 2 million word treatise on money in the 2000's, and in the 2010's ruined innocent speculation topics.  

[LucyLovesCrypto]

Seems I inadvertently did that to the BBR price just recently (others informed me, I wasn't even watching the price and I still haven't looked at the price). And no I did not buy any BBR. I am not at all into making money by front running unconfirmed rumors to add a certain feature to another coin. If ever I worked on another coin and wanted to buy that coin, I would buy after any publicity. I am not even interested in speculation, so I don't want insider trading culpability for something that isn't even my cup of tea. I want to write software and profit on its sale and long-term value creation. I have no desire in trading. I am a geek at heart.

I am not aware of what you said about BBR but markets can act randomly so it may have been a coincidence. Both AEON and BBR are up in recent days and XMR seems to have just started an uptrend also. Perhaps CrptoNote in general is on an upswing because people realize how good it is and how confidential transactions can make it even better.

AEON has a very low market cap so price can move a lot with no news at all simply because someone wants to open or close a position.  Volatility is high for most alt coins so it is almost impossible to pinpoint the reasons for every move in the market.

[TPTB_need_war]

if I were the sole developer of a coin I could announce that I quit shortly before shorting the coin - I would obviously make money (for example if this John Conner person shorted his VanillaCoin).

I wasn't aware he quit. The less I am aware of, the more I must be programming and not foruming. So I hope to become more unaware. Ah so good that VNL fanboiz will hopefully not try to get revenge on me now for my prior critical peer review on Conner's white paper.

I suggest you review the thread I did on investment securities. I don't think UNREGISTERED disclosure protects you from creating an implicit investment contract with prospective investors for an UNREGISTERED investment security.

 
  
Please link it; I can't seem to find it.

Linked in up thread post:

I do want to warn you that by pumping the expectation of gains (your firm statement there are only buyers and no sellers) thus creating an implied investment contract under the law as I interpret it, I do believe you are converting this coin into an unregistered investment security.

As well, there's no way to register ownership of any of these assets at the moment because they are in a quasi-legal status.

Perhaps you should speak with an attorney. You appear to make irrelevant assumptions that appear to me to be invalid based on my limited reading the USA securities law. Consider to review the thread I linked to (and to the main thread it links to over in the Bitcoin Discussion forum). Maybe I am just being a loud-mouthed fool, but perhaps take some time to understand what I think I am reading in the law. Again I don't write that to be putting any one down. The law doesn't seem to say what you are apparently thinking it does about what you think is quasi-legal.

I suppose they would technically float between being defined as a commodity (gold) or a currency (dollars).  Does the SEC regulate the gold market?  I don't think so.  If I owned 1% of all gold in the world, and was online singing the praises of gold, would that be against the law?  If I owned 1% of all Romanian currency, and I was singing what an economic resurgence that Romania was about to have - would I be in violation of any law?

Again I think the classification of Bitcoin as a commodity or what ever (from a tax standpoint) has nothing to do with the fact that these are shares from the perspective of securities law and if they are promoted to investors then they become securities backed by the expectations created by the promoter. Please go read the law.

It's important to remember that unless new legislation is passed in the US, these are commodities.

For taxes. That is a different aspect of the law. Securities Act looks at crypto as shares depending on several factors.

We can probably argue that Bitcoin is already a phenomenon that can't be backed by a promoter selling Bitcoin shares, thus Bitcoin is probably not a security in the eyes of USA securities law. But the smaller altcoins are much more precariously close if not already securities.

So no one has to worry about violating a securities law just because they are speculating on a commodity.

Let's see what you think after reading the law on securities.

(even in the case of actual securities, the internet is filled with message boards where people are free to speculate about their future prices - and do).

Of registered securities, or of prices of things where they can't possibly drive the price and give reasonable expectations that their promotions and representations are a form backing for the future expectations of those investors reading. I didn't state so eloquently. Better to read the law that I quoted in the linked thread.

Afaik, you have a very important role in XMR and Aeon, so your representations could perhaps be construed by investors to be a force of actual future events and thus future gains. Afaics, this totally changes the way you are viewed under Securities Act and the SEC vs. Howey decision.
  

http://www.wired.com/2014/12/finney-swat/  
  
Buy a gun.  Then buy another.  If/once your worth exceeds 8-figures in USD, hire actual security.  If your net worth exceeds 9-figures in USD, hire the best security money can buy.

Sobering. Thanks.

[americanpegasus]

Ok TPTB, your concerns have caused me to do a search of the SEC website to determine my best interpretation of current law and guidance as issued by the SEC themselves.  I'll quote what I think are the most interesting sections of each.  tl;dr: As long as none of the 'insiders', as you call us (mods, devs, public personalities) are directly offering these assets for sale, are calling them "investment opportunities", or claiming they carry no risk I think everyone is in the clear.  I would expect non-'insiders' would be even further in the clear as the SEC has firmly established by precedent that as long as cryptocurrencies don't claim to represent ownership in any venture, they are exempt from classification as securities. 
 
To the details, I found this "concern" letter published: https://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-06-13/s70613-504.pdf 
 

Obviously, clearly, cryptocurrency technology shows us the future of all financial securities and issuers.
The definition of “issuer” today revolves around promises to investors that if they buy securities issued
by the issuer that they will share equitably and materially in the future financial gain (or losses) created
by the issuer. The SEC has declared that cryptocurrency might be deemed a “security” based on facts
and circumstances in each instance, but that if the cryptocurrency is not being offered as a security then
the fact that it may be created, issued and verified technically by a single party does not cause the issuer
of the cryptocurrency to be deemed an “issuer” of securities. One of the practical implications of being
an “issuer” of securities rather than an issuer of cryptocurrency is that anyone who buys directly from
an issuer must “qualify” as a buyer (e.g. an “Accredited” investor, or pursuant to JOBS Act Rules) or
the buyer must legitimately be “friends and family” of the securities issuer. Another key difference is
the requirement for the direct buyers to comply with Rule 144 and/or Rule 145 prior to future resales of
the securities in the public secondary market. Issuers of cryptocurrency can create their own self-hosted
or cloud-hosted public secondary market, whereas “issuers” of “securities” must (currently) rely on the
existing public financial markets created by brokers, exchanges and alternative trading systems (ATS).

 
 
Here's a direct link to Rules 144 and 145 elaboration: http://www.sec.gov/info/smallbus/secg/rules144-145-secg.htm 
 
Second, here's an article directly written by the SEC warning investors of Ponzi schemes conducted with cryptocurrencies.  The smoking gun here is that by the SEC's own language they make clear distinctions in the language they use between cryptocurrencies and the "investments" that can be made with these currencies:  http://www.sec.gov/investor/alerts/ia_virtualcurrencies.pdf 
 

 
We are concerned that the rising use of virtual currencies
in the global marketplace may entice fraudsters to lure
investors into Ponzi and other schemes in which these
currencies are used to facilitate fraudulent, or simply
fabricated, investments or transactions. The fraud may
also involve an unregistered offering or trading platform.
these schemes often promise high returns for getting in
on the ground floor of a growing Internet phenomenon.
Fraudsters may also be attracted to using virtual
currencies to perpetrate their frauds because transactions
in virtual currencies supposedly have greater privacy benefits
and less regulatory oversight than transactions in
conventional currencies. Any investment in securities in
the United states remains subject to the jurisdiction
of the SEC regardless of whether the investment is made
in U.S. dollars or a virtual currency. In particular, individuals
selling investments are typically subject to federal or state licensing requirements

 
 
From what I can tell here, as long as you are a promoting an actual cryptocurrency which acknowledges the risks you face, doesn't claim to represent ownership in anything, and doesn't propose to be its own trading platform you are good.  Especially considering they have already released guidance on this (so if you run a Bitcoin ponzi now you have no excuse; you will face charges) then it would seem they have established legal precedent for people innocently speculating in actual currencies themselves. 
 
I can't find any dangerous language there; everything makes me feel like everyone involved in building and promoting a cryptocurrency is on legally solid ground. 
 
Finally, another link where the SEC has moved to prosecute someone who ran an exchange that sold crypto-stocks (not the raw currencies): http://www.sec.gov/News/PressRelease/Detail/PressRelease/1370543655716 
 
This further draws the line in the sand between what is defined as a security and what is not.  The fact that US based exchanges such as Poloniex and Coinbase have not had to register as securities exchanges is enough to draw conclusions to this fact, and consistent language like we see here just solidifies the case. 
 
I feel confident and comfortable that no rational decision by the SEC can come to the conclusion that Monero or Aeon is anywhere near a Security.  For sure no other users are affected and should feel free to speculate as much as they like, but I'm not a lawyer so this is a non-professional opinion.  As I have said, going forward I personally will abide by some self-imposed rules (even though I suspect I would be fine even if I did not).  I will not refer to either of these as an "investment opportunity" or being "without risk" and will publicly disclose that I own significant amounts (if I can ever *acquire* significant amounts of either!  ).  I also will not be offering any cryptocurrency for sale (and I recommend smooth do not either, but that is up to him). 
 
Ok, so let's wrap up this legal debate and get back on topic.  If you have any closing comments, you are welcome to make them.  I'll cross post this comment to your topics, tptb, and if you want to continue the debate we can there.

[americanpegasus]

It bears mentioning that TPTB disagrees with my above post and the discussion continues over at his topic:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1218399.msg12817022#msg12817022 
 

Ok. Back on topic - rampant AEON speculation.    
 
It should go without saying, but I will say it anyway - this is not to be considered an investment in any way.  In its current form this is a testbed network for new cryotonote concepts and you are not encouraged by myself or anyone else who to buy Aeon in any way.  You are encouraged to get involved in Aeon, whatever that means to you, by leveraging your talents to help further the cause. 
 
I intend to acquire large amounts of Aeon and Monero because I personally believe they will be worth much more in the future.  I have no plans to sell any of my cryptocurrency holdings, and if I did I would let the community know publicly in advance of doing it. 
 
It's true that there's never been anything like cryptocurrency before, but that's how both individuals and society get ahead - by taking big risks in new and unexplored spaces.   

[kazuki49]

@americanpegasus You don't need to disclose anything you hold nor the actions you are taking on the market, don't fall for that. Monero and AEON are decentralized open-source entities.

The  U.S.  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  (“SEC”)  has  made  no  official pronouncement  as  to  what  virtual  currency  (as  a  product)  is  from  a  securities  law  perspective
and  has  adopted  no  rules relating  to  the  trading  of virtual  currency.      Nevertheless,  the  SEC  is currently  addressing  that  issue  in  connection  with  its  enforcement  program  and  in  connection with the proposed creation of listed securities based on Bitcoin.

http://www.icba.org/files/ICBASites/PDFs/VirtualCurrencyWhitePaperJune2014.pdf

But if you are planning on launching a cryptocurrency that it is not open-source nor backed by POW you may find yourself in the wrong side of this gray area.

Monero and AEON were not launched by the current "official" developers, this is in itself proof of decentralization.

[TPTB_need_war]

@americanpegasus You don't need to disclose anything you hold nor the actions you are taking on the market, don't fall for that. Monero and AEON are decentralized open-source entities.

The  U.S.  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  (“SEC”)  has  made  no  official pronouncement  as  to  what  virtual  currency  (as  a  product)  is  from  a  securities  law  perspective
and  has  adopted  no  rules relating  to  the  trading  of virtual  currency.      Nevertheless,  the  SEC  is currently  addressing  that  issue  in  connection  with  its  enforcement  program  and  in  connection with the proposed creation of listed securities based on Bitcoin.

http://www.icba.org/files/ICBASites/PDFs/VirtualCurrencyWhitePaperJune2014.pdf

But if you are planning on launching a cryptocurrency that it is not open-source nor backed by POW you may find yourself in the wrong side of this gray area.

Monero and AEON were not launched by the current "official" developers, this is in itself proof of decentralization.

I think you do not understand the law.

Nothing you have quoted from the SEC guidance has disavowed nor vacated the law that is explained at the above link.

Btw, I don't think disclosing his holdings and plans helps against the law I cited. And I think it actually makes it worse as it is more representations to potential investors that americanpegasus is a whale who is buying and HODLing.

[kazuki49]

Nothing you have quoted from the SEC guidance has disavowed nor vacated the law that is explained at the above link.

Thats because I agree with the proceedings, I have not seen an instance a member of the current core team of Monero or AEON making any solicitation for buying or forecasts on the market, contrary to other coins that acts as an enterprise (up-down management, changing of the emission, centralized nodes issuing tokens, etc)

In short, my interpretation is that if you want your cryptocoin to not be an illegal unregistered, investment security (due to an implied investment contract), then the developers and affiliates or close associates and key community members, should make no discussions at all about investment in the coin except to state that the coin is not for investors and losses should be expected. And to instead communicate with users and potential users of the coin. And if any money is raised from the community, make sure this clearly selling software to users where the tokens are required to use the software and protocol (or donations for development of the software with no tokens given in return) and that the project is for users of the software. Avoid any association with investing, except of course for free market activities that no one can control, e.g. that investors buy your tokens on a decentralized exchange. And all public communication should disclaim any investing purpose nor expectation of gains.

I recall flufflypony saying exactly the same and several times. Its been good so far but I would not be so confident if Monero or AEON had been launched with premines or changed the emission.

Btw, I don't think disclosing his holdings and plans helps against the law I cited. And I think it actually makes it worse as it is more representations to potential investors that americanpegasus is a whale who is buying and HODLing.

OK, I misunderstood you were implying he should be disclosing his holdings and plans, thats cleary wrong and I think he misunderstood too as he was actually going to do it.

[TPTB_need_war]

Nothing you have quoted from the SEC guidance has disavowed nor vacated the law that is explained at the above link.

Thats because I agree with the proceedings, I have not seen an instance a member of the current core team of Monero or AEON making any solicitation for buying or forecasts on the market, contrary to other coins that acts as an enterprise (up-down management, changing of the emission, centralized nodes issuing tokens, etc)

In short, my interpretation is that if you want your cryptocoin to not be an illegal unregistered, investment security (due to an implied investment contract), then the developers and affiliates or close associates and key community members, should make no discussions at all about investment in the coin except to state that the coin is not for investors and losses should be expected. And to instead communicate with users and potential users of the coin. And if any money is raised from the community, make sure this clearly selling software to users where the tokens are required to use the software and protocol (or donations for development of the software with no tokens given in return) and that the project is for users of the software. Avoid any association with investing, except of course for free market activities that no one can control, e.g. that investors buy your tokens on a decentralized exchange. And all public communication should disclaim any investing purpose nor expectation of gains.

I recall flufflypony saying exactly the same and several times. Its been good so far but I would not be so confident if Monero or AEON had been launched with premines or changed the emission.

So many of your key community members here talking about investing. Sorry fail. Where are the users using it as a currency? Too many talk about HODLing, "only buyers no sellers", etc.. It is only my suggestion to talk only about use and never about investment at all, not even to disclose your holdings, plans, etc.. If your community is truly users then that should be possible. The fact that it isn't the normal mode of discussion should be instructive in any court proceeding.

On the contrary, a pure PoW cryptocurrency is a legal currency from inception onward and does not fit any of the "illegal activities" that the SEC has outlined in *any* communication thus far.

You are reinforcing my point! If you are predominantly/prominently discussing with the community about speculating on the exchange value of the created tokens, and not exclusively (or at least predominantly) to users of the currency, then evidently you have not yet created a currency and have instead created a share in an investment and thus an implied investment contract.

[kazuki49]

So many of your key community members here talking about investing. Sorry fail. Where are the users using it as a currency?

How do you differ community members from users? Why should they be subject to the same law as the people responsible for currently managing the decentralized entity? (via github and few websites)

In  order  to  determine which  regulatory scheme best fits the virtual currency trading model, however, one needs to determine whether
a virtual currency itself is a security, a commodity, a currency, or none of the above. Once that determination  is  made,  the  resulting  regulat
ory  scheme  can  be  applied,  perhaps  with  some appropriate modifications, to the persons creating, effecting trades for their own and others’
accounts, operating exchanges, and clearing and settling trades in those virtual currencies.  

http://www.icba.org/files/ICBASites/PDFs/VirtualCurrencyWhitePaperJune2014.pdf

Not even the SEC has determined Monero or AEON is a currency, commodity or security yet you are judging the actions of the community members as being part of one of these.

[americanpegasus]

I agree with Kazuki49, but think it's a good discussion worth having.  That said,

Take the discussion about SEC regulations regarding altcoins to the designated topic for it, please.  Further comments regarding this will be deleted for being off-topic; thanks for your support.  
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1218399.0

[myagui]

Do you guys think my new AMD miner will change anything?

Short term, I think not. Long term, I think it certainly will.

[americanpegasus]

Hey fam. 
 
 
 
I'm executing a buy for 45,000 AEON over on Bittrex.  Some people were foolish enough to leave it laying around under 0.00005 BTC. 
 
Their loss. 

[DrkLvr_]

There goes my hope of getting more coins under 3500  

Congrats on the buy!!