Anyone care to address these issues here on Bitcoin Forum?
No product, no promises.
So only faith and a high market cap based on air (for now). And Dan Larimer who has launched two successful projects earlier (Steemit.com and Bitshares.com). People have faith in Dan. And the features of EOS.io may give ETH a run for its money.
The question is: do you have faith?
And probable recycling fraud ongoing (also here and here) has been presented that perhaps the “useless” EOS token sale is being gamed in various ways., which the SEC has already indicated would be a priority for future enforcement action.EOS is an unregistered security that was sold to some USA and EU investors illegally and it will eventually be delisted like all the other ICOs including Ethereum.
Investors are risking legal and criminal culpability for illegal selling on unregistered exchanges.
backseat lawyer by the way
Testnet today, and Mike Novogratz mentioned EOS on CNBC, which means he probably has a position in EOS. EOS ICO distribution is also more than half over.
Hmm. Another $billionaire involved as a promoter thus potentially culpable to SEC enforcement. Makes one wonder if the regulators are complicit (i.e. have been bought off)?
Create instead decentralized paradigms that avoid legal entanglement:
It is a myth that decentralized 'paradigms' make it possible to avoid legal entanglement.
I don't think it's a scam. These are all things that were stated or implied before the ICO.
It’s not strictly necessary for it to be fraudulent for it to be illegal under securities law.
But I bet the SEC can find some fraud and misrepresentation of material facts any way. They’re quite expert at digging out that stuff and even offer huge $millions bounties to those who will provide inside information to them.
Also given that they’re attempting to claim the token sale is not a security issuance, then they will also be subject to consumer protection laws as well. Those complicit in selling MLM bags to greater fools could I guess also possibly be culpable.
I mean basically get involved with something shady and do not be surprised when you end up in some troublesome shit.
And I hope nobody is spending their profits from all these token sales as clawbacks are potentially a threat. And then if you can’t pay back, you’re in deep shit.
So if you’re living in some banana or former-USSR republic, then completely disregard my statements and carry on suckering those in the first world nations into these hot potatoes.
You have got to be kidding me. EOS is not even close to being a security. It promises nothing in return and is an open source software that will be released. You sure wasted a lot of words and don't even understand what EOS is.
The securities law is based on the profit expectations of investors, not what EOS writes in their legal documents which do not reflect the economic reality of the situation.
Do you see Blockone actively ensuring that the EOS tokens will not have any value? Did they sue the exchanges to prevent the tokens from being listed?Open source does not help them avert the securities regulations, because for one thing they pooled the funds raised and are expected by investors to use those funds to develop the open source.
The investors expectations are proven by the comments in this thread. All the SEC has to do is capture this thread. Note I have archived this thread at archive.is to help the regulators.
As far as US buyers using VPN to get around getting EOS tokens, 99% of other ICO's have allowed the same loophole. They gave the same warnings with even stronger language discouraging US buyers
Nevertheless, the US buyers side-stepped the controls and thus EOS (i.e. blockone) has likely violated the law.
Disclaimer: IANAL. This is not legal advice.
It will be epic if all those funds get frozen and clawed back. Let’s see which “partners in the silicon valley” take the risk of receiving black money and risk
a 20 year felony prison sentence per the
money laundering laws in the USA for accepting funding that was obtained via illegal activity.
Any other ICO format for a PoS coin would be literally idiocy.
You could have at least done
the SAFT and limited it to accredited investors. Then at least you’d have some heavyweight legal research behind you.
But then of course you might not have received $300 million because you would need to know the identity of each person, do a background check, etc..
[…]
I read that EOS plans to show some auditing ostensibly to claim “proof” they were not buying token sales from themselves. But that can be subverted given that tokens were sold apparently without requiring identity checks. Thus it is easy to operate with ETH loans or other ETH the insiders have access to through sock puppets.
I wonder when more people will realize that EOS is a scam.
I couldn't find anything that suggests that EOS is a scam.
1. Claiming they are not subject to US securities laws because they claim they did not sell to US persons, yet it is documented that US persons did purchase the token sale. They refused to do KYC to prevent US persons from participating. Ditto for Chinese, Koreans, UK, Canadians, and other countries which have strict securities laws and are cracking down. So they incorporate in the Caymans and presumably expect to hide behind layers of lawyers. Let’s see how that works out for them and those accomplices affiliates like @chryspano.
2. Running the ICO for a year so they can pump hype about being ahead of schedule, cause the price to jump way up so they can sell, then let the price crash back down so they buy their own ICO. Recycling their money over and over again to extract maximum rents from the ecosystem while ending up with most of the ICO tokens for themselves via numerous sockpuppets same as they did for Steem. Running their tokens through Bitfinex in Hong Kong with that Tether et al scam that Brock Pierce is involved with so presumably they can obscure the disposals of the funds to fiat so as to obscure how their extensive organized crime syndicate is buying their own ICO. Look into the conglomerate structure of the parent companies of Bitfinex and climb down that rabbit hole. Even Dan announced in a blog that they would do this admitting in writing that he is scamming.
3. Documented upthread that the ICO is designed to be algorithmically gamed (details linked upthread) so that this is unfair. Dan was warned about this before launch and chose to ignore it.
4. Terms of the token sale claim that the tokens are not be part of any future software distribution, and that there is no common enterprise because the funds raised are not being used to create such a software distribution, yet in videos and promotions they claim exactly the opposite that they are using the funds to develop what will be the software distribution. Clearly all the speculators here expect the tokens to be the tokens of the software distribution.
5. Lying about their technology. Ridiculing other experts (including PhDs of computer science from Tendermint, Vitalik, and myself) who write correctly about their technology.
6. Failing to admit that DPoS only functions properly if the stake (tokens) are controlled by an oligarchy of whales.
7. Lying about the past performance of the technology, even having their shills here declare me a liar when I point about that the Steem system has been DDoS attacked numerous times because the zero transaction fee nonsense does not fund the perimeter nodes of the system.
Actually I had always thought that Dan was genuine but just a bit weird/myopic in terms of his design choices and political-economic philosophy. But the premeditated
sneakyfastmine of Steem (wherein he wrote a blog in advance announcing they would do that) to grab 50+% of the money supply for an oligarchy of whales caused me to start to doubt whether he was innocuous. But then I realized he did not have much choice because DPoS does not function properly with chaos in voting (he was
frustrated the Bitshares governance was not working correctly to approve funding for some of the things he wanted to be worked on) and must be controlled by a like-minded group of whales. And Steem was somewhat interesting because it was the first experiment for onboarding the masses. And the first with a front-end interface and use case outside of just a wallet. So I rolled with it and used the lessons learned (such as
my blog mathematically figuring out that voting from minted tokens of the collective can never be fair and must aggregate to the whales) there to guide my project plans. But the $2 billion “useless token” sale and all this distortion of the material facts while ridiculing others in the industry is way over the top and has lowered my respect for Dan even further into the gutter.
it seems the price will not rise high until the ico end
Ah I would not count on that. When BTC peaks, then there might be a lot of FOMO money spilling out into alts. And looking at major alts, there are not that many solid choices. So many speculators are perhaps going to look at ETH at $28 billion marketcap and EOS at $0.5B mcap, and somehow equate the two since EOS will have a first-mover advantage higher transaction volume capability (even though it is just vaporware and a lot of work to get to point that ERC-20 tokens are being issued on EOS someday).
Betting against FOMO-fever is not wise. It will all probably come crashing down someday, but probably not in 2017. I think the prior decline in price before the recent hype about accelerated progress, was probably the down move for 2017. Alts are about to catch a bid after mid-November.
Btw, that looks to be a good analysis. Looks very bullish short-term.
