DNotes 2.0 - Staking, CRISP Interest, DNotes Pay

[Dyna]

Thank you, TeeGee. We deeply appreciate your immense contributions to the success of DNotes. We have been working very hard for the last four years doing things that are of great long-term strategic value to making DNotes' vision a reality, though what we have done have contributed little to the market price of DNotes. Our believe is to always do the right thing and let the market price takes care of itself.

The market seems to be taking care of itself alright. I kinda hope it doesn't move up too quickly as I'm still in buying/accumulation mode

Sometimes, that is what I wish too. In my case, I wish millions of small investors can have the opportunity to own some DNotes when it is still quite affordable. 

[malvino]

Hi malvino. DNotes is still a mineable Proof of Work (PoW) coin but will not be for too much longer. We are migrating to Proof of Stake (PoS) in the 1st quarter of 2018. Our efforts are now joined by a large team - Geneca, with a drastically increased development budget. This is a very large scale multi-year project at a substantial investment in the millions of dollars. As I have said before, DNotes will be a technology leader in our industry. We are a very committed team with the mindset that to succeed in any business one must commit to "be equal to and better than the competitors."

Thank you Dyna!

Do you know how many DNotes are needed to PoS mining?

[DNotes]

DNotes Global Inc. Partnering with Geneca

https://dcebrief.com/dnotes-global-inc-partnering-with-geneca/

This really is great news and I can see by reading the Geneca website that there is more to the perfect match than using the same corporate colours. I was particularly interested in their software development methodology because I've been reading a bit about the subject recently.

From what I've learnt, methodologies can sit on a spectrum from multiple iterations of responsive designs all the way to a single meticulously planned and executed project. No methodology fits all development needs, because they all have their strengths and weaknesses. The responsive methodology is great for projects that have evolving needs and are working in new and unchartered areas. This is particularly applicable to cryptocurrency where things need to fit customer needs and usage patterns and where much of the technology planned is untested.

The other end of the spectrum is great for mission critical software that can't afford to go wrong or get hacked. Things like flight controls for aircraft or the software that manages medical devices. Or the software that manages large and frequent transactions of customer money. This is also a great fit for cryptocurrency.

So in reading Geneca's website I was curious to see which way DNotes Global Inc. had chosen to go. I noticed text like:
"We begin this process first by defining what must be built to ensure that your business goals are achieved.  By understanding the outcome, our team will be equipped to anticipate any issues that could arise.  We accomplish this through use of Geneca’s three proprietary products: Experience Inventory, Virtual Wall Gantt, and Joornal." This looks like it is up the 'meticulously planned' end of the spectrum.

But then straight after this I read:
"Once building commences, Geneca will engage and align with your team using quick sprints and scheduled showcases.  This will allow visibility ensuring that you see progression along the way." In contrast, customer engagement and short development cycles are the hallmark of a 'responsive design' methodology. This is confirmed later by "To make a beloved product, we must stay focused on what matters, listen carefully to employees and customers, and make improvements early and often.

So it seems DNotes Global Inc. have discovered a software development company that takes the best of both methodologies and has integrated them. Seeing that the responsive methodology, popularly referred to as 'Agile' only got a foothold sixteen years ago and only in this decade has really developed in popularity, I then noticed that Geneca had been in operation three years before the movement started and have developed along side it for 19 years. For me, this explains how the company could have begun with much more meticulous methodology and then absorbed the best parts of responsive methodology as they evolved.

In recognising this combination, I really see how Geneca's approach appears to be the perfect fit for cryptocurrency projects. 

Excellent investigation TimMarsh, we were also impressed by their presentation of their methodology for creating software, and how quickly they were able to break it down and drill into the development cycles. While still being flexible enough to meet all of our objectives, and not just for creating software. As they described, they are developing products, and that products have many external requirements by the companies, employees, and end users.

[DNotes]

Hi malvino. DNotes is still a mineable Proof of Work (PoW) coin but will not be for too much longer. We are migrating to Proof of Stake (PoS) in the 1st quarter of 2018. Our efforts are now joined by a large team - Geneca, with a drastically increased development budget. This is a very large scale multi-year project at a substantial investment in the millions of dollars. As I have said before, DNotes will be a technology leader in our industry. We are a very committed team with the mindset that to succeed in any business one must commit to "be equal to and better than the competitors."

Thank you Dyna!

Do you know how many DNotes are needed to PoS mining?

Hi malvino, to give a really rough estimate with a fair amount of assumptions, 50,000 DNotes would allow you to reach stake reward daily, and 5,000 DNotes would allow you to reach stake reward weekly. We are also considering that in the future we will be able to have staking pools, which will allow those with lower amounts to be able to stake and receive reward more frequently. Nothing has been settled yet as far as that goes, but it is on our wishlist. As we continue to grow, those estimates will change, and it will become increasingly more important.

[wiser]

Hi malvino, to give a really rough estimate with a fair amount of assumptions, 50,000 DNotes would allow you to reach stake reward daily, and 5,000 DNotes would allow you to reach stake reward weekly. We are also considering that in the future we will be able to have staking pools, which will allow those with lower amounts to be able to stake and receive reward more frequently. Nothing has been settled yet as far as that goes, but it is on our wishlist. As we continue to grow, those estimates will change, and it will become increasingly more important.

Thanks for that information, especially on the amount you'd need for weekly vs. daily rewards. Will staking be able to happen within the DNotes Vault? Or will it be necessary to have our own desktop wallets for that?

Weirdly enough, because of the DNotes Vault, I've never actually owned my own DNotes wallet. I'm not sure what I'll do after the big switch.

[DNotes]

DNotes Global, Inc. Announces Partnership With Geneca for Blockchain Technology Development

[DNotes]

Hi malvino, to give a really rough estimate with a fair amount of assumptions, 50,000 DNotes would allow you to reach stake reward daily, and 5,000 DNotes would allow you to reach stake reward weekly. We are also considering that in the future we will be able to have staking pools, which will allow those with lower amounts to be able to stake and receive reward more frequently. Nothing has been settled yet as far as that goes, but it is on our wishlist. As we continue to grow, those estimates will change, and it will become increasingly more important.

Thanks for that information, especially on the amount you'd need for weekly vs. daily rewards. Will staking be able to happen within the DNotes Vault? Or will it be necessary to have our own desktop wallets for that?

Weirdly enough, because of the DNotes Vault, I've never actually owned my own DNotes wallet. I'm not sure what I'll do after the big switch.

The DNotesVault is one of the biggest reasons we need deferred staking. Ideally, those who are part of the network and staking should be as distributed as possible. So the goal with deferred staking is to allow a user to have their staking privileges for those coins deferred to their own desktop wallet, or even on a cloud server, with their actual funds tucked away in cold storage or on the DNotesVault.

[DNotesEDU]

DNotes Global Inc. Partnering with Geneca

https://dcebrief.com/dnotes-global-inc-partnering-with-geneca/

This is great news for DNotes, the community, and DNotes stakeholders. Welcome aboard Geneca team!

[wiser]

The DNotesVault is one of the biggest reasons we need deferred staking. Ideally, those who are part of the network and staking should be as distributed as possible. So the goal with deferred staking is to allow a user to have their staking privileges for those coins deferred to their own desktop wallet, or even on a cloud server, with their actual funds tucked away in cold storage or on the DNotesVault.

Deferred staking is a brilliant idea! I love it! NEM has a similar concept with delegated harvesting. The best part about it is that my coins can be harvesting even with my wallet closed up.

[DNotesEDU]

DNotesEDU Needs Suggestions For How-To Guides

Have you always wanted to learn a certain aspect of cryptocurrency, but could never quite figure it out? We want to help simplify all the complex and confusing processes, so even an ordinary person with little technical expertise can participate. Please reply with your suggestions for how-to guides, or email contact@dnotesedu.com

Thanks in advance everyone, DNotesEDU will continue to grow in 2018 and exciting future opportunities will arise for outstanding contributors.

[Dyna]

Why Reg. A+ Mini-IPO Title IV Tier 2 verse ICO?

Unfortunately, ICOs are still going on at a fast pace, despite being warned by the SEC that they are securities and cannot be sold legally without being registered or exempt with the SEC.

From my prospective, with out a doubt, there are no known ICO tokens sold that can be correctly characterized as a “utility token”. As SEC Chairman Jay Clayton pointed out recently, “Merely calling a token a “utility” token or structuring it to provide some utility does not prevent the token from being a security. Tokens and offerings that incorporate features and marketing efforts that emphasize the potential for profits based on the entrepreneurial or managerial efforts of others continue to contain the hallmarks of a security under U.S. law.”

What is most troubling is when he added that, “Investors should understand that to date no initial coin offerings have been registered with the SEC.”

The author of the article below raised an interest point, “Regardless, none of this has left token issuers with much in the way of defined guidelines on how to conduct a legally compliant ICO.”

That is correct, unless our law makers change the existing security laws on the book to accommodate the brave emerging decentralized world there are no provisions to conduct ICO efficiently and legally.

I understand that it is very frustrating, as ICOs can be an amazing contributor to capital formation. Granted that being the case, it is still a bad idea to engage in ICOs that are clearly deemed illegal unless registered or exempt with the SEC. This could end badly. I fear that this is the greatest risk confronting our industry.

What is DNotes doing differently? A lot, in almost every respect. But for now, let us focus on an alternative to ICO and do it legally.
For those who are new to our industry, it is helpful to understand that the tokens (coins) sold in ICOs are created or issued by leaderless decentralized entities not controlled by any individual, or group of individuals.

Real world entities in the form of incorporated companies, LLC, LLP, and proprietorship or others forms of ownerships are created with a purported mission of advancing the coins’ projects outlined in their “white papers”. Coins are pre-mined and sold, bring in millions of dollars (in some cases hundreds of millions of dollars). They now belong to the entities mentioned earlier. These entities have full discretion to use the funds, often with no limitation, transparency, or accountability. That should not come as a surprise as the “investors” have been advised that they do not have any ownership or voting rights in the entity that received the funds. It would be less confusing if those entities are registered as “charities” and the investment labeled as “donations”.

I wish that ICOs can be structured and conducted in manners that meet existing security laws, either through registration or exemption. Unfortunately, without significant changes to existing laws, it is simply not possible. To date, the issuers of ICO tokens are exclusively decentralized entities without any central authority. However, the money collected goes to individuals, partnership or incorporated companies purportedly are working on some great ideas presented in a white paper. The investors have no ownership or voting rights in the private entity that received the investment.

Other than consumer or investor protection, the SEC plays a key role to maintain a fair, orderly and efficient market. It is also given the mandate by our law makers to facilitate capital formation. To that extent, our government has an invested interest in capital formation that leads to job and wealth creation. There are distinct options of raising funds by selling securities in support of the token or coin legally as mentioned in the article. In the case of DNotes, we believe that Reg. A+ Mini-IPO Title IV Tier 2 is the ideal option for us. And we have been planning for it for over two years using an incorporated company, DNotes Global, Inc.

To protect consumers the SEC, requires the filing of a registration statement with full disclosure of all relevant information along with two years audited financial statements - subject to on-going reporting as the means of making available all information for investors to make an informed investment decision. We believe that as much as this is burdensome, it is also essential to protect investors.

Enjoy the article below and feel free to ask any questions.
  
ICOs are STILL Not Taking Compliance Seriously in Search for Big Money

The initial coin offering (or ICO) explosion accelerated by Ethereum smart contract technology has resulted in over $3 billion in raised capital in 2017 and garnered the attention of governments worldwide.  The US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has taken note.  In their statement on the DAO, which was an ICO that raised $117 million, the SEC stated that the sale constituted an offering of a security by applying the “Howey Test”.  Since then, the SEC has increased its attention on these sales and last week SEC Chairman Jay Clayton issued a statement urging investors to be cautious and issuers to analyze the offering under applicable securities laws.

Regardless, none of this has left token issuers with much in the way of defined guidelines on how to conduct a legally compliant ICO.  Although the CFTC has stated that it believes most tokens to constitute commodities, the SEC has indicated that they believe token sales generally fit into two categories: utility tokens, and security tokens. However, in Chairman Clayton’s opinion, most, if not all token sales are actually securities offerings.

To date, most token sales have been done without regards to securities laws under the guise that the token is not a security, but rather a utility token, that has a specific use and functionality within the offerers network and ecosystem.  However, although this theoretically does exist, to fall within this category, the token must meet a number of loosely defined characteristics.  The token must have an immediate use within the issuer’s network and cannot be sold with a future utility in mind.  The token should be purchased for the purpose of using that utility and not for speculation.  The value of the utility and its potential for increase in value cannot be the primary motivator and its value should not depend on the work of others to grow.  Many issuers and their counsel are applying the Howey Test, which is a test developed for investment contracts.  But this is not the only way that regulators could analyze these offerings.

Read more: https://www.crowdfundinsider.com/2017/12/126395-icos-still-not-taking-compliance-seriously-search-big-money/

[Brandon Cheliak]

Why Reg. A+ Mini-IPO Title IV Tier 2 verse ICO?

Unfortunately, ICOs are still going on at a fast pace, despite being warned by the SEC that they are securities and cannot be sold legally without being registered or exempt with the SEC.

From my prospective, with out a doubt, there are no known ICO tokens sold that can be correctly characterized as a “utility token”. As SEC Chairman Jay Clayton pointed out recently, “Merely calling a token a “utility” token or structuring it to provide some utility does not prevent the token from being a security. Tokens and offerings that incorporate features and marketing efforts that emphasize the potential for profits based on the entrepreneurial or managerial efforts of others continue to contain the hallmarks of a security under U.S. law.”

What is most troubling is when he added that, “Investors should understand that to date no initial coin offerings have been registered with the SEC.”

The author of the article below raised an interest point, “Regardless, none of this has left token issuers with much in the way of defined guidelines on how to conduct a legally compliant ICO.”

That is correct, unless our law makers change the existing security laws on the book to accommodate the brave emerging decentralized world there are no provisions to conduct ICO efficiently and legally.

I understand that it is very frustrating, as ICOs can be an amazing contributor to capital formation. Granted that being the case, it is still a bad idea to engage in ICOs that are clearly deemed illegal unless registered or exempt with the SEC. This could end badly. I fear that this is the greatest risk confronting our industry.

What is DNotes doing differently? A lot, in almost every respect. But for now, let us focus on an alternative to ICO and do it legally.
For those who are new to our industry, it is helpful to understand that the tokens (coins) sold in ICOs are created or issued by leaderless decentralized entities not controlled by any individual, or group of individuals.

Real world entities in the form of incorporated companies, LLC, LLP, and proprietorship or others forms of ownerships are created with a purported mission of advancing the coins’ projects outlined in their “white papers”. Coins are pre-mined and sold, bring in millions of dollars (in some cases hundreds of millions of dollars). They now belong to the entities mentioned earlier. These entities have full discretion to use the funds, often with no limitation, transparency, or accountability. That should not come as a surprise as the “investors” have been advised that they do not have any ownership or voting rights in the entity that received the funds. It would be less confusing if those entities are registered as “charities” and the investment labeled as “donations”.

I wish that ICOs can be structured and conducted in manners that meet existing security laws, either through registration or exemption. Unfortunately, without significant changes to existing laws, it is simply not possible. To date, the issuers of ICO tokens are exclusively decentralized entities without any central authority. However, the money collected goes to individuals, partnership or incorporated companies purportedly are working on some great ideas presented in a white paper. The investors have no ownership or voting rights in the private entity that received the investment.

Other than consumer or investor protection, the SEC plays a key role to maintain a fair, orderly and efficient market. It is also given the mandate by our law makers to facilitate capital formation. To that extent, our government has an invested interest in capital formation that leads to job and wealth creation. There are distinct options of raising funds by selling securities in support of the token or coin legally as mentioned in the article. In the case of DNotes, we believe that Reg. A+ Mini-IPO Title IV Tier 2 is the ideal option for us. And we have been planning for it for over two years using an incorporated company, DNotes Global, Inc.

To protect consumers the SEC, requires the filing of a registration statement with full disclosure of all relevant information along with two years audited financial statements - subject to on-going reporting as the means of making available all information for investors to make an informed investment decision. We believe that as much as this is burdensome, it is also essential to protect investors.

Great breakdown of this issue, thanks for updating us. Since the first ICO was issued in 2013, relatively little has changed in the way the majority of the operate, aside from becoming sleeker, increasingly sophisticated, and more readily deployable through ICO facilitators like Ethereum.


A few questions on this matter, everyone feel free to chime in:

1) What sort of protections is a corporation legally required offer investors that LLC, LLP, and others don't? Do you think these easy to attain forms of ownership are being employed strictly for appearance of legitimacy, even when unnecessary?

2) What is the difference between owning a cryptocurrency, and buying into an ICO in terms of ownership rights? If you had to apply it to existing legal framework, how would the law view the distinction?

3) Are US investors who buy into unregistered ICO's committing a crime in the US, or does ownness fall solely on the issuer?

[wiser]

Legalities aside, the thing I like about cryptocurrencies in general and to some extent applicable to ICOs is the much lower entry barrier for those of modest means to invest in something that very well could improve their financial lives in a way that wouldn't be possible otherwise.

If I only have $100 to invest, I can buy an undervalued cryptocurrency and maybe I'll end up sitting on something worth $10,000 or more. Cryptocurrencies basically make investments fungible enough for poor people to participate. $100 too much for you? You can also just invest $10 or $5. Remember in the early days of CryptoMoms when we were encouraging each other to give up your Starbucks Latte and use the money you save to buy DNotes? Well, with DNotes and some other coins, that kind of small investment really could make a big difference.

So when I hear about the SEC cracking down more on ICOs and other things related to cryptocurrency I worry that this door for poor people might get slammed shut. I hope that doesn't happen, and I'm grateful that this door was open for me.

That said, I also believe that people and entities promoting investments need to be honest about what they are promoting. Many ICOs have been shady and those poor people who have little or those middle class people who give up their weekly lattes at the very least deserve to know that what they are putting their money into has every reasonable chance of being successful (though one can never guarantee such things). There should be some protection from charlatans running ICOs that do nothing but scam people out of their money--at least in the form of full disclosure about fundamentals so that an informed investor of any social or economic class can make a good decision.

I just hope that the protection afforded investors does not also make it more difficult or impossible for people to participate. For example, I really hate how so many investments in the US are only available to accredited investors. You can invest in this wonderful promising startup and possibly get rich. Oh wait. You already have to be rich in order to get the chance.

I hope we can maintain the fungibility of cryptocurrencies and ICOs where investors can buy any amount, no amount too small, while still building in some reasonable standards of solid fundamentals that those seeking to raise funds for their ventures have to follow.

At the end of the day, though, the responsibility to spend one's own money wisely has to lie with each one of us, regardless of how much we have. There's only so much regulation can do to save us from our own poor financial choices without becoming overly burdensome. I wonder if it wouldn't be a better use of national resources if more funds weren't put towards the proper financial education of children (and adults) instead of towards trying to overregulate entrepreneurs who want to raise funds in the easiest way possible. If the majority of the population were properly educated on financial matters, wouldn't that in and of itself make it more difficult for the charlatans to raise funds?

[Dyna]

Why Reg. A+ Mini-IPO Title IV Tier 2 verse ICO?

Unfortunately, ICOs are still going on at a fast pace, despite being warned by the SEC that they are securities and cannot be sold legally without being registered or exempt with the SEC.

From my prospective, with out a doubt, there are no known ICO tokens sold that can be correctly characterized as a “utility token”. As SEC Chairman Jay Clayton pointed out recently, “Merely calling a token a “utility” token or structuring it to provide some utility does not prevent the token from being a security. Tokens and offerings that incorporate features and marketing efforts that emphasize the potential for profits based on the entrepreneurial or managerial efforts of others continue to contain the hallmarks of a security under U.S. law.”

What is most troubling is when he added that, “Investors should understand that to date no initial coin offerings have been registered with the SEC.”

The author of the article below raised an interest point, “Regardless, none of this has left token issuers with much in the way of defined guidelines on how to conduct a legally compliant ICO.”

That is correct, unless our law makers change the existing security laws on the book to accommodate the brave emerging decentralized world there are no provisions to conduct ICO efficiently and legally.

I understand that it is very frustrating, as ICOs can be an amazing contributor to capital formation. Granted that being the case, it is still a bad idea to engage in ICOs that are clearly deemed illegal unless registered or exempt with the SEC. This could end badly. I fear that this is the greatest risk confronting our industry.

What is DNotes doing differently? A lot, in almost every respect. But for now, let us focus on an alternative to ICO and do it legally.
For those who are new to our industry, it is helpful to understand that the tokens (coins) sold in ICOs are created or issued by leaderless decentralized entities not controlled by any individual, or group of individuals.

Real world entities in the form of incorporated companies, LLC, LLP, and proprietorship or others forms of ownerships are created with a purported mission of advancing the coins’ projects outlined in their “white papers”. Coins are pre-mined and sold, bring in millions of dollars (in some cases hundreds of millions of dollars). They now belong to the entities mentioned earlier. These entities have full discretion to use the funds, often with no limitation, transparency, or accountability. That should not come as a surprise as the “investors” have been advised that they do not have any ownership or voting rights in the entity that received the funds. It would be less confusing if those entities are registered as “charities” and the investment labeled as “donations”.

I wish that ICOs can be structured and conducted in manners that meet existing security laws, either through registration or exemption. Unfortunately, without significant changes to existing laws, it is simply not possible. To date, the issuers of ICO tokens are exclusively decentralized entities without any central authority. However, the money collected goes to individuals, partnership or incorporated companies purportedly are working on some great ideas presented in a white paper. The investors have no ownership or voting rights in the private entity that received the investment.

Other than consumer or investor protection, the SEC plays a key role to maintain a fair, orderly and efficient market. It is also given the mandate by our law makers to facilitate capital formation. To that extent, our government has an invested interest in capital formation that leads to job and wealth creation. There are distinct options of raising funds by selling securities in support of the token or coin legally as mentioned in the article. In the case of DNotes, we believe that Reg. A+ Mini-IPO Title IV Tier 2 is the ideal option for us. And we have been planning for it for over two years using an incorporated company, DNotes Global, Inc.

To protect consumers the SEC, requires the filing of a registration statement with full disclosure of all relevant information along with two years audited financial statements - subject to on-going reporting as the means of making available all information for investors to make an informed investment decision. We believe that as much as this is burdensome, it is also essential to protect investors.

Great breakdown of this issue, thanks for updating us. Since the first ICO was issued in 2013, relatively little has changed in the way the majority of the operate, aside from becoming sleeker, increasingly sophisticated, and more readily deployable through ICO facilitators like Ethereum.


A few questions on this matter, everyone feel free to chime in:

1) What sort of protections is a corporation legally required offer investors that LLC, LLP, and others don't? Do you think these easy to attain forms of ownership are being employed strictly for appearance of legitimacy, even when unnecessary?

2) What is the difference between owning a cryptocurrency, and buying into an ICO in terms of ownership rights? If you had to apply it to existing legal framework, how would the law view the distinction?

3) Are US investors who buy into unregistered ICO's committing a crime in the US, or does ownness fall solely on the issuer?

For full disclosure, I am not an attorney but just someone who has been an entrepreneur for a long time and familiar with some of the legal concepts.

Regarding your first question: “1) What sort of protections is a corporation legally required to offer investors that LLC, LLP, and others don't? Do you think these easy to attain forms of ownership are being employed strictly for appearance of legitimacy, even when unnecessary?”

They all offer their investors some level of protection to the extent of the entity’s total asset. To that extent, it shields the owners with limited liabilities. You cannot lose more than your entire company, LLC, LLP or other registered legal ownership with limited liabilities. They all have advantages and disadvantages – each more suitable in certain situations than others. They protect you and your investors and as such legitimate and necessary.

In the case of DNotes Global, Inc. we have the company incorporated in the State of Delaware, and registered to do business in the State of Illinois, as our corporate Headquarters. Additionally, it is incorporated as a “C” corporation –  with virtually no limit in the number of stakeholders we can have. This is extremely important in our case. We eventually could have a full-blown IPO attracting a very large number of shareholders worldwide.

"2) What is the difference between owning a cryptocurrency, and buying into an ICO in terms of ownership rights? If you had to apply it to existing legal framework, how would the law view the distinction? Would it be fair to make the (overly dramatic) comparison that this is like owning your home outright, vs having to pay the mortgage on an incomplete home?"


This is a tough one to answer, Brandon. Technologies often get ahead of regulations. If there is a legal challenge regarding ownership right, the final court ruling will set a precedent for others to follow.

When you buy 1000 DNotes from Cryptopia Exchange no one else but the owner of that 1000 DNotes received the proceeds from that sale. If the 1000 DNotes was sold in an ICO that proceeds would end up in another entity. Yet they all could end up being traded on the same exchange. The first case is an exchange in kind (DNotes for Bitcoin). The second case meets the hallmark of selling a security under U.S. law. (DNotes for US$). And that is illegal unless registered or exempt with the SEC.

"3) Are US investors who buy into unregistered ICO's committing a crime in the US, or does ownness fall solely on the issuer?"

One of the SEC mandates is consumers/investors protection. That is the reason that the SEC has been warning the consumers to be very careful when investing in ICOs. I personally don’t believe that they will go after the investors. Technically, they are the victims. But, when and if, the SEC go after the issuers of ICO tokens, it will probable cause serious loses to investors’ asset value; depending on the enforcement remedies used. An extreme case of a cease and decease order with return of all funds could be very damaging.

[Dyna]

Legalities aside, the thing I like about cryptocurrencies in general and to some extent applicable to ICOs is the much lower entry barrier for those of modest means to invest in something that very well could improve their financial lives in a way that wouldn't be possible otherwise.

If I only have $100 to invest, I can buy an undervalued cryptocurrency and maybe I'll end up sitting on something worth $10,000 or more. Cryptocurrencies basically make investments fungible enough for poor people to participate. $100 too much for you? You can also just invest $10 or $5. Remember in the early days of CryptoMoms when we were encouraging each other to give up your Starbucks Latte and use the money you save to buy DNotes? Well, with DNotes and some other coins, that kind of small investment really could make a big difference.

So when I hear about the SEC cracking down more on ICOs and other things related to cryptocurrency I worry that this door for poor people might get slammed shut. I hope that doesn't happen, and I'm grateful that this door was open for me.

That said, I also believe that people and entities promoting investments need to be honest about what they are promoting. Many ICOs have been shady and those poor people who have little or those middle class people who give up their weekly lattes at the very least deserve to know that what they are putting their money into has every reasonable chance of being successful (though one can never guarantee such things). There should be some protection from charlatans running ICOs that do nothing but scam people out of their money--at least in the form of full disclosure about fundamentals so that an informed investor of any social or economic class can make a good decision.

I just hope that the protection afforded investors does not also make it more difficult or impossible for people to participate. For example, I really hate how so many investments in the US are only available to accredited investors. You can invest in this wonderful promising startup and possibly get rich. Oh wait. You already have to be rich in order to get the chance.

I hope we can maintain the fungibility of cryptocurrencies and ICOs where investors can buy any amount, no amount too small, while still building in some reasonable standards of solid fundamentals that those seeking to raise funds for their ventures have to follow.

At the end of the day, though, the responsibility to spend one's own money wisely has to lie with each one of us, regardless of how much we have. There's only so much regulation can do to save us from our own poor financial choices without becoming overly burdensome. I wonder if it wouldn't be a better use of national resources if more funds weren't put towards the proper financial education of children (and adults) instead of towards trying to overregulate entrepreneurs who want to raise funds in the easiest way possible. If the majority of the population were properly educated on financial matters, wouldn't that in and of itself make it more difficult for the charlatans to raise funds?

 Wiser, I agree with you that “much lower entry barrier for those of modest means to invest in something that very well could improve their financial lives in a way that wouldn't be possible otherwise” is a wonderful thing made possible in our industry. However, that fact remains that it is possible with or without ICOs. For example, once an account is set up, anyone can invest $5 in DNotes - $1 today will buy you 20 DNotes. Of course, once it is discovered and fully valued the potential for appreciation is reduced.

The SEC has a mandate to promote capital formation. It promotes various legal crowdfunding platforms such as CF (crowdfunding) Reg. D - 506 (c), Reg. A+ Mini-IPO and others. I bet if our law makers can figure how to make the sale of ICO legal, SEC will promote it as a tool for capital formation.

Furthermore, it is important for us to understand that the required registration is their means of getting full disclosure and continued reporting information so that the consumers can make informed investment decision.

[Dyna]

DNotes Global, Inc. Announces Partnership With Geneca for Blockchain Technology Development

Excellent job, team. This is giving us great exposure. We will be dialing up our PR machine by a few notches in 2018.

[wiser]

Wiser, I agree with you that “much lower entry barrier for those of modest means to invest in something that very well could improve their financial lives in a way that wouldn't be possible otherwise” is a wonderful thing made possible in our industry. However, that fact remains that it is possible with or without ICOs. For example, once an account is set up, anyone can invest $5 in DNotes - $1 today will buy you 20 DNotes. Of course, once it is discovered and fully valued the potential for appreciation is reduced.

The SEC has a mandate to promote capital formation. It promotes various legal crowdfunding platforms such as CF (crowdfunding) Reg. D - 506 (c), Reg. A+ Mini-IPO and others. I bet if our law makers can figure how to make the sale of ICO legal, SEC will promote it as a tool for capital formation.

Furthermore, it is important for us to understand that the required registration is their means of getting full disclosure and continued reporting information so that the consumers can make informed investment decision.

It is certainly true that the lower entry barrier for investing is true without ICOs. As you said people can buy DNotes or any other cryptocoin directly from an exchange. I've bought into one or two ICOs and for the most part I've learned that the coin tends to lose value as soon as it starts getting traded on exchanges. It may or may not appreciate in value later, but you have time to study it and watch the market to find a good entry point. So if I'm interested in a coin, I often will just wait until its ICO is done and it goes on the exchange and then wait some more. If I still want it, then I'll buy it, but I'll admit a lot of times I sort of forget about it.

Since a lot of exchanges host ICOs, my hope is that increased regulation (or crack down) of ICOs doesn't jeopardize people's ability to acquire ordinary cryptocoins on exchanges.

I appreciate that required registration is how you get full disclosure and continue reporting information. It can also be prohibitively expensive for new entrepreneurs. I can understand why some of those people are excited about the ICO concept. I'd like to see the best of both, where there is proper disclosure and information to help investors make informed decisions but the cost isn't prohibitive for the startup, and the investor can participate with amounts as low as $10 (and not be required to invest some prohibitively high amount), and where people of all means can participate, not just "accredited investors."

[Dyna]

Wiser, I agree with you that “much lower entry barrier for those of modest means to invest in something that very well could improve their financial lives in a way that wouldn't be possible otherwise” is a wonderful thing made possible in our industry. However, that fact remains that it is possible with or without ICOs. For example, once an account is set up, anyone can invest $5 in DNotes - $1 today will buy you 20 DNotes. Of course, once it is discovered and fully valued the potential for appreciation is reduced.

The SEC has a mandate to promote capital formation. It promotes various legal crowdfunding platforms such as CF (crowdfunding) Reg. D - 506 (c), Reg. A+ Mini-IPO and others. I bet if our law makers can figure how to make the sale of ICO legal, SEC will promote it as a tool for capital formation.

Furthermore, it is important for us to understand that the required registration is their means of getting full disclosure and continued reporting information so that the consumers can make informed investment decision.

It is certainly true that the lower entry barrier for investing is true without ICOs. As you said people can buy DNotes or any other cryptocoin directly from an exchange. I've bought into one or two ICOs and for the most part I've learned that the coin tends to lose value as soon as it starts getting traded on exchanges. It may or may not appreciate in value later, but you have time to study it and watch the market to find a good entry point. So if I'm interested in a coin, I often will just wait until its ICO is done and it goes on the exchange and then wait some more. If I still want it, then I'll buy it, but I'll admit a lot of times I sort of forget about it.

Since a lot of exchanges host ICOs, my hope is that increased regulation (or crack down) of ICOs doesn't jeopardize people's ability to acquire ordinary cryptocoins on exchanges.

I appreciate that required registration is how you get full disclosure and continue reporting information. It can also be prohibitively expensive for new entrepreneurs. I can understand why some of those people are excited about the ICO concept. I'd like to see the best of both, where there is proper disclosure and information to help investors make informed decisions but the cost isn't prohibitive for the startup, and the investor can participate with amounts as low as $10 (and not be required to invest some prohibitively high amount), and where people of all means can participate, not just "accredited investors."

I don't think there is a law against anyone launching a new coin and making it available for everyone to participate in - the way our industry got started. The SEC takes issue when someone pre-mined an amount and sell them for money without SEC registration or exemption.

My relentless commitment to help DNotes succeed by doing the right things is to ensure that DNotes can benefit a lot of people who do not have the means to participate in investments that are designed for accredited investors. So, we share a lot of investment sentiments in favor of the small investors.

[DCEBrief]

Massachusetts Securities Regulator Offers Stern Criticism of Bitcoin

https://dcebrief.com/massachusetts-securities-regulator-offers-stern-criticism-of-bitcoin/

[TimMarsh]

The SEC takes issue when someone pre-mined an amount and sell them for money without SEC registration or exemption.

My relentless commitment to help DNotes succeed by doing the right things is to ensure that DNotes can benefit a lot of people who do not have the means to participate in investments that are designed for accredited investors. So, we share a lot of investment sentiments in favor of the small investors.

Does this mean that DNotes Global Inc. would be seen as breaking SEC regulations if it ever sold any of the potentially postmined 10,000,000 DNotes2.0 being considered?

Now, to answer your question, based on our current thoughts (subject to change), at the launch of DNotes 2.0 an amount equal to the then current supply of DNotes plus 10,000,000 additional Notes will be mined for the 1:1 coin swap.

Wiser, I completely agree with you and would love to see a 1:1 spend on financial education : financial regulation.

I believe that more proactive and consistent enforcement of existing laws would also solve a lot of the problems. When an ICO posts a whitepaper that claims it has a team of 10 programmers with a combined 100 years of experience. I'd like to see some complaint against them when it all falls over taken seriously and an investigation into the real number of year's experience of the programming team. If it doesn't match the information in the white paper, jail the participants for fraud. If a whitepaper claims they've completed the working software and they're running the ICO for marketing funds, then it turns out that they don't have working software, jail them for fraud. Not so hard and no new laws required. Same goes for creating or falsely embellishing identities.

And finally, I don't see why filling out forms to provide concise information about your organisation or ICO should incur an expensive fee. Maybe they should offer a two tier system. Tier 1 would gather and publish information after verifying it was signed by an identified responsible party. Then tier 2 could charge a fee for having their claims checked by the SEC and marked as verified. Investors could then decide on the risk they are willing to accept.