DNotes 2.0 - Staking, CRISP Interest, DNotes Pay

[DNotes]

Also, submitted to Udemy. The goal here is to get some exposure to the course as well as DNotes. If you know of any other places the video courses should be listed, let us know.

https://www.udemy.com/the-four-pillars-of-business-success

The Udemy course is now approved and available. Please feel free to share where appropriate.

https://www.udemy.com/the-four-pillars-of-business-success

[1714077036]

1714077036

[1714077036]

1714077036

[1714077036]

1714077036

[Dyna]

Also, submitted to Udemy. The goal here is to get some exposure to the course as well as DNotes. If you know of any other places the video courses should be listed, let us know.

https://www.udemy.com/the-four-pillars-of-business-success

The Udemy course is now approved and available. Please feel free to share where appropriate.

https://www.udemy.com/the-four-pillars-of-business-success

Thank you, Joe, for your relentless efforts to make this listing possible.

Check it out: https://www.udemy.com/the-four-pillars-of-business-success/

“Business success does not happen by accident or good fortune. It takes deep knowledge, passion, hard-work, focus, discipline, tenacity, and the right mind-sets to be successful. With passion and dedication, you can obtain the type of business mastery that will help you be the true architect of your company’s success. This course covers the vital importance of developing a clear vision of where you envision your company’s ultimate destination to be and how to build your teams to best succeed in achieving their missions, goals, and objectives to help your company get there. You gain the understanding and appreciation of all the critical components that must function well as a complete system or independently as a subsystem…. “

[DCEBrief]

Senate Banking Committee Holds Hearing on Crypto

https://dcebrief.com/senate-banking-committee-holds-hearing-on-crypto/

[Dyna]

Senate Banking Committee Holds Hearing on Crypto

https://dcebrief.com/senate-banking-committee-holds-hearing-on-crypto/

I found the SEC/CFTC Senate Committee on Banking hearing in Washington on Tuesday inspiring and forward-looking. Although, it was by no means definitive or comprehensive, I felt that it was positive, fair and objective. It was acknowledged that what we are witnessing could be “transformational” and become very big. I took it that timely attention in confronting the challenges while preserving opportunities for the innovative technologies to flourish was warranted. I was also encouraged by the CFTC Chairman Giancarlo’s remark that the “currency” component goes together with the underpinning blockchain technologies. He said, “It’s important to remember that if there were no Bitcoin, there would be no distributed ledger technology (DLT)”. He is correct.  Just one or the other would not have gained my attention or justification to characterized it as the greatest technology revolution since the Internet.

There is a frequent lack of understanding, that under existing rules and regulations there are no provisions for the SEC to register or grant an exemption to a cryptocurrency, as we know it. Being a decentralized autonomous entity, no one controls it. It is self-governing by algorithm with embedded rules.  

As it is today, the SEC can only interface with human – individuals, partnership, companies, etc., using it as its only means of getting full disclosure of all relevant materials, representations, and reporting requirements. In most cases it is very burdensome – complex, costly, and time consuming.

From my prospective, it is not possible for a coin to be a registered or exempt ICO with the SEC. A third party must be involved as an individual, partnership or company. This should clearly explain why not one single ICO is registered or exempt with the SEC, according to Chairman Jay Clayton.  If there is a way around it, I certainly will be all out to have DNotes launch the first ICO with the SEC approval – registered or exempt.

[Chase]

Senate Banking Committee Holds Hearing on Crypto

https://dcebrief.com/senate-banking-committee-holds-hearing-on-crypto/

I found the SEC/CFTC Senate Committee on Banking hearing in Washington on Tuesday inspiring and forward-looking. Although, it was by no means definitive or comprehensive, I felt that it was positive, fair and objective. It was acknowledged that what we are witnessing could be “transformational” and become very big. I took it that timely attention in confronting the challenges while preserving opportunities for the innovative technologies to flourish was warranted. I was also encouraged by the CFTC Chairman Giancarlo’s remark that the “currency” component goes together with the underpinning blockchain technologies. He said, “It’s important to remember that if there were no Bitcoin, there would be no distributed ledger technology (DLT)”. He is correct.  Just one or the other would not have gained my attention or justification to characterized it as the greatest technology revolution since the Internet.

There is a frequent lack of understanding, that under existing rules and regulations there are no provisions for the SEC to register or grant an exemption to a cryptocurrency, as we know it. Being a decentralized autonomous entity, no one controls it. It is self-governing by algorithm with embedded rules.  

As it is today, the SEC can only interface with human – individuals, partnership, companies, etc., using it as its only means of getting full disclosure of all relevant materials, representations, and reporting requirements. In most cases it is very burdensome – complex, costly, and time consuming.

From my prospective, it is not possible for a coin to be a registered or exempt ICO with the SEC. A third party must be involved as an individual, partnership or company. This should clearly explain why not one single ICO is registered or exempt with the SEC, according to Chairman Jay Clayton.  If there is a way around it, I certainly will be all out to have DNotes launch the first ICO with the SEC approval – registered or exempt.

Knowing how badly this could have gone, I think this is almost wonderful news. I'm really impressed with this:

Giancarlo also expressed an understanding of the generational nature of digital currency innovation:

“We owe it to this new generation to respect their enthusiasm for virtual currencies, with a thoughtful and balance response, and not a dismissive one.”


This comment was from another article in Yahoo finance:

“We should regulate ICOs like we regulate securities offerings,” Clayton said. “End of story.” He noted that companies selling "tokens" in their ICOs are different than companies selling cryptocurrency.

This sounds very promising for cryptocurrencies -  I may have to take back my comments on regulators not knowing the difference between cryptocurrency and ICOs, and "lumping them into one big bitcoin boat". 

SEC, CFTC Testify Before Senate on What's Needed for Virtual Currency  -  https://finance.yahoo.com/news/sec-cftc-testify-senate-apos-065435895.html

[Dyna]

Senate Banking Committee Holds Hearing on Crypto

https://dcebrief.com/senate-banking-committee-holds-hearing-on-crypto/

I found the SEC/CFTC Senate Committee on Banking hearing in Washington on Tuesday inspiring and forward-looking. Although, it was by no means definitive or comprehensive, I felt that it was positive, fair and objective. It was acknowledged that what we are witnessing could be “transformational” and become very big. I took it that timely attention in confronting the challenges while preserving opportunities for the innovative technologies to flourish was warranted. I was also encouraged by the CFTC Chairman Giancarlo’s remark that the “currency” component goes together with the underpinning blockchain technologies. He said, “It’s important to remember that if there were no Bitcoin, there would be no distributed ledger technology (DLT)”. He is correct.  Just one or the other would not have gained my attention or justification to characterized it as the greatest technology revolution since the Internet.

There is a frequent lack of understanding, that under existing rules and regulations there are no provisions for the SEC to register or grant an exemption to a cryptocurrency, as we know it. Being a decentralized autonomous entity, no one controls it. It is self-governing by algorithm with embedded rules.  

As it is today, the SEC can only interface with human – individuals, partnership, companies, etc., using it as its only means of getting full disclosure of all relevant materials, representations, and reporting requirements. In most cases it is very burdensome – complex, costly, and time consuming.

From my prospective, it is not possible for a coin to be a registered or exempt ICO with the SEC. A third party must be involved as an individual, partnership or company. This should clearly explain why not one single ICO is registered or exempt with the SEC, according to Chairman Jay Clayton.  If there is a way around it, I certainly will be all out to have DNotes launch the first ICO with the SEC approval – registered or exempt.

Knowing how badly this could have gone, I think this is almost wonderful news. I'm really impressed with this:

Giancarlo also expressed an understanding of the generational nature of digital currency innovation:

“We owe it to this new generation to respect their enthusiasm for virtual currencies, with a thoughtful and balance response, and not a dismissive one.”


This comment was from another article in Yahoo finance:

“We should regulate ICOs like we regulate securities offerings,” Clayton said. “End of story.” He noted that companies selling "tokens" in their ICOs are different than companies selling cryptocurrency.

This sounds very promising for cryptocurrencies -  I may have to take back my comments on regulators not knowing the difference between cryptocurrency and ICOs, and "lumping them into one big bitcoin boat". 

SEC, CFTC Testify Before Senate on What's Needed for Virtual Currency  -  https://finance.yahoo.com/news/sec-cftc-testify-senate-apos-065435895.html

I was generally impressed by their knowledge of the industry. Even the Senators were quite knowledgeable. Overall, it was very positive and measured. I took it as great news for our industry.

“There was a clearer response when the discussion turned to the regulation of initial coin offerings. “We should regulate ICOs like we regulate securities offerings,” Clayton said. “End of story.” 

It is quite clear that the SEC will treat ICO tokens as securities offerings, the sale of which is a violation of U. S. Securities laws, unless registered or exempt with the SEC.

He noted that companies selling "tokens" in their ICOs are different than companies selling cryptocurrency.”  https://finance.yahoo.com/news/sec-cftc-testify-senate-apos-065435895.html

This certainly sounds confusing. I assume that he meant that ICO involves the sale of a batch of pre-mined tokens of which all or a portion of it are sold for money or other cryptocurriencies. In the second case, I guess that he was referring to other cryptocurrencies that never used their coins to raise money. Bitcoin and DNotes are good examples.  “companies selling cryptocurrency”? Not sure if there is a clear and easy way to describe it. He might be trying to communicate to coins that never raised money using ICOs not to worry, since there has not been any sale of securities involved. Until there is a better term to differentiate the two, it will remain confusing.   

[wiser]

I was generally impressed by their knowledge of the industry. Even the Senators were quite knowledgeable. Overall, it was very positive and measured. I took it as great news for our industry.

“There was a clearer response when the discussion turned to the regulation of initial coin offerings. “We should regulate ICOs like we regulate securities offerings,” Clayton said. “End of story.” 

It is quite clear that the SEC will treat ICO tokens as securities offerings, the sale of which is a violation of U. S. Securities laws, unless registered or exempt with the SEC.

He noted that companies selling "tokens" in their ICOs are different than companies selling cryptocurrency.”  https://finance.yahoo.com/news/sec-cftc-testify-senate-apos-065435895.html

This certainly sounds confusing. I assume that he meant that ICO involves the sale of a batch of pre-mined tokens of which all or a portion of it are sold for money or other cryptocurriencies. In the second case, I guess that he was referring to other cryptocurrencies that never used their coins to raise money. Bitcoin and DNotes are good examples.  “companies selling cryptocurrency”? Not sure if there is a clear and easy way to describe it. He might be trying to communicate to coins that never raised money using ICOs not to worry, since there has not been any sale of securities involved. Until there is a better term to differentiate the two, it will remain confusing.   

I appreciate hearing your optimistic take. I especially like that the lawmakers appeared to be knowledgeable. That is always a good sign. I'm sure the differences between ICO tokens and cryptocurrencies will be clarified over time.

[TeeGee]

I was generally impressed by their knowledge of the industry. Even the Senators were quite knowledgeable. Overall, it was very positive and measured. I took it as great news for our industry.

“There was a clearer response when the discussion turned to the regulation of initial coin offerings. “We should regulate ICOs like we regulate securities offerings,” Clayton said. “End of story.” 

It is quite clear that the SEC will treat ICO tokens as securities offerings, the sale of which is a violation of U. S. Securities laws, unless registered or exempt with the SEC.

He noted that companies selling "tokens" in their ICOs are different than companies selling cryptocurrency.”  https://finance.yahoo.com/news/sec-cftc-testify-senate-apos-065435895.html

This certainly sounds confusing. I assume that he meant that ICO involves the sale of a batch of pre-mined tokens of which all or a portion of it are sold for money or other cryptocurriencies. In the second case, I guess that he was referring to other cryptocurrencies that never used their coins to raise money. Bitcoin and DNotes are good examples.  “companies selling cryptocurrency”? Not sure if there is a clear and easy way to describe it. He might be trying to communicate to coins that never raised money using ICOs not to worry, since there has not been any sale of securities involved. Until there is a better term to differentiate the two, it will remain confusing.   

I appreciate hearing your optimistic take. I especially like that the lawmakers appeared to be knowledgeable. That is always a good sign. I'm sure the differences between ICO tokens and cryptocurrencies will be clarified over time.

The optimistic take that we saw is encouraging, and in particular the nod that was given to the fact that younger generations take a keen interest in cryptocurrencies, and that those interests should not be discriminated against.

What will be crucial in the coming months will be for regulators around the world to give some clarity regarding ICO and cryptocurrencies, which will prevent more people from taking the wrong courses of action -- though these should be foreseeable: if you undertake an ICO, be prepared for future ramifications retrospectively by governments. It is my view that regulators need to provide this clarity in a sense that they can reasonably enforce. If the community accepts these provisions, then regulatory compliant applications could capture the vast majority of the cryptomarket. This would make the investigation of unsavoury activities that use cryptocurrencies much easier for financial authorities, while also adding legitimacy to cryptocurrency markets used in the manner that the vast majority of us wish to use them.

[MiningHabit]

https://ebitnews.com/ico/dfinity-blockchain-ico-cloud-tezos/

There is a part of me that definitely doesn't like this, and a smaller part of me that does.

I could tell a long story, but the summary is that many years ago I wanted to invest in Facebook through the secondary markets at a time when it was a $10b company. I wasn't allowed too, because I wasn't already accredited (read: already rich). So I had to go to rich people I knew with my thesis. Nobody took my advice. Now FB is one of the most valuable corporations in the world. Thanks SEC for letting me participate in that upside as a poor person!!

That's a huge thing I like about Crypto. I have my thesis. And nobody can tell me to act on it or not with some artificial market-altering rules. So, it's annoying that I can't participate in DFINITY, or MIT's Enigma project, and several others....because I'm still not rich enough to meet the SEC definitions for being accredited. 7-8 years later. And NOTHING has changed.

Yet, something about ICOs (read: all the scams) is also unpalatable.

In general, I am Laissez Faire Libertarian w.r.t. economics. I think access >>>> risk. People should be able to make their own mistakes within a framework. And disallowing all access in the name of security, is bullshit.

As Ben Franklin said, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

[R-J-F]

https://ebitnews.com/ico/dfinity-blockchain-ico-cloud-tezos/

There is a part of me that definitely doesn't like this, and a smaller part of me that does.

I could tell a long story, but the summary is that many years ago I wanted to invest in Facebook through the secondary markets at a time when it was a $10b company. I wasn't allowed too, because I wasn't already accredited (read: already rich). So I had to go to rich people I knew with my thesis. Nobody took my advice. Now FB is one of the most valuable corporations in the world. Thanks SEC for letting me participate in that upside as a poor person!!

That's a huge thing I like about Crypto. I have my thesis. And nobody can tell me to act on it or not with some artificial market-altering rules. So, it's annoying that I can't participate in DFINITY, or MIT's Enigma project, and several others....because I'm still not rich enough to meet the SEC definitions for being accredited. 7-8 years later. And NOTHING has changed.

Yet, something about ICOs (read: all the scams) is also unpalatable.

In general, I am Laissez Faire Libertarian w.r.t. economics. I think access >>>> risk. People should be able to make their own mistakes within a framework. And disallowing all access in the name of security, is bullshit.

As Ben Franklin said, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Wow! I SO agree with you! I am sick and tired of people who are no different from me "protecting" me from myself, it's insulting. "Accredited" status or not, it's the principle of government babysitting us that I cannot stomach. Every headline about Senators, Congressmen and other elected officials being charged with finance related offences, going bankrupt, lying, cheating, the whole nine yards is disgusting to me. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" Where do these people get the right to decide our fate and tell us where we can and cannot invest?

PS: I'm stealing that quote by Franklin, one of my favorites and I need a new tag line... 
 

[DNotes]

https://ebitnews.com/ico/dfinity-blockchain-ico-cloud-tezos/

There is a part of me that definitely doesn't like this, and a smaller part of me that does.

I could tell a long story, but the summary is that many years ago I wanted to invest in Facebook through the secondary markets at a time when it was a $10b company. I wasn't allowed too, because I wasn't already accredited (read: already rich). So I had to go to rich people I knew with my thesis. Nobody took my advice. Now FB is one of the most valuable corporations in the world. Thanks SEC for letting me participate in that upside as a poor person!!

That's a huge thing I like about Crypto. I have my thesis. And nobody can tell me to act on it or not with some artificial market-altering rules. So, it's annoying that I can't participate in DFINITY, or MIT's Enigma project, and several others....because I'm still not rich enough to meet the SEC definitions for being accredited. 7-8 years later. And NOTHING has changed.

Yet, something about ICOs (read: all the scams) is also unpalatable.

In general, I am Laissez Faire Libertarian w.r.t. economics. I think access >>>> risk. People should be able to make their own mistakes within a framework. And disallowing all access in the name of security, is bullshit.

As Ben Franklin said, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

It is a conflict as there is good and bad on both sides. After talking to Alan and all the research he has done in the crowdfunding arena, I am much more comfortable that we are moving in the right direction and these types of investments will be more open to everyone, and not just the rich, in the future. You are absolutely right, you should have been able to make an investment in a company you believe in, and risk your own money to do so. History teaches us that having it wide open can lead to catastrophe, however those catastrophic events were in a very different time, today it could be handled in a different way to ensure risks are well known and documented as well as promotion and representation efforts are tempered.

[corvo00x]

Today DNotes costs $0.038 price.  I think this coin can do more over the coming years

[TeeGee]

I like the points being made here by RJF and MiningHabit that far too many people are excluded from private equity funding stages of the business cycle. Everybody should be able to participate. That is one reason why I have so much respect for the DNotes approach, and why I'm absolutely certain we have taken the right path. Just like the tag line we have adopted in our videos going forward:

"DNotes - the inclusive digital currency, for everyone."

[Dyna]

I like the points being made here by RJF and MiningHabit that far too many people are excluded from private equity funding stages of the business cycle. Everybody should be able to participate. That is one reason why I have so much respect for the DNotes approach, and why I'm absolutely certain we have taken the right path. Just like the tag line we have adopted in our videos going forward:

"DNotes - the inclusive digital currency, for everyone."

I share your values and sentiments that even small investors should be given the opportunity to invest in situations they see fit and not be deprived of those rights by limiting them only to accredited investors. As part of consumer protection, I am less concerned about limiting their investment to 10% of their annual earnings or net-worth.

As you may know, DNotes Global has selected the more demanding funding program using Reg. A+ Mini-IPO Title IV Tier 2 to raise up to $50 million from accredited and non-accredited investors worldwide. We could use Reg. D 506(c) to raise unlimited amount only from accredited investors. That is the most common funding vehicle at a significantly lower cost. But then, "DNotes - the inclusive digital currency, for everyone."

[DCEBrief]

Crypto Supporter Running for Congress in CA

https://dcebrief.com/crypto-supporter-running-for-congress-in-ca/

[R-J-F]

I like the points being made here by RJF and MiningHabit that far too many people are excluded from private equity funding stages of the business cycle. Everybody should be able to participate. That is one reason why I have so much respect for the DNotes approach, and why I'm absolutely certain we have taken the right path. Just like the tag line we have adopted in our videos going forward:

"DNotes - the inclusive digital currency, for everyone."

I share your values and sentiments that even small investors should be given the opportunity to invest in situations they see fit and not be deprived of those rights by limiting them only to accredited investors. As part of consumer protection, I am less concerned about limiting their investment to 10% of their annual earnings or net-worth.

As you may know, DNotes Global has selected the more demanding funding program using Reg. A+ Mini-IPO Title IV Tier 2 to raise up to $50 million from accredited and non-accredited investors worldwide. We could use Reg. D 506(c) to raise unlimited amount only from accredited investors. That is the most common funding vehicle at a significantly lower cost. But then, "DNotes - the inclusive digital currency, for everyone."

Absolutely Alan! In order to maintain integrity, you have to "practice what you preach". Ignoring this is the downfall of so many startups and small, growing companies. In all fairness, yes, things always deviate from the the original plan but, I will argue, unless it is regulatory or legal, there is always a way to bend and reposition without loosing site of what attracted investors and customers in the first place. So many startups make the usually fatal mistake of abandoning their guiding principles and loosing site the goal when confronted with problems they see as insurmountable.

It's always easier to give up or, compromise your principles to survive, but, in the long run there are no true rewards on that path.

[TeeGee]

I like the points being made here by RJF and MiningHabit that far too many people are excluded from private equity funding stages of the business cycle. Everybody should be able to participate. That is one reason why I have so much respect for the DNotes approach, and why I'm absolutely certain we have taken the right path. Just like the tag line we have adopted in our videos going forward:

"DNotes - the inclusive digital currency, for everyone."

I share your values and sentiments that even small investors should be given the opportunity to invest in situations they see fit and not be deprived of those rights by limiting them only to accredited investors. As part of consumer protection, I am less concerned about limiting their investment to 10% of their annual earnings or net-worth.

As you may know, DNotes Global has selected the more demanding funding program using Reg. A+ Mini-IPO Title IV Tier 2 to raise up to $50 million from accredited and non-accredited investors worldwide. We could use Reg. D 506(c) to raise unlimited amount only from accredited investors. That is the most common funding vehicle at a significantly lower cost. But then, "DNotes - the inclusive digital currency, for everyone."

Absolutely Alan! In order to maintain integrity, you have to "practice what you preach". Ignoring this is the downfall of so many startups and small, growing companies. In all fairness, yes, things always deviate from the the original plan but, I will argue, unless it is regulatory or legal, there is always a way to bend and reposition without loosing site of what attracted investors and customers in the first place. So many startups make the usually fatal mistake of abandoning their guiding principles and loosing site the goal when confronted with problems they see as insurmountable.

It's always easier to give up or, compromise your principles to survive, but, in the long run there are no true rewards on that path.

I absolutely love that comment RJF. In my view, success can be boiled down to the expression of one's vaunted principles and virtue. Many projects will likely fall by the wayside when they realise that institutional and user reluctance to use their products is the result of them taking an easy route, that has led to regulatory hurdles that can't be overcome but to begin again. Many in the ICO realm have gone with the 'easy route', that doesn't necessarily guarantee long-term success. The messaging in this forum has always praised the novelty and benefits that Initial Coin Offerings may offer, though we have always remained cautious on them with respect to our expectations of regulator responses to security checks that ICO's have historically circumvented. We have often discussed the need for sensible cryptocurrency regulation, and DCEBrief was created to aid these stakeholders as an education tool.

Earlier today I submitted a proposal to one of the largest New Zealand public-sector organizations that is trying to increase their capability in the cryptocurrency space. The consultation document was created in response to a request forwarded to me that originated via the commissioner of the organization themselves, and it is my current understanding that my early session(s) may involve educating executives from other organisations / sitting board of directors. I am very privileged to be in a position to at least help out however I can in my corner of the world. The benefits of getting countries to one-by-one take sensible steps to understanding and making room for cryptocurrencies are enormous, and it is much better to get involved when the policies are being drafted, rather than after the fact. I think that New Zealand could become a huge market for DNotes, given that no cryptocurrency but NAV have a presence in the country, and all applications built in the country are created on proxy platforms like ethereum or outsourced to overseas firms, which mean less control and customizability for those organizations that commission development.

That said, the first step is getting the regulations right.

[R-J-F]

I like the points being made here by RJF and MiningHabit that far too many people are excluded from private equity funding stages of the business cycle. Everybody should be able to participate. That is one reason why I have so much respect for the DNotes approach, and why I'm absolutely certain we have taken the right path. Just like the tag line we have adopted in our videos going forward:

"DNotes - the inclusive digital currency, for everyone."

I share your values and sentiments that even small investors should be given the opportunity to invest in situations they see fit and not be deprived of those rights by limiting them only to accredited investors. As part of consumer protection, I am less concerned about limiting their investment to 10% of their annual earnings or net-worth.

As you may know, DNotes Global has selected the more demanding funding program using Reg. A+ Mini-IPO Title IV Tier 2 to raise up to $50 million from accredited and non-accredited investors worldwide. We could use Reg. D 506(c) to raise unlimited amount only from accredited investors. That is the most common funding vehicle at a significantly lower cost. But then, "DNotes - the inclusive digital currency, for everyone."

Absolutely Alan! In order to maintain integrity, you have to "practice what you preach". Ignoring this is the downfall of so many startups and small, growing companies. In all fairness, yes, things always deviate from the the original plan but, I will argue, unless it is regulatory or legal, there is always a way to bend and reposition without loosing site of what attracted investors and customers in the first place. So many startups make the usually fatal mistake of abandoning their guiding principles and loosing site the goal when confronted with problems they see as insurmountable.

It's always easier to give up or, compromise your principles to survive, but, in the long run there are no true rewards on that path.

I absolutely love that comment RJF. In my view, success can be boiled down to the expression of one's vaunted principles and virtue. Many projects will likely fall by the wayside when they realise that institutional and user reluctance to use their products is the result of them taking an easy route, that has led to regulatory hurdles that can't be overcome but to begin again. Many in the ICO realm have gone with the 'easy route', that doesn't necessarily guarantee long-term success. The messaging in this forum has always praised the novelty and benefits that Initial Coin Offerings may offer, though we have always remained cautious on them with respect to our expectations of regulator responses to security checks that ICO's have historically circumvented. We have often discussed the need for sensible cryptocurrency regulation, and DCEBrief was created to aid these stakeholders as an education tool.

Earlier today I submitted a proposal to one of the largest New Zealand public-sector organizations that is trying to increase their capability in the cryptocurrency space. The consultation document was created in response to a request forwarded to me that originated via the commissioner of the organization themselves, and it is my current understanding that my early session(s) may involve educating executives from other organisations / sitting board of directors. I am very privileged to be in a position to at least help out however I can in my corner of the world. The benefits of getting countries to one-by-one take sensible steps to understanding and making room for cryptocurrencies are enormous, and it is much better to get involved when the policies are being drafted, rather than after the fact. I think that New Zealand could become a huge market for DNotes, given that no cryptocurrency but NAV have a presence in the country, and all applications built in the country are created on proxy platforms like ethereum or outsourced to overseas firms, which mean less control and customizability for those organizations that commission development.

That said, the first step is getting the regulations right.

Allow me to deviate slightly here due to what you were saying about regulations. I wonder, how hard would it be for the SEC to create a seperate class for crypto ICOs? The regulatory structures already in place for IPOs could be culled and realigned while being repurposed to fit ICOs without an inordinate amount of work I would think. Something like "Crypto IPO Lite" for online companies. The regulations could be rather simple I would think, something along the lines of verification of the principles, some sort of bond (maybe depends on amount to be raised and final score for the project), proof of concept and usefulness of the end product along with a real white paper and business plan.  

Add background checks and proof of concept and permit them to raise some preset figure depending on scoring those items. Really not much work involved but the pre-qual would show commitment and follow through. It's really a shame that most of these ICOs start out with good intentions but get derailed or smothered in the amount of work required to bring their product to market. Perhaps an online ICO incubator could be available to assist with all the ins and out of turning a crypto idea into an online business. An incubator could also score a project in advance and help in making a decision to proceed or not.

Just some thoughts. I like to take real world systems and project them into the crypto world. I think this will become a speciality and a profitable venture soon enough!


 

[DNotes]

I like the points being made here by RJF and MiningHabit that far too many people are excluded from private equity funding stages of the business cycle. Everybody should be able to participate. That is one reason why I have so much respect for the DNotes approach, and why I'm absolutely certain we have taken the right path. Just like the tag line we have adopted in our videos going forward:

"DNotes - the inclusive digital currency, for everyone."

I share your values and sentiments that even small investors should be given the opportunity to invest in situations they see fit and not be deprived of those rights by limiting them only to accredited investors. As part of consumer protection, I am less concerned about limiting their investment to 10% of their annual earnings or net-worth.

As you may know, DNotes Global has selected the more demanding funding program using Reg. A+ Mini-IPO Title IV Tier 2 to raise up to $50 million from accredited and non-accredited investors worldwide. We could use Reg. D 506(c) to raise unlimited amount only from accredited investors. That is the most common funding vehicle at a significantly lower cost. But then, "DNotes - the inclusive digital currency, for everyone."

Absolutely Alan! In order to maintain integrity, you have to "practice what you preach". Ignoring this is the downfall of so many startups and small, growing companies. In all fairness, yes, things always deviate from the the original plan but, I will argue, unless it is regulatory or legal, there is always a way to bend and reposition without loosing site of what attracted investors and customers in the first place. So many startups make the usually fatal mistake of abandoning their guiding principles and loosing site the goal when confronted with problems they see as insurmountable.

It's always easier to give up or, compromise your principles to survive, but, in the long run there are no true rewards on that path.

I absolutely love that comment RJF. In my view, success can be boiled down to the expression of one's vaunted principles and virtue. Many projects will likely fall by the wayside when they realise that institutional and user reluctance to use their products is the result of them taking an easy route, that has led to regulatory hurdles that can't be overcome but to begin again. Many in the ICO realm have gone with the 'easy route', that doesn't necessarily guarantee long-term success. The messaging in this forum has always praised the novelty and benefits that Initial Coin Offerings may offer, though we have always remained cautious on them with respect to our expectations of regulator responses to security checks that ICO's have historically circumvented. We have often discussed the need for sensible cryptocurrency regulation, and DCEBrief was created to aid these stakeholders as an education tool.

Earlier today I submitted a proposal to one of the largest New Zealand public-sector organizations that is trying to increase their capability in the cryptocurrency space. The consultation document was created in response to a request forwarded to me that originated via the commissioner of the organization themselves, and it is my current understanding that my early session(s) may involve educating executives from other organisations / sitting board of directors. I am very privileged to be in a position to at least help out however I can in my corner of the world. The benefits of getting countries to one-by-one take sensible steps to understanding and making room for cryptocurrencies are enormous, and it is much better to get involved when the policies are being drafted, rather than after the fact. I think that New Zealand could become a huge market for DNotes, given that no cryptocurrency but NAV have a presence in the country, and all applications built in the country are created on proxy platforms like ethereum or outsourced to overseas firms, which mean less control and customizability for those organizations that commission development.

That said, the first step is getting the regulations right.

Allow me to deviate slightly here due to what you were saying about regulations. I wonder, how hard would it be for the SEC to create a seperate class for crypto ICOs? The regulatory structures already in place for IPOs could be culled and realigned while being repurposed to fit ICOs without an inordinate amount of work I would think. Something like "Crypto IPO Lite" for online companies. The regulations could be rather simple I would think, something along the lines of verification of the principles, some sort of bond (maybe depends on amount to be raised and final score for the project), proof of concept and usefulness of the end product along with a real white paper and business plan.  

Add background checks and proof of concept and permit them to raise some preset figure depending on scoring those items. Really not much work involved but the pre-qual would show commitment and follow through. It's really a shame that most of these ICOs start out with good intentions but get derailed or smothered in the amount of work required to bring their product to market. Perhaps an online ICO incubator could be available to assist with all the ins and out of turning a crypto idea into an online business. An incubator could also score a project in advance and help in making a decision to proceed or not.

Just some thoughts. I like to take real world systems and project them into the crypto world. I think this will become a speciality and a profitable venture soon enough!


 

Great work Tim, you are helping to shape our future and build an amazing network.

I believe one day ICO can be regulated and exist in the centralized world. A light touch regulatory framework initially would be helpful to allow things to come together. This has to be very carefully planned from the side of the regulators, as a mistake could have dire consequences. This light touch framework could include, the ICO issuers would have to be responsible for ensuring the reporting of allowing users on the network only after they have verified themselves and met the outlined requirements. It would also require securities exchange rules that fall outside of existing requirements for those that exchange securities today. I don't see how it could happen without cooperation from many parties, and could take a long time to get to that point, as well as a period of time thereafter to bring it in line with existing regulations.

[R-J-F]

I like the points being made here by RJF and MiningHabit that far too many people are excluded from private equity funding stages of the business cycle. Everybody should be able to participate. That is one reason why I have so much respect for the DNotes approach, and why I'm absolutely certain we have taken the right path. Just like the tag line we have adopted in our videos going forward:

"DNotes - the inclusive digital currency, for everyone."

I share your values and sentiments that even small investors should be given the opportunity to invest in situations they see fit and not be deprived of those rights by limiting them only to accredited investors. As part of consumer protection, I am less concerned about limiting their investment to 10% of their annual earnings or net-worth.

As you may know, DNotes Global has selected the more demanding funding program using Reg. A+ Mini-IPO Title IV Tier 2 to raise up to $50 million from accredited and non-accredited investors worldwide. We could use Reg. D 506(c) to raise unlimited amount only from accredited investors. That is the most common funding vehicle at a significantly lower cost. But then, "DNotes - the inclusive digital currency, for everyone."

Absolutely Alan! In order to maintain integrity, you have to "practice what you preach". Ignoring this is the downfall of so many startups and small, growing companies. In all fairness, yes, things always deviate from the the original plan but, I will argue, unless it is regulatory or legal, there is always a way to bend and reposition without loosing site of what attracted investors and customers in the first place. So many startups make the usually fatal mistake of abandoning their guiding principles and loosing site the goal when confronted with problems they see as insurmountable.

It's always easier to give up or, compromise your principles to survive, but, in the long run there are no true rewards on that path.

I absolutely love that comment RJF. In my view, success can be boiled down to the expression of one's vaunted principles and virtue. Many projects will likely fall by the wayside when they realise that institutional and user reluctance to use their products is the result of them taking an easy route, that has led to regulatory hurdles that can't be overcome but to begin again. Many in the ICO realm have gone with the 'easy route', that doesn't necessarily guarantee long-term success. The messaging in this forum has always praised the novelty and benefits that Initial Coin Offerings may offer, though we have always remained cautious on them with respect to our expectations of regulator responses to security checks that ICO's have historically circumvented. We have often discussed the need for sensible cryptocurrency regulation, and DCEBrief was created to aid these stakeholders as an education tool.

Earlier today I submitted a proposal to one of the largest New Zealand public-sector organizations that is trying to increase their capability in the cryptocurrency space. The consultation document was created in response to a request forwarded to me that originated via the commissioner of the organization themselves, and it is my current understanding that my early session(s) may involve educating executives from other organisations / sitting board of directors. I am very privileged to be in a position to at least help out however I can in my corner of the world. The benefits of getting countries to one-by-one take sensible steps to understanding and making room for cryptocurrencies are enormous, and it is much better to get involved when the policies are being drafted, rather than after the fact. I think that New Zealand could become a huge market for DNotes, given that no cryptocurrency but NAV have a presence in the country, and all applications built in the country are created on proxy platforms like ethereum or outsourced to overseas firms, which mean less control and customizability for those organizations that commission development.

That said, the first step is getting the regulations right.

Allow me to deviate slightly here due to what you were saying about regulations. I wonder, how hard would it be for the SEC to create a seperate class for crypto ICOs? The regulatory structures already in place for IPOs could be culled and realigned while being repurposed to fit ICOs without an inordinate amount of work I would think. Something like "Crypto IPO Lite" for online companies. The regulations could be rather simple I would think, something along the lines of verification of the principles, some sort of bond (maybe depends on amount to be raised and final score for the project), proof of concept and usefulness of the end product along with a real white paper and business plan.  

Add background checks and proof of concept and permit them to raise some preset figure depending on scoring those items. Really not much work involved but the pre-qual would show commitment and follow through. It's really a shame that most of these ICOs start out with good intentions but get derailed or smothered in the amount of work required to bring their product to market. Perhaps an online ICO incubator could be available to assist with all the ins and out of turning a crypto idea into an online business. An incubator could also score a project in advance and help in making a decision to proceed or not.

Just some thoughts. I like to take real world systems and project them into the crypto world. I think this will become a speciality and a profitable venture soon enough!


 

Great work Tim, you are helping to shape our future and build an amazing network.

I believe one day ICO can be regulated and exist in the centralized world. A light touch regulatory framework initially would be helpful to allow things to come together. This has to be very carefully planned from the side of the regulators, as a mistake could have dire consequences. This light touch framework could include, the ICO issuers would have to be responsible for ensuring the reporting of allowing users on the network only after they have verified themselves and met the outlined requirements. It would also require securities exchange rules that fall outside of existing requirements for those that exchange securities today. I don't see how it could happen without cooperation from many parties, and could take a long time to get to that point, as well as a period of time thereafter to bring it in line with existing regulations.

" It would also require securities exchange rules that fall outside of existing requirements "  Right! As I outlined above, this would be a different animal entirely. And due to the elastic nature of crypto, it would need to be flexible in all directions. I think it can be done with some effort and assistance of the crypto community, in fact, that part is mandatory!

PS: Pool's front end is down.