[LABCOIN] IPO [BTCT.CO] - Details/FAQ and Discussion (ASIC dev/sales/mining)

[VolanicEruptor]

what I don't get is that if there won't be any trading soon, and there is no new exchange, how does one retain ownership of the shares?  how do we know there will even be a new exchange at this point?

Labcoin and Swede keep mentioning Bitfunder, but we have yet to see an official announcement from Ukyo or labcoin

E wry thing is on hold with bitfunder takin on new securities until next week, I believe he mentioned he is waiting on legal advice

If Ukyo is seeking legal opinion then you can almost bank one one of these three possible outcomes:
1) He will start following AML/KYC laws which means everyone will be required to register and prove identity.  This will be a huge management overhead and not very likely to occur.
2) He will physically move to a country more condusive to this sort of thing.  Unlikely as he already admitted that the site profits were lower than the amount he has spent on lawyers.
3) He will follow burnside's lead and close up shop. Most likely scenario IMO  That leaves 796 and Havelock which are currently operating legally in their jurisdiction.

Ukyo is currently operating legally in his jurisdiction as well.

[1713546383]

1713546383

[1713546383]

1713546383

[canth]

what I don't get is that if there won't be any trading soon, and there is no new exchange, how does one retain ownership of the shares?  how do we know there will even be a new exchange at this point?

Labcoin and Swede keep mentioning Bitfunder, but we have yet to see an official announcement from Ukyo or labcoin

yes but say i don't have an account there, or it doesn't get all set up before btct closes....  do we just lose our shares?  do divs continue going to our last known payout address? i am wondering how a share will go from one exchange to the other while remaining mine....  i'm sure nobody will have an answer to that until (if) the official announcement is made.

If Labcoin gets approved and moves to Bitfunder, then yes you might not be eligible for dividends if you choose to not open an account with Bitfunder.
If on the other hand they don't get approved then I imagine they'll operate as a dividend producing private stock. The larger shareholders can operate passthrough shares on exchanges, presuming that there is approval to get them listed.

[addi]

what I don't get is that if there won't be any trading soon, and there is no new exchange, how does one retain ownership of the shares?  how do we know there will even be a new exchange at this point?

Labcoin and Swede keep mentioning Bitfunder, but we have yet to see an official announcement from Ukyo or labcoin

yes but say i don't have an account there, or it doesn't get all set up before btct closes....  do we just lose our shares?  do divs continue going to our last known payout address? i am wondering how a share will go from one exchange to the other while remaining mine....  i'm sure nobody will have an answer to that until (if) the official announcement is made.

If Labcoin gets approved and moves to Bitfunder, then yes you might not be eligible for dividends if you choose to not open an account with Bitfunder.
If on the other hand they don't get approved then I imagine they'll operate as a dividend producing private stock. The larger shareholders can operate passthrough shares on exchanges, presuming that there is approval to get them listed.

I for one really hope Ukyo does not accept Labcoin, too much collateral damage potential

[dhenson]

Ukyo is currently operating legally in his jurisdiction as well.

Can you point me towards your source?  As far as I know we don't know where Ukyo lives... Where he is incorporated is immaterial.

[Puppet]

If Ukyo is seeking legal opinion then you can almost bank one one of these three possible outcomes:
1) He will start following AML/KYC laws which means everyone will be required to register and prove identity.  This will be a huge management overhead and not very likely to occur.
2) He will physically move to a country more condusive to this sort of thing.  Unlikely as he already admitted that the site profits were lower than the amount he has spent on lawyers.
3) He will follow burnside's lead and close up shop. Most likely scenario IMO  That leaves 796 and Havelock which are currently operating legally in their jurisdiction.

FFS how many times does one have to post links here to make people understand you can not legally sell unregistered securities to US citizens (or EU or mostly any civilized country) . "their jurisdiction" is meaningless. These exchanges would at the very least have to try to block sales to US citizens, otherwise they would be seen as targeting US (EU, whatever) and therefor be subject to SEC regulations:

III. OFFSHORE OFFERS AND SOLICITATIONS ON THE INTERNET
http://www.sec.gov/rules/interp/33-7516.htm

It doesnt matter what country they operate from, all that matters is what market they target. The internet isnt a country, there is a reason I cant get Netflix here, its because I dont live in internetland.

[zumzero]

If Ukyo is seeking legal opinion then you can almost bank one one of these three possible outcomes:
1) He will start following AML/KYC laws which means everyone will be required to register and prove identity.  This will be a huge management overhead and not very likely to occur.
2) He will physically move to a country more condusive to this sort of thing.  Unlikely as he already admitted that the site profits were lower than the amount he has spent on lawyers.
3) He will follow burnside's lead and close up shop. Most likely scenario IMO  That leaves 796 and Havelock which are currently operating legally in their jurisdiction.

FFS how many times does one have to post links here to make people understand you can not legally sell unregistered securities to US citizens (or EU or mostly any civilized country) . "their jurisdiction" is meaningless. These exchanges would at the very least have to try to block sales to US citizens, otherwise they would be seen as targeting US (EU, whatever) and therefor be subject to SEC regulations:

III. OFFSHORE OFFERS AND SOLICITATIONS ON THE INTERNET
http://www.sec.gov/rules/interp/33-7516.htm

It doesnt matter what country they operate from, all that matters is what market they target. The internet isnt a country, there is a reason I cant get Netflix here, its because I dont live in internetland.

And you can not legally sell bitcoins for fiat without paying taxes.   

[minerpart]

what I don't get is that if there won't be any trading soon, and there is no new exchange, how does one retain ownership of the shares?  how do we know there will even be a new exchange at this point?

Your ownership (actually every trade ever executed) is recorded in the exchange log. This log will be used to give you an identical number of shares in any new exchange.

[moribana]

If Ukyo is seeking legal opinion then you can almost bank one one of these three possible outcomes:
1) He will start following AML/KYC laws which means everyone will be required to register and prove identity.  This will be a huge management overhead and not very likely to occur.
2) He will physically move to a country more condusive to this sort of thing.  Unlikely as he already admitted that the site profits were lower than the amount he has spent on lawyers.
3) He will follow burnside's lead and close up shop. Most likely scenario IMO  That leaves 796 and Havelock which are currently operating legally in their jurisdiction.

FFS how many times does one have to post links here to make people understand you can not legally sell unregistered securities to US citizens (or EU or mostly any civilized country) . "their jurisdiction" is meaningless. These exchanges would at the very least have to try to block sales to US citizens, otherwise they would be seen as targeting US (EU, whatever) and therefor be subject to SEC regulations:

III. OFFSHORE OFFERS AND SOLICITATIONS ON THE INTERNET
http://www.sec.gov/rules/interp/33-7516.htm

It doesnt matter what country they operate from, all that matters is what market they target. The internet isnt a country, there is a reason I cant get Netflix here, its because I dont live in internetland.

Can't this problem be solved in the way BTCINVEST on Bitfunder did it? Just explicitly stating that US citizens and residents are prohibited to buy. Of course, this cannot be enforced, but nobody can accuse then of targeting US citizens.

[crumbs]

If Ukyo is seeking legal opinion then you can almost bank one one of these three possible outcomes:
1) He will start following AML/KYC laws which means everyone will be required to register and prove identity.  This will be a huge management overhead and not very likely to occur.
2) He will physically move to a country more condusive to this sort of thing.  Unlikely as he already admitted that the site profits were lower than the amount he has spent on lawyers.
3) He will follow burnside's lead and close up shop. Most likely scenario IMO  That leaves 796 and Havelock which are currently operating legally in their jurisdiction.

FFS how many times does one have to post links here to make people understand you can not legally sell unregistered securities to US citizens (or EU or mostly any civilized country) . "their jurisdiction" is meaningless. These exchanges would at the very least have to try to block sales to US citizens, otherwise they would be seen as targeting US (EU, whatever) and therefor be subject to SEC regulations:

III. OFFSHORE OFFERS AND SOLICITATIONS ON THE INTERNET
http://www.sec.gov/rules/interp/33-7516.htm

It doesnt matter what country they operate from, all that matters is what market they target. The internet isnt a country, there is a reason I cant get Netflix here, its because I dont live in internetland.

Can't this problem be solved in the way BTCINVEST on Bitfunder did it? Just explicitly stating that US citizens and residents are prohibited to buy. Of course, this cannot be enforced, but nobody can accuse then of targeting US citizens.

Unfortunately, it doesn't work like that. You're still selling booze to a minor, even if that minor swore up & down that he's 60.  Go figure.

[minerpart]

Can't this problem be solved in the way BTCINVEST on Bitfunder did it? Just explicitly stating that US citizens and residents are prohibited to buy. Of course, this cannot be enforced, but nobody can accuse then of targeting US citizens.

Simple question - why didn't burnside simply register as an exchange with relevant authorities rather than close?

[Puppet]

Can't this problem be solved in the way BTCINVEST on Bitfunder did it? Just explicitly stating that US citizens and residents are prohibited to buy. Of course, this cannot be enforced, but nobody can accuse then of targeting US citizens.

Did you read my link? Clearly not. Just putting  a message saying only citizens of a banana republic and Mars are allowed,  obviously wouldnt be enough.

Note that the link I provided actually deals about paper securities that have to be shipped. Even then the SEC expects the seller to verify phone number, social security numbers and the like.  For virtual shares that dont need to be sent I imagine they would be even tougher.

And this would also apply for any exchange:

When an offeror, or those acting on its behalf, uses a third-party’s Web site to generate interest in the Internet offer, more stringent precautions by the offeror than those outlined in Section III.B. may be warranted. These precautions may include limiting access to its Internet offering materials to persons who can demonstrate that they are not U.S. persons.

[minerpart]

Unfortunately, it doesn't work like that. You're still selling booze to a minor, even if that minor swore up & down that he's 60.  Go figure.

You have that the wrong way round. The licenced alcohol seller has to put in safe-guards to ensure they only sell to adults - ID check. So the exchange needs a similar safe-guard to meet the letter of the law. Blocking US ISP is the 'ID check'.

The US cannot dictate to every other citizen of the world how they must operate their exchanges. If US citizens decide to commit fraud and pretend to an exchange they are non-US that is their call. But the US cannot close down business in other countries just because US citizens are acting illegally by using them. That would be absurd. It would be like trying to close down Amsterdam cafes for selling Marijunana to US holiday makers.

[dhenson]

Can't this problem be solved in the way BTCINVEST on Bitfunder did it? Just explicitly stating that US citizens and residents are prohibited to buy. Of course, this cannot be enforced, but nobody can accuse then of targeting US citizens.

Simple question - why didn't burnside simply register as an exchange with relevant authorities rather than close?

This post by burnside seems to indicate that he is being forced into shutting down by the government, and that had he not been legally represented, the shutdown would have been immediate.

I know this is a sensitive subject, but there are still a lot of unknowns out there around how governments are going to react to bitcoin.  Using bitcoin is thus inherently risky.  In this case, the government has not reacted in a way beneficial to btct.co and thus a wind down is necessary.

If you're an alcoholic and your city council votes to go dry, do you blame the shopkeeper that can no longer sell you the alcohol?  Or do you blame the city that enacted the new law?

The saving grace for everyone is that the exchange has spent a lot of bitcoins on legal fees to make sure that we have the time to let things wind down in an orderly fashion, thus preserving as much value for everyone as possible.

[crumbs]

Unfortunately, it doesn't work like that. You're still selling booze to a minor, even if that minor swore up & down that he's 60.  Go figure.

You have that the wrong way round. The licenced alcohol seller has to put in safe-guards to ensure they only sell to adults - ID check. So the exchange needs a similar safe-guard to meet the letter of the law. Blocking US ISP is the 'ID check'.

The US cannot dictate to every other citizen of the world how they must operate their exchanges. If US citizens decide to commit fraud and pretend to an exchange they are non-US that is their call. But the US cannot close down business in other countries just because US citizens are acting illegally by using them. That would be absurd. It would be like trying to close down Amsterdam cafes for selling Marijunana to US holiday makers.

How did that work out for Liberty Reserve?
You should really find out how this IRL thing works before passing out legal advice on international financial law, especially if you think that US citizens can incorporate in Belize & sell unregistered stocks to US citizens (which is what's happening here).
Edit:  The "holidaymakers" can smoke all the pot they want -- even huff gas, for all i care

[canth]

Can't this problem be solved in the way BTCINVEST on Bitfunder did it? Just explicitly stating that US citizens and residents are prohibited to buy. Of course, this cannot be enforced, but nobody can accuse then of targeting US citizens.

Simple question - why didn't burnside simply register as an exchange with relevant authorities rather than close?

To "simply register" is neither simple, nor quick nor cost effective. Running a legal security exchange in the USA is not something that can be done without a massive compliance cost.

[minerpart]

How did that work out for Liberty Reserve?

Are you unable to read up for yourself then? The US authorities did not shut down LR, Costa Rican authorities applied the pressure. If an exchange is operating legally in another country the US can do bugger all about it. The US do not rule the world.


Liberty Reserve was denied a business license in Costa Rica, according to state prosecutor José Pablo González, due to lack of transparency about how the business was funded.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_Reserve

[minerpart]

Can't this problem be solved in the way BTCINVEST on Bitfunder did it? Just explicitly stating that US citizens and residents are prohibited to buy. Of course, this cannot be enforced, but nobody can accuse then of targeting US citizens.

Simple question - why didn't burnside simply register as an exchange with relevant authorities rather than close?

To "simply register" is neither simple, nor quick nor cost effective. Running a legal security exchange in the USA is not something that can be done without a massive compliance cost.

That's a real shame. And I thought you guys lived in the 'Land of the Free'?

[codegnome]

Can't this problem be solved in the way BTCINVEST on Bitfunder did it? Just explicitly stating that US citizens and residents are prohibited to buy. Of course, this cannot be enforced, but nobody can accuse then of targeting US citizens.

Simple question - why didn't burnside simply register as an exchange with relevant authorities rather than close?

To "simply register" is neither simple, nor quick nor cost effective. Running a legal security exchange in the USA is not something that can be done without a massive compliance cost.

That's a real shame. And I thought you guys lived in the 'Land of the Free'?

It is being taken over by despicable liberals.

[pedrog]

So, when does the Q&A starts?

[crumbs]

How did that work out for Liberty Reserve?

Are you unable to read up for yourself then? The US authorities did not shut down LR, Costa Rican authorities applied the pressure. If an exchange is operating legally in another country the US can do bugger all about it. The US do not rule the world.


Liberty Reserve was denied a business license in Costa Rica, according to state prosecutor José Pablo González, due to lack of transparency about how the business was funded.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_Reserve

Lol, how naive are you?  You honestly think that the original banana republic, Costa Rica, had any say in this?  You really are suckered by the liberal media, dood.
Edit:  Just noticed your wikip link -- the hallmark of a true intelectual