[IPVO] [Multiple Exchanges] Neo & Bee - LMB Holdings

[Herp]

I agree it doesn't hurt to be prepared
But as for the code havelock has its own so they don't need to buy the btct one

That said still observing the legal news
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=96118.60;topicseen

That and press
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=309274.0

Thing is US can come after you no matter where you are unless you're in China, Russia or North Korea or something. Just ask all those Switzerland banks and other major banks around the globe that refuse to take US customers for this very reason. http://money.cnn.com/2013/09/15/news/banks-americans-lockout/

So what I'm saying here is, Havelock is/will be in same boat as whoever buys Burnside's code.

Moving US shareholders to Havelock is just asking for trouble at this point giving all these developments. Burnside looked into all legalities most likely before deciding to put his code up for sale.

[Luckybit]

I agree it doesn't hurt to be prepared
But as for the code havelock has its own so they don't need to buy the btct one

That said still observing the legal news
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=96118.60;topicseen

That and press
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=309274.0

Thing is US can come after you no matter where you are unless you're in China, Russia or North Korea or something. Just ask all those Switzerland banks and other major banks around the globe that refuse to take US customers for this very reason. http://money.cnn.com/2013/09/15/news/banks-americans-lockout/

So what I'm saying here is, Havelock is/will be in same boat as whoever buys Burnside's code.

Moving US shareholders to Havelock is just asking for trouble at this point giving all these developments. Burnside looked into all legalities most likely before deciding to put his code up for sale.

But that doesn't mean anything is going to happen in the next 6 months. It buys time to move to Havelock but no one knows how much.

[memvola]

To be fair, they made no such statement.

actually, they did:

The reasoning behind using a platform and not direct handling of shares for ourselves is down to the man hours required to operate on such a basis, we are operating in the real world, we have multiple aspects of the business that need constant oversight and attention, for myself to assign someone for the task is achievable however it comes at a cost to the business, we as a business do not specialize in the trading of shares or have a platform capable of doing so (at the moment) so the best solution is to operate using the platforms available to us. Do things need to change surrounding these platforms? YES they do, whilst we are investigating the matter in great detail we cannot provide a solution overnight.

Ah, that. Well, I sort of think it's not hard to see the light at this point, and some people already proposed helping build such a protocol (don't know if they did to NeoBee directly though), so I'm hoping that it will be considered an available platform. It's a bit of a stretch I know, but I'm not too pessimistic.

Regarding, Havelock... It seems TAT and some others think it's doable to run such an exchange over the radar. While I don't see that happening in the West, there is apparently an exchange in Hong Kong. Regardless, experience dictates that these platforms almost always make abrupt decisions based on their own legal concerns (perfectly understandable). These will remain pretty much unpredictable until there is a public sanction from high above, which I don't think will happen for years, if ever. I don't know what the people who are rooting for a centralized solution know that we don't.

Thing is US can come after you no matter where you are unless you're in China, Russia or North Korea or something.

Well, these countries will squash you like a bug the second they think you're a nuisance, so the only realistic "central" option is operating anonymously, which is not one of the current options.

On the other side, an "upstream" solution so to speak does allow a listing on a centralized exchange later on. Since the "cost to business" of such a mini project is pretty much minuscule compared to the cost being suffered right now, I think the biggest concern should be legal, which I hope the NeoBee staff is concentrating on.

[freedomno1]

I agree it doesn't hurt to be prepared
But as for the code havelock has its own so they don't need to buy the btct one

That said still observing the legal news
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=96118.60;topicseen

That and press
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=309274.0

Thing is US can come after you no matter where you are unless you're in China, Russia or North Korea or something. Just ask all those Switzerland banks and other major banks around the globe that refuse to take US customers for this very reason. http://money.cnn.com/2013/09/15/news/banks-americans-lockout/

So what I'm saying here is, Havelock is/will be in same boat as whoever buys Burnside's code.

Moving US shareholders to Havelock is just asking for trouble at this point giving all these developments. Burnside looked into all legalities most likely before deciding to put his code up for sale.

I am sort of certain that they will go with AML/KYC documentation instead of just blocking US users, having proof of trade seems like a very legitimate compromise for a virtual exchange but as it is purely speculative cannot say that for certain.
Precedent Canadianbitcoins also run by havelock

There are interesting legal considerations as well such as National Instrument 45-106 that involves exempt securities that may be worth looking at I asked havelock that question back in July still no clear opinion either way.

Or the case study of Emgateway which focuses on angel investors
http://www.emgateway.ca/

That said if we are looking at the US crowd-funding bill there was a clarification that was released 2 days ago in regards to crowd-funding in Canada
http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/business/story/1.1959091

So it does get interesting to see what legal rules will be applied to exchanges and that is why it remains so ambiguous up here.

Another link to the side
http://www.ncfacanada.org/securities-fcaa-asks-for-comments-regarding-the-proposed-saskatchewan-equity-crowdfunding-exemption/

[cryptocyprus]

We are very much concerned with being legal, we are investigating every avenue available to us, including the direct handling of shares, other existing platforms, speaking with our legal team (one that doesn't try and fit us into an existing regulatory box) in relation to our own regulated exchange. All the discussions and plans we made prior to these announcements by the platforms, are being reviewed because we do not want the same problems in 4 weeks time.

Whenever there are problems, there is always an opportunity, if the perfect solution is viable, then yes we will always pursue that.
Right now there is nothing more than talk of a decentralized securities exchange, we do not have the resources or time to develop such a project as we are working to strict deadlines for the launch of Neo & Bee.

[Luckybit]

Was enjoying the page 53 to 55 conversation so kept quiet now
Good conversations now and then but since it is back to normal
We will need to wait on the viewpoint of Canada from Havelocks legal team which unfortunately was unable to provide much more info on Oct 3

The key difference is that USA and Canadian Policy to finance is DIFFERENT
Since it's a different jurisdiction a legal avenue that is not available for American Exchanges such as btct and bitfunder may exist here.
But for now in regards to US traders it probably will be the same so wait till November since that seems to be a unified closing date to see why Btct and Bitfunder are shutting their doors.

The info posted in Burnside's sale of BTCT code worries me a bit. It states the following:

"...any purchaser of the code will have to agree to block US citizens from any site utilizing the code."

If you are interested in the site code, please fill out the following and submit a bid via email to ceo@btct.co:

    Name: (actual person's name)
    Company:
    Address: (street, city, province, postal code, country, etc)
    Phone: (w/ country prefix please)
    Email:

    I agree to block US citizens: YES / no

    Proposed use of the code:

    Best possible offer:  XX BTC or XX LTC

So even if buyer is from Brazil,South Africa or Canada he would still have to agree not to allow US investors.

I'd say Neobee should start planning for direct shares solution asap.

Does this make any reasonable sense? You can't get in trouble for selling code can you?
I don't understand why he doesn't GPL the code if he really wants to stick it to the government. The fact that he's doing this means he just wants to make money from some sort of auction.

This is fine because what should we expect? but it also highlights the primary weakness of a centralized exchange.

We are very much concerned with being legal, we are investigating every avenue available to us, including the direct handling of shares, other existing platforms, speaking with our legal team (one that doesn't try and fit us into an existing regulatory box) in relation to our own regulated exchange. All the discussions and plans we made prior to these announcements by the platforms, are being reviewed because we do not want the same problems in 4 weeks time.

Whenever there are problems, there is always an opportunity, if the perfect solution is viable, then yes we will always pursue that.
Right now there is nothing more than talk of a decentralized securities exchange, we do not have the resources or time to develop such a project as we are working to strict deadlines for the launch of Neo & Bee.

NeoBee is very important. Investors will come back to NeoBee when they can do so. NeoBee probably should get in contact with the Data Authority http://info.datauthority.org/  and see what can be done politically but in this moment of time I don't think there is any solution other than to buy time by using Havelock until Havelock shuts down. If Havelock isn't on the same shutdown time scale as the American exchanges then time may be on the side of NeoBee investors.

A long term solution for US investors will involve either changing the laws or waiting for crowd funding legislation and trying to fit NeoBee into that matrix. If NeoBee does go to direct shares couldn't NeoBee somehow reserve the shares for people who purchase for Bitcoin and convert it to real shares at some point in the future when it's legally possible?

This would mean no dividends or anything like that, just reserved status until there is a legal way to claim the shares conforming with KYC and other laws. I'm not a lawyer though and I cannot think up a workable scheme. I can think up ideas like lotteries and other mechanisms, but each one probably has some arcane esoteric regulatory law discussing it.

[Herp]

Was enjoying the page 53 to 55 conversation so kept quiet now
Good conversations now and then but since it is back to normal
We will need to wait on the viewpoint of Canada from Havelocks legal team which unfortunately was unable to provide much more info on Oct 3

The key difference is that USA and Canadian Policy to finance is DIFFERENT
Since it's a different jurisdiction a legal avenue that is not available for American Exchanges such as btct and bitfunder may exist here.
But for now in regards to US traders it probably will be the same so wait till November since that seems to be a unified closing date to see why Btct and Bitfunder are shutting their doors.

The info posted in Burnside's sale of BTCT code worries me a bit. It states the following:

"...any purchaser of the code will have to agree to block US citizens from any site utilizing the code."

If you are interested in the site code, please fill out the following and submit a bid via email to ceo@btct.co:

    Name: (actual person's name)
    Company:
    Address: (street, city, province, postal code, country, etc)
    Phone: (w/ country prefix please)
    Email:

    I agree to block US citizens: YES / no

    Proposed use of the code:

    Best possible offer:  XX BTC or XX LTC

So even if buyer is from Brazil,South Africa or Canada he would still have to agree not to allow US investors.

I'd say Neobee should start planning for direct shares solution asap.

Does this make any reasonable sense? You can't get in trouble for selling code can you?
I don't understand why he doesn't GPL the code if he really wants to stick it to the government. The fact that he's doing this means he just wants to make money from some sort of auction.

This is fine because what should we expect? but it also highlights the primary weakness of a centralized exchange.

I think he has that condition, to have buyers vow they will not allow US customers, to protect the users of this future exchange, which will have to some degree his name attached to it.

 It makes sense when you think about it. You want your code to be in good hands and survive if possible and for that to happen users and their assets have to be protected.

Say someone buys his code and opens up a new exchange 1 week later and allows US customers. This new exchange gets into same legal troubles and is forced to shut down or block US customers, so US customers get screwed again and also does price of all securities listed there. It will mess up with IPOs, mess up badly with stock prices, destroy market confidence and so on. Last but not least you don't want to be associated such a mess when you could have prevented it.

So, as I was saying, it kinda` makes sense.

[Stelios]

As of December 2, 2013, BitFunder will initiate a transfer from the BitFunder site to the respective issuer(s) of any remaining shares held by any users that BitFunder knows to be U.S. persons or who did not obtain "Verified" status by December 1, 2013, and will provide the issuer(s) with the public bitcoin address associated with the user account. After transfer, each user will need to work with the issuer(s) with respect to the future treatment of the shares.

Just putting it out there

[Luckybit]

He has that condition, to have buyers vow they will not allow US customers, to protect the users of this future exchange, which will have to some degree his name attached to it.

 It makes sense when you think about it. You want your code to be in good hands and survive if possible and for that to happen users and their assets have to be protected.

You can't kill code that is open source. The GPL or MIT license would guarantee it survives forever. You cannot go to prison for writing code.

Say someone buys his code and opens up a new exchange 1 week later and allows US customers. This new exchange gets into same legal troubles and is forced to shut down or block US customers, so US customers get screwed again and also does price of all securities listed there.

The only reason his exchange is shut down is because it's hosted in the USA. Why doesn't he just refuse to sell to any company in the USA? It's an unlicensed exchange which means it's just as illegal to run as before so nothing changes at all really. I don't see how a region block provides any protection. Of course whoever runs the exchange shouldn't solicit US customers but if they adopt KYC but are still unlicensed then what is the point?

Bitfunder shares still aren't considered real but they are trying to do this KYC type stuff?

It will mess up with IPOs, mess up badly with stock prices, destroy market confidence and so on. Last but not least you don't want to be associated such a mess when you could have prevented it.

Ultimately only a decentralized exchange will be immune to being shut down. Any governments police can raid any of these exchanges if they even have the hint that people used it for money laundering. Silk Road arrests could trigger a global crack down on all of these exchanges in an attempt to track tainted coins and it wouldn't have to be done under the regulatory laws but could be done under the criminal laws or even under the three letter agency anti-terror finance laws. In any case if they want to shut down unlicensed exchanges they will and no amount of blocking US customers will prevent it.

My guess? Because Silk Road was run by an American and Dread Pirate Roberts was an American the following investigations will probably be run by the FBI and DEA. But this doesn't mean that there aren't mutual legal assistance treaties and other mechanisms to allow local three letter agencies in every country to get involved. In that case the governments would be able to send national security letters, conduct anti-terrorist investigations, and then it does make sense to block US customers in order to avoid impeding on an ongoing investigation.

The problem is if that is all the result of the Silk Road investigation then something must be done technologically to allow law enforcement to do their investigations without disrupting the entire Bitcoin economy and having multiple sites shut down. There might be a very important investigation going on or several and the feds might not even care about btct or Bitfunder. It could have been that some bad guys happened to set up scams or use those exchanges to invest their drug money. That is a legitimate and real possibility which would explain all of this and fit in with the timing. If that is the case then moving to Havelock probably will not be a long term solution for US investors which is why I never recommended moving to Havelock for any other reason than to buy time until Havelock shuts down as well.

The conclusion to all this is we will need to make a choice as a community about what we want. Do we want anonymity in which case Bitcoin will probably never be able to have much growth, and in which case the price of coins will never be $20,000 a coin, but people will be able to use Bitcoins to buy drugs. Or do we want to have a Bitcoin which actually goes legitimate and which can be used as a currency, which can someday be $20,000 a coin or more, and which we can all build legitimate businesses around?

Due to money laundering laws and the real threat of terrorist financing we will not be able to have both. Developers are ultimately going to be made to pick one side or the other and there will either be a fork at some point or Bitcoin developers will choose one path or the other. At this point it seems gmaxwell and some other Bitcoin developers are choosing the path of anonymity. For that reason and as a result of that choice, the economic effects will be felt as the feds do everything in their power to discourage that.

I had a discussion with gmaxwell on the coinjoin thread. I made the case that the community is going to have to become more responsible and technologically regulate itself to avoid mass arrests. I'd rather deal with technological features like tainted coins with blacklists or KYC than mass arrests, shut downs, etc. Don't get me wrong there probably will be a coin which has anonymity, I just don't think that cryptocurrency will be the one to become the mainstream cryptocurrency. I don't think anonymity is necessary for privacy. I do think records should be kept either by the users themselves or on the blockchain. But I also don't think that corporations should know what books we buy or what we do with our money.

The issue of stolen coins, money laundering, coin taint, record keeping, these are all technological issues which can be solved in a way which could provide more privacy than Paypal and credit cards but not be completely anonymous. I have no clue how to strike the balance, and I know that currently the blockchain isn't anywhere near private enough, but I also know that it shouldn't be a complete black box of a blockchain where no one can determine what goes on because if some really bad event happens or if governments were to exploit this technology against us then we would want some way to be able to follow the money even if its not easy or cheap to do. Ultimately we are either all going to end up keeping records on our transactions in exchange for having true privacy and anonymity, or we will let the blockchain keep a public record of every transaction. If you see any other way let me know but I think we are at a fork in the road.

[N_S]

TL;DR - I love my keyboard.

[Herp]

 If that is the case then moving to Havelock probably will not be a long term solution for US investors which is why I never recommended moving to Havelock for any other reason than to buy time until Havelock shuts down as well.

Buy time? What US investor in his right mind would buy stocks on only exchange left for US investors knowing he might as well kiss that investment goodbye in few months by loss of price per share, loss of dividend payments and so on due to an upcoming panic sale and lack of other migration options. You can't be serious.

[enderbender]

He has that condition, to have buyers vow they will not allow US customers, to protect the users of this future exchange, which will have to some degree his name attached to it.

 It makes sense when you think about it. You want your code to be in good hands and survive if possible and for that to happen users and their assets have to be protected.

You can't kill code that is open source. The GPL or MIT license would guarantee it survives forever. You cannot go to prison for writing code.

Say someone buys his code and opens up a new exchange 1 week later and allows US customers. This new exchange gets into same legal troubles and is forced to shut down or block US customers, so US customers get screwed again and also does price of all securities listed there.

The only reason his exchange is shut down is because it's hosted in the USA. Why doesn't he just refuse to sell to any company in the USA? It's an unlicensed exchange which means it's just as illegal to run as before so nothing changes at all really. I don't see how a region block provides any protection. Of course whoever runs the exchange shouldn't solicit US customers but if they adopt KYC but are still unlicensed then what is the point?

Bitfunder shares still aren't considered real but they are trying to do this KYC type stuff?

It will mess up with IPOs, mess up badly with stock prices, destroy market confidence and so on. Last but not least you don't want to be associated such a mess when you could have prevented it.

Ultimately only a decentralized exchange will be immune to being shut down. Any governments police can raid any of these exchanges if they even have the hint that people used it for money laundering. Silk Road arrests could trigger a global crack down on all of these exchanges in an attempt to track tainted coins and it wouldn't have to be done under the regulatory laws but could be done under the criminal laws or even under the three letter agency anti-terror finance laws. In any case if they want to shut down unlicensed exchanges they will and no amount of blocking US customers will prevent it.

My guess? Because Silk Road was run by an American and Dread Pirate Roberts was an American the following investigations will probably be run by the FBI and DEA. But this doesn't mean that there aren't mutual legal assistance treaties and other mechanisms to allow local three letter agencies in every country to get involved. In that case the governments would be able to send national security letters, conduct anti-terrorist investigations, and then it does make sense to block US customers in order to avoid impeding on an ongoing investigation.

The problem is if that is all the result of the Silk Road investigation then something must be done technologically to allow law enforcement to do their investigations without disrupting the entire Bitcoin economy and having multiple sites shut down. There might be a very important investigation going on or several and the feds might not even care about btct or Bitfunder. It could have been that some bad guys happened to set up scams or use those exchanges to invest their drug money. That is a legitimate and real possibility which would explain all of this and fit in with the timing. If that is the case then moving to Havelock probably will not be a long term solution for US investors which is why I never recommended moving to Havelock for any other reason than to buy time until Havelock shuts down as well.

The conclusion to all this is we will need to make a choice as a community about what we want. Do we want anonymity in which case Bitcoin will probably never be able to have much growth, and in which case the price of coins will never be $20,000 a coin, but people will be able to use Bitcoins to buy drugs. Or do we want to have a Bitcoin which actually goes legitimate and which can be used as a currency, which can someday be $20,000 a coin or more, and which we can all build legitimate businesses around?

Due to money laundering laws and the real threat of terrorist financing we will not be able to have both. Developers are ultimately going to be made to pick one side or the other and there will either be a fork at some point or Bitcoin developers will choose one path or the other. At this point it seems gmaxwell and some other Bitcoin developers are choosing the path of anonymity. For that reason and as a result of that choice, the economic effects will be felt as the feds do everything in their power to discourage that.

I had a discussion with gmaxwell on the coinjoin thread. I made the case that the community is going to have to become more responsible and technologically regulate itself to avoid mass arrests. I'd rather deal with technological features like tainted coins with blacklists or KYC than mass arrests, shut downs, etc. Don't get me wrong there probably will be a coin which has anonymity, I just don't think that cryptocurrency will be the one to become the mainstream cryptocurrency. I don't think anonymity is necessary for privacy. I do think records should be kept either by the users themselves or on the blockchain. But I also don't think that corporations should know what books we buy or what we do with our money.

The issue of stolen coins, money laundering, coin taint, record keeping, these are all technological issues which can be solved in a way which could provide more privacy than Paypal and credit cards but not be completely anonymous. I have no clue how to strike the balance, and I know that currently the blockchain isn't anywhere near private enough, but I also know that it shouldn't be a complete black box of a blockchain where no one can determine what goes on because if some really bad event happens or if governments were to exploit this technology against us then we would want some way to be able to follow the money even if its not easy or cheap to do. Ultimately we are either all going to end up keeping records on our transactions in exchange for having true privacy and anonymity, or we will let the blockchain keep a public record of every transaction. If you see any other way let me know but I think we are at a fork in the road.

You sure do use a lot of words to say nothing at all.

[Luckybit]

i know this is hard for some of you turds but dont be daft

theres no planning needed for direct shares - they just convert your data into a spreadsheet and\or collect more info. thats it

stop insulting people and acting like children

and now you wanna call Ken a genius? hilarious

Cryptocircus already stated that the allocation of resources required to implement and maintain direct shares is not something they wish to do. Just buy the shares back and cancel the IPO.

What about investors in Europe? Canceling the IPO will hurt everyone.

[Skoutz]

Cancelling the IPO is not "the most clever idea" (to put it in a diplomatic way) ever suggested!

[bitcoin.newsfeed]

cryptocyprus & co. , not glad to say this, but it seems that NEOBEE didn't sell a single share from IPO stack for last 2 weeks? And Shares are trading 1/3 under IPO price, maybe its a good time for venture capital? What do you think? When you plan to sell remaining shares to them? You mentioned before, that you have a lot of offers, so why limiting yourself with only one branch when you can get VC for all 3 of them?

[N_S]

cryptocyprus & co. , not glad to say this, but it seems that NEOBEE didn't sell a single share from IPO stack for last 2 weeks? And Shares are trading 1/3 under IPO price, maybe its a good time for venture capital? What do you think? When you plan to sell remaining shares to them? You mentioned before, that you have a lot of offers, so why limiting yourself with only one branch when you can get VC for all 3 of them?

As I'm sure you're aware, the recent news with BTCT shutting down and BitFunder refusing business with US-based customers has negatively affected share prices across the board. It stands to reason that shares listed at IPVO price would not be bought when there are people selling cheaper shares. That said, less than 16,000 shares (< 48 BTC) need to be purchased on BitFunder to bring us back to IPVO price (assuming no new orders)

I'll leave it to Danny & Co. to respond regarding VC avenues, but the company has already reached the 9500BTC threshold to deem the IPVO successful.

[velacreations]

less than 16,000 shares (< 48 BTC) need to be purchased on BitFunder to bring us back to IPVO price (assuming no new orders)

yeah, but no one is buying.  and really, without a real plan in place to exchange shares outside of havelock/bitfunder, no one will put more money into a venture like this.

[unotdog25]

less than 16,000 shares (< 48 BTC) need to be purchased on BitFunder to bring us back to IPVO price (assuming no new orders)

yeah, but no one is buying.  and really, without a real plan in place to exchange shares outside of havelock/bitfunder, no one will put more money into a venture like this.

I went to meet Danny last night (Sunday) whilst he was briefly in England on work matters. We had a great catchup then went on to meet who I definitely hope will be the head of security for Neo.
You should be reminded the ipo runs until the end of November which is over 45 days, not to mention that there will be some big announcements before this date, not least of which is the first mega-merchant Bee has signed up. This alone will be enough to create ripples across the bitcoin world bringing significant attention to the ipo.
As N_S pointed out just 48 btc worth of shares are listed at below ipo price, which when compared to the already raised figure of 9,500+ bitcoins, represents a very small fraction. During this time of uncertainty for US investors I think it's actually quite comforting to know that so few investors have decided to exit. After talking at length with Danny, the prospect of the ipo not selling out is quite rightly not something he is worried about.

[NUFCrichard]

cryptocyprus & co. , not glad to say this, but it seems that NEOBEE didn't sell a single share from IPO stack for last 2 weeks? And Shares are trading 1/3 under IPO price, maybe its a good time for venture capital? What do you think? When you plan to sell remaining shares to them? You mentioned before, that you have a lot of offers, so why limiting yourself with only one branch when you can get VC for all 3 of them?

I agree 100%, even before all of the exchange nonsense, no one was buying the IPO shares.  People obviously hoped it would quickly rise in value and they could make a quick profit, when that didn't happen they undercut the IPO price, meaning the IPO will never sell out.  I know that you have raised more than the minimum, but surely you aimed for the full amount and if the remained is being offered by VCs, you'd be crazy not to accept it.

[Luckybit]

At this point the market is demanding decentralization because central exchanges cannot be trusted. The only options for US investors are a Canadian exchange which most likely is going to region lock US citizens at some point, an obscure exchange somewhere in China which only has Asicminer shares and which most Americans don't want to have to deal with, or the decentralized exchange. Sure you can build a web front end for a decentralized exchange, but that is the only way it will work for everyone without unacceptable risk. If no one can wipe the order book because it's the blockchain, if no one can region lock and leave it up to each individual issuer, then you have a lot less risk.

I have the opposite response. At this point, the market needs a real, legitimate bitcoin stock exchange that is compliant.

Your focus on what might improve about a decentralized exchange completely ignores all of the things that would be made worse.

Upon further thought,

It's not possible to have a completely decentralized exchange. At some point there will always be central hubs and these will be necessary.

There will be central hubs just for sake of convenience, or to protect investors from fraud/scams, but the technology for a decentralized exchange will be developed even if the implementation makes it somewhat futile due to limited features and liquidity over the next 6-12 months.

I was wrong about a thing or two, and you were right about a thing or two. Regardless there are certain decisions and forces set in motion due to the decisions of Btct and Bitfunder which will ultimately lead to a decentralized exchange attempt. At some point some decentralized exchange attempt will be moderately successful but it will not happen for a while and there are problems which have to be solved before it can be done successfully.

This sucks for investors, but now I actually think its a good move to region block on the centralized exchanges at least until a more decentralized exchange can be created.

Centralized exchanges will have to region block but this will encourage development of better and more decentralized exchanges. It will encourage development of technologies for better centralized exchanges which can have security and be fraud/scam resistant without having to region block.

It will also eventually lead to some better laws and technologies so that region blocks and central exchanges in the current form wont be necessary. If the community could identify what the real problem is (it's not going to be solved just by making a decentralized exchange), and solve those problems then there will be progress.

cryptocyprus & co. , not glad to say this, but it seems that NEOBEE didn't sell a single share from IPO stack for last 2 weeks? And Shares are trading 1/3 under IPO price, maybe its a good time for venture capital? What do you think? When you plan to sell remaining shares to them? You mentioned before, that you have a lot of offers, so why limiting yourself with only one branch when you can get VC for all 3 of them?

I agree 100%, even before all of the exchange nonsense, no one was buying the IPO shares.  People obviously hoped it would quickly rise in value and they could make a quick profit, when that didn't happen they undercut the IPO price, meaning the IPO will never sell out.  I know that you have raised more than the minimum, but surely you aimed for the full amount and if the remained is being offered by VCs, you'd be crazy not to accept it.

The reason for that is it launched just prior to the exchange nonsense. It also launched as many people were getting burned by Labcoin which seems to have been a scam.

The reason we cannot easily have a decentralized exchange is because even the central exchanges are populated with fake stocks and scams. Those fake stocks cost people real money, and there is no easy way to investigate each corporation without having some central hub to do it. For this reason TAT is correct and centralized hubs will always be necessary even if we have decentralized exchanges. It's impossible to build a completely decentralized exchange unless we could find a way to deal with the real problems.

Here is the list of the real problems:

1. Scams/Fraud (this is the biggest problem of all, issuers have to be selected carefully and audited, held accountable).
2. Points of failure (In a decentralized exchange while there is not a single point which can go down, you instead rely on a chain and of the members of the chain are compromised or go down it's a failure.)
3. Money laundering (This is debateable whether or not it's a problem but the government will think it is.)

These three main problems have to be worked on before a decentralized exchange can work as intended. Scam and fraud detection requires a centralized hub unless there is a way to have security of that sort in a decentralized manner. Decentralization could probably solve many of the point of failure issues but then you'd need a web of trust in addition to decentralization which ultimately results in a concentration of trusted nodes creating a decentralized hub. Money laundering is up for debate whether or not you think it is a problem, but if it is a problem then it has to be solved too.

The SEC cannot solve these problems, they may be solved technically but the current developers building the next generation technology are not focused on it.  Basically it's going to be difficult for a decentralized exchange to become "trusted". It's going to be difficult to have "trust" with an anonymous issuer, so whoever issues a stock will have to be thoroughly investigated to prevent another Labcoin type scandal or worse.