[CRYPTOSTOCKS] Labcoin Official Thread - Self-Moderated

[Puppet]

snip

I knew you would quote that. I knew you wouldnt be able to read that document and understand what it says, thats why I linked that article earlier.

Anyway, Im done arguing this with you, whether you are just unbelievably obtuse or trolling, back to ignore you go.

[1714126890]

1714126890

[1714126890]

1714126890

[1714126890]

1714126890

[Ytterbium]

Are you really saying company shares are not securities, just because the company business is somehow related to bitcoin asics instead of cell phone asics, oil, gas or Chinese pastry? Or are you saying that because we trade these securities for bitcoins instead of dollar or CNY that they are not securities?

Something is a security if it meets the legal definition of a security under Hong Kong law, which means it needs to be an "interest, right or [a piece of] property".  Yet, the btct.co terms of service clearly indicate that virtual shares confer no legal rights, are not property and no grant no interest.   So how are they securities?

snip

I knew you would quote that. I knew you wouldnt be able to read that document and understand what it says, thats why I linked that article earlier.

Anyway, Im done arguing this with you, whether you are just unbelievably obtuse or trolling, back to ignore you go.

Bye, dumbass.

And keep it real, you didn't even know about that article until I linked to it.  You quoted it from a comment someone posted earlier without even knowing what it was about.  The actual government document doesn't say anything about internet investment being illegal, only that it has to comply with HK law.

[crumbs]

...
The key question is whether or not a virtual bitcoin share qualifies as a "security", or share under HK law.  The key question is whether or not the virtual shares represent "interests, rights or property", and clearly from the btct.co terms of service they did not.
...

BTCT terms of service clearly stated that "virtual shares" represented absolutely nothing, and the site itself was, to put it bluntly, a game server, provided for "educational & entertainment purposes only."  
As the playmoney nervous rich discovered, such statements hold no legal merit, no matter how clearly stated.

[kleeck]

Are you really saying company shares are not securities, just because the company business is somehow related to bitcoin asics instead of cell phone asics, oil, gas or Chinese pastry? Or are you saying that because we trade these securities for bitcoins instead of dollar or CNY that they are not securities?

Something is a security if it meets the legal definition of a security under Hong Kong law, which means it needs to be an "interest, right or [a piece of] property".  Yet, the btct.co terms of service clearly indicate that virtual shares confer no legal rights, are not property and no grant no interest.   So how are they securities?

snip

I knew you would quote that. I knew you wouldnt be able to read that document and understand what it says, thats why I linked that article earlier.

Anyway, Im done arguing this with you, whether you are just unbelievably obtuse or trolling, back to ignore you go.

Bye, dumbass.

And keep it real, you didn't even know about that article until I linked to it.  You quoted it from a comment someone posted earlier without even knowing what it was about.  The actual government document doesn't say anything about internet investment being illegal, only that it has to comply with HK law.

Aaaaaaand scene!

Thanks for stopping by Puppet.

[Ytterbium]

...
The key question is whether or not a virtual bitcoin share qualifies as a "security", or share under HK law.  The key question is whether or not the virtual shares represent "interests, rights or property", and clearly from the btct.co terms of service they did not.
...

BTCT terms of service clearly stated that "virtual shares" represented absolutely nothing, and the site itself was, to put it bluntly, a game server, provided for "educational & entertainment purposes only."  
As the playmoney nervous rich discovered, such statements hold no legal merit, no matter how clearly stated.

It didn't help Pirateat40, but he also sold shares directly on bitcoin talk, without the benefit of the waver. He was also committing a clear cut case of fraud. The same thing would have happened to him if he were issuing legally registered securities, which is what Bernie Madoff was doing.   

That case has nothing to do with the overall legality of "virtual" bitcoin shares overall, especially outside of the US.

Oh, and far as Puppets worry about things like colored coins or whatever "making bitcoin illegal" by contaminating the blockchain, the government is a lot more worried about things like drug dealers, terrorists, or the Iranian Government transferring money around then it is about amateur investment banking.  At least with respect to drug dealing, that's already on the blockchain.

[kingcrimson]

It's more that it would give them an easy target... like Al Capone/tax evasion.

[Ytterbium]

It's more that it would give them an easy target... like Al Capone/tax evasion.

They already have an "easy target" drug dealers, terrorists, etc. Anyway, I'm not really a fan of colored coins anyway.  Since shares have to be issued by issuers, you don't really need any sort of 'decentralized' share exchange, just have issuers manage share transfer using a standard protocol.

[TheCoinBull]

I agree with Nine Lives on hiring help to track down fab/sam. I also have a good amount of money to add, making sure we catch this scammer

[MikeyVeez]

Im surprised no one has called fabrizio and called him a bitch.

[superduh]

everyone STOP. just stop posting for a bit.
nothing new here at all. everyone is repeating themselves.
few more days for sam to show up and bring amazing news

[TheCoinBull]

Im surprised no one has called fabrizio and called him a bitch.

What his #. Ill call him rite now!

[SebastianJu]

I remember that german stocks that wanted to find their fortune in USA-exchanges not always did well. Though they couldnt get out of the us. Because they are bound to us-law as long as a us-citizen owned a share bought from that usa-venture. Though... usa-citizens could easily buy german securities before too... at german exchanges. That did not lead to these stocks falling under US-Rules. Only when they were traded on their exchanges.
So now this reminds me on the ongoing question. If a us-citizen is buying stocks at a german exchange and this doesnt mean the security falls under us-law then. So why should this be different for a chinese exchange then?

[Puppet]

Im surprised no one has called fabrizio and called him a bitch.

What his #. Ill call him rite now!

PHone number of Zopo in shenzhen:
0086-185-2080-5768

Just ask for Fabrizio Tatti from international marketing department. But its 5am there now. Consider recording the call.

[MikeyVeez]

Im surprised no one has called fabrizio and called him a bitch.

What his #. Ill call him rite now!

PHone number of Zopo in shenzhen:
0086-185-2080-5768

Just ask for Fabrizio Tatti from international marketing department. But its 5am there now. Consider recording the call.

Tell them you are a wealthy oil shiek wanting to buy their products, look at their website for a product they sell. Or tell then your an oil baron from the early 1900s lol.

If you get a chance ask fabrizio why he admitted to being Sam on a chat. After you call him a bitch. Yeah please record it for the lols.

[MikeyVeez]

everyone STOP. just stop posting for a bit.
nothing new here at all. everyone is repeating themselves.
few more days for sam to show up and bring amazing news

Lmao yes cant wait to hear we added another TH so we are at 6th instead of the promised 12th. Dont worry next week we will have 500000 billion th with our calculations.

[Puppet]

I remember that german stocks that wanted to find their fortune in USA-exchanges not always did well. Though they couldnt get out of the us. Because they are bound to us-law as long as a us-citizen owned a share bought from that usa-venture. Though... usa-citizens could easily buy german securities before too... at german exchanges. That did not lead to these stocks falling under US-Rules. Only when they were traded on their exchanges.
So now this reminds me on the ongoing question. If a us-citizen is buying stocks at a german exchange and this doesnt mean the security falls under us-law then. So why should this be different for a chinese exchange then?

You are confusing at least two thing; the stock exchange and the security itself. In order to attract US investors without violating US security laws, both the exchange and the security would need to be licensed/registered with the SEC.

If the security is not registered with the SEC, the stock exchange should not allow (unsophisticated) US investors to invest in it. IF the stock exchange is not licensed by the SEC, they should not allow US investors to use their services at all.

It seems very unlikely to me a German stock exchange would not have gotten an SEC license, so most likely they can operate on the US market.  OTOH it seems very plausible that some (german) securities were not registered with the SEC, and only targeted at German or EU investors.

[MikeyVeez]

Fabrizios genius marketing at work. Hire massage parlor hookers to stand on the streets with Zopo phones. Lol

http://www.zopomobiles.in/Zopo-Hong-Kong-Launch-pid-10856.html

[SebastianJu]

I remember that german stocks that wanted to find their fortune in USA-exchanges not always did well. Though they couldnt get out of the us. Because they are bound to us-law as long as a us-citizen owned a share bought from that usa-venture. Though... usa-citizens could easily buy german securities before too... at german exchanges. That did not lead to these stocks falling under US-Rules. Only when they were traded on their exchanges.
So now this reminds me on the ongoing question. If a us-citizen is buying stocks at a german exchange and this doesnt mean the security falls under us-law then. So why should this be different for a chinese exchange then?

You are confusing at least two thing; the stock exchange and the security itself. In order to attract US investors without violating US security laws, both the exchange and the security would need to be licensed/registered with the SEC.

If the security is not registered with the SEC, the stock exchange should not allow (unsophisticated) US investors to invest in it. IF the stock exchange is not licensed by the SEC, they should not allow US investors to use their services at all.

It seems very unlikely to me a German stock exchange would not have gotten an SEC license, so most likely they can operate on the US market.  OTOH it seems very plausible that some (german) securities were not registered with the SEC, and only targeted at German or EU investors.

Im not so sure... that would mean that every security has to get a licencse from every country because from every country a buyer could come. If a security is only traded at a german stock exchange then a us-citizen could easily buy shares at this german stock exchange. But the problems the securities had only were that they could get away from us-rules once they offered their shares at us stock exchanges. Because as long as one us citizen still owns a share from that security at this us stock exchange this german security is bound to us regulations. That means to me that they are not bound to it as long as they dont offer it at the us stock exchanges. Since before they do this every us citizen could still buy that share.

It was kind of a gold rush to go on us- stock exchanges though the results werent as good as they wanted often. But like i said... they cant make this unhappen anymore then.

So i guess the difference is where you offer the share. A .com website might be a risk already since it could be seen as a usa domain. A owner in the us might be a risk too. But a owner in china with a chinese website might be out of it. He doesnt target us-citizens especially. So if someone still is coming it cant lead to having to follow every other countries rules. I wonder what strange rules some countries could have then...

[Puppet]

Im not so sure...

Of course you are not sure, because you still havent bothered to read the regulations, have you?

that would mean that every security has to get a licencse from every country because from every country a buyer could come.

Buyers dont just "come". The key is were you are targeting the sales. Those markets are the ones where you have to be registered. For online sales, Ive posted what is considered targeting by US and HK governments. IN short, if you dont actively try to block investors from those countries, you are considered targeting them.

If a security is only traded at a german stock exchange then a us-citizen could easily buy shares at this german stock exchange.

Nonsense. The stock exchange knows your identity and nationality and will prevent you from buying securities that are not registered in your country. They must do that to comply with their license.

Note that Im only talking about "unsophisticated" investors here. You and me. You are allowed to sell unregistered securities to the rich and famous. And to the pro's.

[MikeyVeez]

Who is ready for another missed dividend.