Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[STT]

5% US & Royal Mint bullion

UK tax law exempts gains from gold coins issued by royal mint, I dont think USA does ?      Out of your list I might go 100% gold if we talking 1000 years, based on president, an Indian temple was recently audited and after many centuries it was realised they have gigantic fortunes.  Unfortunately books expire over many years or take alot of care, this temple didnt even know they had this stuff.   Land title can be lost just from a new road built your way, politics overwhelms many principles but gold transports and doesnt degrade.    Bury it and redirect a river to flow over it

[1713418362]

1713418362

[1713418362]

1713418362

[1713418362]

1713418362

[charleshoskinson]

Bitcoin Education Project, Mastercoin, Bitshares, Ethereum.

I just want to clarify a few things. First, I have never been involved in the Mastercoin project in any capacity at any time. Second, while I founded Invictus Innovations with Dan Larimer back in July of last year, I left the company and have had no equity, position or say in anything they have done since early October of 2013. I was in no way involved with protoshares, angelshares or any decisions involving bitshares. Furthermore, with Ethereum, I helped bootstrap the operations of the organization including the Swiss side of things and advised them on some strategic issues. My consultancy ended in June and I haven't been involved in the project in any role since other than occasionally chatting with the founders about technical issues.

[NewLiberty]

The underlying crimes in the cases don't matter. The point is that the "it wasn't fiat" defense didn't fly, so it's pretty darn reasonable to assume that if you're breaking some law or failing to comply with some regulation, you will not be able to use the same "I wasn't using dollars" defense to get off on a technicality. Morality hardly matters; the letter of the law/regs matters.

In the specific case of these asset-exchange platforms, those issuing equity equivalents onto them should probably be aware that the SEC has about 80 years worth of securities regulation on file, and they aren't gonna ignore that just because the securities are being issued in a way that doesn't touch dollars.

This is why Overstock's CounterParty-issued shares proposal came with the simultaneous announcement of the retention of a team of (expensive) Perkins Coie lawyers to get it all approved by the SEC.

File your S1s, kids.

Perkins Coie is a great firm for crypto issues.  Overstock has good taste.


I'm less worried about the legality, because am not so involved, but I still can't figure out how Bitshares is supposed to work.
All assets created in the system are backed by Bitshares, yes?  So it would work fine if Bitshares price is rising always.
What stops the cascading effect when one asset gets called short on insufficient backing, and the collateral is then sold?
Doesn't this drive the collateral value down on all the other assets?  So when one fails, you may get multiple fails, and if there aren't enough buyers at the moment, you can get a cascade effect.  
It would seem a ripe peach of systemic risk for a crypto George Soros to plunder.

[explorer]

Out of interest: Say you were given the task of designing a portfolio to survive 1000 years, what would it be comprised of?

Wow. That is a long time.

1000 years?  Might I suggest adding some seashells and arrow heads?  Inexpensive hedge, and all that.

[justusranvier]

First, I have never been involved in the Mastercoin project in any capacity at any time

Sorry about that. My memory must have glitched.

[cypherdoc]

shhhhh.  be quiet...

[cypherdoc]

so what would really be cool here is for the $DJT to go back up and make a new high while the $DJI fails to do the same in a counter trend bounce.  that would trigger a Dow Theory non-confirmation which in my work is seen at a majority of major tops in the stock mkt going back over a hundred years.  we did have a mini-one at the recent top but it wasn't large enough in my opinion.  stay tuned:

[cypherdoc]

so what would really be cool here is for the $DJT to go back up and make a new high while the $DJI fails to do the same in a counter trend bounce.  that would trigger a Dow Theory non-confirmation which in my work is seen at a majority of major tops in the stock mkt going back over a hundred years.  we did have a mini-one at the recent top but it wasn't large enough in my opinion.  stay tuned:

all the while Bitcoin is kicking ass.

[cypherdoc]

https://twitter.com/cypherdoc2/status/524566140895649792

[cypherdoc]

gold breaking up with first challenge @1305:

[hdbuck]

On a side note: Big Banks Start Charging Clients for Euro Deposits
http://online.wsj.com/articles/big-banks-start-charging-clients-for-euro-deposits-1413569321

[cypherdoc]

On a side note: Big Banks Start Charging Clients for Euro Deposits
http://online.wsj.com/articles/big-banks-start-charging-clients-for-euro-deposits-1413569321

lol, what a freak show.

Bitcoin to the Moon.

[Cortex7]

Hey Cypherdoc,

I know Benjamin Fulford is not considered a reliable source by many, but nonetheless this makes for fascinating fiction if nothing else:

http://benjaminfulford.net/2014/10/20/did-the-dragon-family-take-control-of-the-federal-reserve-board/

If it were true then I think bitcoin (and gold) would go ballistic as folk leapt to a safe stepping stone during the transition, or do you think most would just buy yuan (if that were actually possible).

There are so many possibilities as to what may happen fairly soonish, most of them will send safety net securities to the moon if they happen.

[kehtolo]

Hey Cypherdoc,

I know Benjamin Fulford is not considered a reliable source by many, but nonetheless this makes for fascinating fiction if nothing else:

http://benjaminfulford.net/2014/10/20/did-the-dragon-family-take-control-of-the-federal-reserve-board/

If it were true then I think bitcoin (and gold) would go ballistic as folk leapt to a safe stepping stone during the transition, or do you think most would just buy yuan (if that were actually possible).

There are so many possibilities as to what may happen fairly soonish, most of them will send safety net securities to the moon if they happen.

Wow!

All i have to say to that is... "That's a bit mad!"

There does not seem to be much substance to it, it is all unnamed sources, heresay etc. But definitely one of the more 'out there' things I've read today.

[justusranvier]

All i have to say to that is... "That's a bit mad!"

Benjamin Fulford is not "a bit" mad...

[Melbustus]

...
The underlying crimes in the cases don't matter. The point is that the "it wasn't fiat" defense didn't fly, so it's pretty darn reasonable to assume that if you're breaking some law or failing to comply with some regulation, you will not be able to use the same "I wasn't using dollars" defense to get off on a technicality. Morality hardly matters; the letter of the law/regs matters.

In the specific case of these asset-exchange platforms, those issuing equity equivalents onto them should probably be aware that the SEC has about 80 years worth of securities regulation on file, and they aren't gonna ignore that just because the securities are being issued in a way that doesn't touch dollars.

This is why Overstock's CounterParty-issued shares proposal came with the simultaneous announcement of the retention of a team of (expensive) Perkins Coie lawyers to get it all approved by the SEC.

File your S1s, kids.

They hired the same lawfirm that bitshares guys are using so im sure they can leverage the same work. The fact that a crime happened was probably why they were charged but who would they go after here? Its decentralized.

Btw I think overstock wants to issue the same stocks from ny so they would somehow bring them in (i think) this that is subject to securities regulation. That wouldnt apply here either. Either way its fine and not a reason for it to fail thats for sure.

There are two potential regulatory issues:

1) The entities that issue shares onto the platform very likely need to comply with SEC regs. You can ask Erik Voorhees about that.
2) If the creators of the platform are known/public, aggressive regulatory enforcement could hassle them as well. I'm not saying it makes "moral" sense or whatever, just that it's entirely within the realm of things that can happen in reality.

#1 is a near certainty. #2 is untested, and so just speculation.

[sidhujag]

...
The underlying crimes in the cases don't matter. The point is that the "it wasn't fiat" defense didn't fly, so it's pretty darn reasonable to assume that if you're breaking some law or failing to comply with some regulation, you will not be able to use the same "I wasn't using dollars" defense to get off on a technicality. Morality hardly matters; the letter of the law/regs matters.

In the specific case of these asset-exchange platforms, those issuing equity equivalents onto them should probably be aware that the SEC has about 80 years worth of securities regulation on file, and they aren't gonna ignore that just because the securities are being issued in a way that doesn't touch dollars.

This is why Overstock's CounterParty-issued shares proposal came with the simultaneous announcement of the retention of a team of (expensive) Perkins Coie lawyers to get it all approved by the SEC.

File your S1s, kids.

They hired the same lawfirm that bitshares guys are using so im sure they can leverage the same work. The fact that a crime happened was probably why they were charged but who would they go after here? Its decentralized.

Btw I think overstock wants to issue the same stocks from ny so they would somehow bring them in (i think) this that is subject to securities regulation. That wouldnt apply here either. Either way its fine and not a reason for it to fail thats for sure.

There are two potential regulatory issues:

1) The entities that issue shares onto the platform very likely need to comply with SEC regs. You can ask Erik Voorhees about that.
2) If the creators of the platform are known/public, aggressive regulatory enforcement could hassle them as well. I'm not saying it makes "moral" sense or whatever, just that it's entirely within the realm of things that can happen in reality.

#1 is a near certainty. #2 is untested, and so just speculation.

Maybe... im not part of the team so I'm just trying to be logical... #1 may or may not be certain.. since again it is not a money transmitter and so I think a new law would have to be put in place for it to happen (not likely in short or medium term).. #2 sure he gets thrown in jail, there are plenty of devs ready to step up... it doesn't stop the system. The hard work is pretty much done anyway.

BTW entities that issue shares (that can be anyone) so you mean EVERYONE who uses it must comply with SEC regs.. yea good luck with that!

[cypherdoc]

...
The underlying crimes in the cases don't matter. The point is that the "it wasn't fiat" defense didn't fly, so it's pretty darn reasonable to assume that if you're breaking some law or failing to comply with some regulation, you will not be able to use the same "I wasn't using dollars" defense to get off on a technicality. Morality hardly matters; the letter of the law/regs matters.

In the specific case of these asset-exchange platforms, those issuing equity equivalents onto them should probably be aware that the SEC has about 80 years worth of securities regulation on file, and they aren't gonna ignore that just because the securities are being issued in a way that doesn't touch dollars.

This is why Overstock's CounterParty-issued shares proposal came with the simultaneous announcement of the retention of a team of (expensive) Perkins Coie lawyers to get it all approved by the SEC.

File your S1s, kids.

They hired the same lawfirm that bitshares guys are using so im sure they can leverage the same work. The fact that a crime happened was probably why they were charged but who would they go after here? Its decentralized.

Btw I think overstock wants to issue the same stocks from ny so they would somehow bring them in (i think) this that is subject to securities regulation. That wouldnt apply here either. Either way its fine and not a reason for it to fail thats for sure.

There are two potential regulatory issues:

1) The entities that issue shares onto the platform very likely need to comply with SEC regs. You can ask Erik Voorhees about that.
2) If the creators of the platform are known/public, aggressive regulatory enforcement could hassle them as well. I'm not saying it makes "moral" sense or whatever, just that it's entirely within the realm of things that can happen in reality.

#1 is a near certainty. #2 is untested, and so just speculation.

there's something to be learned from GLBSE and Nefario, the first intended global stock trading system first implemented in 2011.  it got shut down after 2 attempts, the last being by the UK regulators.

[kehtolo]

All i have to say to that is... "That's a bit mad!"

Benjamin Fulford is not "a bit" mad...

Hehe.. ok, I didn't know him. Fully certifiably mad then, if he's like that all the time.

[Melbustus]

...
The underlying crimes in the cases don't matter. The point is that the "it wasn't fiat" defense didn't fly, so it's pretty darn reasonable to assume that if you're breaking some law or failing to comply with some regulation, you will not be able to use the same "I wasn't using dollars" defense to get off on a technicality. Morality hardly matters; the letter of the law/regs matters.

In the specific case of these asset-exchange platforms, those issuing equity equivalents onto them should probably be aware that the SEC has about 80 years worth of securities regulation on file, and they aren't gonna ignore that just because the securities are being issued in a way that doesn't touch dollars.

This is why Overstock's CounterParty-issued shares proposal came with the simultaneous announcement of the retention of a team of (expensive) Perkins Coie lawyers to get it all approved by the SEC.

File your S1s, kids.

They hired the same lawfirm that bitshares guys are using so im sure they can leverage the same work. The fact that a crime happened was probably why they were charged but who would they go after here? Its decentralized.

Btw I think overstock wants to issue the same stocks from ny so they would somehow bring them in (i think) this that is subject to securities regulation. That wouldnt apply here either. Either way its fine and not a reason for it to fail thats for sure.

There are two potential regulatory issues:

1) The entities that issue shares onto the platform very likely need to comply with SEC regs. You can ask Erik Voorhees about that.
2) If the creators of the platform are known/public, aggressive regulatory enforcement could hassle them as well. I'm not saying it makes "moral" sense or whatever, just that it's entirely within the realm of things that can happen in reality.

#1 is a near certainty. #2 is untested, and so just speculation.

Maybe... im not part of the team so I'm just trying to be logical... #1 may or may not be certain.. since again it is not a money transmitter and so I think a new law would have to be put in place for it to happen (not likely in short or medium term).. #2 sure he gets thrown in jail, there are plenty of devs ready to step up... it doesn't stop the system. The hard work is pretty much done anyway.

BTW entities that issue shares (that can be anyone) so you mean EVERYONE who uses it must comply with SEC regs.. yea good luck with that!

You are confused about #1. Money Transmission regulation is distinct from SEC securities-offering regulation.

I'm not saying any of this 100% takes down bitshares or similar systems. Jurisdictional arbitrage will happen, of course. But at the same time, it's naive to think that the SEC and similar bodies in the world's largest markets, will not apply their broadly-written body of regulation to these new platforms. Again, Erik Voorhees experience is a good example. That was a tiny, niche, esoteric offering and the SEC still took enforcement action (~2 years later).