Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[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!

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).

OK so in these cases, they fine Daniel for $50k/$100k for coming up with this software (IDK why this would be the case) or throw him in jail worsed case both of which don't really affect the project itself in the grand scheme of things.

There is noone to go after... it is up to the buyer... the law he was charged(Securities Act of 1933) under states:

Often referred to as the "truth in securities" law, the Securities Act of 1933 has two basic objectives:

1) require that investors receive financial and other significant information concerning securities being offered for public sale; and

2) prohibit deceit, misrepresentations, and other fraud in the sale of securities.

Who is supposed to give them information? Invictus? OK they fine Invictus and tell them that all profits must be surrendered, what profits? Its a self serving ecosystem... they take away their pts/ags/btsx, thats fine....

#2 doesn't apply.

[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).

...

#2 doesn't apply. I don't think #2 from your post applies, and I'm going to naively assume that all judges will agree with me.

FTFY

[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!

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).

...

#2 doesn't apply. I don't think #2 from your post applies, and I'm going to naively assume that all judges will agree with me.

FTFY

I've already built the case that it doesn't apply thus I didn't think I needed to spell it out for you. Sorry I misjudged your ability to infer information.

BTW im not mr bitshares.. I jsut think it may not even be the one.... but something like it might be... something that creates more of an ecosystem. If they continue to make good decisions than I have hope for them.. it is to be seen on the recent drastic change they are proposing on how it will turn out... Chinese sold off earlier this week at the hint of dilution however the proposal is to infuse capital to raise funds (based on consensus voting using their voting technology) for new DACs which is a novel idea... however again it is to be seen on how it will look in hindsight... based on past performance I think it will be fine but I have other ideas on what an ecosystem looks like although other technical ideas are good in bitshares.

[molecular]

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.

You could ask nefario (glbse) about #2.

[Melbustus]

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).

...

#2 doesn't apply. I don't think #2 from your post applies, and I'm going to naively assume that all judges will agree with me.

FTFY

I've already built the case that it doesn't apply thus I didn't think I needed to spell it out for you. Sorry I misjudged your ability to infer information.

...

Reading comp... I said #2 was untested, and that it's naive to jump to conclusions. Put more clearly: your cute interpretation of 80 years worth of SEC regulation doesn't matter. The interpretations of courts and judges matters.

[sidhujag]

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).

...

#2 doesn't apply. I don't think #2 from your post applies, and I'm going to naively assume that all judges will agree with me.

FTFY

I've already built the case that it doesn't apply thus I didn't think I needed to spell it out for you. Sorry I misjudged your ability to infer information.

...

Reading comp... I said #2 was untested, and that it's naive to jump to conclusions. Put more clearly: your cute interpretation of 80 years worth of SEC regulation doesn't matter. The interpretations of courts and judges matters.

Sure lets entertain #2 as being valid... what is your assumption? The project fails? I don't see where you are going with this.

[Peter R]

Like Melbustus said, the main obstacle to much of the "2.0" stuff is regulatory as opposed to technological.  The useful "2.0" features will be implemented on top of bitcoin when the regulatory picture is more clear, the ecosystem has matured, and there's actual demand for these products (as opposed to what IMO is speculative demand designed to pump an alternative blockchain). 

...
1) The entities that issue shares onto the platform very likely need to comply with SEC regs. You can ask Erik Voorhees about that.
...

Yes, absolutely.  I find debates about the legality of 2.0 tech fascinating: many people have strong opinions, but few seem interested in digging into the actual laws as they are presently written. 

For example, perusing the BC Corporations Act (which applies where I live) it becomes clear that a company can't have anonymous shareholders.  Shareholder name and addresses must be logged in the company's share registry.



This makes perfect sense given current tax/corporate laws: for example, the company needs to determine % foreign ownership for tax purposes, it needs to know how many shareholders it has as that affects certain reporting requirements, etc, etc. 

So no anonymous shareholders, which complicates the use of blockchain-based share certificates.  "Bearer shares" are not lawful in any jurisdiction that I'm aware of. 

This is just one example.  I suspect anonymous asset-backed tokens are unlawful as well (and is probably the reason we haven't seen Brock Pierce's "real coins").  Download the applicable laws in any relevant jurisdiction, and the difficulty in navigating them should become clear.

-----
I spent one evening going through the BC Corporations Act and made notes here about ways I thought one could issue blockchain-based share certificates and adhere to the existing laws, if anyone's interested.

[sidhujag]

Like Melbustus said, the main obstacle to much of the "2.0" stuff is regulatory as opposed to technological.  The useful "2.0" features will be implemented on top of bitcoin when the regulatory picture is more clear, the ecosystem has matured, and there's actual demand for these products (as opposed to what IMO is speculative demand designed to pump an alternative blockchain).  

...
1) The entities that issue shares onto the platform very likely need to comply with SEC regs. You can ask Erik Voorhees about that.
...

Yes, absolutely.  I find debates about the legality of 2.0 tech fascinating: many people have strong opinions, but few seem interested in digging into the actual laws as they are presently written.  

For example, perusing the BC Corporations Act (which applies where I live) it becomes clear that a company can't have anonymous shareholders.  Shareholder name and addresses must be logged in the company's share registry.



This makes perfect sense given current tax/corporate laws: for example, the company needs to determine % foreign ownership for tax purposes, it needs to know how many shareholders it has as that affects certain reporting requirements, etc, etc.  

So no anonymous shareholders, which complicates the use of blockchain-based share certificates.  "Bearer shares" are not lawful in any jurisdiction that I'm aware of.  

This is just one example.  I suspect anonymous asset-backed tokens are unlawful as well (and is probably the reason we haven't seen Brock Pierce's "real coins").  Download the applicable laws in any relevant jurisdiction, and the difficulty in navigating them should become clear.

-----
I spent one evening going through the BC Corporations Act and made notes here about ways I thought one could issue blockchain-based share certificates and adhere to the existing laws, if anyone's interested.

That's great Peter, these laws apply to where I live too however it's talking about a Company issuing shares because the company seeks to make profit (that profit is the incentive) thus many malpractices exist to issue shares which may infact be ponzi schemes or to sway people out of their money.. and in these "ecosystems" its not the company which issues shares but gives the ability to issue shares which is yet another grey area, yet not susceptible to any type of applicable laws in any democratic jurisdiction I believe.

The company that creates the system has no vested interest in trying to issue shares for profit or for business... I don't see the correlation.

I do think you bring up a good point though... and name/address pairs are needed to validate who owns or issues shares... I think if a company uses the system to issue shares such as overstock they need to be registered and legally comply which they are... the system itself does not need registration as far as I can see. The system or company needs a way to track the individuals the shares are given to... so overstock needs a registration process to track the address inside of the decentralized marketplace to the physical identity of the person with shares.

[Wekkel]

"Bearer shares" are not lawful in any jurisdiction that I'm aware of.

Hmm, bearer shares are quite common. Of course, at certain moments the company learns who it's shareholders are at that time. What do you think listed shares are?

[sidhujag]

"Bearer shares" are not lawful in any jurisdiction that I'm aware of.

Hmm, bearer shares are quite common. Of course, at certain moments the company learns who it's shareholders are at that time. What do you think listed shares are?

You quoted the wrong guy Wekkel...

[Peter R]

"Bearer shares" are not lawful in any jurisdiction that I'm aware of.

Hmm, bearer shares are quite common. Of course, at certain moments the company learns who it's shareholders are at that time. What do you think listed shares are?

Prove it.  Cite one example of a jurisdiction where companies can presently issue bearer shares.  I think there may be some tax-haven type locations where it's still possible, but that's hardly "quite common."

[iCEBREAKER]

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.

I'd love the BRICs to break up the Jekyll Island Cabal as much anybody but...

On a scale of 1 to Martin Armstrong, BF is 9.5 nutbars short of a moonbat.   

[Wekkel]

"Bearer shares" are not lawful in any jurisdiction that I'm aware of.

Hmm, bearer shares are quite common. Of course, at certain moments the company learns who it's shareholders are at that time. What do you think listed shares are?

Prove it.  Cite one example of a jurisdiction where companies can presently issue bearer shares.  I think there may be some tax-haven type locations where it's still possible, but that's hardly "quite common."

The Netherlands.

It's a common term at Investopedia: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/bearer_share.asp

I cannot imagine bearer shares are prohibited in the US or other Western countries. How would you list a company then?

[Cortex7]

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.

I'd love the BRICs to break up the Jekyll Island Cabal as much anybody but...

On a scale of 1 to Martin Armstrong, BF is 9.5 nutbars short of a moonbat.  

I find his "info leaks" very entertaining, like a good novel.

His father was a Canadian diplomat and he wrote for Forbes for quite a long time until he defected to Japan where he is quite popular to this day.

Of course he has a terrible reputation in the west, as any defector would. But the world is bigger than our own countries, some interesting stuff going on for sure. Time of change is afoot.

If you found that entertaining then here's something with more "substance" from a real Russian politician talk show, seems they are pissed with the sanctions and tooling up for a fight, trouble brewing:

Enable youtube captions:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiOiSQG5iVY

Bottom line: buy and hold some Bitcoin (and gold or silver) and wait for the waters to settle in a decade or two.

[Peter R]

"Bearer shares" are not lawful in any jurisdiction that I'm aware of.

Hmm, bearer shares are quite common. Of course, at certain moments the company learns who it's shareholders are at that time. What do you think listed shares are?

Prove it.  Cite one example of a jurisdiction where companies can presently issue bearer shares.  I think there may be some tax-haven type locations where it's still possible, but that's hardly "quite common."

The Netherlands.

It's a common term at Investopedia: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/bearer_share.asp

It's a common term because bearer shares were used in the past and some are still in circulation.  Here's an excerpt from an IMF report regarding the status of bearer shares in the Netherlands:



Panama, Luxemburg, Isle of Man, and other locations where bearer share issuance was previously possible are also phasing them out.  

I cannot imagine bearer shares are prohibited in the US or other Western countries. How would you list a company then?

Ownership is transferred from one registered entity to another.  

[notme]

"Bearer shares" are not lawful in any jurisdiction that I'm aware of.

Hmm, bearer shares are quite common. Of course, at certain moments the company learns who it's shareholders are at that time. What do you think listed shares are?

Prove it.  Cite one example of a jurisdiction where companies can presently issue bearer shares.  I think there may be some tax-haven type locations where it's still possible, but that's hardly "quite common."

The Netherlands.

It's a common term at Investopedia: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/bearer_share.asp

It's a common term because bearer shares were used in the past and some are still in circulation.  Here's an excerpt from an IMF report regarding the status of bearer shares in the Netherlands:



Panama, Luxemburg, Isle of Man, and other locations where bearer share issuance was previously possible are also phasing them out.  

I cannot imagine bearer shares are prohibited in the US or other Western countries. How would you list a company then?

Ownership is transferred from one registered entity to another.  

So much for "publicly tradable".

[sidhujag]

Again I believe these are companies issuing shares for raising funds or profits... PTS/AGS may have legal issues which were used to raise funds... but not bitshares which is not a company but a toolkit... if a company uses it to issue their own shares to raise funds then yes it falls into the category you claim.

[justusranvier]

So no anonymous shareholders, which complicates the use of blockchain-based share certificates.  "Bearer shares" are not lawful in any jurisdiction that I'm aware of. 

This is just one example.  I suspect anonymous asset-backed tokens are unlawful as well (and is probably the reason we haven't seen Brock Pierce's "real coins").  Download the applicable laws in any relevant jurisdiction, and the difficulty in navigating them should become clear.

Only the informal economy is going to benefit from most of these tools.

[sidhujag]

So no anonymous shareholders, which complicates the use of blockchain-based share certificates.  "Bearer shares" are not lawful in any jurisdiction that I'm aware of.  

This is just one example.  I suspect anonymous asset-backed tokens are unlawful as well (and is probably the reason we haven't seen Brock Pierce's "real coins").  Download the applicable laws in any relevant jurisdiction, and the difficulty in navigating them should become clear.

Only the informal economy is going to benefit from most of these tools.

You think so? Someone may want to use bitUSD because they work with USD and all partnerships are set up with USD... but get all of the benefits of transfering tokens across the blockchain with low fees and low latency etc etc... to me it seems opposite... it is geared towards bringing in the real economy as it stands today. This goes with nuBits/XCP/NXT whoever solves the problem first to reach the network effect.

[justusranvier]

You think so? Someone may want to use bitUSD because they work with USD and all partnerships are set up with USD... but get all of the benefits of transfering tokens across the blockchain with low fees and low latency etc etc... to me it seems opposite... it is geared towards bringing in the real economy as it stands today. This goes with nuBits/XCP/NXT whoever solves the problem first to reach the network effect.

Those aren't what I was talking about.

I mean the ability for a company to raise funds by selling equity as bearer shares is one that only companies in the informal economy will benefit from.

That doesn't mean everybody who invents some kind of token-based financial instrument is doing something worthwhile. Most of the "assets" being traded on those platforms right now are worthless.