Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

SEC blocks the Telegram ICO – what this means, and what happens now

davidgerard.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

1–10 of 105 posts

Re: SEC blocks the Telegram ICO – what this means, and what happens now

#4

Post by snagglegaggle »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #3

> Telegram refused to accept a subpoena Within the sea of stupid that was this endeavour—single-issuer token pretending not to be a security, the wholesale scam that are SAFTs—this really takes the cake.

I think that's arguable. You're completely within your rights to refuse an unlawful order from a police officer. That it usually would lead to you getting shot reflects poorly on our society, not on the judgement of the person refusing the unlawful order.

Re: SEC blocks the Telegram ICO – what this means, and what happens now

#5

Post by mikece »

So it's not that the blockchain or exchange systems where insecure, only that tokens available at the ICO were being sold below par to investors? Setting aside the giant red flag that is refusing to accept a subpoena, if the ICO tokens are revalued to take away the discount to early investors would it then be legal?

Re: SEC blocks the Telegram ICO – what this means, and what happens now

#6

Post by jorvi »

> The Telegram Open Network is probably dead. The emergency order stops Telegram from “delivering Grams to any persons, or taking any other steps to effect any unregistered offer or sale of Grams.” This is worldwide — not just for the US.

This completely blows my mind. How does the SEC have any power in telling a hypothetical European situated in Europe if they can or can't buy Gram from European sellers..?

Re: SEC blocks the Telegram ICO – what this means, and what happens now

#8

Post by JumpCrisscross »

snagglegaggle wrote: post #4
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #3

> Telegram refused to accept a subpoena Within the sea of stupid that was this endeavour—single-issuer token pretending not to be a security, the wholesale scam that are SAFTs—this really takes the cake.

I think that's arguable. You're completely within your rights to refuse an unlawful order from a police officer. That it usually would lead to you getting shot reflects poorly on our society, not on the judgement of the person refusing the unlawful order.

> You're completely within your rights to refuse an unlawful order from a police officer

Subpoenas are court-ordered requests for documents. If you disagree with them, you fight them in court.

Re: SEC blocks the Telegram ICO – what this means, and what happens now

#9

Post by JumpCrisscross »

mikece wrote: post #5

So it's not that the blockchain or exchange systems where insecure, only that tokens available at the ICO were being sold below par to investors? Setting aside the giant red flag that is refusing to accept a subpoena, if the ICO tokens are revalued to take away the discount to early investors would it then be legal?

> if the ICO tokens are revalued to take away the discount to early investors would it then be legal?

No. The tokens are securities. They are issued by a single issuer to fund development of a product which doesn’t presently exist, with early investors in SAFTs buying them on expectation of profit.

In any case, how would you value the discount? You don’t know the price until a market exists. And by that point, the 171 early investors have already dumped their pump on retail investors.

Post reply on HN