I don't understand why the SEC (america) has jurisdiction to 'block' Telegram's operations (legal domicile in London) - am I missing something here?
[deleted]
SEC blocks the Telegram ICO – what this means, and what happens now
11–20 of 105 posts
Re: SEC blocks the Telegram ICO – what this means, and what happens now
#12So 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?
You imply that Telegrams “Gram” has any buyers other than the early bagholders.
Re: SEC blocks the Telegram ICO – what this means, and what happens now
#13I don't understand why the SEC (america) has jurisdiction to 'block' Telegram's operations (legal domicile in London) - am I missing something here?
> I don't understand why the SEC (america) has jurisdiction to 'block' Telegram's operations (legal domicile in London)
Because Telegram “committed to flood the U.S. capital markets with billions of Grams by October 31, 2019” and “sold more than 1 billion Grams to 39 U.S. Purchasers, raising $424.5 million from the U.S. market” [1].
[1] https://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2019/comp-pr2019-2...
Re: SEC blocks the Telegram ICO – what this means, and what happens now
#14Alternative: telegram launches anyway, and the SEC does... what exactly? Bans them from being traded on US exchanges? It would be impossible to stop the software, just as they can’t stop bitcoin.
> telegram launches anyway, and the SEC does... what exactly?
Refers Telegram to the DoJ for criminal prosecution, which results in bank accounts being frozen, any SAFT holders (or anyone else) who sold their Grams being on the hook to the buyers, and the seizure of Telegram’s assets in America and anywhere else with a mutual prosecution treaty, which covers much of the EU.
At the point of wilfully defying a court order to sell securities, it becomes fraud and potentially money laundering.
Re: SEC blocks the Telegram ICO – what this means, and what happens now
#15I don't understand why the SEC (america) has jurisdiction to 'block' Telegram's operations (legal domicile in London) - am I missing something here?
They're active in the US, selling to US investors, ...
Re: SEC blocks the Telegram ICO – what this means, and what happens now
#16Alternative: telegram launches anyway, and the SEC does... what exactly? Bans them from being traded on US exchanges? It would be impossible to stop the software, just as they can’t stop bitcoin.
That would be an interesting situation.
I feel sure that the US would finds ways of shutting it down, but the idea of just going ahead with their plans and maybe block the US from their network would be legally and politically interesting to watch.
Re: SEC blocks the Telegram ICO – what this means, and what happens now
#17Alternative: telegram launches anyway, and the SEC does... what exactly? Bans them from being traded on US exchanges? It would be impossible to stop the software, just as they can’t stop bitcoin.
> telegram launches anyway, and the SEC does... what exactly? Refers Telegram to the DoJ for criminal prosecution, which results in bank accounts being frozen, any SAFT holders (or anyone else) who sold their Grams being on the hook to the buyers, and the seizure of Telegram’s assets in America and anywhere else with a mutual prosecution treaty, which covers much of the EU. At the point of wilfully defying a court or…
But these are foreign corporations? I think I’m confused about how Russians, with offshore corporations, and foreign bank accounts, can suddenly be banhammered by the SEC...
Re: SEC blocks the Telegram ICO – what this means, and what happens now
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
> telegram launches anyway, and the SEC does... what exactly? Refers Telegram to the DoJ for criminal prosecution, which results in bank accounts being frozen, any SAFT holders (or anyone else) who sold their Grams being on the hook to the buyers, and the seizure of Telegram’s assets in America and anywhere else with a mutual prosecution treaty, which covers much of the EU. At the point of wilfully defying a court or…
But these are foreign corporations? I think I’m confused about how Russians, with offshore corporations, and foreign bank accounts, can suddenly be banhammered by the SEC...
Where are the two corporations that substantially control your app being on phones located?
Re: SEC blocks the Telegram ICO – what this means, and what happens now
#19So 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 17…
It's worth noting that quite a lot of the VCs in question had already written off their investments in 2017-2018 shitcoin ICOs.
This is why said VCs were suggesting to Coinbase last month that they list all these shitcoins that nobody even trades now, but which the VCs just happen to be holding massive bags of: https://blog.coinbase.com/coinbase-continues-to-explore-supp...
Re: SEC blocks the Telegram ICO – what this means, and what happens now
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
But these are foreign corporations? I think I’m confused about how Russians, with offshore corporations, and foreign bank accounts, can suddenly be banhammered by the SEC...
Where are the two corporations that substantially control your app being on phones located?
Ok so the SEC order really has teeth because they can use it to pressure Apple and google to remove telegram from their app stores? That’s a significantly less impressive penalty than what Internet lawyers have been telling me.