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

21–30 of 105 posts

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

#21

Post by [deleted] »

seibelj wrote: post #17
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #14

Earlier 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...

[deleted]

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

#22

Post by negamax »

seibelj wrote: post #17
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #14

Earlier 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...

Why do you think they are so keen to list in US?

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

#23

Post by negamax »

ThinkBeat wrote: post #16
seibelj wrote: post #10

Alternative: 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.

But this is indeed about money. Why tie up a crypto token with a messenger otherwise. No US, no money. That's how it is. I wish SEC had fined EOS more though

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

#24

Post by jVinc »

seibelj wrote: post #17
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #14

Earlier 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...

You are right that they could conceptually have been operating entirely outside the US, which would shield them from any SEC actions... but of cause they aren't operating entirely outside of the US, and as such are not in any meaningful way shielded from SEC actions.

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

#25

Post by schmichael »

With each new cryptocurrency drama due to flouting AML/KYC regulations, flouting securities regulations, collapsing/exit-scamming exchanges, murders, drugs, sex trafficking, let's not forget:

PoW is an ecologically irresponsible algorithm.[1]

Altogether cryptocurrency is such a terrifyingly irresponsible ecosystem, I'm surprised anyone wants to be involved in it.

[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221462961...

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

#26

Post by ajconway »

schmichael wrote: post #25

With each new cryptocurrency drama due to flouting AML/KYC regulations, flouting securities regulations, collapsing/exit-scamming exchanges, murders, drugs, sex trafficking, let's not forget: PoW is an ecologically irresponsible algorithm.[1] Altogether cryptocurrency is such a terrifyingly irresponsible ecosystem, I'm surprised anyone wants to be involved in it. [1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/…

This one is PoS though.

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

#27

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

jorvi wrote: post #6

> 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..?

That's how it generally works. If you're subject to a court's jurisdiction, and the court orders you not to do something, you can't dodge the order by just doing it in some place where the court doesn't have jurisdiction.

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

#28

Post by aey »

SEC is blocking their launch. On the face of it, telegram has been complient with the SEC up to now and have filed exemptions for their sale.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1729650/000095017218...

On their own discounts are not illegal.

I think what’s obvious is that the network is not truly decentralized and depends on telegram and investors expect to profit from telegrams work on the network. So they should probably file an s-1 and follow the blockstack route.

What would have been ironic, is if TON was truly decentralized and independent of telegram than the network would have been launched anyways.

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

#29

Post by schmichael »

ajconway wrote: post #26
schmichael wrote: post #25

With each new cryptocurrency drama due to flouting AML/KYC regulations, flouting securities regulations, collapsing/exit-scamming exchanges, murders, drugs, sex trafficking, let's not forget: PoW is an ecologically irresponsible algorithm.[1] Altogether cryptocurrency is such a terrifyingly irresponsible ecosystem, I'm surprised anyone wants to be involved in it. [1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/…

This one is PoS though.

Supposedly, AFAIK it's vaporware and may never be released.

Even if it is functional PoS (which sounds like a codified plutocracy, but I could be wrong), they still managed to botch securities regulations. Even if they sneak past that somehow, it seems likely they'll also fall afoul of AML/KYC regulations.

Maybe not! Maybe they're finally the ones who will do it all! Legal and ecologically responsible! If so they're off to a very bad start.

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

#30

Post by jorvi »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #27
jorvi wrote: post #6

> 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..?

That's how it generally works. If you're subject to a court's jurisdiction, and the court orders you not to do something, you can't dodge the order by just doing it in some place where the court doesn't have jurisdiction.

But that is not how it generally works. If Unilever gets told by a UK court they can't sell peanut butter because that court doesn't like peanut butter, it doesn't mean Unilever is suddenly forbidden from selling peanut butter in the USA.

Edit: to clear up the analogy - UK courts don't have a say over what Unilever can and can't sell in USA jurisdiction. Likewise, the SEC can (should?) only regulate trade within USA jurisdiction or by USA entities. If Telegram wants to sell Grams on the UK market, Telegram should be able to tell the SEC to go pound sand, as any USA court orders don't mean jack outside that jurisdiction

Post reply on HN