Live data from Hacker News

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

davidgerard.co.uk

31–40 of 105 posts

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

#31
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.

> It would be impossible to stop the software, just as they can’t stop bitcoin.

That’s very naive approach. Just because technology is solid, doesn’t mean that government is going to give up. Remember, governments are only entities in the world that are allowed to seize all your assets, throw you in jail and sometime kill you.

People in tech tend to overestimate value of technology and underestimate power of regulations and governments (I only realized it myself few years ago). I feel that we need to update this xkcd, to talk about regulations - https://xkcd.com/538/

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

#32

> 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.

Which order is unlawful in your mind?

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

#33
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.

> 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…

do eeeeeet

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

#34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Resisting unjust legal action (initiated either by officer or judge) can happen any number of ways, including telling the court to stuff it.

Plea deals are the overwhelming number of convictions in the US, something like 90%. Most people do not have access to legal recourse and trusting any US court to operate sanely is a bad idea. Best to avoid it if you can.

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

#35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Do fully legal cryptocurrencies even make sense? They have to be legal only to sneak past regulations and gain adoption, but still somehow escape government control, so that AML, etc. cannot be enforced.

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

#36
The author of this article is turning inches into miles. SAFTs aren't dead. The SEC is alleging Telegram has failed to deliver the promises it has made, so the SEC is pre-emptively stating they need to halt delivery. Presumably, once they complete their promises they'll be able to deliver Grams.

From the SEC Complaint:

The Whitepaper spoke of potential future products and services that investors could use in connection with Grams, but also made clear that these products were not available at the time the Offering began and would not be available by the time Defendants delivered Grams to Initial Purchasers.

Telegram, however, does seem to be in a pickle regarding the PoS consensus model. The SEC seems to be alleging that in order for the network to be sufficiently decentralized, having only qualified investors staking is not enough.

Also from the SEC complaint:

Defendants knew, however, that to actually implement the TON Blockchain in the real world, the project would require “numerosity”: a widespread distribution and use of Grams across the globe. Indeed, by definition, the TON Blockchain can only become truly decentralized (as contemplated and promoted in the Offering Documents) if Grams holders other than the original Grams purchasers actually stake Grams and, thereby, act as “validators” of transactions on the TON Blockchain. Stated differently, if the original Grams purchasers alone all immediately staked their holdings, the TON Blockchain would be centralized rather than decentralized and, therefore, subject to misuse and majority attacks. This fundamental need for additional Grams holders demonstrates that the TON Blockchain was designed from inception to require the Initial Purchasers to immediately distribute their holdings to the public.

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

#37
post #24
post #17

Earlier 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...

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.

Their people could get arrested while vacationing here.

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

#38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Resisting unjust legal action (initiated either by officer or judge) can happen any number of ways, including telling the court to stuff it. Plea deals are the overwhelming number of convictions in the US, something like 90%. Most people do not have access to legal recourse and trusting any US court to operate sanely is a bad idea. Best to avoid it if you can.

> Most people do not have access to legal recourse

This is a red herring. Telegram have access to lawyers.

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

#39

The author of this article is turning inches into miles. SAFTs aren't dead. The SEC is alleging Telegram has failed to deliver the promises it has made, so the SEC is pre-emptively stating they need to halt delivery. Presumably, once they complete their promises they'll be able to deliver Grams. From the SEC Complaint: The Whitepaper spoke of potential future products and services that investors could use in connecti…

Indeed what they want is an S-1 or an F-1 form filling. A security registration. That's it. The SEC has no opinion on the offering other than they think it's a security (this claim itself could also be challenged), and as such has to be registered under the 1933 act.

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

#40
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.

But why wouldn't they register? It really sounds like trying to make this harder than it is.

Isn't it true that the whole crypto world dreams of mass adoption? Well guess what - institutional money would greatly appreciate a valid S-1/F-1 filing in EDGAR.

Post reply on HN