SEC blocks the Telegram ICO – what this means, and what happens now • Hacker News Board

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

#101

Post by nl » Tue, Oct 15, 2019, 9:46 PM UTC

jki275 wrote: post #61

nl wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another good predictor of lawsuit success is what the law says, and in this case it's pretty clear Telegram is in the wrong.

That's an essentially totally misinformed view of the law -- especially civil law -- in the US. It's all about how much money you can spend on lawyers and experts, not whether you're right or not. Hell, the government doesn't even know what the laws they write say, and they rarely agree on what they mean.

This just isn't true. Yes, if you have zero dollars it's bad news for you. But if you have enough money to have decent lawyers then things even out, even if the other person has much more money than you. Then what the law says is a big deal!

See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21245365

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

#102

Post by jki275 » Tue, Oct 15, 2019, 10:36 PM UTC

nl wrote: post #101

jki275 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's an essentially totally misinformed view of the law -- especially civil law -- in the US. It's all about how much money you can spend on lawyers and experts, not whether you're right or not. Hell, the government doesn't even know what the laws they write say, and they rarely agree on what they mean.

This just isn't true. Yes, if you have zero dollars it's bad news for you. But if you have enough money to have decent lawyers then things even out, even if the other person has much more money than you. Then what the law says is a big deal! See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21245365

Most people don't have hundreds of thousands of dollars to spend on lawyers. My comment stands in the general case as a result.

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

#103

Post by EpicEng » Tue, Oct 15, 2019, 11:31 PM UTC

snagglegaggle wrote: post #91

EpicEng wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which order is unlawful in your mind?

It is not necessary that I agree, but probably that the Telegram offering is not a security. Sure, "all they had to do was file" but that is a pretty onerous requirement if you think you're not a security, and hugely restricts your market. The Telegram token may increase in price but there's no profit sharing directly from Telegram. It's as if you funded a kickstarter for a limited edition trading card and the compan…

>but that is a pretty onerous requirement if you think you're not a security

But the SEC does, so tough luck?

>The Telegram token may increase in price but there's no profit sharing directly from Telegram

Sounds like a weasely attempt to skirt the rules. Look up the Howey test

>The leading case on the definition of an investment contract is the U.S. Supreme Court case, SEC v. W.J. Howey Co. Under the Howey test, an investment contract is “a contract, transaction or scheme whereby a person invests his money in a common enterprise[1] and is led to expect profits solely from the efforts of the promoter or a third party.”

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

#104

Post by nl » Wed, Oct 16, 2019, 12:27 AM UTC

jki275 wrote: post #102

nl wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This just isn't true. Yes, if you have zero dollars it's bad news for you. But if you have enough money to have decent lawyers then things even out, even if the other person has much more money than you. Then what the law says is a big deal! See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21245365

Most people don't have hundreds of thousands of dollars to spend on lawyers. My comment stands in the general case as a result.

Telegram does though.

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

#105

Post by noxer » Thu, Oct 17, 2019, 12:45 PM UTC

7786655 wrote: post #97

noxer wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Crypto payment in a web shop isn't even a real use case. What they do is send crypto to a third party which sells it for fiat and then the good is paid with fiat. Does that need crypto? No that would work with anything else. The Code on a Paypal PSC for example isn't a crypto coin/token but it can do the exact same thing just better in most cases. The reason you can buy stuff with crypto in web shops is because peopl…

The difference is that if a web store accepts crypo they don't need to worry about the payment processor oligopoly cancelling them.

They get fiat whenever someone makes crypto payments to them. The payment can be stooped by anyone in between like the exchange the bank of said exchange or the web shops bank who gets the payment form the exchanges bank. None of these web stores circumvent the payment processor oligopoly.