SEC Charges Bitcoin Entrepreneur For Share Offering • Hacker News Board

Re: SEC Charges Bitcoin Entrepreneur For Share Offering

#11

Post by logfromblammo » Tue, Jun 03, 2014, 4:01 PM UTC

kintamanimatt wrote: post #7

tinkerrr wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they are raising money from American individuals (not Qualified Institutional Buyers) they would need to be registered with the SEC irrespective of where they are headquartered. They might, at most, qualify as foreign private issuer, so they can file with the SEC in private, but I strongly doubt they did it. http://www.sec.gov/info/smallbus/qasbsec.htm Edit: For those asking why the American laws apply to this sit…

So long as they aren't domiciled in the US, American laws don't (or shouldn't) apply outside the US any more than British laws apply in the US.

America's allies really need to sit Columbia down and have an intervention. It's been 238 years since she moved out of Britannia's house, and it's just been wild parties and wars of choice ever since. At some point, it really is time to settle down and start respecting the neighbors.

Re: SEC Charges Bitcoin Entrepreneur For Share Offering

#12

Post by SoftwareMaven » Tue, Jun 03, 2014, 4:02 PM UTC

tinkerrr wrote: post #4

bitJericho wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are registered in Scotland. Likely any American individual or company that doesn't register is liable to have the same thing happen to them.

If they are raising money from American individuals (not Qualified Institutional Buyers) they would need to be registered with the SEC irrespective of where they are headquartered. They might, at most, qualify as foreign private issuer, so they can file with the SEC in private, but I strongly doubt they did it. http://www.sec.gov/info/smallbus/qasbsec.htm Edit: For those asking why the American laws apply to this sit…

The internet blurs the lines, though. If I was in Scotland raising money and Americans came to Scotland to invest, there would be no SEC issues (assuming I wasn't marketing to Americans; of course, this may imply qualified investors anyway). The problem is what it means to "come to Scotland" and to "market to Americans" has changed with the internet. So the question becomes how to differentiate actively courting US investors from local investors, and it's an important question to keep any government (especially the US, unfortunately) from overstepping it's sovereign rights and encroaching on another country's.

Re: SEC Charges Bitcoin Entrepreneur For Share Offering

#13

Post by _delirium » Tue, Jun 03, 2014, 4:05 PM UTC

tatalegma wrote: post #10

Very interesting that the shares he issued were purchased in bitcoin, and still the SEC decided to step in. How is this different than if you issue shares and sell them for an in game currency?

The SEC doesn't really care how the payment is carried out, if that's the only difference. The actual medium of exchange could be dollar bills, gold coins, euros, baseball cards, rare watches, gemstones, bitcoin, used books, etc. (Though some of those are treated differently for capital-gains purposes.)

Re: SEC Charges Bitcoin Entrepreneur For Share Offering

#14

Post by dragonwriter » Tue, Jun 03, 2014, 4:19 PM UTC

SoftwareMaven wrote: post #12

tinkerrr wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they are raising money from American individuals (not Qualified Institutional Buyers) they would need to be registered with the SEC irrespective of where they are headquartered. They might, at most, qualify as foreign private issuer, so they can file with the SEC in private, but I strongly doubt they did it. http://www.sec.gov/info/smallbus/qasbsec.htm Edit: For those asking why the American laws apply to this sit…

The internet blurs the lines, though. If I was in Scotland raising money and Americans came to Scotland to invest, there would be no SEC issues (assuming I wasn't marketing to Americans; of course, this may imply qualified investors anyway). The problem is what it means to "come to Scotland" and to "market to Americans" has changed with the internet. So the question becomes how to differentiate actively courting US i…

> it's an important question to keep any government (especially the US, unfortunately) from overstepping it's sovereign rights and encroaching on another country's.

The essential character of "sovereign rights" is that they are unbounded except by voluntary restraint of the sovereign.

Re: SEC Charges Bitcoin Entrepreneur For Share Offering

#15

Post by logfromblammo » Tue, Jun 03, 2014, 4:21 PM UTC

tinkerrr wrote: post #4

bitJericho wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are registered in Scotland. Likely any American individual or company that doesn't register is liable to have the same thing happen to them.

If they are raising money from American individuals (not Qualified Institutional Buyers) they would need to be registered with the SEC irrespective of where they are headquartered. They might, at most, qualify as foreign private issuer, so they can file with the SEC in private, but I strongly doubt they did it. http://www.sec.gov/info/smallbus/qasbsec.htm Edit: For those asking why the American laws apply to this sit…

I do not like the implication that the SEC somehow owns potential American investors. At some point, you have to treat me like a big boy, point at the "caveat emptor" sign, and let me be on my way.

Any claims that the SEC is vital to protecting Americans from financial fraud, maintain fair and orderly markets, and facilitate new capital are all quite soundly countered with a variety of phrases, such as "credit default swaps", "AIG", "MERS", "collateralized debt obligations", "naked short", "Bernie Madoff", "matters under inquiry", etc.

Re: SEC Charges Bitcoin Entrepreneur For Share Offering

#16

Post by dllthomas » Tue, Jun 03, 2014, 4:41 PM UTC

SoftwareMaven wrote: post #12

tinkerrr wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they are raising money from American individuals (not Qualified Institutional Buyers) they would need to be registered with the SEC irrespective of where they are headquartered. They might, at most, qualify as foreign private issuer, so they can file with the SEC in private, but I strongly doubt they did it. http://www.sec.gov/info/smallbus/qasbsec.htm Edit: For those asking why the American laws apply to this sit…

The internet blurs the lines, though. If I was in Scotland raising money and Americans came to Scotland to invest, there would be no SEC issues (assuming I wasn't marketing to Americans; of course, this may imply qualified investors anyway). The problem is what it means to "come to Scotland" and to "market to Americans" has changed with the internet. So the question becomes how to differentiate actively courting US i…

"(assuming I wasn't marketing to Americans; of course, this may imply qualified investors anyway)"

I can afford to fly to Scotland, and I am nowhere near a qualified investor...

Re: SEC Charges Bitcoin Entrepreneur For Share Offering

#17

Post by jedunnigan » Tue, Jun 03, 2014, 4:42 PM UTC

This was bound to happen eventually, especially given the indication of insider trading the day before SD was bought out.[0]

[0]http://sinistercyb.org/wp/2013/07/satoshi-dice-sale/

Re: SEC Charges Bitcoin Entrepreneur For Share Offering

#18

Post by rayiner » Tue, Jun 03, 2014, 4:43 PM UTC

logfromblammo wrote: post #11

kintamanimatt wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So long as they aren't domiciled in the US, American laws don't (or shouldn't) apply outside the US any more than British laws apply in the US.

America's allies really need to sit Columbia down and have an intervention. It's been 238 years since she moved out of Britannia's house, and it's just been wild parties and wars of choice ever since. At some point, it really is time to settle down and start respecting the neighbors.

Your rant is misplaced. Every country in the world would claim jurisdiction over people trying to sell things in their country.

Re: SEC Charges Bitcoin Entrepreneur For Share Offering

#19

Post by AJ007 » Tue, Jun 03, 2014, 4:50 PM UTC

kintamanimatt wrote: post #7

tinkerrr wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they are raising money from American individuals (not Qualified Institutional Buyers) they would need to be registered with the SEC irrespective of where they are headquartered. They might, at most, qualify as foreign private issuer, so they can file with the SEC in private, but I strongly doubt they did it. http://www.sec.gov/info/smallbus/qasbsec.htm Edit: For those asking why the American laws apply to this sit…

So long as they aren't domiciled in the US, American laws don't (or shouldn't) apply outside the US any more than British laws apply in the US.

The US decided they could prosecute BNC because the transactions, completely legal where BNC was doing business, we're in US dollars. It took a $10 billion fine to finally get France to push back.

Re: SEC Charges Bitcoin Entrepreneur For Share Offering

#20

Post by dllthomas » Tue, Jun 03, 2014, 4:54 PM UTC

logfromblammo wrote: post #15

tinkerrr wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they are raising money from American individuals (not Qualified Institutional Buyers) they would need to be registered with the SEC irrespective of where they are headquartered. They might, at most, qualify as foreign private issuer, so they can file with the SEC in private, but I strongly doubt they did it. http://www.sec.gov/info/smallbus/qasbsec.htm Edit: For those asking why the American laws apply to this sit…

I do not like the implication that the SEC somehow owns potential American investors. At some point, you have to treat me like a big boy, point at the "caveat emptor" sign, and let me be on my way. Any claims that the SEC is vital to protecting Americans from financial fraud, maintain fair and orderly markets, and facilitate new capital are all quite soundly countered with a variety of phrases, such as "credit defaul…

'Any claims that the SEC is vital to protecting Americans from financial fraud, maintain fair and orderly markets, and facilitate new capital are all quite soundly countered with a variety of phrases, such as "credit default swaps", "AIG", "MERS", "collateralized debt obligations", "naked short", "Bernie Madoff", "matters under inquiry", etc.'

Your reasoning here is fallacious - the question is the current situation compared to the counter-factual without the SEC, not whether the SEC eliminates all malfeasance (whatever the regulatory climate and funding levels).

Of course, it's worth noting that the existence of a fallacious argument doesn't undermine the point it was trying to make; it just fails to support it.