SEC tightens the noose on ICO-funded startups

Post by richard55 » Wed, Oct 10, 2018, 11:45 PM UTC

bilbo0s wrote: post #89

147 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're saying if somebody is an engineer at a company that helps launches ICOs they should be worried?

Did you only take money from them? I mean, were you similar to a simple contractor who was paid money for code? If so, you won't be referred to DOJ. (You still may have some administrative troubles with SEC, but at a time like this, I'd count only being in trouble with the SEC as a "win". Fines, fees, and/or work restrictions are preferable to prison in my own opinion.) If you got a small piece of the ICO itself as r…

Post by gamblor956 » Wed, Oct 10, 2018, 11:55 PM UTC

CryptoPunk wrote: post #92

gamblor956 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Courts don't create the law, they interpret it (...except in India, where the Supreme Court actually does make laws). The Legislature writes the law. A security doesn't require a common enterprise, it simply requires that one thing represents an interest in something else. The underlying asset is usually financial or intangible in nature, but that isn't required. There are more specific rules and exceptions, but thos…

Courts create common law, which determines how statutory laws are interpreted. >>A security doesn't require a common enterprise, it simply requires that one thing represents an interest in something else. Investment into a common enterprise is the second prong of the Howey Test.

Post by cdetrio » Thu, Oct 11, 2018, 12:36 AM UTC

CPLX wrote: post #37

zjaffee wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone whose generally bearish on crypto currencies, I do see one clear benefit to ICOs over traditional exchanges. Namely the fact that you can trade them 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, from anywhere in the world with an internet connection, in any currency (theoretically) and on no fixed exchange (although it's likely that the number of exchanges will be limited to reduce price instability).

You can trade pretty much any security 24/7 these days, and people do.

Post by api » Thu, Oct 11, 2018, 12:51 AM UTC

Animats wrote: post #74

The SEC seems to be sorting the list of ICOs by level of criminality and size, and working down the list. First they went after the ones which were large, obvious, out and out criminal enterprises. As in [1], or "they really didn't have the real estate and diamonds they said they had." And [2], or "they really didn't have deals in place with PayPal, Boeing, and Disney". Then the SEC went after the ones that were mere…

Post by hndamien » Thu, Oct 11, 2018, 1:12 AM UTC

A2017U1 wrote: post #106

vkou wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a token that is a security and comply with securities laws Because if you do that, there's no point having an ICO. Just do an IPO - the token is an expensive, pointless distraction from their mission to democratize the world's dogsitters, or whatever they want to do.

> Just do an IPO A token is virtually frictionless and costs nothing to setup or trade globally, dividends can be paid out directly to token owners. An IPO is an incredibly lengthy, arduous process requiring a small army of lawyers and accountants simply to offer shares to a restricted subset of sophisticated investors in one country.