Investor Bulletin, July 25: Initial Coin Offerings
1–10 of 50 posts
Re: Investor Bulletin, July 25: Initial Coin Offerings
#2> Ask whether the blockchain is open and public, whether the code has been published, and whether there has been an independent cybersecurity audit.
That's an entirely prescient statement that suggests the SEC has done a serious bit of homework and has put careful thought into the subject.
Re: Investor Bulletin, July 25: Initial Coin Offerings
#3This seems pretty reasonable and is the same conclusion which the DAO investigation came to. I think both ICO creators and participants will benefit from this new information now that we have a clear line in the sand as to how these things can operate. The risk won't decrease substantially in buying these tokens, these projects can go bust just like a kickstarter project can fail but at the very least people in the US will think twice about running outright scams.
It has been recently suggested that the SEC may go after exchanges which hold any ICO token regardless of how it was sold and advertised, I'm pretty sure they don't want to go that far, this will only push exchanges into decentralized systems which are difficult to shutdown. There has to be some give and take on both sides here really.
Re: Investor Bulletin, July 25: Initial Coin Offerings
#4> Ask whether the blockchain is open and public, whether the code has been published, and whether there has been an independent cybersecurity audit. That's an entirely prescient statement that suggests the SEC has done a serious bit of homework and has put careful thought into the subject.
Not prescient, real. There have been ICOs where the blockchain wasn't running yet. That's just a "send us your money" scam.
Re: Investor Bulletin, July 25: Initial Coin Offerings
#5The SEC uses quite a mild language here. Issuers often avoid mentioning even what they sell: revenue flow, profit, or just hashes. White papers has no traces of legal entities involved, dispute resolution jurisdiction, financial statements.
A proper prospectus:
- https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1447599/000119312515...
And how ICO white papers look like:
- https://detectortoken.com/docs/DetectorToken_White_Paper.pdf
Re: Investor Bulletin, July 25: Initial Coin Offerings
#6It seems like Golem compute tokens would not be considered securities, but what about obvious joke coins that are only a value store, like the FUCK token?
Re: Investor Bulletin, July 25: Initial Coin Offerings
#7The SEC uses quite a mild language here. Issuers often avoid mentioning even what they sell: revenue flow, profit, or just hashes. White papers has no traces of legal entities involved, dispute resolution jurisdiction, financial statements. A proper prospectus: - https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1447599/000119312515... And how ICO white papers look like: - https://detectortoken.com/docs/DetectorToken_White_Pap…
The cryptocurrency community is hilariously bad (well, it would be funny if people weren't getting fleeced) about putting blog posts through Latex and acting like they've written a "paper".
The people who have written dozens of real papers that end up in a dustbin somewhere are jealous. The funny thing is most of these docs would be more accessible as blog posts, but those don't provide the same faux-academic thing con men need.
Not sure if they're actually that amateur or it's more cynical and they know it's the way you do business - probably both.
Re: Investor Bulletin, July 25: Initial Coin Offerings
#8The SEC uses quite a mild language here. Issuers often avoid mentioning even what they sell: revenue flow, profit, or just hashes. White papers has no traces of legal entities involved, dispute resolution jurisdiction, financial statements. A proper prospectus: - https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1447599/000119312515... And how ICO white papers look like: - https://detectortoken.com/docs/DetectorToken_White_Pap…
For the time being its going to be more of a "I'll know it when I see it and so will you" type of situation. Preventing scams and things advertised as investment opportunities appear to be the focus without trying to pin down an exact framework for detecting it, but I wouldn't say they are being vague about what it is they're are going to limit. If they tried creating an exact framework with the information available today it would likely miss the mark in terms of a balance between restrictiveness and protection to investors/purchasers.
Re: Investor Bulletin, July 25: Initial Coin Offerings
#9It seems like Golem compute tokens would not be considered securities, but what about obvious joke coins that are only a value store, like the FUCK token?
Reminds me of Dogecoin.
Re: Investor Bulletin, July 25: Initial Coin Offerings
#10Can a mod add "July 25, 2017" to the title? It's not that long ago, but I thought this might be new.