RE: A Utility Token is a Unicorn

You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

A Utility Token is a Unicorn

in regulation •  7 years ago  (edited)
regulation
7 years ago by

Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:

  • Disagreement on rewards
  • Fraud or plagiarism
  • Hate speech or trolling
  • Miscategorized content or spam

Submit
$0.00
    1 vote
    5
    Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
    If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
    Sort Order:  
  • Trending
    • [-]
      ·  7 years ago (edited)

    Someone also sent this to me: https://btcnewstoday.net/us-regulators-asked-not-to-classify-ethereum-as-a-security-nyt-report/

    However in Ethereum’s case as I previously explained, I think Valkenburgh’s argument is apropos in that by now most of ETH has been mined with proof-of-work and the free market is more in control of the system than Vitalik or any group, as evident by the fork to ETC for example.

    P.S. Webpages behind a paywall such as the NY Times can sometimes be read at archive.is such as the article you cited: http://archive.is/jef9M

    Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:

    • Disagreement on rewards
    • Fraud or plagiarism
    • Hate speech or trolling
    • Miscategorized content or spam

    Submit
    $0.00
      [-]
        ·  7 years ago (edited)

      I wrote 2 months ago:

      However in Ethereum’s case as I previously explained, I think Valkenburgh’s argument is apropos in that by now most of ETH has been mined with proof-of-work and the free market is more in control of the system than Vitalik or any group, as evident by the fork to ETC for example.

      As expected, SEC Commissioned hints that Ethereum isn’t a security because they “see a highly decentralized network.”

      Note that applies to the token itself. The issuers could still be in trouble, but unlikely the SEC can go against them because they were lawyered up behind laws of Switzerland. I don’t know if they did enough to exclude unsophisticated US investors, but presumably it’s too late for that. And the SEC’s resources are spread too thin and they have more egregious cases to pursue.

      However, there’s still the Tezos class action lawsuits percolating, although it appears the lawsuits will not prosper.

      Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:

      • Disagreement on rewards
      • Fraud or plagiarism
      • Hate speech or trolling
      • Miscategorized content or spam

      Submit
      $0.00
        [-]
          ·  7 years ago (edited)

        According to China, the Western regulators are confused and unable to get organized:

        https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeldelcastillo/2018/06/07/us-cryptocurrency-regulators-show-unified-front-to-new-york-city-bar-lawyers/

        State level regulation probably can’t nab the large weasels like EOS which lawyer up in the Caymans:

        https://btcmanager.com/u-s-and-canada-launch-massive-cryptocurrency-fraud-probe-operation-crypto-sweep/

        Again what I see is a massive bubble developing (EOS raised $4 billion) and then a lot of people burned when the next long duration crypto winter crash comes (2019?). I think that wipe out will increase the clamors for Congress to create a super regulator with super powers.

        Again the powers-that-be have their fingerprints on this. It’s the Hegelian dialectic principle. Mastermind an extreme crisis which demands a solution that increases their top-down control.

        Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:

        • Disagreement on rewards
        • Fraud or plagiarism
        • Hate speech or trolling
        • Miscategorized content or spam

        Submit
        $0.00
          [-]
            ·  6 years ago 

          Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:

          • Disagreement on rewards
          • Fraud or plagiarism
          • Hate speech or trolling
          • Miscategorized content or spam

          Submit
          $0.00
            [-]
              ·  6 years ago (edited)

            FinCEN released comprehensive guidance and DApps are money transmitters!

            Here’s an attorney’s remarks.

            But a blockchain is essentially a DApp for transmitting money. So this means Bitcoin is a money transmitter. Nonsense!

            Essentially what FinCEN is pointing out they can regulate any humans persons or business entities connected to the centralized control of — or investment enterprise benefit from — the operation (not development of) of any software for money transmission (even if it runs on a P2P network).

            So although Bitcoin is a money transmitter, they can’t regulate it because they can’t identify any centralized entities that have a controlling interest in Bitcoin. Ditto for DApps. If they can’t identify any controlling interest and have no way of interfering with the P2P network operation, then they effectively are powerless to regulate it. But if they can identify some legal entities who have a controlling interest, then they will regulate them.

            P.S. As usual the links are also archived at archive.org in case the become dead links in the future.

            Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:

            • Disagreement on rewards
            • Fraud or plagiarism
            • Hate speech or trolling
            • Miscategorized content or spam

            Submit
            $0.00