Author [EN] [ZH] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] [EN] [ZH] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] [EN] [ZH] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] Topic: ·  (Read 1027 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline bitmeat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1116
    • View Profile
·
« on: March 20, 2014, 04:37:19 PM »

·
« Last Edit: July 26, 2014, 10:17:27 PM by happypatty »

Offline etherbroker

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 69
    • View Profile
Re: Is SEC really not a concern?
« Reply #1 on: March 20, 2014, 05:30:06 PM »
Thats why AGS are donations and there is no legally binding contract.

Offline luckybit

Re: Is SEC really not a concern?
« Reply #2 on: March 20, 2014, 06:10:12 PM »
http://www.coindesk.com/sec-making-inquiries-mpex-satoshidice/

This is troublesome. I would like to hear objective arguments.

Hopefully Invictus is not going to get affected but this contradicts what we've heard before about SEC's stand on the issue.

They are not targeting it because it's gambling but because of how it was funded? And they are also going after the investors as well.

Fun times.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The SEC has no authority over someone who isn't operating inside the USA. This looks like an intimidation tactic.

There might be a reason to have the investigation in the case of money laundering, theft, or something like that, but if it's because of a serious crime it should be the FBI or secret service asking questions and not the SEC.

Quote
A SEC representative sent an email request to MPEx operator Mircea Popescu of Romania. Popescu, known as ‘MP’ to the bitcoin community, is widely known for his outspokenness and offered a lengthy defence of bitcoin in his responses to the SEC’s request.

He was contacted by Daphna Waxman, an attorney with the Enforcement Division of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, on 14th February with a request to release a list of all investors in SatoshiDice before its sale in July last year, and an account history for Erik Voorhees, the site’s original owner.

Jurisdiction issues

It is not clear if MPEx has broken any rules or even whether the US SEC has any official jurisdiction over a company based in Romania, as Popescu pointed out in the conversation. However it can certainly apply extrajudicial pressure, and Waxman requested he “voluntarily provide” the information instead. After denying Waxman a telephone conversation he wrote:

If you're not a US citizen there is no reason why you'd be obligated to help an investigation which has nothing to do with your jurisdiction. If the government wanted a list of investors as part of a money laundering investigation then a completely different set of agencies would be involved and it wouldn't be one rogue from the SEC.

Thats why AGS are donations and there is no legally binding contract.

Invictus might have to worry being on US soil but thats not the same as Mpex. Mpex has nothing to worry about because they aren't in the US. Romania is operating under a different jurisdiction.

Suppose a company formed in the USA which started off selling stocks in an over the counter market in virtual form, then they went public later on. If they gave everyone money who owned the virtual stocks but those people didn't get legally binding shares then it's not a contract bound by courts.

So I'm not sure what case the SEC would have even in the Satoshi dice instance because the people who owned the virtual shares in Satoshi dice never got real securities.

As far as we know, Angelshares are donations. They might be seen as a loan but not a security because we don't own stock in Invictus. We loaned Invictus money to build Bitshares and after it's built we get something else in exchange for it.

That is really no different from Kickstarter. You have businesses on there where people crowd fund by donating money to the business. It builds some product and then gives the product to the crowd, or it gives prizes, gifts, thank you notes, whatever. That is already legal in the USA which means what Mastercoin, Bitshares and others have done is legal.

The only area of confusion is perhaps the language Invictus was using and the fact that they aren't yet a non profit. If they become a non profit then our donations to them could even be tax exempt if it's set up right.

« Last Edit: March 20, 2014, 07:03:28 PM by luckybit »
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline luckybit

Re: Is SEC really not a concern?
« Reply #3 on: March 20, 2014, 06:27:05 PM »
Invictus is based in the US, is it not?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Invictus is based in the USA but it's an assurance contract not a security.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assurance_contract

I'm not a lawyer so don't take me as an expert on the matters of the law. I think Bitshares is like any other product you crowdfund on Kickstarter.

Bitshares are not equity in Invictus. It's no different from if we went on Kickstarter and crowd funded an MMO and part of the rewards is that we'd x amount of virtual items in that game when the game is launched. Sure we could sell our virtual sword for real money after the game is launched, but its not the same thing as Invictus offering us equity stock in their company.

The only thing Invictus owes us is software development. We donated with the expectation that Bitshares XT and other DACs will be completed. They give us prizes to motivate us to help them build it in the form of reward points. Protoshares are functioning as reward points at this time and technically we are all volunteers.

Invictus needs to become a non profit so this can all be made legally clear. Additionally a possible side effect could be that our donations become tax deductible.

Think of Bitshares as a "serious game" developed by a non profit entity and a community of dedicated volunteers who participate in the game. It will not become more than a game until it's legally recognized and regulated, which will happen someday but hasn't happened yet and could take a few years.

« Last Edit: March 20, 2014, 06:30:04 PM by luckybit »
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline luckybit

Re: Is SEC really not a concern?
« Reply #4 on: March 20, 2014, 06:37:32 PM »
There is another possibility. Perhaps MPEX made the whole story up. How do we know the SEC email is real?

It would be in the financial interest of MPEX to create a fake dialogue with the SEC to get people to go to his particular exchange. If the SEC has literally no jurisdiction, and no law was broken that I can see, what are they investigating?

The whole thing seems a bit like a hoax to me.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

bitbro

  • Guest
Re: Is SEC really not a concern?
« Reply #5 on: March 20, 2014, 06:40:37 PM »

http://www.coindesk.com/sec-making-inquiries-mpex-satoshidice/

This is troublesome. I would like to hear objective arguments.

Hopefully Invictus is not going to get affected but this contradicts what we've heard before about SEC's stand on the issue.

They are not targeting it because it's gambling but because of how it was funded? And they are also going after the investors as well.

Fun times.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The SEC has no authority over someone who isn't operating inside the USA. This looks like an intimidation tactic.

There might be a reason to have the investigation in the case of money laundering, theft, or something like that, but if it's because of a serious crime it should be the FBI or secret service asking questions and not the SEC.

Quote
A SEC representative sent an email request to MPEx operator Mircea Popescu of Romania. Popescu, known as ‘MP’ to the bitcoin community, is widely known for his outspokenness and offered a lengthy defence of bitcoin in his responses to the SEC’s request.

He was contacted by Daphna Waxman, an attorney with the Enforcement Division of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, on 14th February with a request to release a list of all investors in SatoshiDice before its sale in July last year, and an account history for Erik Voorhees, the site’s original owner.

Jurisdiction issues

It is not clear if MPEx has broken any rules or even whether the US SEC has any official jurisdiction over a company based in Romania, as Popescu pointed out in the conversation. However it can certainly apply extrajudicial pressure, and Waxman requested he “voluntarily provide” the information instead. After denying Waxman a telephone conversation he wrote:

If you're not a US citizen there is no reason why you'd be obligated to help an investigation which has nothing to do with your jurisdiction. If the government wanted a list of investors as part of a money laundering investigation then a completely different set of agencies would be involved and it wouldn't be one rogue from the SEC.

Thats why AGS are donations and there is no legally binding contract.

Invictus might have to worry being on US soil but thats not the same as Mpex. Mpex has nothing to worry about because they aren't in the US. Romania is operating under a different jurisdiction.

The reason the SEC might get involved in this particular case involving Satoshi dice is because Satoshi dice went a step further and went public on the actual stock market rather than just keeping everything virtual.

Suppose a company formed in the USA which started off selling stocks in an over the counter market in virtual form, then they went public later on. If they gave everyone money who owned the virtual stocks but those people didn't get legally binding shares then it's not a contract bound by courts.

So I'm not sure what case the SEC would have even in the Satoshi dice instance because the people who owned the virtual shares in Satoshi dice never got real securities.

As far as we know, Angelshares are donations. They might be seen as a loan but not a security because we don't own stock in Invictus. We loaned Invictus money to build Bitshares and after it's built we get something else in exchange for it.

That is really no different from Kickstarter. You have businesses on there where people crowd fund by donating money to the business. It builds some product and then gives the product to the crowd, or it gives prizes, gifts, thank you notes, whatever. That is already legal in the USA which means what Mastercoin, Bitshares and others have done is legal.

The only area of confusion is perhaps the language Invictus was using and the fact that they aren't yet a non profit. If they become a non profit then our donations to them could even be tax exempt if it's set up right.

No way Invictus is gonna pay tax on AGS donations, are they?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Offline luckybit

Re: Is SEC really not a concern?
« Reply #6 on: March 20, 2014, 06:54:26 PM »
My conclusion is that if MPex isn't running a hoax, then it may represent a phishing attempt.

Hackers use these sorts of methods to elicit information by pretending to be legal authorities. Something about these emails stands out as seeming like a phishing attempt.

They are specifically asking to have names, addresses, BTC addresses of investors, and are focused on Erik Vorhees?

Anyone from the United States should know that the SEC isn't the agency to ask for this kind of specific information.

I see three primarily possibilities.

1. We have the possibility that a rogue SEC agent is on a fishing expedition targeting Satoshi dice and Erik Vorhees.

2. We also have the possibility that hackers are targeting yet another exchange with a highly targeted phishing attack on people they believe would have a lot of Bitcoins. MPex is known to be a place where you need a lot of Bitcoins to get in. Erik Vorhees is high profile and believed to have a lot of Bitcoins.

3. MPex is running a hoax to drive people to his exchange.

I think the first two possibilities are worrisome. I think the third possibility is easily ignored as childish.

If the SEC is targeting Satoshi dice in this way, it's likely a rogue SEC agent. The reason being that the Jobs Act actually legalizes crowd funding in the United States but has not yet taken effect due to the SEC itself delaying putting it into effect.

So if the SEC itself is delaying putting it into effect but at the same time has the money to prosecute Satoshi dice for crowd funding it makes the SEC as an institution look bad. If no investors were harmed, and there are no complaints, it makes them look tyrannical.

So the best course of action if it is true would be to protest against the SEC's actions so that it is known that this is not in the interest of protecting investors. And if it's something like a money laundering investigation then the wrong agency was sent to ask those questions.
« Last Edit: March 20, 2014, 06:58:32 PM by luckybit »
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline etherbroker

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 69
    • View Profile
Re: Is SEC really not a concern?
« Reply #7 on: March 20, 2014, 06:57:08 PM »
I'm just glad SEC is there to protect us.  /end sarcasm

Sent using Tapatalk

Offline donkeypong

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2331
    • View Profile
Re: Is SEC really not a concern?
« Reply #8 on: March 20, 2014, 07:08:19 PM »
I never count out the SEC. They consider almost anything a security. And they shoot first and ask questions later. Invictus needs to keep its hands very clean. From what I've read online from Dan and Stan, they have thoroughly vetted everything with lawyers, so I will trust in them.

Frankly, the e-mails that MP posted look phony to me. I think the site owners cooked that up or someone was toying with them because I've never seen a government request for private information that does not cite some legal basis of authority. If they're real, then it's a friendly fishing expedition, because if the SEC had any more jurisdiction than that, it wouldn't be so friendly. 

Edit: It's either phony, phishing, or fishing.
« Last Edit: March 20, 2014, 07:10:09 PM by donkeypong »

Offline santaclause102

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2487
    • View Profile
Re: Is SEC really not a concern?
« Reply #9 on: March 20, 2014, 10:00:29 PM »
I never count out the SEC. They consider almost anything a security. And they shoot first and ask questions later. Invictus needs to keep its hands very clean. From what I've read online from Dan and Stan, they have thoroughly vetted everything with lawyers, so I will trust in them.

Do you remember where they said this?

And was something said about the progress or definite intent for Invictus to bcecome a non profit organisation?

Offline donkeypong

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2331
    • View Profile
Re: Is SEC really not a concern?
« Reply #10 on: March 20, 2014, 11:00:35 PM »
You'll have to look around for those comments on lawyers. But I have seen at least three references that I can remember. As far as Invictus' status as a corporation, I am only reporting what I have read and understood second hand, but my understanding is that it's not going to become nonprofit, but it is acting more as a facilitator for all these DACs by setting up the basic code and then seeking partners or developers to take on the activity itself.

Offline santaclause102

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2487
    • View Profile
Re: Is SEC really not a concern?
« Reply #11 on: March 21, 2014, 12:26:36 AM »
You'll have to look around for those comments on lawyers. But I have seen at least three references that I can remember. As far as Invictus' status as a corporation, I am only reporting what I have read and understood second hand, but my understanding is that it's not going to become nonprofit, but it is acting more as a facilitator for all these DACs by setting up the basic code and then seeking partners or developers to take on the activity itself.
+5%

Offline santaclause102

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2487
    • View Profile
Re: Is SEC really not a concern?
« Reply #12 on: March 21, 2014, 01:22:38 AM »
Is it possible to fund a project with kickstarter and guarantee e.g. 90 percent of the profits of the project to the supporters?
Can the supporters stay annonomous with kickstarter?

... that would be comparable to AGS to a certain degree.

Offline puppies

Re: Is SEC really not a concern?
« Reply #13 on: March 21, 2014, 02:00:00 AM »
In this land of the free that I happen to live in, companies can be compelled to release any information on their clients.  Whats more they can be prosecuted for letting their clients know that they have been forced to release this information.

This naturally has no bearing on a company based in Romania, other than what can be brought to bear in the form of local armed thugs with the conviction that they have a right to inflict violence.  I'm not at all up to speed on the politics of Romania, but I'm pretty sure the USG hasn't started a drone campaign to eradicate the terrorist (anyone who disagrees with them) yet.

This may become an issue with any US based company like III though.  I would suggest giving them as little actual information as possible for your protection as well as theirs.  They can't be compelled to release information they don't have.

Perhaps a dead mans switch would work.  Perhaps a post every day from III to the effect of "we have not been approached by armed thugs attempting to steal our data today"  If a day goes by and you don't see that post then you might have something to worry about.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline luckybit

Re: Is SEC really not a concern?
« Reply #14 on: March 21, 2014, 02:13:20 AM »
In this land of the free that I happen to live in, companies can be compelled to release any information on their clients.  Whats more they can be prosecuted for letting their clients know that they have been forced to release this information.

This naturally has no bearing on a company based in Romania, other than what can be brought to bear in the form of local armed thugs with the conviction that they have a right to inflict violence.  I'm not at all up to speed on the politics of Romania, but I'm pretty sure the USG hasn't started a drone campaign to eradicate the terrorist (anyone who disagrees with them) yet.

This may become an issue with any US based company like III though.  I would suggest giving them as little actual information as possible for your protection as well as theirs.  They can't be compelled to release information they don't have.

Perhaps a dead mans switch would work.  Perhaps a post every day from III to the effect of "we have not been approached by armed thugs attempting to steal our data today"  If a day goes by and you don't see that post then you might have something to worry about.

That is paranoia you're displaying. Invictus does not own Bitshares. The shareholders own Bitshares.

That means the government will just approach each one of us directly if there is a problem.

And they'll find out who has Bitshares when you pay your capital gains taxes. So the best defense in my opinion is transparency.

Give the government everything you are legally required to give. Comply with the law only as far as you are legally required to. Don't interact with the government any more than you are legally required to and don't volunteer to help with investigations, it's not your job and you won't be rewarded for helping to put someone from the community in jail.

I think Invictus is as safe as any company on Kickstarter but I'm not a lawyer. I don't even know the tax implications of this yet.



https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

 

Google+