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: Why BitShares is Immune to Regulation - SEC Chair, bitcoin may not be a security  (Read 1398 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline bytemaster


Quote
SonicSpike wrote in with a link to another report in Bloomberg. The Federal Reserve has no plans to regulate Bitcoin (lacking regulatory authority), but the SEC chair wrote "Regardless of whether an underlying virtual currency is itself a security, interests issued by entities owning virtual currencies or providing returns based on assets such as virtual currencies likely would be securities and therefore subject to our regulation."

BitUSD and the instruments traded on the BitShares network are not a SECURITY based upon the SEC chair's suggestion that the underlying virtual currency may not itself be a security.  If this line of thinking holds then BitShares will be in a very good positon.
For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline cass

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4329
  • /(┬.┬)\
    • View Profile
Quote
SonicSpike wrote in with a link to another report in Bloomberg. The Federal Reserve has no plans to regulate Bitcoin (lacking regulatory authority), but the SEC chair wrote "Regardless of whether an underlying virtual currency is itself a security, interests issued by entities owning virtual currencies or providing returns based on assets such as virtual currencies likely would be securities and therefore subject to our regulation."

BitUSD and the instruments traded on the BitShares network are not a SECURITY based upon the SEC chair's suggestion that the underlying virtual currency may not itself be a security.  If this line of thinking holds then BitShares will be in a very good positon.

indeed very good position .. in germany bitcoin is private money and after 1 year holding your bitcoins.. if you change them you don't must pay tax on it. If  PTS / BTS would classified same... it would be amazing  :D
█║▌║║█  - - -  The quieter you become, the more you are able to hear  - - -  █║▌║║█

Offline MrJeans

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
    • View Profile
  • BTS: mrjeans
If BitShares is immune to regulation by the Securities and Exchange Commission, this would mean that BitShares has a huge untapped US market to enter. Very nice!

Offline MrJeans

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
    • View Profile
  • BTS: mrjeans
If BitShares is immune to regulation by the Securities and Exchange Commission, this would mean that BitShares has a huge untapped US market to enter. Very nice!

CFD trading is illegal in the US and Forex trading illegal in China. And China has a severe lack of places for people to store their wealth. And the Shanghai stock exchange is in the doldrums.
The perfect storm for BitShares to enter! 

Offline CWEvans

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 183
    • View Profile
BitUSD and the instruments traded on the BitShares network are not a SECURITY based upon the SEC chair's suggestion that the underlying virtual currency may not itself be a security.  If this line of thinking holds then BitShares will be in a very good positon.

I am not a lawyer, but I am an expert witness in financial cases. Much hinges on how one defines something in words, and not just which equation one uses to model it and which block of software one uses to encode that equation.

To see this in action, look at the case of Bernard von NotHaus and compare it with R.A. Radford's (1945) "The Economics Organization of a POW Camp" and Ithaca Hours.

Whether it is an ounce of silver, a cigarette, or an hour of one's time, it can be used as money. However, NotHaus has been convicted of counterfeiting and declared a domestic terrorist in court, and the issuers of Ithaca Hours and prison inmates who continue to use cigarettes as money today have not.

One way of looking at BitUSD, for example, is to see it not as a 1:1 proxy for a US dollar, but as the question, "How much do you believe a BitShare is worth in terms of USD?"

Offline Liberty

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 23
    • View Profile
Quote
SonicSpike wrote in with a link to another report in Bloomberg. The Federal Reserve has no plans to regulate Bitcoin (lacking regulatory authority), but the SEC chair wrote "Regardless of whether an underlying virtual currency is itself a security, interests issued by entities owning virtual currencies or providing returns based on assets such as virtual currencies likely would be securities and therefore subject to our regulation."

BitUSD and the instruments traded on the BitShares network are not a SECURITY based upon the SEC chair's suggestion that the underlying virtual currency may not itself be a security.  If this line of thinking holds then BitShares will be in a very good positon.

The SEC chair said that entities that issue interest (shares of ownership) are subject to SEC regulation. The SEC chair likened crypto currencies as assets and said that entities that provide returns on assets are also subject to SEC regulation. He said it doesn't matter if the underlying currency of issued interests are virtual.
 
I3 is subject to SEC regulation once it issues interest in DACs, and because a 5% return is provided. The SEC chair is also hinting that an underlying virtual currency (BitShares for example) might also be considered a security that is subject to SEC regulation. Bitcoin is safe from SEC regulation because it has an unknown issuer. BitShares (and DACs) have a well known issuer. The Federal Reserve is said to lack the ability to prosecute Bitcoin (and likewise BitShares), but that does not mean that the SEC will not prosecute I3 once interest has been issued.

Offline Markus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 366
    • View Profile
Quote
SonicSpike wrote in with a link to another report in Bloomberg. The Federal Reserve has no plans to regulate Bitcoin (lacking regulatory authority), but the SEC chair wrote "Regardless of whether an underlying virtual currency is itself a security, interests issued by entities owning virtual currencies or providing returns based on assets such as virtual currencies likely would be securities and therefore subject to our regulation."

BitUSD and the instruments traded on the BitShares network are not a SECURITY based upon the SEC chair's suggestion that the underlying virtual currency may not itself be a security.  If this line of thinking holds then BitShares will be in a very good positon.

The SEC chair said that entities that issue interest (shares of ownership) are subject to SEC regulation. The SEC chair likened crypto currencies as assets and said that entities that provide returns on assets are also subject to SEC regulation. He said it doesn't matter if the underlying currency of issued interests are virtual.
 
I3 is subject to SEC regulation once it issues interest in DACs, and because a 5% return is provided. The SEC chair is also hinting that an underlying virtual currency (BitShares for example) might also be considered a security that is subject to SEC regulation. Bitcoin is safe from SEC regulation because it has an unknown issuer. BitShares (and DACs) have a well known issuer. The Federal Reserve is said to lack the ability to prosecute Bitcoin (and likewise BitShares), but that does not mean that the SEC will not prosecute I3 once interest has been issued.

That is why I3 will not issue anything. They will only develop open-source software. Somebody else will run the servers and do the nasty stuff :)
… sounds like their lawyers have the same view as Satoshi's did.

edit: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=2940 (last paragraph of first post)
« Last Edit: February 18, 2014, 10:13:28 AM by Markus »

 

Google+