This is confused - there is very little about 'compliance' ie TXSRB/STOKENs that Michael/Stan are working on, and a lot on getting listed on exchanges.
Getting listed on centralized exchanges is *ALL ABOUT COMPLIANCE*. They
need to make sure they act according to law and regulations, otherwise
they may see trouble from officials.
I would suggest dropping the compliance and focus just on getting listed.
I would love to live in a world that works as easy as you describe it.
Have you see what you need to do in order to be listed on Bittrex to
begin with? You essencially need to fill in a form that looks much like
the Howey test. Why would they ask for that? Simply because they need to
make sure they don't trade securities. Making sure the regulatory bodies
don't see BTS as security is what is called "compliance".
But don't try and get BTS listed. Been there done that, the exchanges that don't have BTS don't have it for a reason - we compete with their core business.
BTS does not compete with their core business. BTS is token much like
ETH. Most exchange do know that there is a decentralized exchange on
Ethereum too. Do they mind? No.
The core competence of centralized exchange is to be a gateway from FIAT
into crypto and if they wanted to add another potentially profitable
pair, they would add a bitUSD:FIAT pair. Why aren't they doing it?
Because BitShares does not have an Ethereum foundation that has tons of
money to do the legal leg work and B2B relations. Even if they wanted to
list BTS, they couldn't because they cannot even reach a single person
to tell them more about it. I don't expect them to read through tons of
bitsharestalk threads just to get the picture of what BTS is - let alone
complicated stuff like bitassets.
What may be worthwhile is getting the exchanges to list bitUSD and bitCNY.
Totally.
I would support a bounty worker that pays $50k USD for each exchange that lists bitUSD and bitCNY... but... the exchange has to do >$100M USD 24 hr volume. Bithumb, Bitfinex, Bittrex, Polo, Coinone, HitBTC, Korbit, Kraken, GDAX.
Well, exchanges don DO volume. They offer markets for other people to
provide the volume. Easy as that.
It would be much better to create global demand for bitUSD and bitCNY than to try and beat a dead horse. If major exchanges start using bitUSD instead of USDT the amount of BTS locked away as collateral will cause BTS to moon very quickly. There is freaking half a billion dollars of USDT floating around right now, even 10% of that action would move BTS substantially.
It's the other way round, actually. If you wanted to create half of that
in bitUSD, you'd need the BTS price to go up, otherwise, you cannot
short that amount of bitUSD into existence!
I would like to see a worker (or third party business), which will help me to file my tax form (for a fee of course).
Me too
but that's out of the scope of this worker
I don't see this as needed or feasible. companies should protect their service in their own jurisdiction.
and since I don't see an american lawyer on the team, the SEC argument is pretty much invalid
If you were in my shoes, you'd probably see it differently. That's all I
can say to that .. sorry
You seem to indicate compliance is why exchanges such as Bittrex dropped BTS. Have they made an official statement this is the case or was it some other technical issue they were having with the blockchain itself etc...?
Nothing official, no. But we did talk to bittrex and know more insights,
however, we signed an NDA with them so cannot share details. Hope you
understand that.
Blockchain compliance is such a grey area at the moment where different jurisdictions will always have different requirements.
It's **NOT** about blockchain compliance. It is about the BTS token to
be compliant in terms of securities law - which (fortunately) is less
rigorous in non-U.S. countries.
Can you list any current compliance issues that need to be addressed?
I can at least address one that has been fixed last week (unfunded work,
btw):
* BitAssets are not CFDs -
https://steemit.com/bitshares/@xeroc/bitshares-clarification-on-recent-fears-uncertainty-and-doubt
How are those currently effecting the Bitshares ecosystem? (are businesses trying to utilize BitShares but are turned down by the local .gov that we don't know about?)
Major problem is that most businesses don't want to take the time learn
all about BitShares that we here already know - they have better
business to deal with. So, if the SEC approaches them and ask them to
show proof for compliance, what would they do? Kick out those that they
are not sure about and have no means of obtaining factual insights.
I don't see this as necessary, if witnesses/committee members find themselves in regulatory hot water then they can be replaced with users outside the affected areas.
Only gateways should have compliance concerns, of which that's their business not BTS'.
I replied to this on the other thread
$50k for getting Bittrex to re-integrate BTS/bitUSD is a bit of a joke, we could get added to multiple exchanges for that much. Besides, DEX > CEX & Bittrex loss has been factored into the price already.
I don't care much about the price but about the future of BitShares. If
we do not tackle compliance now, we will see major issues **VERY** soon.
And $50k for every additional exchange that lists a BTS asset? That's mental, most exchanges which charge a fee only ask for a few thousand, let centralized exchanges come to Bitshares than fork out this way.
I wish I could say I understand what you are saying, but I cannot.