[6:17:07 PM] Wendell: SWARM… Who else?
[6:17:15 PM] Wendell: Is SWARM even incorporated?
[6:17:52 PM] Xavier Hawk: Hmmm....CP, Bitshares, Swarm, mastercoin,
[6:18:09 PM] Xavier Hawk: Ethereum
[6:18:13 PM] Gavin Knight: ethereum would be a likely target do to the mass volume, but they seemed to have tight legal
[6:18:17 PM] Xavier Hawk: Storj
[6:18:23 PM] Xavier Hawk: Maidsafe
Code: [Select][6:17:07 PM] Wendell: SWARM… Who else?
[6:17:15 PM] Wendell: Is SWARM even incorporated?
[6:17:52 PM] Xavier Hawk: Hmmm....CP, Bitshares, Swarm, mastercoin,
[6:18:09 PM] Xavier Hawk: Ethereum
[6:18:13 PM] Gavin Knight: ethereum would be a likely target do to the mass volume, but they seemed to have tight legal
[6:18:17 PM] Xavier Hawk: Storj
[6:18:23 PM] Xavier Hawk: Maidsafe
Most of these companies are not based in the US from what I can tell. I know that Swarm, Ethereum, BitsharesX, and Maidsafe are not at least. CP didn't do an IPO, but burned Bitcoins to get genesis stake.. I'm not sure that would be counted either even though they do seem to be based in the US. Mastercoin probably falls under this category, unfortunately for them. The projects that have launched since them have been more cautionary in terms of regulatory issues.
This is still bad news over all though... just when Bitcoin/crypto is starting to rebound too. The powers that be can't stand it when the 99% have easy access to investing in disruptive technologies when they were blissfully unaware of their existence.
Most of these companies are not based in the US from what I can tell. I know that Swarm, Ethereum, BitsharesX, and Maidsafe are not at least. CP didn't do an IPO, but burned Bitcoins to get genesis stake.. I'm not sure that would be counted either even though they do seem to be based in the US. Mastercoin probably falls under this category, unfortunately for them. The projects that have launched since them have been more cautionary in terms of regulatory issues.
This is still bad news over all though... just when Bitcoin/crypto is starting to rebound too. The powers that be can't stand it when the 99% have easy access to investing in disruptive technologies when they were blissfully unaware of their existence.
Assuming worst case scenario happens does this mean that one should claim DNS and BTSX shares from AGS as soon as possible and leave these shares on the relevant clients just to be on the safe side?
Assuming worst case scenario happens does this mean that one should claim DNS and BTSX shares from AGS as soon as possible and leave these shares on the relevant clients just to be on the safe side?
Code: [Select][6:17:07 PM] Wendell: SWARM… Who else?
[6:17:15 PM] Wendell: Is SWARM even incorporated?
[6:17:52 PM] Xavier Hawk: Hmmm....CP, Bitshares, Swarm, mastercoin,
[6:18:09 PM] Xavier Hawk: Ethereum
[6:18:13 PM] Gavin Knight: ethereum would be a likely target do to the mass volume, but they seemed to have tight legal
[6:18:17 PM] Xavier Hawk: Storj
[6:18:23 PM] Xavier Hawk: Maidsafe
Most of these companies are not based in the US from what I can tell. I know that Swarm, Ethereum, BitsharesX, and Maidsafe are not at least. CP didn't do an IPO, but burned Bitcoins to get genesis stake.. I'm not sure that would be counted either even though they do seem to be based in the US. Mastercoin probably falls under this category, unfortunately for them. The projects that have launched since them have been more cautionary in terms of regulatory issues.
This is still bad news over all though... just when Bitcoin/crypto is starting to rebound too. The powers that be can't stand it when the 99% have easy access to investing in disruptive technologies when they were blissfully unaware of their existence.
SWARM is US based, and I'll be shocked if Invictus is not getting a knock on the door come raid day for Angelshares.
and before you say "They're not based in the US", they were when they were collecting money for angelshares and that's what matters.
What would be lost is the BTC III holds (assuming they were forced to produce the private key of BTC angel addresses).
@ Adam - Ah, I guess you may be right. For some reason Angelshares didn't cross my mind.
The Feds couldn't confiscate DAC tokens, as each person owns their own private key to the crypto they sent in for AGS. It wouldn't affect future snapshots either as AGS distribution is known and the ledger is distributed. Worst case scenario is Invictus gets fined and even worse case scenario would be that the AGS development funds get confiscated, although I am leaning more towards just a fine.
...
Just trying to re evaluate some possible risks, although I am pretty confident that III have much more dedicated people to do that instead of us.
What I am not so sure is that if these risks are identified and solutions are in place how and if these would be communicated to us in order to take as well the necessary precautions...
...
I think we may be freaking out about nothing.
After a quick assessment, Invictus is a company registered in Hong Kong, China. Meaning that the SEC would probably not have jurisdiction.
http://bitshares.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/BitShares-Trust-Published%20July-18-2014.pdf
How can they be sure you are not one of the government's agent even on a secure channel ? :P
If you're not one of the devs,if there is a real threat and need a secure channel for communication,you and I wouldn't be part of it.
Code: [Select][6:17:07 PM] Wendell: SWARM… Who else?
[6:17:15 PM] Wendell: Is SWARM even incorporated?
[6:17:52 PM] Xavier Hawk: Hmmm....CP, Bitshares, Swarm, mastercoin,
[6:18:09 PM] Xavier Hawk: Ethereum
[6:18:13 PM] Gavin Knight: ethereum would be a likely target do to the mass volume, but they seemed to have tight legal
[6:18:17 PM] Xavier Hawk: Storj
[6:18:23 PM] Xavier Hawk: Maidsafe
Most of these companies are not based in the US from what I can tell. I know that Swarm, Ethereum, BitsharesX, and Maidsafe are not at least. CP didn't do an IPO, but burned Bitcoins to get genesis stake.. I'm not sure that would be counted either even though they do seem to be based in the US. Mastercoin probably falls under this category, unfortunately for them. The projects that have launched since them have been more cautionary in terms of regulatory issues.
This is still bad news over all though... just when Bitcoin/crypto is starting to rebound too. The powers that be can't stand it when the 99% have easy access to investing in disruptive technologies when they were blissfully unaware of their existence.
SWARM is US based, and I'll be shocked if Invictus is not getting a knock on the door come raid day for Angelshares.
and before you say "They're not based in the US", they were when they were collecting money for angelshares and that's what matters.
Why would you be shocked Adam? Angel shares is a private record of a donation of cryptographic digital information....in return for which, those who donated will receive several allocations of cryptographic digital information within open-source software products. On what basis could someone come after them? Are we not free to gift an arrangement of harmless digital information to whomever we choose and receive harmless digital information in return?
Try not to panic....this technological innovation cannot be un-invented. The writing is on the wall. One way or another, blockchain technology will redistribute the power of money and transform our societies. It's already happening. Decentralization is and has always been the key. Bitshares will endure.
I think we may be freaking out about nothing.
After a quick assessment, it seems that the AGS funding was done via the "Bitshares Trust", a Hong Kong company. Meaning that the SEC would not have jurisdiction. http://bitshares.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/BitShares-Trust-Published%20July-18-2014.pdf
yeah,even 3i and DACSun shareholders can not use this fund for their own financial gain,they have to devote the fund for Bitshares future projects for the public.So AGS is not considered as company property.
Even some shareholder want to cash in their shares,they can't touch the AGS fund.
But on second thought.....3I itself still has 60000 PTS and the allocated BTSX,that one would be DACSun's property.
No one is freaking out and there is no need to freak out. Just trying to re evaluate some possible risks, although I am pretty confident that III have much more dedicated people to do that instead of us.How can they be sure you are not one of the government's agent even on a secure channel ? :P
What I am not so sure is that if these risks are identified and solutions are in place how and if these would be communicated to us in order to take as well the necessary precautions...
So we need a decentralized private and secure communication system that no government can't spy on us...
If you're not one of the devs,if there is a real threat and need a secure channel for communication,you and I wouldn't be part of it.
a) Citizenship and Residency
Under the foreign private issuer definition, a foreign company must determine whether a majority of both its executive officers and directors are either U.S. citizens or U.S. residents. The citizenship and residency of each of the foreign company’s executive officers and directors must be analyzed separately. The terms “executive officer” and “director” may have different meanings in jurisdictions outside of the United States; therefore, foreign companies should refer to the definition of “executive officer” contained in Securities Act Rule 405 and Exchange Act Rule 3b-7 (a person or position involved in performing policy making functions for the issuer) to determine the individuals for which they should perform the analysis. When performing the analysis for “directors,” foreign companies should consider individuals that perform the functions generally performed by a board of directors of a U.S. company.
Code: [Select][6:17:07 PM] Wendell: SWARM… Who else?
[6:17:15 PM] Wendell: Is SWARM even incorporated?
[6:17:52 PM] Xavier Hawk: Hmmm....CP, Bitshares, Swarm, mastercoin,
[6:18:09 PM] Xavier Hawk: Ethereum
[6:18:13 PM] Gavin Knight: ethereum would be a likely target do to the mass volume, but they seemed to have tight legal
[6:18:17 PM] Xavier Hawk: Storj
[6:18:23 PM] Xavier Hawk: Maidsafe
Most of these companies are not based in the US from what I can tell. I know that Swarm, Ethereum, BitsharesX, and Maidsafe are not at least. CP didn't do an IPO, but burned Bitcoins to get genesis stake.. I'm not sure that would be counted either even though they do seem to be based in the US. Mastercoin probably falls under this category, unfortunately for them. The projects that have launched since them have been more cautionary in terms of regulatory issues.
This is still bad news over all though... just when Bitcoin/crypto is starting to rebound too. The powers that be can't stand it when the 99% have easy access to investing in disruptive technologies when they were blissfully unaware of their existence.
SWARM is US based, and I'll be shocked if Invictus is not getting a knock on the door come raid day for Angelshares.
and before you say "They're not based in the US", they were when they were collecting money for angelshares and that's what matters.
Why would you be shocked Adam? Angel shares is a private record of a donation of cryptographic digital information....in return for which, those who donated will receive several allocations of cryptographic digital information within open-source software products. On what basis could someone come after them? Are we not free to gift an arrangement of harmless digital information to whomever we choose and receive harmless digital information in return?
Try not to panic....this technological innovation cannot be un-invented. The writing is on the wall. One way or another, blockchain technology will redistribute the power of money and transform our societies. It's already happening. Decentralization is and has always been the key. Bitshares will endure.
Ben, I'm not sure how long you've been around this community but Angelshares has morphed in "what it is" several times. It has been a donation, an investment, a trust, etc. All these words were used in official material and in communications to people who were asked to give money by the people who were recieving it. Take a look at the disclaimer in posts by Daniel or Stan, you'll notice the disclaimer saying anything they say on these forums is non-binding. Well, that's great but it was a bit late and much was said in the interim.
I totally agree none of this can be uninvented, I've never claimed that and *I'm* not panic-ing or really even concerned, but it's naive to say that Invictus won't be on the list because they're "not based in the US". If you're panic-ing, it probably means you are too vested in the bitshares ecosystem and your incentives are screwed up because of it. Our viewpoints should be guided by the way things are, not the way we wish they were.
@Adam
did you actually read the chatlogs? Dogeparty is listed in there as well. :o
Justice Murphy, writing for the majority, identified the major legal issue in this case as whether or not the contracts Howey was selling (which in substance were basically leaseback agreements) constituted an "investment contract" within the meaning of § 2(a)(1) of the Securities Act of 1933. Murphy reasoned that while the term "investment contract" was left undefined by the Act, it had been used in state blue sky laws to cover a broad array of contracts and other schemes to raise capital in a way to secure some income or profit from the use thereof. Thus, the Court concluded, Congress had written the term into the statute in recognition of its previously adopted common law meaning.
Murphy then formulated one of the U.S. Supreme Court's earliest tests to determine whether an instrument qualifies as an "investment contract" for the purposes of the Securities Act (which later came to be referred to as the Howey test):
1 - investment of money due to
2- an expectation of profits arising from
3- a common enterprise
4- which depends solely on the efforts of a promoter or third party
Murphy determined that the contracts in issue here met all four prongs of this test, and thus W. J. Howey could be held liable for violating § 5 of the Securities Act of 1933. Furthermore, Murphy held that the fact that some of the investors chose to use services other than those of Howey-in-the-Hills to tend to the groves was irrelevant, because §5 forbids the offer of unregistered securities, as well as the sale of them.
IMO if the others fit this definition, Dogeparty and Counterparty would also be in violation.
I'll be shocked if Invictus is not getting a knock on the door come raid day for Angelshares. For sure we don't wanna shock Adam.
"(2) with an expectation of profits arising (3) from a common enterprise "
AGSer expect BTS and dacs allocation from Bitshares-Opensource-Software,which is not a legal entity ,so Bitshares DACs are not "a common enterprise".
Therefore,AGSer only fits this 4 tests when they expected profits arising from a common enterprise-----Invictus and not Bitshares DAC,which clearly AGSer expect gain from the latter.
IMO if the others fit this definition, Dogeparty and Counterparty would also be in violation.
1 - investment of money due to - "Burned" Bitcoins could be construed as investment of money. Just because they didn't use the money doesn't mean that others didn't invest money via the burn process to get their respective stake.
2- an expectation of profits arising from - Again, I don't think they burned their Bitcoins expecting nothing or coins of similar value in return.
3- a common enterprise - The common enterprise being Dogeparty/Counterparty
4- which depends solely on the efforts of a promoter or third party - Dependent on the developers developing the software.
If a cryptocoin 2.0 protocol relied on some sort of crowd funding, whether it be via a more traditional-style crowdfunding or burning of cryptocurrency, there is the same end result. The difference being the projects that burned crypto just wasted money needlessly. Users invested money (burned/ICO/IPO) to get an equity in the project (common enterprise) with an expectation of profit from said projects (rise in token value), the developments of which relied on promoters/third parties (developers/organizers).
This is a slippery slope, a very slippery slope indeed. I could probably name at least 20 different projects that this could be applicable to. All of which just happen to be the most innovative cryptocurrency projects in existence, which is very sad for the sake of innovation and development of different use cases of blockchain technology other than specifically for currency. I hope that the Feds just leave these projects alone and let the industry grow and mature on its own. They will get their cut somewhere down the line one way or the other, it doesn't have to be through the SEC. The money will trickle down to them into their pockets eventually.
PS: Guys, lets be nice to Adam. LTB and its subsidiaries have done a lot of good press for Bitshares and we don't want to burn that bridge. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions.They can't be nice to me because I question what they wish to be true and I don't have time to beat around the bush when I see a problem or have a question. They don't want to answer the question, they want it to stop being asked.
The community defense team is why so few people who aren't true believers bother with this forum. It's why there's now talk of if the forum is even a good place for anybody new because posting questions as a new user are often ridiculed or attacked as trolls or sockpuppets.
Do you have an example of such behavior / statements?QuoteThe community defense team is why so few people who aren't true believers bother with this forum. It's why there's now talk of if the forum is even a good place for anybody new because posting questions as a new user are often ridiculed or attacked as trolls or sockpuppets.
Tonyk is one individual. Everyone has his own opinions. Btw he rants against pretty much anything new users or BitShares Music like here https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=8652.0 Let's keep the discussion based on facts (not the emotional bias that we ALL have)Do you have an example of such behavior / statements?QuoteThe community defense team is why so few people who aren't true believers bother with this forum. It's why there's now talk of if the forum is even a good place for anybody new because posting questions as a new user are often ridiculed or attacked as trolls or sockpuppets.
I read a thread recently about tonyk and this exact behavior, sorry I don't have a link it wasn't something I saved.
Tonyk is one individual. Everyone has his own opinions. Btw he rants against pretty much anything new users or BitShares Music like here https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=8652.0 Let's keep the discussion based on facts (not the emotional bias that we ALL have)Do you have an example of such behavior / statements?QuoteThe community defense team is why so few people who aren't true believers bother with this forum. It's why there's now talk of if the forum is even a good place for anybody new because posting questions as a new user are often ridiculed or attacked as trolls or sockpuppets.
I read a thread recently about tonyk and this exact behavior, sorry I don't have a link it wasn't something I saved.
Tony you know that I do not appreciate the way you speak here on the forum sometimes (I like the content of what you say but often you personaly and implicitly attack people) because some take it serious and it does not do any good (only supports your entertainment).Tonyk is one individual. Everyone has his own opinions. Btw he rants against pretty much anything new users or BitShares Music like here https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=8652.0 Let's keep the discussion based on facts (not the emotional bias that we ALL have)Do you have an example of such behavior / statements?QuoteThe community defense team is why so few people who aren't true believers bother with this forum. It's why there's now talk of if the forum is even a good place for anybody new because posting questions as a new user are often ridiculed or attacked as trolls or sockpuppets.
I read a thread recently about tonyk and this exact behavior, sorry I don't have a link it wasn't something I saved.
True... the only thing I really like on this forum is AdamBLevine and his priceless contributions!
You are right Adam, that there is such behavior here on the forum. But I don't think it is legitimate to generalize it for the forum as a whole and call it "the community defense team".Tonyk is one individual. Everyone has his own opinions. Btw he rants against pretty much anything new users or BitShares Music like here https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=8652.0 Let's keep the discussion based on facts (not the emotional bias that we ALL have)Do you have an example of such behavior / statements?QuoteThe community defense team is why so few people who aren't true believers bother with this forum. It's why there's now talk of if the forum is even a good place for anybody new because posting questions as a new user are often ridiculed or attacked as trolls or sockpuppets.
I read a thread recently about tonyk and this exact behavior, sorry I don't have a link it wasn't something I saved.
You asked for an example of such behavior, I provided one. You didnt have the thread quoted so perhaps you responded before my edit
Edit: here you go https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=9375.0;topicseen
I feel like this forum is having PMS mood swings as if the price were female sex hormone levels. It's probably the worst way to react.haha that is super true!
You are right Adam, that there is such behavior here on the forum. But I don't think it is legitimate to generalize it for the forum as a whole and call it "the community defense team".Tonyk is one individual. Everyone has his own opinions. Btw he rants against pretty much anything new users or BitShares Music like here https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=8652.0 Let's keep the discussion based on facts (not the emotional bias that we ALL have)Do you have an example of such behavior / statements?QuoteThe community defense team is why so few people who aren't true believers bother with this forum. It's why there's now talk of if the forum is even a good place for anybody new because posting questions as a new user are often ridiculed or attacked as trolls or sockpuppets.
I read a thread recently about tonyk and this exact behavior, sorry I don't have a link it wasn't something I saved.
You asked for an example of such behavior, I provided one. You didnt have the thread quoted so perhaps you responded before my edit
Edit: here you go https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=9375.0;topicseen
To be fair towards tonyk he rants about all kinds of things and I am sure it is not out of an evil spirit (just a communication habit).
QuotePS: Guys, lets be nice to Adam. LTB and its subsidiaries have done a lot of good press for Bitshares and we don't want to burn that bridge. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions.They can't be nice to me because I question what they wish to be true and I don't have time to beat around the bush when I see a problem or have a question. They don't want to answer the question, they want it to stop being asked.
The community defense team is why so few people who aren't true believers bother with this forum. It's why there's now talk of if the forum is even a good place for anybody new because posting questions as a new user are often ridiculed or attacked as trolls or sockpuppets.
Like you said, I actually do some important work for Bitshares in addition to my commenting and provide a platform along with access to the LTB community many of whom after which joined the I3 community. Given that I could stop all that and invest my time and money elsewhere, If they're willing to attack my questions, what kind of user wouldn't they be willing to attack?
That hit it on the nail!QuotePS: Guys, lets be nice to Adam. LTB and its subsidiaries have done a lot of good press for Bitshares and we don't want to burn that bridge. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions.They can't be nice to me because I question what they wish to be true and I don't have time to beat around the bush when I see a problem or have a question. They don't want to answer the question, they want it to stop being asked.
The community defense team is why so few people who aren't true believers bother with this forum. It's why there's now talk of if the forum is even a good place for anybody new because posting questions as a new user are often ridiculed or attacked as trolls or sockpuppets.
Like you said, I actually do some important work for Bitshares in addition to my commenting and provide a platform along with access to the LTB community many of whom after which joined the I3 community. Given that I could stop all that and invest my time and money elsewhere, If they're willing to attack my questions, what kind of user wouldn't they be willing to attack?
So much of what you said here is spot on, about how people resist truth. Thank you Adam for your willingness to speak your mind here.
I do think your generalization of "community defense team" is not completely accurate, tho it is so common in many communities, especially cults. "My team's the best, your's sucks" mentality. We don't need that crap. Let's keep it rational. Nothing wrong with voicing your opinion and support of your team, but keep it in check and open your mind to empirical truth and facts. When you begin to feel emotional consider it a gong to ask yourself why, and then pause before responding. You might like what you write much better.
Where I think you went a bit too far Adam was in using tonyk as your evidence for you "community defense team" argument. He is clearly abrasive, as evidenced by the thread you provided. But as was pointed out above he is just one person. Painting his contributions as indicative of the community's attitude is unfair and as a relative newbie myself have not experienced this group think attack. The community is very supportive and open to newbies and their "dumb" questions. I know, I've asked my share of them.
And like you I'm not afraid to speak my mind here. I'm just not up to the same level of knowledge you and many others are to ask the really tough questions yet. So please, continue!
Is bitcoin considered to be based in the U.S? I would assume not. Decentralized means just that right? no central government can claim it. Can't an exchange be maintained by a network and decentralized also?
The best thing to do is try to legally manoeuver and continue pioneering.+5% +5%
It is literally insulting when you throw this crap around.
The best thing to do is try to legally manoeuver and continue pioneering.+5% +5%
Stan....I see you and most all this community I have met as family...you are truly amazing people. I apologize in advance for any problems my opinions cause...but I protect those I trust to the best of my ability. Delulo...that includes you..even if we disagree on methods!I feel you bro... if you feel uncomfortable with this just leave it to me... but keep in mind that when you say it (as opposed to me saying the same thing), everybody knows it comes from the heart!
Tonyk is one individual. Everyone has his own opinions. Btw he rants against pretty much anything new users or BitShares Music like here https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=8652.0 Let's keep the discussion based on facts (not the emotional bias that we ALL have)Do you have an example of such behavior / statements?QuoteThe community defense team is why so few people who aren't true believers bother with this forum. It's why there's now talk of if the forum is even a good place for anybody new because posting questions as a new user are often ridiculed or attacked as trolls or sockpuppets.
I read a thread recently about tonyk and this exact behavior, sorry I don't have a link it wasn't something I saved.
Stan....I see you and most all this community I have met as family...you are truly amazing people. I apologize in advance for any problems my opinions cause...but I protect those I trust to the best of my ability. Delulo...that includes you..even if we disagree on methods!I feel you bro... if you feel uncomfortable with this just leave it to me... but keep in mind that when you say it (as opposed to me saying the same thing), everybody knows it comes from the heart!
Ill wait for a cease and desist from invictus for that. The fact that some of our delegates are paying him, though, for how "respected" he is perturbs me...
And before anyone jumps on the trains to "lets be nice" town, lets please ask ourselves what exactly he has really done other than consistenly imply bitshares is a dangerous scam to those new to the game where he is a gatekeeper.
Stan....I see you and most all this community I have met as family...you are truly amazing people. I apologize in advance for any problems my opinions cause...but I protect those I trust to the best of my ability. Delulo...that includes you..even if we disagree on methods!I feel you bro... if you feel uncomfortable with this just leave it to me... but keep in mind that when you say it (as opposed to me saying the same thing), everybody knows it comes from the heart!
Ill wait for a cease and desist from invictus for that. The fact that some of our delegates are paying him, though, for how "respected" he is perturbs me...
And before anyone jumps on the trains to "lets be nice" town, lets please ask ourselves what exactly he has really done other than consistenly imply bitshares is a dangerous scam to those new to the game where he is a gatekeeper.
What is frustrating to some of us adam...is that you act unbiased. As for me...im obviously biased and I state it as such.
Also as far as newbies "often" being criticized...jesus. you obviously do not know xeroc or the other MULTITUDES of people who actually pay out of their own pocket..or time... to help noobies frequently.
As a matter of fact, bbx is there intentionally to give THEM a place where they can have a voice like you do with your show. Go ahead and ask me if I have received payment for what ive done for these "asshole" noobies...and then when the answer is yes...ask everyone ive given the funds ive received to vouch for me. It is literally insulting when you throw this crap around.
Second edit: I look forward to your soon to be announced version of what we are doing here to "open up" the conversation. If I were here for anything else but full respect the work Invictus has done...id be long gone by now...kind of like I am with bitcoin.
Mostly it seems like you're getting upset that I think people like tonyk (and you) have a net negative impact because you're nicer when someone agrees with you and very suspicious (i.e. protective) when they are asking questions you think might be dangerous to the project or that should somehow only be asked if a person is trying to generate FUD.Please enlighten us and show where you came here to ASK a question ..
... and I'll be shocked if Invictus is not getting a knock on the door come raid day for Angelshares.
Mostly it seems like you're getting upset that I think people like tonyk (and you) have a net negative impact because you're nicer when someone agrees with you and very suspicious (i.e. protective) when they are asking questions you think might be dangerous to the project or that should somehow only be asked if a person is trying to generate FUD.Please enlighten us and show where you came here to ASK a question ..
From what I can see from over here is YOU spreading FUD:Quote... and I'll be shocked if Invictus is not getting a knock on the door come raid day for Angelshares.
The question you SHOULD have asked would be like:
"Hey friends, I heard blabla... what's the status on that issue regarding AGS funds?"
See the question mark?
Mostly it seems like you're getting upset that I think people like tonyk (and you) have a net negative impact because you're nicer when someone agrees with you and very suspicious (i.e. protective) when they are asking questions you think might be dangerous to the project or that should somehow only be asked if a person is trying to generate FUD.Please enlighten us and show where you came here to ASK a question ..
From what I can see from over here is YOU spreading FUD:Quote... and I'll be shocked if Invictus is not getting a knock on the door come raid day for Angelshares.
The question you SHOULD have asked would be like:
"Hey friends, I heard blabla... what's the status on that issue regarding AGS funds?"
See the question mark?
What is all this ridiculousness about? Are you a legal expert or something?
Bitcoin and all crypto are potentially capable of putting us all in prison. Also don't expect forum members of competing Cryptos to give you hugs when you come in talking about how you chosen platform is safer or better than theirs. What are you thinking man?!
Mostly it seems like you're getting upset that I think people like tonyk (and you) have a net negative impact because you're nicer when someone agrees with you and very suspicious (i.e. protective) when they are asking questions you think might be dangerous to the project or that should somehow only be asked if a person is trying to generate FUD.Please enlighten us and show where you came here to ASK a question ..
From what I can see from over here is YOU spreading FUD:Quote... and I'll be shocked if Invictus is not getting a knock on the door come raid day for Angelshares.
The question you SHOULD have asked would be like:
"Hey friends, I heard blabla... what's the status on that issue regarding AGS funds?"
See the question mark?
I'm beginning to see more truth by the empirical evidence you're highlighting xeroc. I won't be quick to kick anybody to the curb, so I will continue to take it ALL in. But it's pretty easy to see the emotion in Adam's latest post, and you do make a good point here.
The question is whether my concern is FUD. If you don't believe anything can happen to invictus, you'll believe anything I say that suggests the contrary is FUD because that lets you dismiss it out of hand. It seems obvious I am passionate about people getting real information, i'm equally passionate in trying to explain to the people who want me to shut up why they want me to shut up :)
Guys, ABL is not the enemy...
Guys, ABL is not the enemy...
+1
Ags is what it is. If regulators decide it is a security then like sdice, we may have to pay $50k fine. Guess what: we have already paid that much in lawyer fees trying to maintain compliance.
No one is going to jail as no harm has been done. No fraud. At most a disagreement over interpretation of the law which we worked hard to comply with.
Both sides need to take responsibility for poor Internet behavior. Adam has always welcomed me on his show.
I think sooner or later,the concept of DAC would be written in a case law. :P
If a person sells shares in a DAC without regulation,is it illegal? (regarding the security act)
The result would be interesting . "United States V BitsharesX" .
...
Guys, ABL is not the enemy...
+1
Ags is what it is. If regulators decide it is a security then like sdice, we may have to pay $50k fine. Guess what: we have already paid that much in lawyer fees trying to maintain compliance.
No one is going to jail as no harm has been done. No fraud. At most a disagreement over interpretation of the law which we worked hard to comply with.
Both sides need to take responsibility for poor Internet behavior. Adam has always welcomed me on his show.
I think sooner or later,the concept of DAC would be written in a case law. :P
If a person sells shares in a DAC without regulation,is it illegal? (regarding the security act)
The result would be interesting . "United States V BitsharesX" .
Maybe you can get in contact with the 《the good wife》 producer and be a guest star of the episode.
When I watch 《the good wife》 back then there was an episode regarding a hypothetical case against Bitcoin-Satoshi,the Bitcoin price was 30$ at the time.
But I thought Bitcoin was just a made up idea the TV show uses,so I didn't dig deeper.When I finally realized Bitcoin did exist,it's already too late .
+5% +5% +5%Guys, ABL is not the enemy...
+1
Ags is what it is. If regulators decide it is a security then like sdice, we may have to pay $50k fine. Guess what: we have already paid that much in lawyer fees trying to maintain compliance.
No one is going to jail as no harm has been done. No fraud. At most a disagreement over interpretation of the law which we worked hard to comply with.
Both sides need to take responsibility for poor Internet behavior. Adam has always welcomed me on his show.
I think sooner or later,the concept of DAC would be written in a case law. :P
If a person sells shares in a DAC without regulation,is it illegal? (regarding the security act)
The result would be interesting . "United States V BitsharesX" .
Maybe you can get in contact with the 《the good wife》 producer and be a guest star of the episode.
When I watch 《the good wife》 back then there was an episode regarding a hypothetical case against Bitcoin-Satoshi,the Bitcoin price was 30$ at the time.
But I thought Bitcoin was just a made up idea the TV show uses,so I didn't dig deeper.When I finally realized Bitcoin did exist,it's already too late .
If it does look like there will be a confrontation with legal authorities my advice to Bytemaster is to film a documentary of the events. This would force the feds to stay honest as it would put the maximum possible spotlight on the situation.
And also for history sake it should be properly documented. Historians will have to know what Bytemaster was thinking, why he and the team got involved with this project, why he and the team were willing to take risks.
At the same time on some smaller scale if shit goes down all of us should keep a blog and document our perspectives as well. It would not take much effort for us to keep pseudo-anonymous twitter accounts and discuss the situation or just discuss it on the forum. The point is that our motivations should be documented as well so that no matter if what we are doing turns out to be legal or illegal our intentions can never be politically manipulated after the fact.
Guys, ABL is not the enemy...
+1
Ags is what it is. If regulators decide it is a security then like sdice, we may have to pay $50k fine. Guess what: we have already paid that much in lawyer fees trying to maintain compliance.
No one is going to jail as no harm has been done. No fraud. At most a disagreement over interpretation of the law which we worked hard to comply with.
Guys, ABL is not the enemy...
+1
Ags is what it is. If regulators decide it is a security then like sdice, we may have to pay $50k fine. Guess what: we have already paid that much in lawyer fees trying to maintain compliance.
No one is going to jail as no harm has been done. No fraud. At most a disagreement over interpretation of the law which we worked hard to comply with.
Now the real question is, since bm could so easily answer this question is whether Adam feels sorry for this drama. Does he, in retrospect, feel like maybe it would have been more effective and beneficial to everyone on the forums (including himself) to have made statements of the "shocking" dangers inherent in bitshares AGS first in private to ascertain Invictus' thoughts before bringin it so negligently to the forums?"
This would have been seen as far more genuine and benevolent path than completely bypassing the invictus team, and potentially scaring away newbies who came here after the conference...
If adam can agree with this assessment I think there is good reason to believe we can move forward in the knowledge of how to garner community support instead of becoming the target of anger and resentment.
Thanks for clarification .. I just highlighted some essentials sor Adam .. as he might have misinterpreted them in the past and stated wrongly in this thread somewhere ..The BitShares AGS Program is clearly defined at this link.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=1863.msg21379#msg21379 (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=1863.msg21379#msg21379)
It has been reviewed and polished by multiple international law firms.
Since we have clearly stated in all such formal releases from Day One that AGS contributions were no strings attached donations to be used any way we chose to build up the industry, the only thing authorities may have to worry about is whether people may have misunderstood that fact as a result of the public discussions of multiple alternative ideas that have taken place on this forum. Repeated, nearly weekly, willfully misleading adversarial postings by respected public figures insisting that something else is true are, in my opinion, the primary cause of any such misunderstandings that might exist, and we will certainly point that out should any authorities ask about it.
Guys, ABL is not the enemy...
+1
Ags is what it is. If regulators decide it is a security then like sdice, we may have to pay $50k fine. Guess what: we have already paid that much in lawyer fees trying to maintain compliance.
No one is going to jail as no harm has been done. No fraud. At most a disagreement over interpretation of the law which we worked hard to comply with.
Now the real question is, since bm could so easily answer this question is whether Adam feels sorry for this drama. Does he, in retrospect, feel like maybe it would have been more effective and beneficial to everyone on the forums (including himself) to have made statements of the "shocking" dangers inherent in bitshares AGS first in private to ascertain Invictus' thoughts before bringin it so negligently to the forums?"
This would have been seen as far more genuine and benevolent path than completely bypassing the invictus team, and potentially scaring away newbies who came here after the conference...
If adam can agree with this assessment I think there is good reason to believe we can move forward in the knowledge of how to garner community support instead of becoming the target of anger and resentment.
Guys, ABL is not the enemy...
+1
Ags is what it is. If regulators decide it is a security then like sdice, we may have to pay $50k fine. Guess what: we have already paid that much in lawyer fees trying to maintain compliance.
No one is going to jail as no harm has been done. No fraud. At most a disagreement over interpretation of the law which we worked hard to comply with.
Both sides need to take responsibility for poor Internet behavior. Adam has always welcomed me on his show.
I think sooner or later,the concept of DAC would be written in a case law. :P
If a person sells shares in a DAC without regulation,is it illegal? (regarding the security act)
The result would be interesting . "United States V BitsharesX" .
Maybe you can get in contact with the 《the good wife》 producer and be a guest star of the episode.
When I watch 《the good wife》 back then there was an episode regarding a hypothetical case against Bitcoin-Satoshi,the Bitcoin price was 30$ at the time.
But I thought Bitcoin was just a made up idea the TV show uses,so I didn't dig deeper.When I finally realized Bitcoin did exist,it's already too late .
If it does look like there will be a confrontation with legal authorities my advice to Bytemaster is to film a documentary of the events. This would force the feds to stay honest as it would put the maximum possible spotlight on the situation.
And also for history sake it should be properly documented. Historians will have to know what Bytemaster was thinking, why he and the team got involved with this project, why he and the team were willing to take risks.
At the same time on some smaller scale if shit goes down all of us should keep a blog and document our perspectives as well. It would not take much effort for us to keep pseudo-anonymous twitter accounts and discuss the situation or just discuss it on the forum. The point is that our motivations should be documented as well so that no matter if what we are doing turns out to be legal or illegal our intentions can never be politically manipulated after the fact.
It's funny how some people seem to think I take some sort of pleasure in this, I don't.
It's funny how some people seem to think I take some sort of pleasure in this, I don't.
A little bit of tact goes a long way in how our writings are perceived/interpreted.
Agree that's my main problem with Adam. He shoot first then ask later.
I'll be shocked if he would do it any different.
Agree that's my main problem with Adam. He shoot first then ask later.
I'll be shocked if he would do it any different.
Getting upset isn't going to solve anything.
Agree that's my main problem with Adam. He shoot first then ask later.
I'll be shocked if he would do it any different.
It certainly gets a lot of eyes on a thread. Keep in mind this forum has 7k members. If even 10% of them are real people that just lurk he's getting his message out.
Adam may not be the enemy but he may not be a friend either and frankly that's OK. This is business; we aren't here to make friends. We're here to change the financial world and hopefully gain some financial independence along the way.
I say keep posting sensationalist questions. It certainly generates a lot of conversation. What I would like to see though is the conversation being not about what Adam's motives are but rather 1) Is it a valid question/concern? 2) Why or why not?
If it's not explain why and get on with your day. If it is valid then answer or let someone else who knows. Getting upset isn't going to solve anything.
Previous business associations and issues between LTBN, BB, and BBX are just that. Nothing really to do with BitShares.
Ags is what it is. If regulators decide it is a security then like sdice, we may have to pay $50k fine. Guess what: we have already paid that much in lawyer fees trying to maintain compliance.
No one is going to jail as no harm has been done. No fraud. At most a disagreement over interpretation of the law which we worked hard to comply with.
+5%
Ags is what it is. If regulators decide it is a security then like sdice, we may have to pay $50k fine. Guess what: we have already paid that much in lawyer fees trying to maintain compliance.
No one is going to jail as no harm has been done. No fraud. At most a disagreement over interpretation of the law which we worked hard to comply with.
I won't comment on Adam's PMS.
The way the crypto community hates government regulation, paying a fine to the SEC might be a genuine badge of honor. It could be the best $50K BitShares has ever spent on advertising!
However, I thought this thread began with discussion of FINCEN, not the SEC? As far as I know, the only part FINCEN cares about is the money transmitter thing and I don't see that going on here. So when someone else is talking about imminent FINCEN action against other Bitcoin businesses, etc., that doesn't equate to a knock on the door from the SEC. Don't confuse your agencies.
The SEC is a different beast. That's why they pay the lawyers. Thank goodness for play money and for third party DAC developers who are not obligated to give a dime of their DAC stakes to anyone. If they so choose, they can honor the Social Consensus. I donated to help build this ecosystem. I came away with a HOPE, but NO EXPECTATION that my donation might be rewarded by a generous third party DAC developer who wishes to ingratiate himself/herself to the community. The fact that some of us in the community make liberal use of the "invest" word doesn't mean a damn thing; it's never been tied to expectation, only to hope.
Ags is what it is. If regulators decide it is a security then like sdice, we may have to pay $50k fine. Guess what: we have already paid that much in lawyer fees trying to maintain compliance.
No one is going to jail as no harm has been done. No fraud. At most a disagreement over interpretation of the law which we worked hard to comply with.
I won't comment on Adam's PMS.
The way the crypto community hates government regulation, paying a fine to the SEC might be a genuine badge of honor. It could be the best $50K BitShares has ever spent on advertising!
However, I thought this thread began with discussion of FINCEN, not the SEC? As far as I know, the only part FINCEN cares about is the money transmitter thing and I don't see that going on here. So when someone else is talking about imminent FINCEN action against other Bitcoin businesses, etc., that doesn't equate to a knock on the door from the SEC. Don't confuse your agencies.
The SEC is a different beast. That's why they pay the lawyers. Thank goodness for play money and for third party DAC developers who are not obligated to give a dime of their DAC stakes to anyone. If they so choose, they can honor the Social Consensus. I donated to help build this ecosystem. I came away with a HOPE, but NO EXPECTATION that my donation might be rewarded by a generous third party DAC developer who wishes to ingratiate himself/herself to the community. The fact that some of us in the community make liberal use of the "invest" word doesn't mean a damn thing; it's never been tied to expectation, only to hope.
In any event, DACs are DECENTRALIZED and with our latest innovations they are now self funding. Our mission has been accomplished.
In any event, DACs are DECENTRALIZED and with our latest innovations they are now self funding. Our mission has been accomplished.
theFU,(it is "theFu.."---not to be confused with "theFuckU") and it is an inside joke because gamey lost the Z key on his keyboard and pledged to use ".." instead of "zz". Thanks for noticing...though I understand why you would assume otherwise :P
You called him a "gatekeeper" clearly implying he is censoring and controlling Bitshares issues, topics and the potential flow of Bitshares new users.
It's also quite clear by your tone that you don't like Adam. I've read it that way since Arthur "left". Judging from your posts are are a "cryptoanarchist" with zero taste for people lead or created hierarchies. You are certainly entitled to those opinions and beliefs and by no means do you HAVE to like anyone.
However, you are proving Adams point by jumping on every little post/statements he makes, calling him names and a FUD spreader. Adam is invested in Bitshares and has valid concerns. If you don't agree, say you don't agree, the reasons why and leave the ad hominem attacks out. I am quite certain had the personal attacks on Adam never taken place he would have never used terms like "defense team" and "echo chamber". By personal attacks I mean questioning his intent. As BM, Stan etc have shown, Adams questions concerns are valid and aren't taken as a personal attack.
Anyway, how about that FreeTrade and LTS?
I still would not hold any of that against whoever it is you are talking about.
(I once thought I had made a grave error in judgement myself ... turned out I was wrong.)
And some of my favorite personalities on this forum strongly resemble
The North End of A Southbound Donkey.(http://img.freepik.com/free-photo/eeyore-character-cartoon-donkey-vector_21-14903517.jpg?size=318&ext=jpg)
But if such a person were to make false claims about what we are doing
which have been answered here over and over again to the contrary
That would be crossing the line.
Such actions hurt everybody's investment.
Deliberately risking or causing real financial or legal damage to our stakeholders should not be condoned.
Even in the name of tolerance.
:)